Finals Brackets

[Matt Rutherford]

This is more one for curiosity. It's a decision I've had to mull over for other, non-CD tournaments I run. But which kind of finals brackets would work best, in general, in your view? Does it vary from game to game? Would CD be better with random?

From my view, seeded allows people to plot permutations of where there'll end up, which can create some interesting outlooks, and also provides higher seeds with 'easier' draws (in theory), thus rewarding them for their efforts to get high up the table. Random means then that people can't game the system (as I've seen it happen before) and also has the benefit of being potentially madcap

Thoughts from a group of fellow mental competition geeks?

[Dan Byrom]

I think it entirely depends on the level of competitiveness.

If it's something casual amongst friends, then random is more fun.

But if people care about the result, then I think seeding is the best to try and reduce the influence of randomness in the results.

Co:events work beautifully with a bit of both

[Gavin Chipper]

I voted seeded but it depends on the situation (I think the CoCs should be seeded by the way). The worst way of doing it though (which some CO-events have been guilty of) is to redo the draw after each round based on the seeds left. So if 8 beats 1 in the QF, by rights they should play 4/5 in the SF. But some events would have them playing seed 2 (if 2 beats 7).