Tournament Standards

[Hellmonkey]

Seeding top players away from each other stops the strongest players and players from the same area from playing really early in tournament brackets, this is desirable for many reasons. 1. During the first few rounds of brackets, usually you want to get everything out of the way as soon as possible and it's very difficult for anyone participating to watch another match since they'll likely be up soon. (bad for anyone who wants to watch) 2. It prevents the majority of would-be-seeded players from being stuck in hell brackets when one or two others might be in an extremely easy one (lol A), which gives much more of an advantage to those lucky individuals than seeding players away from each other ever would. 3. By preventing people from lucking out with a really easy bracket you also prevent completely skewed tournament results that don't really reflect how well someone played. 4. If new players join a tournament, there is no reason to match them up against other new players to begin with just so they have a chance to win a few in winners bracket, it ruins the quality of the tournament all around (in the US we almost always have losers bracket making this even less of an issue) It's not a question of giving an advantage to anyone, these players would end up playing seeded players later anyways, having them spread out make it fair for everyone. If a player believes they have as much chance to win as seeded players, there should be no problem because once they beat the seeded player in their pool, they will be in the same boat as the rest. Honestly, why wouldn't you seed?

[.otter.]

in the US we almost always have losers bracket making this even less of an issue

these players would end up playing seeded players later anyways

Honestly, why wouldn't you seed?

You made a couple good points for me so I won't repeat them.

I just think fair>entertaining

Not to mention that "top player" has no real definition, so it could mean whoever blogs the most often or is friends with the TO.

If you don't think the best players will win without help, then why spend so much time on a game that you don't think works?

[Digital Watches]

Um. Otter? I know it's hard to understand, but you have to try to follow the logic of a post before you respond to it. Reading and quoting it isn't enough. Hellmonkey just explained what was wrong with what you just said in response to him: Of course the best players can be assumed to win without help. That's not the issue. The issue is that you're creating a situation where the best players are eliminating each other early on, rather than eliminating worse players. This makes it so that your results can essentially be random, except for first (and in double-elim, like most US tournaments, second) place. If there are no good players, for example, on an entire half of the bracket, someone who isn't as good as people who went, I dunno, 1-2? in the hard bracket get guaranteed third place by making it to winner's finals through other easy people.

[WUT]

Of course the best players can be assumed to win without help. That's not the issue. The issue is that you're creating a situation where the best players are eliminating each other early on, rather than eliminating worse players. This makes it so that your results can essentially be random, except for first (and in double-elim, like most US tournaments, second) place. If there are no good players, for example, on an entire half of the bracket, someone who isn't as good as people who went, I dunno, 1-2? in the hard bracket get guaranteed third place by making it to winner's finals through other easy people.

And why is this an issue? If top place is already decided regardless of seeding, then who cares? We seed top players just so <insert top player> has a better shot at getting 2nd or 3rd place? Why is that justified? Because they "should" get those spots? If they deserve to place high they will, simple as that.

Regardless of how you argue top player seeding, whether it's "more entertaining" or "less random results", it's all the same: bias. You're showing favoritism based on someone's supposed prowess. It's the same result if Flash fights Latif first round as it is if Flash fights Latif in finals: whoever's going to win will win. How is that any less fair or random then, say, some new person playing Flash first round? It isn't.

The only seeding I could begin to support is by region, as driving/flying all that distance just to play someone you casual with is a waste of time/money.

[mynus]

Regardless of how you argue top player seeding, whether it's "more entertaining" or "less random results", it's all the same: bias. You're showing favoritism based on someone's supposed prowess.

First off, how in the hell is seeding bias?!! I guess professional tennis shouldnt have seeding either. Neither should basketball/baseball/hockey have playoff seeding and home court advantage...while we're at it all professional sports down to elementary school sports are biased then. Fuck thats the same as saying the goddam SAT's are biased (wait...they are actually ).

