ATS | 6v6 Classic Tournament | 25.09

[Fralla8]

Excuse you, I need my dopmine rush from winning matches rather than playing for rounds and losing every single match

[Alf]

Funny thing is, I was also against rounds won originally (which you can tell in the draft thread), then I actually spent time thinking about it and determined that wins in group stage is heavily flawed. Knockouts it's fine.

I literally don’t see at all how it’s a better system, it rewards teams for being in weaker groups, rewards them for being lucky with pokes, chambers etc. and then it makes it so you can pull off a big upset but because that team has won more rounds in other unrelated matches they get to go through?

Man I’m so glad I’m not playing in this

[Fietta]

Funny thing is, I was also against rounds won originally (which you can tell in the draft thread), then I actually spent time thinking about it and determined that wins in group stage is heavily flawed. Knockouts it's fine.

I literally don’t see at all how it’s a better system, it rewards teams for being in weaker groups, rewards them for being lucky with pokes, chambers etc. and then it makes it so you can pull off a big upset but because that team has won more rounds in other unrelated matches they get to go through?

Man I’m so glad I’m not playing in this

Rewards teams for being weaker in groups? No, it does the opposite. Rewards them for being lucky with pokes, chambers etc. what?

Now you're just blabbering

Excuse you, I need my dopmine rush from winning matches rather than playing for rounds and losing every single match

Massive rush winning a group stage match, it's fine because I'll play 4 matches, win one 5 - 4 and lose the others 0 - 5 but still go through over someone who lost their matches 4 - 5.

It's funny the backlash of a better system though, just because people like seeing the 'W'.

[Alf]

Funny thing is, I was also against rounds won originally (which you can tell in the draft thread), then I actually spent time thinking about it and determined that wins in group stage is heavily flawed. Knockouts it's fine.

I literally don’t see at all how it’s a better system, it rewards teams for being in weaker groups, rewards them for being lucky with pokes, chambers etc. and then it makes it so you can pull off a big upset but because that team has won more rounds in other unrelated matches they get to go through?

Man I’m so glad I’m not playing in this

Rewards teams for being weaker in groups? No, it does the opposite. Rewards them for being lucky with pokes, chambers etc. what?

Now you're just blabbering

You lose a round to a lucky poke or a pure luck chamber, but still win the match, however that one round adds up to knock you out on round rate to a team that won less games but more rounds.

How is that fair?

Literally everyone else on here has agreed that wins > rounds I don’t see what the conversation here is, the people who actually want to play the tournament want it to be wins

[Fietta]

Funny thing is, I was also against rounds won originally (which you can tell in the draft thread), then I actually spent time thinking about it and determined that wins in group stage is heavily flawed. Knockouts it's fine.

I literally don’t see at all how it’s a better system, it rewards teams for being in weaker groups, rewards them for being lucky with pokes, chambers etc. and then it makes it so you can pull off a big upset but because that team has won more rounds in other unrelated matches they get to go through?

Man I’m so glad I’m not playing in this

Rewards teams for being weaker in groups? No, it does the opposite. Rewards them for being lucky with pokes, chambers etc. what?

Now you're just blabbering

You lose a round to a lucky poke or a pure luck chamber, but still win the match, however that one round adds up to knock you out on round rate to a team that won less games but more rounds.

Yes you're right, now let's pretend it's 4 - 4 and you lose the round to a lucky poke or lucky chamber. You've lost the match and rounds don't matter so those 4 rounds are worthless. At least with having 4 rounds you still have more chance of winning than a 0 - 1 match loss...

Again, you're just proving why wins are worse, keep going

[Alf]

Funny thing is, I was also against rounds won originally (which you can tell in the draft thread), then I actually spent time thinking about it and determined that wins in group stage is heavily flawed. Knockouts it's fine.

I literally don’t see at all how it’s a better system, it rewards teams for being in weaker groups, rewards them for being lucky with pokes, chambers etc. and then it makes it so you can pull off a big upset but because that team has won more rounds in other unrelated matches they get to go through?

Man I’m so glad I’m not playing in this

Rewards teams for being weaker in groups? No, it does the opposite. Rewards them for being lucky with pokes, chambers etc. what?

Now you're just blabbering

You lose a round to a lucky poke or a pure luck chamber, but still win the match, however that one round adds up to knock you out on round rate to a team that won less games but more rounds.

Yes you're right, now let's pretend it's 4 - 4 and you lose the round to a lucky poke or lucky chamber. You've lost the match and rounds don't matter so those 4 rounds are worthless.

Right? But you’ve had the entire match to win it, you had all those rounds you lost to make up for it, and you lost the match, but losing a round in a match you win being what disqualifies you is ludicrous

[Fietta]

Funny thing is, I was also against rounds won originally (which you can tell in the draft thread), then I actually spent time thinking about it and determined that wins in group stage is heavily flawed. Knockouts it's fine.

I literally don’t see at all how it’s a better system, it rewards teams for being in weaker groups, rewards them for being lucky with pokes, chambers etc. and then it makes it so you can pull off a big upset but because that team has won more rounds in other unrelated matches they get to go through?

Man I’m so glad I’m not playing in this

Rewards teams for being weaker in groups? No, it does the opposite. Rewards them for being lucky with pokes, chambers etc. what?

Now you're just blabbering

You lose a round to a lucky poke or a pure luck chamber, but still win the match, however that one round adds up to knock you out on round rate to a team that won less games but more rounds.

Yes you're right, now let's pretend it's 4 - 4 and you lose the round to a lucky poke or lucky chamber. You've lost the match and rounds don't matter so those 4 rounds are worthless.

