Well what do you want me to do?
You said you didn't understand anything so either you weren't trying or I have to make it simpler to understand.

Dota, SC, although there's obvious bias towards tournaments where scaling works. It makes more sense to scale both single and double elimination. Also double elimination groups with Bo3 for everything. No bracket reset, no scaling, only the second match matters.

I guess when you're starting with a Ro256 scaling doesn't really work (edit: yeah, just saw your edit and you guessed it) and at that point it's more consistent to keep everything Bo3 and use that as winners bracket advantage instead of doing Bo6 or having no winners bracket advantage at all.

I'll try to make it as simple as possible:
In double elimination brackets if two teams play each other twice the first match doesn't matter.
Whoever wins the second match advances.
That's how double elimination works.
When two teams meet in the Lower Bracket Finals it doesn't matter one bit if they've played against each other before and who won. Whoever wins goes to the Grand Finals, whoever loses is out.

Do you understand that?

If you got that then you should understand why most double elimination brackets use e.g. Bo1 for the first round, Bo3 for the second and Bo5 for the final.
Winning Bo5 > Winning Bo3.

Your 3 arguments are all the same "why isn't #1 the winner after winning one playoff match?".
Gauntlet/stepladder: #1 has to play one match ✔️
Everything else: #1 has to play more than one match ❌

Now the complicated part:
You complain about any advantage #1 could be given as "random" and "arbitrary", claim that two Bo3s for the Grand Final, one of the less fair options, is in fact the only fair option and complain that if the the exact same rules apply to #1 as to everyone else (first match doesn't matter, second match is longer and/or higher seed gets advantage) then double elimination "lacks competitive integrity".

I'd try to explain again why you generally play two matches in the GF if all other matches were Bo1 and why Bo5 > 2xBo3 but it'll probably just go over your head again.

That's incorrect.
1. It's still not fair. 3-2, 0-3, 3-2 means the first team wins with a map score of 3-5 or 6-7 total, both clearly negative. If the second match is a Bo3, Bo5, Bo7 or even Bo9 the second team wins. Instead the first team effectively gets an arbitrary 3 map advantage. Is that better?
2. Double elimination is never fair. If two teams meet only twice then the team that wins the second match, the one in the losers bracket, advances and the other is eliminated. Even if it's 1-1 in matches. The second match always counts more. That's how double elimination works.
That's why match length generelly increases in later rounds.

Seems to me that you don't understand double elimination brackets. I guess the "unfairness" of the losers bracket match is easily overlooked if you never have to play one.

Playing two games in the Grand Finals is usually used for competitions with fixed match length. E.g. if everything else was Bo1 then two Bo1s are played because playing three or four halves sounds retarded and is in some games not even possible.

Try to think about that please.
Because "#1 needs to win 1 match, everyone else needs to win 2" is an awfully simplistic and #1 centered view. By your own logic it also lacks "competitive integrity" because #2 gets no advantage over #3.

If you want a compromise you can soften up the double elimination a bit. 4 team double elim requires 6 matches, but the frist two matches are usually garbage. Map pick advantage pales in comparision to #1 playing #4, so it's usually only a formality, while #2 vs #3 can be close but all that #2 gets for being better than #3 all season long is getting one more map pick. Beyond that there's no advantage for having the higher seed, you still need to play the same number of matches.

So other than reducing it to 3 teams you can use an asymmetric bracket. E.g.
A: #3 vs #4, loser is eliminated (so not strictly double elimination), skipping straight to what's usually the Lower Bracket Round 1.
B: #1 vs #2, essentially what will almost always happen in the Upper Bracket Finals anyway, but now #2 is guaranteed a shot at this for being better than #3 in the season.
C: Winner of A vs loser of B, basically Lower Bracket Finals
D: Winner of B vs winner of C, Grand Finals
Advantages in B and D can be adjusted depending on how badly you want #1 to win.

That's only one of the options. 4 teams, but only 4 matches. #3 and #4 are eliminated after one loss, #1 and #2 after two. #4 doesn't have to play #1 in their first match though and #3 plays a lower seed first instead of a higher one so their chances are not significantly worse than in true double elimination. If "higher seed beats lower seed" holds true you get the exact same matches as with double elimination, only two less.

I wouldn't worry about response time.
Simply getting 120 fps (~8.3ms frametime) instead of 144 fps (~7.9ms) matters more than that. Input lag and everything else will scale roughly with the fps so 144/120 = 1.2 -> about 20% more. Prendered frames and everything else in the chain take multiple frame times so 1ms more or less on the monitor response time is the least of your worries.

You have to choose between terrible screen tearing or slightly higher input lag.
Do you want your eyes to bleed because you believe that the 4ms lower input lag are worth it and will make you a better player or because you paid for 144 Hz and absolutely have to use it?
Or do you want to actually be able to enjoy games while being at an absolutely massive disadvantage compared to all the 144 Hz or even 240 Hz gamers (well their advantage wouldn't change much either way).

Response time and fps are not related.
If you send the monitor one new frame per month and actually changing the pixel from one colour to another takes 1ms the response time is still 1ms.
Of course 120 fps on 144 Hz will look like shit because of screen tearing.

Response time and Hz are related.
For obvious reasons you can't display a new frame every 1/120th of a second if your response time is higher than that. So higher refresh rates require lower response times to work. Not 1ms though.

Also 1ms response times are marketing garbage.

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/images/asus_mg248q/response_1.png

That's a "1ms" 144 Hz monitor.
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/asus_mg248q.htm#detailed_response
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/asus_mg248q.htm#display_comparisons

https://i.imgur.com/Nk3SHYL.jpg

How did you get Santiago de Chile and Argentina/argentinian right but also write "Chili"?
I approve of your subconscious thoughts about spicy food.

