mynus Posted July 31, 2009 Posted July 31, 2009 I have a feeling this thread isnt gonna end anytime soon with any accepted or even somewhat mutual agreement. The way tournaments are structured there will always be some kind of seeding to keep controversy and problems to a minimum. whether by region or past tourney performance. Perhaps if we had a globally accepted official ranking system we wouldnt be arguing in the first place as i can see how some could be thinking; "well besides obvious majors results, who decides who is a top player?" This situation could be viewed as "unfair". Both sides already argued their point for and against, however as is evident from tourney usually run with complete random brackets, problems almost always arise and things that obviously "shouldnt have happened" sometimes do. Its there for everyones benefit. Besides if two top players DO fight each other early on and 1 goes to losers....god help all the unfortunate ppl who have to fight that person in losers bracket as they run a train on the poor other "weaker" players. Those weaker players wouldve went 0-2 anyway. Some might see it as arrogant or being an elitist, but that is how things always happen. Those are the results. isnt it what gives others the motivation to beat someone better than them? Doesnt everyone remember the first time you were an unknown and beat someone who was a top player? (those that have). Its what keeps me going to tournaments. tourneys need some kind of seeding. even if this "bias" makes things more "fair" in the end.
Senkei Posted July 31, 2009 Posted July 31, 2009 I agree on seeding. It made me better through tournament play.. period. I had to get my bearings and get through the tough shit in order to place high. It felt good when I finally started beating those "top/good" players and progressed my skill. Hellmonkey: I did kinda run through pool(lol)A. It wasn't extremely easy though (gosh) thats kinda mean. But it wasn't the Pool of Death and Hell that B was for sure. I got payback from that though since I had to fight 1st and 2nd place back to back on sunday. Damn eddie is strong.
.otter. Posted July 31, 2009 Posted July 31, 2009 One side of this conversation is drasticly more hostile than the other which is unfortunate. Anyway, the posts prior to mine seemed to imply that the community was decidedly pro-seeding. It's cool to see it can be discussed. The most dangerous thing about seeding is that there is no standard system to decide who is seed-worthy. I am reminded of a well known Street Fighter player who has taken one SF4 major (before the console version was released) and hasn't won since. This person is more known as a commentator/blogger but is still considered seed-worthy because of his name. I agree that both ways of creating brackets have benefits, but only one is immune to favortism and opinion.
tolore Posted July 31, 2009 Posted July 31, 2009 C pool was almost as bad if not worse than B, we had Jan, flash metroid, wuku, watches, moroha, and probably some other people I'm forgetting. In any community run system with no higher power watching over them there's always a chance for shady dealings, luckily I don't think anything like that has happened at any of the north west tournaments or evo's i've been too.
CABINET SMASHER Posted July 31, 2009 Posted July 31, 2009 The only way you're going to run an absolutely fair tournament is via Round Robin, and good luck getting any tournament organizer to agree to run RR with more than 8 players.
Digital Watches Posted July 31, 2009 Posted July 31, 2009 C pool was almost as bad if not worse than B, we had Jan, flash metroid, wuku, watches, moroha, and probably some other people I'm forgetting. In any community run system with no higher power watching over them there's always a chance for shady dealings, luckily I don't think anything like that has happened at any of the north west tournaments or evo's i've been too. Well, actually, the first Portland tourney you went to had the wacky "Everyone good on one side" bracket. But that was because the bracket was random. I guess SOME good came of it in that the guy who took third on bracketing became an active Portland player, but the results, aside from first and second (Since it was double-elim), could still have been said to be really random, and everyone on that half of the bracket got WRECKED in losers once they ran into someone from the other half.
tolore Posted July 31, 2009 Posted July 31, 2009 that wasn't really shady though, that was just unfortunate.
Senor rata Posted July 31, 2009 Posted July 31, 2009 Since we're talking about tournement rules, can someone please explain how a team tournement is ran?
Nakkiel Posted August 1, 2009 Posted August 1, 2009 C pool was almost as bad if not worse than B, we had Jan, flash metroid, wuku, watches, moroha, and probably some other people I'm forgetting. In any community run system with no higher power watching over them there's always a chance for shady dealings, luckily I don't think anything like that has happened at any of the north west tournaments or evo's i've been too. Me
tolore Posted August 1, 2009 Posted August 1, 2009 I meant IMPORTANT people. go gunblaze somewhere else!
