Strick & Vorrik
Strick
I’ve been crunching numbers on the most efficient single‑elimination bracket for 32 teams—does that sound fair enough for a real tournament, or do you think the honor code demands a different format?
Vorrik
Single‑elimination is quick and ruthless, but if honor wants mercy, a double‑elimination or a losers bracket gives teams a chance to redeem themselves.
Strick
Double‑elimination adds unnecessary redundancy; the extra matches only inflate risk of fatigue and reduce the clear meritocracy that a single‑round structure enforces. If we’re truly measuring capability, one loss should suffice.
Vorrik
One loss cuts straight to the truth, but it also cuts away the chance to prove resilience—true honor shows in how you bounce back after a stumble. If we’re measuring pure capability, a single‑elimination is fine, but if we want depth of character, let them fight twice.
Strick
If you truly want to test resilience, add a small “second chance” bracket for those who lost their first match; otherwise a single elimination is the only way to keep the competition efficient and the outcomes unmistakable.
Vorrik
A second‑chance bracket is a sign of honor, not weakness. Keep it tight, no extra fluff, and let the losers fight back quickly. That’s the only way to prove resilience without wasting the rhythm of the tournament.
Strick
Fine, we’ll add a losers bracket but with a strict cap: each team can only play one extra match, no byes, all matches scheduled back‑to‑back, and the losers’ side is treated with the same time pressure as the winners’ side—no extra fluff, just another round of proof that you can bounce back without derailing the overall rhythm.
Vorrik
That’s the kind of structure that keeps the grind sharp—one extra chance, no slacks, and the same clock pressure. It’s the perfect test of a team’s ability to fight back without breaking the rhythm of the whole tournament.