This might sound absurd, but having a good gaming PC that runs games well might be the point most are going for.

Do you mean the name sounds better or the reference cooler which has been used since the 700 series with minor updates and is still used on the 1060 sounds better than itself?
Because that's a hard no to both.

#8
Yes. Or if "200 range" means "around 200$" then 229$ MSRP might just about fit.

#9
If your CPU ever breaks I've got a very alpha looking Pentium 4 for you.

Buy a GTX 1060 asap, the GTX 1660 will launch in 9 days so the 1060 prices will drop and you might have to buy one for less than 200$ if you wait for too long.

Ok, 3 options:
Z370 + 8350K + cooler + overclocking, which is extremely tight on that budget.
B350 + 2500X (not available so 1500X, which is a bummer) + maybe cooler + overclocking.
B360 + 8100/8300.
The 1500X variant needs faster RAM and overclocking to end up with about the same speed as the 8100/8300 and the 8350K option is quite expensive. All 3 are enough for 120 fps so I'd go with the 8100/8300.

https://www.visaovip.com/produto/processadores/processador-intel-core-i3-8100-s1151-3-6ghz-6mb-box/18441
or
https://www.visaovip.com/produto/processadores/processador-intel-core-i3-8300-s1151-3-7ghz-8mb-box/16568
https://www.visaovip.com/produto/placa-mae/placa-mae-asrock-b360m-pro-4-s1151-com-entrada-usb-3-1-tipo-c-saidas-de-video-vga%252C-dvi-e-hdmi-som-slot-de-memoria-ddr4/15748
And 2x4 GB https://www.visaovip.com/produto/memoria-ram-para-pc/memoria-crucial-ballistix-sport-de-4gb-2666mhz-ddr4-vermelho/14690
or 2x8 GB https://www.visaovip.com/produto/memoria-ram-para-pc/memoria-crucial-ballistix-sport-de-8gb-2666mhz-ddr4-vermelho/14183
There's different colours for the same price, pick whatever you want.
Total:
i3-8100:
1079,96 R$ with 8 GB RAM
1288,52 R$ with 16 GB RAM
i3-8300: 1183,84 R$ / 1392,40 R$ with 8 / 16 GB

8 GB should be completely fine though. If you want to upgrade later the mobo got 4 slots so you can just add another 2x4 GB.

There aren't any good benchmarks for Apex Legends on low yet but the 1060 is definitely not enough for 120 fps.
Even the 8100 is good enough for 120 fps on high so I'd suggest going with the cheapest option (8100 + 8GB) so you can get a new GPU sooner if you really want one. It's a shame because the 1060 isn't that old and Apex Legends just scales badly. From what I've seen the 1060 gets 80, maybe 90 fps on the lowest settings and still 55-60 on the highest.

Mobo?
If the fps are fine when not streaming you just need more cores.
i7-6700/7700, maybe i5-6600/7600 should work.
If you want significantly more frames in general you'd have to oc and if your mobo does not support that it'll get a bit more expensive.

So strobing above 120 Hz at 1440p still requires generous amounts of fuckery as expected and while I'm willing to go through some pains to get the G-Sync+ULMB hack to work I'm not willing to do it every single day because a reboot/power cycle on the monitor resets it if I have to pay 700€ for the monitor.

Sync + strobing is actually possible with FreeSync in G-Sync compatibility mode (thanks Comanglia) so fuck nVidia and their prices.

24.5" 240 Hz IPS panels are coming next month which will literally tick every box except 1440p and that's literally the least important feature to me especially on 24". Considering how rare 1440p 24" is anyway if I have to choose between a 24/27/24 setup with 1440p or 27/27/27 which is impractically large and 24/24/24 with only 1080p I'll choose 1080p every time. That means paying for a 27" 1440p 165 Hz G-Sync IPS monitor, because those are the only ones with Sync + strobing + IPS, would be absurd since I want neither 27" (it's in fact a downside for me), nor G-Sync (Sync + strobing works with FreeSync and it's cheaper) nor do I get much use out of the 165 Hz most of the time since strobing beyond 120 Hz is still wonky on those. Half of the cost would be going towards features I don't want, don't need or can't use most of the time.
That leaves me with 3 options:
27" 1080p non-TN of which there are a grand total of two (1 IPS, 1 VA), but at 27" 1080p is indeed kinda meh.
24" 1080p VA with a grand total of one fucking monitor with a VA panel, which somehow costs more than both the VA and IPS 27" option.
24" 1080p TN Freesync, which will cost half that.
So once again I am forced to take the reasonable, cost-effective option instead of the lavish upgrade I deserve. On the upside I can now wait for a monitor that does (almost) everything I want (rip 1440p dreams), but the downside is the manufacturers will test my patience again when trying to figure out high frequency strobing on IPS panels. Please don't make me choose between FreeSync at 240 Hz and FreeSync + strobing at the same time (I will make it happen) at a lower refresh rate. On the other hand if we get to the point where I can choose between those options I should probably be happy.

In other news hopefully I'll be selling a 24" 1080p TN FreeSync + strobing monitor in a year or so.

He's at least trying to help and he is right. If the colours are ok-ish it would definitely be the cheapest option and that's something. Even with 240 Hz it wouldn't be outrageously expensive.

Of course it would be nice if someone could confirm that G-Sync + ULMB at the same time still works and/or that it can/can't be done with FreeSync. Afaik nVidia broke it before and fixed it again but they might've broken it again and FreeSync is generally the preferable and cheaper option.

Also I will delay the PC Build Guide for one extra month per bad meme. Helpful posts are minus one month. Good memes are neutral. Choose wisely.