Seeding is justified based on performance and merit. Someone who constantly proves themselves in a competitive environment needs not to prove they deserve to be seeded every outing. tournaments arent about who can get lucky and score the easiest bracket. Its about the best players showcasing their skill to be #1. And the unknown players trying to prove THEMSELVES to be recognized and be #1.

If Harvard took all their applications threw them in a hat and picked randomly, that would be comparable to your moot point.

[WUT]

First off, how in the hell is seeding bias?!! I guess professional tennis shouldnt have seeding either. Neither should basketball/baseball/hockey have playoff seeding and home court advantage...while we're at it all professional sports down to elementary school sports are biased then. Fuck thats the same as saying the goddam SAT's are biased (wait...they are actually ).

Seeding is justified based on performance and merit. Someone who constantly proves themselves in a competitive environment needs not to prove they deserve to be seeded every outing. tournaments arent about who can get lucky and score the easiest bracket. Its about the best players showcasing their skill to be #1. And the unknown players trying to prove THEMSELVES to be recognized and be #1.

If Harvard took all their applications threw them in a hat and picked randomly, that would be comparable to your moot point.

For starters, how are professional sports leagues relevant to the topic? Most video game tournaments aren't a profession that thrives on advertisement and sponsorship; they're a source for gauging your skill. The prize at the end is merely incentive to perform well. Seeding in those areas helps facilitate hype and drive business, something we shouldn't be concerned with.

And for the record yes, any seeding is biased, regardless of the medium.

Your second point merely furthers my own: that the "best players" should be "showcasing their skill to be #1". Why should we wait to have top players play each other in the brackets? What good does it do to have two top players play in the semi-finals that couldn't be accomplished from them playing right at the start? The outcome will be the same, so why delay it? The only "reason" to do this is to justify ego; that someone deserves to place high because they've done it before or think they've earned it.

Your Harvard analogy is a great point...if what you're implying is that whoever makes the bracket should decide who wins. Obviously that doesn't stop the practice from being biased.

[tolore]

I always thought the purpose of seeding is so say if the top 4 people in the tournament got placed righ tnext to eachother it's quite possible that one of the top 4 could be eliminated in round 2. That means the tournament results are not an accurate representation of skill. now obviously this could still happen anyway, the only way to REALLY gauge everyone's skill would be a giant round robin. Since no one has time for gian tround robins we use double elimination and try to make sure the most skilled people do not eliminate eachother, letting less skilled people win. without seeding you could have a situation where, if it were say a 64 man tournament, you can have the 32nd best person get third place. That really is acceptable too you? edit: for the harvard analogy it's more apt if you say, throw all the names in a hat and then grab 2 at a time and one of the names gets in. You've got a 3.8 gpa and a bunch of extracurricular activities, but the other guy has a 4.0, a bunch of extracurricular activities, and knows the dean of admissions. some other guy with a 3.0 and no extracurriculars get's paired up with a hobo off the streets with no schooling. That is not a fair system, and it's why seeding exists.

[WUT]

I always thought the purpose of seeding is so say if the top 4 people in the tournament got placed righ tnext to eachother it's quite possible that one of the top 4 could be eliminated in round 2. That means the tournament results are not an accurate representation of skill. now obviously this could still happen anyway, the only way to REALLY gauge everyone's skill would be a giant round robin. Since no one has time for gian tround robins we use double elimination and try to make sure the most skilled people do not eliminate eachother, letting less skilled people win. without seeding you could have a situation where, if it were say a 64 man tournament, you can have the 32nd best person get third place. That really is acceptable too you?

Why wouldn't it be? 32nd best person didn't get first, so that's all that matters. People get too hung up on how they placed in tournies. "Oh man I placed in top 8". Big deal. If you played nothing but mediocre players until top 8, then why is that impressive? If you placed top 8 after having a bracket full of top players I'll concede that what you've accomplished is quite a feat, but just having that number with no substance does nothing to bolster your accomplishment.

All I'm saying is that Marn should have just as much chance of drawing MarlinPie or Latif or any other top player as, say, Brent-Quest.