Right? But you’ve had the entire match to win it, you had all those rounds you lost to make up for it, and you lost the match, but losing a round in a match you win being what disqualifies you is ludicrous

You have a higher chance of being disqualified with wins than rounds, are you just being silly for the sake of it? 4 - 5 is a close match and can go either way and should be treated as such, it means the teams are close in skill and that last round could go either way, so why can't that team have 4 rounds and potentially be above them? You make little sense.

Now stop arguing you look more and more like a fool

[Alf]

It really isn’t that hard to get mate, if you lose a match you lose a match, but if you’re in a position where on wins you go through but rounds you don’t, especially if it’s to a team you beat, that’s just stupidity.

Like I already said, you’re saying rounds show ability but you need a larger sample size than a single round through a group to actually show that

[Fietta]

It really isn’t that hard to get mate, if you lose a match you lose a match, but if you’re in a position where on wins you go through but rounds you don’t, especially if it’s to a team you beat, that’s just stupidity.

Like I already said, you’re saying rounds show ability but you need a larger sample size than a single round through a group to actually show that

No it's extremely hard to get, because you're just explaining why wins are worse than rounds, with wins you can literally go through over a team that beat you 5 - 0.

[Alf]

It really isn’t that hard to get mate, if you lose a match you lose a match, but if you’re in a position where on wins you go through but rounds you don’t, especially if it’s to a team you beat, that’s just stupidity.

Like I already said, you’re saying rounds show ability but you need a larger sample size than a single round through a group to actually show that

No it's extremely hard to get, because you're just explaining why wins are worse than rounds, with wins you can literally go through over a team that beat you 5 - 0.

But it can happen, yes?

And not at all, if you won more games against the same group then you played overall better, if you won more games but with a lower round rate and don’t go through then what does that prove? That you’re too good at winning and not good enough at kerb stomping?

[Fietta]

It really isn’t that hard to get mate, if you lose a match you lose a match, but if you’re in a position where on wins you go through but rounds you don’t, especially if it’s to a team you beat, that’s just stupidity.

Like I already said, you’re saying rounds show ability but you need a larger sample size than a single round through a group to actually show that

No it's extremely hard to get, because you're just explaining why wins are worse than rounds, with wins you can literally go through over a team that beat you 5 - 0.

But it can happen, yes?

And not at all, if you won more games against the same group then you played overall better, if you won more games but with a lower round rate and don’t go through then what does that prove? That you’re too good at winning and not good enough at kerb stomping?

ok i stop now, ur just as stubborn as I am and you're just chatting shit

[Alf]

It really isn’t that hard to get mate, if you lose a match you lose a match, but if you’re in a position where on wins you go through but rounds you don’t, especially if it’s to a team you beat, that’s just stupidity.

Like I already said, you’re saying rounds show ability but you need a larger sample size than a single round through a group to actually show that

No it's extremely hard to get, because you're just explaining why wins are worse than rounds, with wins you can literally go through over a team that beat you 5 - 0.

But it can happen, yes?

And not at all, if you won more games against the same group then you played overall better, if you won more games but with a lower round rate and don’t go through then what does that prove? That you’re too good at winning and not good enough at kerb stomping?

ok i stop now, ur just as stubborn as I am and you're just chatting shit

Gf

[Fietta]

It really isn’t that hard to get mate, if you lose a match you lose a match, but if you’re in a position where on wins you go through but rounds you don’t, especially if it’s to a team you beat, that’s just stupidity.

Like I already said, you’re saying rounds show ability but you need a larger sample size than a single round through a group to actually show that

No it's extremely hard to get, because you're just explaining why wins are worse than rounds, with wins you can literally go through over a team that beat you 5 - 0.

But it can happen, yes?

And not at all, if you won more games against the same group then you played overall better, if you won more games but with a lower round rate and don’t go through then what does that prove? That you’re too good at winning and not good enough at kerb stomping?

ok i stop now, ur just as stubborn as I am and you're just chatting shit

Gf

What you wrote made you look very silly and again you're just giving reasons as to why rounds are better. 'If you won more games against the same group then you played better overall', No, that's literally the WHOLE REASON round wins are better.

[Alf]

It really isn’t that hard to get mate, if you lose a match you lose a match, but if you’re in a position where on wins you go through but rounds you don’t, especially if it’s to a team you beat, that’s just stupidity.

Like I already said, you’re saying rounds show ability but you need a larger sample size than a single round through a group to actually show that

No it's extremely hard to get, because you're just explaining why wins are worse than rounds, with wins you can literally go through over a team that beat you 5 - 0.

But it can happen, yes?

And not at all, if you won more games against the same group then you played overall better, if you won more games but with a lower round rate and don’t go through then what does that prove? That you’re too good at winning and not good enough at kerb stomping?

ok i stop now, ur just as stubborn as I am and you're just chatting shit

Gf

What you wrote made you look very silly and again you're just giving reasons as to why rounds are better. 'If you won more games against the same group then you played better overall', No, that's literally the WHOLE REASON round wins is better.

Shhhhh go to bed

[Desant]

Yes you're right, now let's pretend it's 4 - 4 and you lose the round to a lucky poke or lucky chamber. You've lost the match and rounds don't matter so those 4 rounds are worthless. At least with having 4 rounds you still have more chance of winning than a 0 - 1 match loss...

Again, you're just proving why wins are worse, keep going

Dont reinvent the wheel

Wins only matter not ur scores

If u dont like random matches - add the minimum points difference to win, instead of 5-4 u should win with 2 rounds advantage - 6-4 or 11-9 its the way to see more "mastery"