Grand Arena - both loss?

"Vos_Landeck;c-2323390" wrote:

"Disruptor92;c-2323271" wrote:

I am aware of that. I was just thinking that they should give the person who wins the tiebreaker the "pseudo-win" for tournament progression's sake......Imagine you're someone who tried their best and lost their match. But instead of fighting a loser from round 1 (that you'd likely beat), you get to face a winner from round 1, and might lose again. That is pretty unfair towards that one person that gets chosen to fight the winner from round 1, despite losing their own first match.

And how do you know they don't match-up someone from the 0 to 0 loss with one of the winners from round 1? Sounds like you're just assuming they don't do that...and then you're assuming that someone who loses round 1 is "likely" to beat another loser from round 2? If 4 players lose in round 1 and then get matched up in round 2, then 2 will win and 2 will lose. That's a .500 win rate....not a "likely" to win. Regardless, seems like a lot bigger deal is being made out of this than is necessary. Life isn't 100% fair. The new system is going to push players towards a .500 winning percentage. One single round with some infrequent highly specific set of facts isn't really going to have much impact in the overall scheme one way or the other.

I'm not assuming, it's been confirmed by others that it's random. You will face someone with 0 wins, and it doesn't have to be one of the players that had their 0-0 loss-loss match. The only player you can't face is the one that you already beat in round 1, since you never face the same player twice within one bracket.

And fair enough, the "likely" win was probably badly worded by me, but that's not my main point. My main point is, if you lost your first round, why should you be facing another winner from round 1 in your second round? You should face a loser from round 1. Winners should only be matched up with other winners, and losers with others losers. It's not rocket science.