[tolore]

A. pay out is to top 3, B. Maybe people actually like to like, play the game? why should the top players get knocked out early while less skilled people get to play more matchs. C. if placement other than first doesn't matter why do you care about seeding, it doesn't matter right?

I personally place top 5 in almost every regional tournament and I'm pretty proud of that. It'd be discouraging if I fought round 1 other top 5 player, round 2 other top 5 player and got last place. Just like it'd be discouraging for them if I won both and one of them got eliminated right off the bat.

"Oh man I placed in top 8". Big deal. If you played nothing but mediocre players until top 8, then why is that impressive?

that's what we try to avoid with seeding?

edit: seeding also spreads the best players around, since they don'ot start near eachother, that means pretty much everyone GETS to fight a top player at some point, unless they get double peaced out pretty quickly. I personally enjoy fighting top players and I think everyone should get the chance to.

[WUT]

A: I'm aware B: And why should top players get to play more matches, while less skilled players get knocked out early? Because they're better? C: Because what you're saying is "right" is in fact biased, which takes away from the skill involved. If we place a top player in a bracket with new players up until semi-finals, that doesn't prove anything. That just gives a top player a free ride to semis. If it's assumed they're able to do that naturally, why help them out? Just let them do it with the bracket they were given; don't cater to them. I'm estatic that you place top 5 and it makes you feel good about yourself. That's great. Now think about some mediocre player that could have placed a little higher had their bracket not been altered so they ended up playing someone who will place top 2 instead of someone they had a much better chance of beating. That happened solely to appease the top player; no one cared about the other guy. That's the problem. Don't cater to one group of players and disregard another. It's not fair, it's not entertaining, and it does nothing but bolster self-entitlement.

[tolore]

A: I'm aware

then why'd you say it doesn't matter other than first place when, even ignoring the fact that placing high generally makes people happy, you get money for third(which is entirely possible to guarantee without fighitng anyone good if hteres no seeding).

B: And why should top players get to play more matches, while less skilled players get knocked out early? Because they're better?

Yes because they're better, in an elimination tournament you gotta EARN the right to advance, the entire system is based on the better players moving up, pitting the better players against eachother early means they will not move up.

C: Because what you're saying is "right" is in fact biased, which takes away from the skill involved. If we place a top player in a bracket with new players up until semi-finals, that doesn't prove anything. That just gives a top player a free ride to semis. If it's assumed they're able to do that naturally, why help them out? Just let them do it with the bracket they were given; don't cater to them.

But if you DIDN'T put the top tier player in the bracket with all the new players that means a new player(i assume by new you mean less skilled) player makes it to the semi finals, gets raped by the actual top player(who knocked out the other top tier player), get 3rd place and goes home. Instead of the better player beating all the new players, then having a legitimate match. If I went to a tournament and it was a bunch of people who never played before, elven shadow, and latiff. I'd leave as soon as I saw the elven shadow latiff matchup, because the tournament is already over at that point.

They SHOULD naturally walk up the bracket, probability dictates that if there's only one or two people who can possibly beat you in a tournament, that you will not fight them until the later rounds when more people or eliminated. But there's still a random chance that you will fight the 2 people who can possibly beat you right off, a random chance that someone who should be near guaranteed top 3 placing based on skill will get last place is not really acceptable in my opinion.

I'm estatic that you place top 5 and it makes you feel good about yourself. That's great. Now think about some mediocre player that could have placed a little higher had their bracket not been altered so they ended up playing someone who will place top 2 instead of someone they had a much better chance of beating. That happened solely to appease the top player; no one cared about the other guy. That's the problem. Don't cater to one group of players and disregard another. It's not fair, it's not entertaining, and it does nothing but bolster self-entitlement.

The thing is the way seeding works the guy who gets curb stomped by the top player is someone who probably would have lost to the top 32 players, which means his chances of coming out on top in hisi first couple matches is low anyways. Additionally, say he's some new guy, or someone we've never heard of who happens to be a top 8 player, but not a top 2? you've got losers bracket to come back. I lose round 1 or 2 of almost every tournament I go to and I still make top 5(evo I was top 5 of my pool and I lost round 1).

