do I though?

Just in case there is a tie for 4th place, have we determined tie breaking rules?

1. Person who won the prelims face off. As in say Langaidin and ezpickens tied for 4th at 14 . However Lan won both times they played. Lan would go through.

2. wild card, where they will play a best of 5 series, luck deciding who gets who on game 5.

How do series work? I mean, if first 4 games are:
A vs. B: 2-0 . 0-2 . 2-0 . 1-1
Then A wins, there's no need of a game 5, right?

I mean, is game 5 needed to be played only when there's a tie to break?

It's just five games, not five sets; otherwise fasces wouldn't be referencing "luck deciding who gets who on game 5" because five sets -> 10 games.

That said, I would instead propose simply playing sets until someone comes out a winner. You play one tiebreaking set, if that ends in a tie play again, etc. until someone wins.

Oops, I wasn't clear, sorry PE. I meant 4 games, not 4 sets. Mm. Actually, I never typed the word: "set". So it would be:
Game1 A wins (say he was Germany)
Game2 B wins (say he was Germany)
Game3 A wins (say he was Germany)
Game4 drawn

Does A win the match (serie)?
It would be (W-D-L):
A(2-1-1) - B(1-1-2) = 5-3 (points)

Is there need to play Game5?

__________
BTW, interesting your proposal, but I'm afraid that 2 equal-skilled players could play forever, while everyone else is waiting for that match to end up.
To avoid the influence of luck, due to which Country you have in a tiebreaking game, we could use Lepanto as default map for Game5. It is scientifically balanced. Thoughts?

"That said, I would instead propose simply playing sets until someone comes out a winner. You play one tiebreaking set, if that ends in a tie play again, etc. until someone wins."
That was the original proposal, but Guaroz answered why we changed.
"Does A win the match (serie)?
It would be (W-D-L):
A(2-1-1) - B(1-1-2) = 5-3 (points)"
If this was the wild card to break a tie for 4th place then yes. However if this was a series in the eliminations then they would play the final game.

Yes I was talking about series of quarters / semifinals / final.
Would they play the Game5? Yes? Well. Now imagine, in my previous example, that B wins the 5th game. This would be the situation:

A(2-1-2) - B(2-1-2) = 5-5 (points).

The 5th game should be tiebreaking and not tiemaking....

Well but you always should play as long as not a clear winner is set Guaroz. Here we have the problem of draws possible but then the player should have the chance to win game 5 and push it to "overtime" ;)

I think that's fair...

So the extra-time would be a Game6? Who gets Germany in Game6 wins? Why don't we flip a coin, then? While A, in the "regular time", was able to draw having Italy in Game4?
I don't see draws as a problem, I see them as a solution.

well if you are able to draw in game 5 again, then you deserve the win as 2 draws are like 1 win... but if the other guy wins then the series is completely drawn....
however I do not think there will be soooo many draws that this will go forever :)

Ok, but B drawn the match because he had Germany in Games 1-3-5 and A only in 2-4. It's not a tie...A was stronger!

Well my friend to have Germany in 1 3 5 you have to be better in the qualifiers so this advantage is ok! ;)

Ah, is it? I didn't know. And what if in the Final there are both the 1st of each Group? Or both the 2nd? Who would be Germany in Game7?

whoever had more points. If not I guess the finals can do the first lead thing...

the amount of points decides, after that the direct competition in the groups, after that we could put in who used less games to arrive to the finals and after that just luck decides who gets what in game 7

Hi fasces. So you confirm:
a) always 5 game are played in quarter/semi and 7 in Final
b) who has more points choose the country in last game ( in semi and Final, points gained in quarters and semi are computed?)
c) What if after Game5 there's still tie?

@Gauroz:
a) 5 games for wild card, 7 for quarter/semi 9 for final (to makes the finals long and entertaining)
b) correct
c) Then there is a game 6 (where the two teams swap their roles from game 5) and then a game 7 (swapping again) until we have a victor

No no no, stop right now, guys.

If we're playing an odd number of games you CANNOT justify any statistically imbalanced variant as the default. So don't use GvI here. We've gone over in one of the vDip Cup threads why GvI is an imbalanced nightmare right now. GvI is almost always "I Win," where "I" is the person who got Germany; only a significant talent gap or significant errors which can't be relied upon to occur allows Italy to have a chance at winning.

So any series where someone gets Germany more times in a GvI does not provide the level playing field the playoffs deserve. I HIGHLY recommend FvA because it has been proven to be balanced.

I also don't agree with the justification "The better player gets to pick so the better player gets Germany so the better player wins." Germany is just about an auto-win; it reduces the game from a legitimate competition to luck of the draw, which is not acceptable. Fact is it doesn't MATTER if the "better" player by points gets the better country and plays out the series according to expectations. You cannot justify removing the capacity of the other player to win just because the other player "isn't expected" to win anyway. We play the games precisely BECAUSE we don't care about past record and want our competitors to earn their spot. Otherwise you could just look at actual records on site and fast forward to an Eden-RoxArt final (I think we're the only two here with >15 games played and >50 win%, so pretty clearly best records) or somesuch.

Please show me clear things about this German supremacy...
Look at the last 2 games I won with italy and tell me where my opponent was sooo idiotic...? ;) small misstakes yes but nothing that just gave me the win....

Everyone demanded IvG at the begining, cause before this tourney start it was the most balanced in the stats section.
Whos to say AvF wont have the same thing once it gets 100 games?

I don't entirely agree that G vs I is so imbalanced, but it does seem like requiring an odd number of games with ANY any imbalance gives an unfair advantage to one player. This was what having 2 games per pre-season matchup was supposed to eliminate.

exactly it makes winning in the pre-eliminations more important. Originally I suggest the elims were played like the season, 2 games at a time until one person was winning. However the next 4 posters said they'd prefer best of 7, so that is what we chose...

...we could use Lepanto as default map for Game 5th-7th-9th. It is scientifically balanced. Thoughts?

Duo is just as balanced and is a more interesting map...

Also. Yes, why not.

Duo would be a better choice. It uses regular diplomacy rules and only introduces non-moving neutrals. Lepanto uses many different rules.

wow didn't know we had a 1v1 cup. can I play? love these games