Profile of OnkelSam

And surely the opponent would then never consider trying to counter said VP rush. heavens no.

I mean the whole VP rush thing sounds a bit contrived to me. I mean i can see it as a strategy, but far from a flawless one. "oh he might lose that one game" yes he might also end up not gaining the VPs he wanted.

You can't ignore the fact that said VP rush tactic was successfully used in many GR.org tourneys in the past. I didn't pull this argument out of nowhere, it's been a huge topic among tourney organisers in the past....
We just didn't come up with a better solution, so we sticked with it.

I just don't understand why you rush VP if it's BO3 but no rush if it's BO1. I would rush and camp in a BO1 more than a BO3. BO1 offers much more conservative play cause no chance to comeback when you loose.

It seems like you never really watched GR.org 1vs1 tournaments, especially the earlier ones. And it also seems like you didn't understand the sense of VP rushing.

In a BO1 VP "rushing" makes absolutely no sense, because in this format you have to win to get forward to the next round.

In a BO3 with VPs being the decisive factor for the faction choise in game 3, you play to win with the overpowered faction, or the faction that suites you better. In the other game you don't even care about winning, but the only goal of that game is to cap VPs and camp them, until you have taken more VPs from your opponent than he did in the previous game. Consequently, you have faction choice in game 3 and play to win, in order to get forward to the next round.
Long story short, the first two games of the BO3 aren't played to win, but the only goal was to hold enough VPs to have faction choice in game 3.

With mirrors, faction choice is no parameter anymore, cause both players can choose their faction. VP rushes aren't necessary anymore, so that in both, BO1 and in BO3 all games are played to win them individually.

Also you have not answered my last question how is it that we have the same names in coh tournaments at the top if the system used is unfair or not balanced , check out every commentators or experts opinion they will tell you that the winners deserved to be winners .

It works out OK, right now. But it is a lengthy process of BO3 in the early rounds. And most of all, the artificial parameter "VP lead" which determines the advantage in game 3. So, ultimately it has a chance that the first 2 games are just dummy games with "VP rush style" to determine the faction choice of the deciding 3rd game. We've seen this VP rush tactics in numerous tournaments in the past. Obviously, the best players are also the ones who VP rush in the best way, but the outcome was/is boring to watch in many cases.
I've been a tournament referee on GR.org for 2 years a while back myself and can tell you that these factors were topics for discussion even back then.

while if you base a tournament on mirror matches except it will be a failure in esports measuring terms because significant portion of the fans wont watch it , it will require 1 match for the wehrmacht and one for the soviets and unless its played on a chessboard to ensure no map side favoring it will require 4 games istead of 3 , this is not shooting yourself in the foot its shooting yourself in the head with a bazooka or a panzerschreck to ensure you wont miss the hit . And even if you need 2 matches then you will need a third in case of a tie . And about the unfair conditions you discribe , i have watched a ton of tournaments , the fact that we have 4-6 players dominating them on a very consistent basis each year (sometimes they change because some of them stop ) proves that the ones who are the best end up in the top spots .

Your post makes no sense. Why would i need 2 or even 4 matches? If mirrors are available, each side can pick the faction they want without being forced to play a specific faction as it is the case without mirrors. Thus, we only need 1 match. Just like it is done for any other game with mirror maatches available.

The rest of your post is invalid as well, because like CombatMuffin pointed out, you're assuming people don't like to watch mirror matches. This is a subjective oppinion.

The new player base which SNF brought also raised the hacker population in auto as well. Most of them bought the game for 5 bucks and insta downloaded the hax scripts, I witness enormous drop-maphack rate which I haven't seen before. Of course my observation is not scientific and 100% true but is this a coincidence?

Just to raise the player population and make SNF happy adding a weird matching option ( weird for COH theme ) into this masterpiece doesn't seem right to me. Less is more.

1.)Saying that players that got aware of COH through SNF are the ones that increased the amount of hacks in automatch is a rediculous statement. What a weird conclusion ... Following that logic you could take ANY indepdendent event that overlapped in time and make it responsible for ANY state that appeared around the same time. ... I am sure the fact that my phone rang at 5pm is responsible for a car crash on the opposite site of the world at the same time.

It is much more likely that the amount of hackers increased due to the lack of counter measures by Relic, since there is no community manager, and the focus shifted to COH2.

2.)You obviously didnt understand the point.

It is totally not about making SNF happy. It is about the fact t hat events like SNF are rare, because of the rediculous amount of time that goes into it. Making the organization of competitive events easier and more fair should result in a much higher number of different events, making the eSports scene as a whole a lot bigger than it was for vCOH. The higher amount of eSport events will attract a bigger community to join the fun, as a player or visitor.