It's not fair,

I disagree on this tremendously, what is not fair is placing someone last, or close to last when they are one of the best people there because of random chance.

[Digital Watches]

Quit being such a goddamn martyr. All of your rhetoric seems to imply that you think seeding is some kind of discrimination against weaker players that unfairly biases the tournament results or hurts people's feeling or eats babies or whatever. Cry more, seriously. You argue that top players can't be objectively chosen? Okay, then why does it matter? Let the people who foolishly think that there's such a thing as established good players have their little seeding game, and when you're right and some nobody comes up and beats the favorite to win in the second round, there will be a TON of hype because all those idiots who expected people who consistently performed well before to perform well now will have been wrong. I'm gonna pascal's wager this shit. If you're right and it's all arbitrary and the best players will place best no matter what, then seeding does nothing to affect the results and there's therefore no harm. However, if you're wrong and some shady bullshit DOES occasionally go down where some guy who'd lose horribly to 90% of the half of the bracket he's not in gets up to winner's finals, and 4 or five top players peace each other out right away, we get a tournament that's mostly boring matches, where only one of the many players with a lot of skill places, and your idea that "skill will win it regardless" only applies to first place, with the rest of the results being pretty much random. Sorry, I'm very sleep-deprived so my writing is going to be devoid of tact.

[tolore]

Second place is also decently non random, third though, you are guaranteed third once you fight in the winners finals which, if all the good players end up on the same side of the bracket can put a non skilled competitor in third.

[WUT]

Not so much devoid of tact as it is a tad melodramatic. Martyr? Really? Of course seeding is discrimination against weaker players. That's the only logical outcome if you're seeding top players away from each other. You can't say that the practice doesn't negatively affect players that would have had an easier bracket had seeding not occurred. But that isn't the point. Why should top players be put into a more favorable outcome (via seeding them away from each other) when we don't offer the same option to lesser players? If it's being done strictly for entertainment and hype finals, then just eliminate the whole tournament aspect and do some top 8 round robin between the strongest players and call it a day. If it's being done because top players don't want to go out 0-2 to each other then someone needs to get over themselves. They'll feel just as bad about it as anyone else that was in their same position.

[mynus]

Seriously WUT; you may think tournaments are some happy go lucky hobby for you and other scrubs. But you are insulting all of the players who take this seriously and work hard to place high in tournaments and get the recognition they deserve. Weaker players will always have to fight stronger players in a tournament. there is no disclaimer when u sign up for a tourney to say "im a beginner" so you only play ppl your own skill level. thats not how competitive anything goes. whether its video games or sports. ppl would never get considerably better if they had a goddam handicap in a tourney because they were a weaker player. same goes for any medium where seeding exists. its there so those with a history of merit do not eliminate themselves at the start. what the fuck would be the point if like Nadal played Federer first round in an open? it doesnt make sense. If even weaker players and top players alike understand the concept of seeding, actually the WORLD understands the concept of seeding....ZA WORODO...y cant u? if it bothers you that much just play for fun, plz dont enter any more tourneys so u dont bitch cause u fought someone like me first round and got pwned, never watch sports again, and drop out of school if u are in one or dont apply to college cause when u graduate whether or not u get that nice job is based on the same concept of seeding. Credit is based on seeding, Life is based on seeding get over it and welcome to the world.

[Doren2k]

Damn chaz just shut down the thread .

[WUT]

Wow. That's about as arrogant and condescending as it gets. There's no need to insult me or anyone else in a discussion. It's just poor sport. I never said anything about handicapping tournaments for weaker players. I never said we needed to enforce any sort of "top players play top players, weaker players do the same". I said it wasn't fair to seed top players if they happen to end up facing other top players early in the brackets. That's it. You can't argue that. It isn't. They should be subject to the same random bracket that any other player signs up for. There's no "lol I'm pro" tag that you can stick on your name to get special treatment either. Or at least, there shouldn't be. Now why say I'm bitching about something that's fact? You can proclaim "life isn't fair" or any other axiom you wish, but that doesn't change the situation.

