[Denied]Seeding in official tournaments.

[Shaniqualela]

Just though about this after seeing that frags and kingbowser play each other in round 2 of the monotype mashup, when they are both obviously capable of winning it.

Discuss ways of having a fair seeding system (i cant think of any ways)

[Strych]

Randomised seeding is the fairest way to do things for all involved across all tournaments.

[Senile]

Randomised seeding is the fairest way to do things for all involved across all tournaments.

./end thread

There really is no fairer way to do it, as any other system involves some kind of weighting on the players, which is just biased. Not only that, but incentives big name players playing on an alt to work around the system.

 

And this isn't really a suggestion, since you didn't actually suggest any alternatives...

[imguridiancity]

Tournaments seeded by ranking actually favor the better players. The idea is that the best players play the worst players, so that you are more likely to have the best players advance each round.

 

For an automated tournament, if/when we get ELO (or equivalent) rankings, it would make sense to seed by ranking. Without numerical rankings, it's just impossible. And for a tournament host to manually seed the bracket by ranking, while everyone is sitting there waiting to play, is just a bad idea. But yeah, if we have: A. Numerical rankings, and B. Automated tournaments, then it would make sense to seed by ranking.

[eggroll]

on a different note kingbowser isn't that good

 

#airborne

[Shaniqualela]

Having an unseeded bracket allows all of the "top" players to take each other out on one side of the bracket, while other players get an "easy" bracket on the other side and end up only having to play 1-2 tough fights. I know anything can happen, and anyone has a chance of winning, but if you win multiple officials, I don't think you should have to play someone else who has won a ton of officials off the start.
 
(I am in the bracket for the OU Monotype on the complete opposite side of them and still see it as unfair to them, I wouldn't mind losing first round to them (would love to beat them though huehue))
 
The finals should be between the best two players, not round 2.
 
A way I thought of for seeding was adding anyone who has won in the Hall Of Fame having their name added to a list:
[spoiler]
Example:
Seed 1: (Insert Name): 20 Officials won
Seed 2: (Insert Name): 15 Officials won
etc.
etc.
 
[/spoiler]
This would allow anyone who has won before to have a higher seed, and people who have not won would be randomly shuffled, with the top two seeds (highest chance of winning, statistically) to be on opposite sides of the bracket and have the highest chance of the two best players in the finals. This however does not mean that they are guaranteed a spot in the finals. They still have to work their way through the bracket like everyone else.
 
[spoiler] 4am my time, sorry if retarded[/spoiler]

Edit:

./end thread

There really is no fairer way to do it, as any other system involves some kind of weighting on the players, which is just biased. Not only that, but incentives big name players playing on an alt to work around the system.
 
And this isn't really a suggestion, since you didn't actually suggest any alternatives...

sorry i dont understand how it incentivizes playing on an alt? literally every professional sport and gaming league uses seeding and the goal is to get the best seed. You do not get punished for having the top seed, you get rewarded in a VERY slight way.
 
Lets say for example KingBowser has the top seed and Frags has second (i have no idea who has what) This means they have won the most officials and therefore have the highest odds of winning, they would be on opposite sides of the bracket so that they have a chance of playing in finals. However, it is still completely possible for them to end up losing first round just like anyone else, but it probably wont happen. Edited May 18, 2014 by XelaKebert
Please do not double post.

[londark]

Nice way of killing people who has just started playing comp 

[Emlee]

If two people are "capable of winning it" then they will face one another at some point regardless. It doesn't matter if it's an early round or a later round (to use your reasoning). 

 

On a side note the official brackets are randomized again before the tournament starts (after sign ins) at least once. 

[Shaniqualela]

If two people are "capable of winning it" then they will face one another at some point regardless. It doesn't matter if it's an early round or a later round (to use your reasoning). 

 

On a side note the official brackets are randomized again before the tournament starts (after sign ins) at least once. 

so the two best people shouldnt play each other in finals?

[Rigamorty]

If two people are "capable of winning it" then they will face one another at some point regardless. It doesn't matter if it's an early round or a later round (to use your reasoning). 

 

On a side note the official brackets are randomized again before the tournament starts (after sign ins) at least once. 

yeah but the point is that if the two best players get matched up against each other round one, then the second best kinda loses out on the second prize they could've probably won.

 

although at this time I don't think seeding would work since we dont have reliable rankings, also this game gets many many new players and seeding would deter them for sure, which is a pretty bad thing. randomization is probably the best way to do it for now, until we have something automated so double elim wont take 12 hours.

[Shaniqualela]

Nice way of killing people who has just started playing comp 

it does not effect people who just start. they just have to win all their matches, just like anyone else would.

[londark]

it does not effect people who just start. they just have to win all their matches, just like anyone else would.

 

No, i remember my first officials, i was already happy of getting past round one, and that somewhat kept me motivated to go on ( Update Please ), for a new player getting always matched up with the big names, giving him a low possibility of passing first round won't have a good effect, also because it will always be like that. If it's random new players may end up against the strongest players, but it's not a 100% possibility 

[Emlee]

so the two best people shouldnt play each other in finals?

 

 

yeah but the point is that if the two best players get matched up against each other round one, then the second best kinda loses out on the second prize they could've probably won.

 

although at this time I don't think seeding would work since we dont have reliable rankings, also this game gets many many new players and seeding would deter them for sure, which is a pretty bad thing. randomization is probably the best way to do it for now, until we have something automated so double elim wont take 12 hours.

"To use your reasoning" 

 

The reasons I am not in favour of this have been stated by Stroochy and the Old Man. I was just commenting on the OP's reasoning. I think seeded tournaments are to be saved for extremely prestigious invitationals, and only when/if a legitimate ranking system has been created and functions appropriately. 

