"better way of determining skill"
Very debatable point depending on the playstyles of some teams you may throw more rounds to achieve an aggressive victory, or in the first group stage matches when some people are still warming up to the teams chemistry on the day.
I also do feel this takes away from the importance of a 4-4 scenario or being on "Match point". Or even a comeback becomes less important as you don't really need to win to go through.
Although you may argue each round is more important it's nice to have a "cushion" of some rounds and in my opinion it makes it more thrilling when you do reach that 4-4 and are fighting to go through.
Your tournament you do you, however I don't see why now you are trying to change a normal precedent in tournaments, feels like a trying to be different moment for the sake of it.
You could argue that Blitz is changing it for the sake of it, however, you're arguing for the sake of it.
Here's a delicious scenario which I'd be glad to hear a response.
Here is team 1:
4 - 5 4 - 5 4 - 5 5 - 0 (against team 2)
17/20 rounds won
85% round win rate
Here is team 2:
5 - 4 5 - 4 0 - 5 0 - 510/20 rounds won
50% round win rate
So, in the case above, Team 1 is
CLEARLY more dominant, not only did they beat the second team 5 - 0, all the other matches were extremely close which suggests that they still have a shot against any team they face, unlike team two who was clearly only dominant against potential weaker teams. If you were being smart, the last round although intense, shouldn't determine a team's skill, in most tournaments if a final is 10 - 9, the fight was good, however, doesn't mean that one team was
CLEARLY stronger than the other, however losing 5 - 0 does show the other team being more dominant.
In this case however, based on wins, team 2 would go through and if we're being logical, would lose harder than team 1. Groups exist to determine which teams are the strongest to go to the qualifiers and basing it on rounds won shows dominance across all teams rather than winning against two teams and being shit against the other two. If you're arguing about that last 4 - 4 round in groups matters more than being stomped, then you're deluded, especially if you're being stomped by the team that had closer matches and beat you. Cushion rounds shouldn't exist, it's a tournament qualifier for crying out loud, there shouldn't be time to play one handed.
A comeback would seem just as important in a round based format, because if you're 1 - 4 down, then you need all the rounds you can get, the same logic applies with wins, it's why once you've won two matches, you can just AFK the other two and play your shit players (which plenty of teams do), whilst in a round based format you have to get as many rounds as possible.
Seems like a no brainer to me, plenty of smooth brainers don't seem to like change, however big or small.
Very debatable point depending on the playstyles of some teams you may throw more rounds to achieve an aggressive victory, or in the first group stage matches when some people are still warming up to the teams chemistry on the day.
Nice, you just went against your own view, if every round counts then you'd throw less rounds. If you're still warming up at the start of the match, then getting 1 or 2 rounds is better than getting 1 loss right? With wins if you're 'warming up' and lose your first match, then you're 0 - 1 down, however, with rounds let's say you lost 3 - 5, you can still win as you can make up more rounds after you've warmed up.
People only believe wins are better because you're seeing a 'W', not because it's actually logical.
