AFAIK, TGP for that is perfectly fine, Groups of 4 playing 2 games = 4 games towards TGP. But from a scoring standpoint I think it would suck. The winner of the first game(4points) would only need to not come in last on the second game. Likewise, the loser of the first game(0 points) would be virtually eliminated unless they won the second game.
Yes it is acceptable. We’ve done it in some medium-sizes match-play tournaments. A larger tourney uses the 3-game final. Small tourneys single-game final. Medium 2-game. Only tied players play a 3rd game to break the tie.
Two 4-player games counts as 4 games towards TGP. If you have semi-finals+finals, that becomes 8 games. You can create a 100% graded tourney with 7 qualifying rounds (14 games), top 16 move on to quarter finals, then do 2 games per round for 16/8/4 (12 more games), get 26 games towards TGP, or 100%.
I haven’t done the math, but even if it is more likely, 2-game finals with more ties will take less time than 3-game matches, since there will never be a 4th game (if tie-breaking after 3 games), and except for one case (where players finish in exactly opposite order and using 3-2-1-0 or 7-5-3-1 scoring), that 3rd tie breaking game would be less than 4 players, thus making for a quicker game 3.
I agree, but once you’ve already reached 13+ 4-player games, those additional games are no longer relevant. QF/SF/F with 2 games a piece is already 6 games, so if you have a 7-game qualifier, you’re already at 100% TGP.
Thanks Everyone! For now, we’re going to plan for a Two-Strike Double Elimination Group Knockout. It’s effectively a similar premise, but if you have a bad Game 1 you’ll at least be paired with others who also had a bad Game 1. I’m open to other suggestions for a finals format where you play in groups.
Just a heads up you may want to clarify that for your event. To me, “2-strike Group Knockout” and “Double Elimination” are two different things. And don’t forget that in Group Knockout, you have to specify how many people in each group get a strike.
