niverio wrote:I agree with kingtwfy, I think it would be better like, for example, this:

1. Place: 2
2. Place: 12
3. Place: 10
4. Place: 8
5. Place: 6
6. Place: 5
7. Place: 4
8. Place: 3
9. Place: 2

Yes I know this is standard but I did this on purpose. There really didn't a big difference between 9th and 8th or between 6th and 7th.

In my past tournament experience, getting the absolute minimum amount of points is pretty demoralizing. The people who get 9th, there's really no reason for them to return because there would be no way for them to make a comeback.

I think balancing the scores prevents people from abandoning a tournament midway through.

bangerz wrote:

niverio wrote:I agree with kingtwfy, I think it would be better like, for example, this:

1. Place: 2
2. Place: 12
3. Place: 10
4. Place: 8
5. Place: 6
6. Place: 5
7. Place: 4
8. Place: 3
9. Place: 2

In my past tournament experience, getting the absolute minimum amount of points is pretty demoralizing. The people who get 9th, there's really no reason for them to return because there would be no way for them to make a comeback.
.

Why do people think like there is no comeback? Even if you get 9th once or maybe twice, you can still make it to the 8th or 9th place, which are the requirements to make it to the stage 2, and you dont have to win all the rest or anything to be able to do so. Am I missing something here due to my lack of experience because I havent played in any tournaments?

I don't think you're missing something. I just find the original point distribution a little more forgiving.

Okay then, thanks for the clarification.

niverio wrote:Okay then, thanks for the clarification.

I see what y'all are saying though. I changed fourth place.