I think my suggestion was misunderstood – I’m not suggesting to replace Brawl with Melee. Through my own analysis and logic, I only suggested Brawl as free play for the plethora of reasons in my last post. Don’t take offense to this post Ephraim, but I’m going to use bits of your post to provide examples of the usual logic when it comes to choosing LAN games, because you covered it well.
Ephraim said:
My support for Brawl is not based on some sort of fanboy-like devotion, but logic. After a year and a half, the game still packs in the contestants. That is why I want the tournament to stay.
This is normally a great way of doing things. However, I suggested doing away with it for reasons surrounding Brawl specifically. There would be the lowest negative impact on our playerbase if this game were free play, with the highest return of tournament speed up. See my last post for reasons why.
Ephraim said:
…considering the plethora of possitive reviews and the fact that it is now the 40th best-selling game ever released.
Can’t argue that, but it’s really just another point for how casual it’s playerbase is. These same people are the ones that come to the LAN for free play mainly.
Ephraim said:
But back to the LANs: Attendee enjoyment must take pecedence over competition. Competitive gamers regularly come to the LANs, so it is good to keep them happy. But, the club does not exist to cater to them.
This is another big reason why I suggested that it become free play, you just used it the other way around. The only Brawl players that I consider truly competitive that enter our Brawl tournaments now are Angel and Devon, who come down from App for the prize every LAN. As I already said, most all of our entrants play Brawl to PLAY Brawl, not to hardcore compete in Brawl. It’s the most casual playerbase we have, so let’s cater to them and have some Brawl stations set up through the whole event, instead of imposing a tournament timeframe on it. The way it is now, less people get a chance to play Brawl because of the holdups and conflicts with other tournaments.
Ephraim said:
The time issue can be resolved with faster disqualifications.
This I dissagree with, it just gives off a bad impression and makes the event feel rushed to me. Rather than having more tournaments for people to enter with the good chance that they’ll be DQ’d in one, I think it makes more sense to hold less tournaments that we know everyone will get a fair chance to complete their rounds in.
Ephraim said:
One thing I will give to the competive gamers is the importance of good prizes. Fun may be king, but realisticly, sweet prizes almost always result in higher attendance. If we could afford cash prizes, I’d be all for it.
I don’t remember what the opposition for it was, really. Lets just do that *edited* if the majority agrees.