 

[spoiler] I swear no one reads complete posts or sentences here[/spoiler]

[Rigamorty]

"To use your reasoning" 

 

The reasons I am not in favour of this have been stated by Stroochy and the Old Man. I was just commenting on the OP's reasoning. I think seeded tournaments are to be saved for extremely prestigious invitationals, and only when/if a legitimate ranking system has been created and functions appropriately. 

 

[spoiler] I swear no one reads complete posts or sentences here[/spoiler]

wtf is that even supposed to mean? "to use your reasoning" what fucking reasoning. he never mentioned prizes, you said it didn't matter when the two top players faced off, i said it did, the op mentions nothing about that.

[Emlee]

wtf is that even supposed to mean? "to use your reasoning" what fucking reasoning. he never mentioned prizes, you said it didn't matter when the two top players faced off, i said it did, the op mentions nothing about that.

Calm. down. There's no need to get angry and swear because you don't understand something.

 

He suggested either person could win, meaning that one will inevitably have to lose. That is where my initial comment stemmed from. It was a response to his reasoning, not a response that follows my personal opinion. 

 

The level of intelligence on this forum, sigh. 

[imguridiancity]

Seeding by ranking (when done properly) is objectively better. You produce a better competition that way. However, we do not have the capability to properly seed by ranking, and half-assing it would be worse than random.

[ThinkNice]

 I think seeded tournaments are to be saved for extremely prestigious invitationals, and only when/if a legitimate ranking system has been created and functions appropriately.

This pretty much. I wouldn't mind ranked seeding in a type of prestigious league / tournament. However in the standard tournaments I think randomization is the best way, for reasons already stated.

[Eggplant]

yeah but the point is that if the two best players get matched up against each other round one, then the second best kinda loses out on the second prize they could've probably won.

The solution to this is double elimination.

If you're the second best in the tourney, you'll lose to the #1 once, get to the finals, and lose again in the finals, placing #2.

 

I think at most, in a single elim tourney, we can give out a consolation prize to whoever lost to the champion in round 1, if necessary. Or just host more double elims.

[Emlee]

I think it would be nice to see more double elims put on by staff. Even if they're only smaller brackets, like 16 man. I recognize it would be difficult to sign up for these sorts of things but I know a double elim OU takes forever to host ;__; 

 

Double elim NU and UU seem to go by fairly quickly though. And a BotT isn't that horrible. 

 

 

This is sort of off track from this "suggestions", as Senile said there isn't really a suggestion here, just a complaint. 

[Shaniqualela]

Calm. down. There's no need to get angry and swear because you don't understand something.

 

He suggested either person could win, meaning that one will inevitably have to lose. That is where my initial comment stemmed from. It was a response to his reasoning, not a response that follows my personal opinion. 

 

The level of intelligence on this forum, sigh. 

yes but obviously the two best players should be playing in finals. what was the last tournament of anything you played?

 

edit: 

Double elimination would also fix this, but if there was a way of seeding properly it would improve tournaments. I would have an empty seed, so I am not trying to take advantage of this, I am talking from experience in tournaments in other games.

[Emlee]

yes but obviously the two best players should be playing in finals. what was the last tournament of anything you played?

 

Again. It wasn't my personal opinion, it was a statement........

[ThinkNice]

yes but obviously the two best players should be playing in finals. what was the last tournament of anything you played?

 

edit: 

Double elimination would also fix this, but if there was a way of seeding properly it would improve tournaments. I would have an empty seed, so I am not trying to take advantage of this, I am talking from experience in tournaments in other games.

I don't think you understand, new players won't play perfectly and they will only be discouraged to participate if they keep getting paired up with big players the first round. 'They just have to win'. Aigh't m8, go out there and beat Bowser, Frags or even me, let's see how perfect you play the first few times. It just doesn't work that way. Like I said I'm fine with ranked seeding in some tournament, but for all tournament? No.

 

Sometimes you have the finals already in the semi finals, or even quarter finals. It just happens. Double elimination is a nice way to go about it but it can't be done all the time (it takes a long ass time to host).

[Rigamorty]

Calm. down. There's no need to get angry and swear because you don't understand something.

 

He suggested either person could win, meaning that one will inevitably have to lose. That is where my initial comment stemmed from. It was a response to his reasoning, not a u response that follows my personal opinion. 

 

The level of intelligence on this forum, sigh. 

Yes, I understood what you said, one will lose. but losing in the first round and losing in the finals is different considering second place prizes exist. I said that, then you went on to tell me I didn't read, which made no sense at all, now you're trying to call me stupid and saying i shouldn't get mad over not understanding something, i got mad over your passive aggression for no reason.

 

EDIT: it wasn't even passive, you were just being a faggot and still are

 

 

The solution to this is double elimination.

If you're the second best in the tourney, you'll lose to the #1 once, get to the finals, and lose again in the finals, placing #2.

 

I think at most, in a single elim tourney, we can give out a consolation prize to whoever lost to the champion in round 1, if necessary. Or just host more double elims.

and yeah i agree about double elim, like i said, but those can't happen much unless we have a way to make tournaments go faster.

[Emlee]

Yes, I understood what you said, one will lose. but losing in the first round and losing in the finals is different considering second place prizes exist. I said that, then you went on to tell me I didn't read, which made no sense at all, now you're trying to call me stupid and saying i shouldn't get mad over not understanding something, i got mad over your passive aggression for no reason.

 

It was a statement, not my opinion. Meaning I know why it can be discredited. You're still misunderstanding this. 

[Rigamorty]

It was a statement, not my opinion. Meaning I know why it can be discredited. You're still misunderstanding this. 

okay, then why would you go onto to tell me i didn't read your post. it's not like i said "no emlee, your opinion is wrong"