pidgezero_one said: I simulated a bracket to do some math on how many setups can be used at once at each point in the bracket, following the rule of "1 round of winners for every 2 rounds of losers".



The term "wave" here refers to the use of 30 setups at once (i.e. if you have 60 sets to play you would need to do 2 "waves" on those 30 setups)



The following is just my math since I was trying to make sure my bracket math wasn't off, just ignore it and scroll to the end if you're not interested in basic bracket math:



400 man bracket: 112 byes in round 1

(400 - 112) / 2 = 144 sets in round 1

ceil(144 / 30) = 5 waves on 30 setups



W1: 256 people = 128 sets

L1: 144 people + 112 byes = 16 sets

ceil (144 / 30) = 5 waves on 30 setups



L2: 128 winners of L1 + 128 losers of W1 = 256 people = 128 sets

ceil (128 / 30) = 5 waves on 30 setups



W2: 128 people = 64 sets

L3: 128 winners of L2 = 64 sets

ceil (128 / 30) = 5 waves on 30 setups



L4: 64 winners of L3 + 64 losers of W2

ceil (64 / 30) = 3 waves on 30 setups



W3: 64 people = 32 sets

L5: 64 winners of L4 = 32 sets

ceil (64 / 30) = 3 waves on 30 setups



(above two can happen close enough together that it would be time equivalent to 5 waves at most)



L6: 32 winners of L4 + 32 losers of W3 = 32 sets

ceil (32 / 30) 2 waves on 30 setups



W4: 32 people = 16 sets

L7: 32 winners of L6 = 16 sets

ceil (32 / 30) 2 waves on 30 setups



(above two can happen close enough together that it would be time equivalent to 3 waves at most)



L8: 16 winners of L7 = 16 losers of W4 (16 sets)

= 1 wave



W5: 16 people in 8 sets

L9: 16 winners of L8 = 8 sets

= 1 wave



L10: 8 winners of L9 + 8 losers of W5 (8 sets)

= 1 wave



W6: 8 people in 4 sets

L11: 8 winners of L10

= 1 wave



L12: 4 winners of L11 + 4 losers of W6 (8 sets)

= 1 wave



W7: 4 people in 2 sets

L13: 4 winners of L12

= 1 wave



L14: 2 winners of L13 + 2 losers of W7 = 2 sets

= 1 wave



W8: WFs

L15: LSFs

= 1 wave



L16: LFs

= 1 wave



W9: GFs

= 1 or 2 waves



this means time equivalent to running the tournament would be 38 or 39 sets.

Assuming that every set in the tournament goes to game 3, and every game goes to time:

3 stock (24 minute max sets): 15 hours 12 minutes to 15 hours 36 minutes

2 stock (18 minute max sets): 11 hours 24 minutes to 11 hours 42 minutes



About a 4 hour timesave, assuming every set goes to time and game 3...



However, even with the addition of as little as 2 setups, having minimum 32...



L2 and W2 + L3 drop from 10 waves to 8.

L4 and W3 + L5 drop from a combined 5 waves to 4.

L6 and W4 + L7 drop from a combined 3 waves to 2.



This would put the total wave count at 34 or 35.



If they were able to use their original setup count of 40, the starting round as well as W1 + L1 would be taken down to 4 waves each instead of 5 waves each.

This would put the total wave count at 32 or 33.



Once again, assuming EVERY set in the tournament goes to game 3 and every game goes to time:

For 3 stock this would translate to 12 hours 48 minutes to 13 hours 12 minutes.

For 2 stock this would translate to 9 hours 36 minutes to 9 hours 54 minutes.



As the number of setups increases, the time save switching from 3 stock to 2 stock becomes less significant.



This particular tournament's unforeseen electrical failure decreased the setup count by 25%. That's huge. Even as little as two setups could have saved almost 3 hours of time without changing the ruleset. Click to expand...



A 128 man doubles tournament and 400 man singles tournament in 13 hours with 25 or less setups the whole time? That's unheard of. — ESAM (Panda Global) (@PG_ESAM) February 7, 2016

---​

Last night, a massive event took place in Texas: TGC 6. The event had a wide array of talent, with names like Hyuga, ESAM, Nick Riddle, MVD and Dabuz in attendance. As per the norm in this region of Texas, Smash 4 ran three stocks for the tournament. As many have heard, the tournament ended up having to split the pot between top 8 because the tournament ran too late, but unfortunately many are blaming this on the use of three stocks and not telling the whole story. So here it is in full.TGC 6 was set to be a one-day event with on-site registration, an impressive feat to say the least. However, it's not like the organizer for the tournament, Xyro, has not been able to pull this off easily before. In a previous article about the history of stock counts and Smash, Xyro discussed this: "So what changed this time?. It was also expected to run within ONE day with on-site registration. Most people would say that it would have be prudent at this point to change the stock count just so the event could finish on time, but mathematically it could not be done. The problem very few are mentioning is that due to electrical issues,Smash 64 expert pidgezero_one put up a Twitlonger this morning explaining the math behind running three stock vs two stock at an event like TGC 6 , which she has kindly allowed me to feature here.For those who may be confused by this, here is a simple recap: Even as little as 2 more setups being available could have saved the event 3 hours of time, and the full amount of setups could have very well had things done properly.. If that isn't enough for people,for singles and there was still not an issue with timeouts . pidgezero_one redid her math as well ; it still would have workedThat scenario is astronomically difficult to believe would ever happen. Realistically, with full setups the tournament would have concluded at a reasonable hour for its size and there would be nothing to discuss today. Yet people are choosing to frame this as an issue of running 3 stocks while overlooking the real issues that took place.With this out of the way, how did the professional players attending feel about the event even with these issues happening? Most were incredibly passionate about the positives of using three stocks and disappointed over the narrative that is caused a problem. "said Nick Riddle on Twitter . MVD was just as intense:he said in one tweet , quickly adding in another ESAM was also quick to praise three stocks and the event itself:he said in one Tweet , and even though the top 8 had to split, he said He also expressed incredible excitement over being able to play with 3 stock yet again at BEAST 6.So is TGC 6 the nail in the coffin for 3 stocks? Not in the slightest. Top players, competitors, and even those who watch at home have expressed how they prefer the format. The scene in Europe and Australia heavily prefer to use a three-stock format. Xyro has proven that enormous events can be run with this format, and the math shows that even a 400 man event for singles, not to mention the 128 doubles teams, could have been run in. When looking to those who refuse to mention these facts and purely blame the event running 3 stocks as a problem, take a minute to think about the facts and ask why this is happening. 3 stocks may not really be the problem it has been cracked up to be; there may be bigger problems we need to focus on first.