[Digital Watches]

I see the problem here. Your argument hinges on the concept of "fairness" and if you're going to say it's indisputable fact (Protip: You are begging the question) that seeding is "unfair," you'll have to define your terms. So please, give us a working, operational definition of the term "fair."

[WUT]

Fair enough. fair (adj.): marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism. Randomly generated brackets that do not account for a player's skill when matching up entrants = fair. The same chance that Random Scrub A has to be matched up against Eventual #1 Place in the first round is the same as Eventual #2 Place being matched against Eventual #1 Place in first round = fair. Note I said the only seeding I *could* support is by region. Not that I do support it.

[tolore]

Alright i'm going to try and simplify this as much as I can. Fact 1: Tournament results should reflect at at least a base level the skill level of the participants, IE the top 1 is the best player, 2 is second best, 3-8 are better than 9-17 are better than 18-32 etc... Obviously this doesn't work out exactly because of the randomness of the bracket. Fact 2: Double elimination(single is even worse) without seeding sets up possibilities that very good players will place below people that are worse than them. Fact 3: Seeding makes it much more unlikely that top players will place below people they are better than. Can we all agree on that? there is no bias one way or the other in those statements those are as far as I can tell cold hard facts. The question then becomes, is seeding worth it. The answer is yes. What are the disadvantages of seeding. Some new players who would probably lose early anyways may get sent to losers bracket, where they will fight other people who lost(note almost guaranteed to be someone of similar skill level since no/few top players will be sent to the losers bracket this early). Advantages: 1) no/few top players in the losers bracket. I know when I was new it was very disheartening to lose a close match to a somewhat even opponent, then fight one of the best players there in my second losers bracket because a top player lost right off the bat to another top player 2) top players cannot get eliminated before their time this way(if they lose it won't be because of the randomeness of the bracket, it'll be because they aren't good enough) 3) more interesting finals/matches throughout 4) good players play more matches, which means more people get to play against the good players which is good for everyone To me all those advantages far outweigh the disadvantage. also NOT seeding by region is nearing retarded, I don't want to spend hundreds of dollars traveling to evo to fight people I play everyday. In addition the outcome of the match comes down to how well you know EACHOTHER instead of how well you know the game/your character/their character. NO ONE likes traveling really far just to play their own scene, i assume most people also don't like eliminating their friends from the tournament.

[xJakartax]

tolore, How can you say, "top players cannot get eliminated before their time this way( if they lose it won't be because of the randomeness of the bracket, it'll be because they aren't good enough)" [sic]? If a top player loses early on, then he deserves to lose. He obviously wasn't good enough to win, if he lost that early. If top player A loses to top player B early on, he more than likely won't beat him further on in the finals. If he stands a chance at all, he is more likely to beat him early on anyway because he'll be playing at his best without the fatigue of the entire tournament behind him. The only reason he should play worse is if he's psyching himself out because he has to fight another top player. If you can't win with a random bracket, you're not going to win.

[Mitsurugi]

I agree with WUT as far as the tone in concerned. It became condescending or aggressive for nothing. The main disrespect I see in the last posts isn't in the "love for the game one has/doesn't have" but in some harsh statements directed toward him or more subtle notes still as belittling. It may not be the initial though but it sounds like it.

Let's keep discussing like gentlemen and not make Dustloop into a battlefield. It already happens too much on DL.

No need to be disdainful or anything, I do hope everybody is open-minded and mature enough to avoid personal pokes and to discuss and not just randomly listing points without really trying to understand the others point of view, even if you disagree. Of course none would dare flaming or trolling, it is serious business here or insert any trendy "meme".

Enough with the pretentious, generic and boring old man talking stuff, back to the topic.

Indeed, seeding introduces a bias as there is a decision made to choose the top players. While it could be considered a logical rule should it happen in a regular tournament with simple rules like taking as top players those that ranked best to the previous iteration, this can't be applied to 1-shot tournaments or those held not frequently enough to have a relevant ranking. It also supposes most of the players will be the same and almost none will be missing. That makes it viable for local tournaments mostly.

Keep in mind as it may be "fair" in term of drawing, of brackets, it still can be unfair considering other aspects such as skill (this was already covered, "good" players elminating each others early while "not as good" other players ranking better), location (already covered too, it sure pains a lot after having traveled miles and miles to get stuck with your own crew in the same group)

But, it can be understable that seeing some "not so good" players ranking high because the drawing gave him a good path is irritating as people would judge "he did not deserve to rank as high, he got through only thanks to luck".

Well, if you turn things to the opposite side, a "not so good" player can also wonder why would he be cannon fodder for the seeded top players ? Seeding indeed help the outcome being the one "people would think of according to the estimated and respective level" of the players attending the event.

I'd say seeding would be the best if such an reliable and worldwide acknowledged way of ranking all of the contestants exists, but it does not.

I can't help to think seeding or not, there will always be some kind of unfairness but I'd rather have the one based on drawing (meaning total equity at the beginning) than a list of chosen people according to specific criteria (alleged skill, location, etc).

One final word if I may have your attention a little bit more, even though, out of fairness and respect for my opponents, whether better or worse than me, I prefer randomly generated brackets, I'd say that a true player should be able to face any opponent in any situation. Endlessly whining about unfairness leads to nothing or maybe flame topics on DL haha !

Hence I don't really mind if there is a "constructive" seeding or not as both are fine, having pros and cons that don't make one "naturally" better than the other. Except when there is shady stuff/seeding going on to alter the results. Though I only read of such misbehaviors here in DL, it did not happen in Europe - at least the GG part in the many events I had the delight to attend. Maybe it is because we're all gentlemen here !

Just kidding

[tolore]

It's entirely true that he'll lose to him later if he would have lost to him early(barring fatigue or stress building up and such). But what happens if play A loses to player B right off the bat, he gets like 64 and places last even though he may be better than every other person in the tournament. Lets just say theres no randomeness to who wins a match each player is better than the other and theres 8 people, 1 being the best, and 8 being the worst and we random them. If 2 fights 1 in round one and eliminates him then 2 is in last place even though he's the second best. player 5 on the other hand played against player 8, then player 6 and ends up in the finals. This means the tournament results didn't even come CLOSE to matching player skill, which means your tournament mode is a failure. now if we were to take this example and apply seeding to it(not this kind of seeding will never happen because you probably won' thave each players skill level quantified), the ideal situation is this. 1 vs 8 2 vs 7 3 vs 6 4 vs 5 this way everyone gets the exact place they deserve. Obviously seeding can't work out that well because it's impossible to quantify each persons skill level, and also just because 6 is worse than 5 doesn't mean he can't beat 4. But seeding gets us closer to this perfect scenario and eliminates the situation where 1 fights 2, 3 fights 4, and 5 fights 6, in that situation it's a tie for last with the 2nd best player, the 4th best player, the 6th best player, and the 8th best player. Assuming you agree the goal of tournament results should be to best reflect players skill then this outcome should be unacceptably bad to you.

[JackG]

I abstain courteously.

[Mitsurugi]

By the way, I may have a different meaning of seeding than you. Could you please explain in details what you mean ? Thanks. In my understanding, seeding means : 1) Groups all have at least 1 seeded 'top" player. 2) Within a group, each player face all of the other, resulting in a ranking within the group. 3) Then you'll go into the elimination (single or double) tree where you have the first of A group meet the last of B group and so forth. If this last notion is what you called seeding, I would agree then as the first of group A earned the right to play a "lesser ranked" player in the name of the last of B group. What I called "non seeding" is just replacing the above step 1) by : 1) with randomly generated groups and do the rest all the same, 2) and 3) being logical in my humble opinion. Sorry if that looks redundant but it may be useful to clear all doubts.