Nakkiel Posted August 1, 2009 Posted August 1, 2009 You defeated yourself? That must've been difficult with the breast cancer and all
Adelheid Posted August 1, 2009 Posted August 1, 2009 Breast cancer is something you would know a lot about, isn't it Miss Defarsi? Being an oncologist and all.
Nakkiel Posted August 1, 2009 Posted August 1, 2009 I only know from Alexandria being provocative while drunk.
Digital Watches Posted August 1, 2009 Posted August 1, 2009 Yeah, I kinda channel my inner oncologist while drunk. "Okay okay listen, you knowws what youu need? A PAP smear."
Nakkiel Posted August 1, 2009 Posted August 1, 2009 fucking lol I'm pretty sure this is off-topic though so that's enough
Zinac Posted August 2, 2009 Posted August 2, 2009 Anything but random seeding will have its bias. The only argument I can see towards seeding is if we would like to see how "top" players rank with each other. Unfortunately I doubt anyone can make the case that double elim tournament produce accurate results outside of the top 3 placers. In an ideal world we would have enough time for a round robin for everyone, but that just isn't the case. My vote goes to random seeding.
Josh Ballard Posted August 7, 2009 Posted August 7, 2009 not always top 3, even sometimes all the top players can be stacked on one side of the bracket now for a constructive suggestion: evo doesn't seed players in its tournaments unless they have some sort of objective accomplishment. for SF4 they gave seeds to the 16 gamestop finalists, the officially recognized national champions (e.g. iyo & poongko), the top 2 at MWC, and the winner of the hawaii regional. HD remix gave seeds to MWC top 2 also. there are some obvious inconsistencies here - why hawaii and MWC but not east coast throwdown or devastation, why not more seeds for HDR? - but i think this type of system can be superior to random seeding if planned out better. as such, my idea would be to designate a particular major as the beginning of the "season" (i would go with final round), and take additional seeds from each major thereafter. since double elimination is only completely accurate for top 2, i would only take 1 or 2 seeds from each selected tournament. SBO qualifiers would of course be included among the majors, and there would be no "alternates" for seeds (read: you must place 1st/2nd, if the guys in the finals are already seeded then no new seeds would be given). the main issue i see with this is that most of the tournaments we call "majors" are based in the midwest or east coast. west coast has evo and devastation, texas has SBO qualifiers (hmm...what to do about showdown championships?), and i can't think of much else atm. west coast seems much hungrier for BB than they were during AC, so hopefully this will lead to other worthy tournaments for them! SF4 had an issue at MWC where justin & floe didn't enter since they were already seeded and they wanted marn to get one...but i don't think that would be a problem here because seeding would be nowhere as significant. at evo, a seed meant that you got a bye straight into the semi-finals - an especially huge benefit in SF4 since pools were insane across the board. in our case, they would just give you a slightly better spot in the bracket and maybe a first round bye - not enough incentive for politics, i would think.
Destin Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 Double elim is only consistent to the top 2 if you assume that if A > B, B > C, then A > C. But this is not always the case. Sadly round robin is far and away the best way to decide. A 50 man round robin tournament, would be awesome lol.
RPGsFTW Posted September 10, 2009 Posted September 10, 2009 I didn't see this mentioned at all, so I'd like to ask about general rules for tournament standards. This Sunday, the 13th, we will be having a free Guilty Gear tournament, it runs as a side tournament to the main tournaments, Brawl (eww) and Melee. We've also been playing BlazBlue in tournaments, but have just recently decided to swap them out for Guilty Gear (yay) at the moment. The tournaments would always run fine but there is one thing we never really knew. And that thing was the tournament standard rules for Guilty Gear/BlazBlue. We've always done this: -Double Elimination -99 seconds on the clock -Two best of threes. (We were very confused about this one) -Loser's/Grand Finals are two best of fives. -And we were confused about how counterpicks worked as well. Does the winner have to stay the same character, etc? Would someone please tell me what our rules should be, if they aren't already correct? Also, are Instant Kills, or Astral Heats allowed? I'd think not, but I'm asking seriously.
Nakkiel Posted September 10, 2009 Posted September 10, 2009 Guilty Gear is almost always set up like this: Double Elim 99 Seconds Rounds set to a total of 3 (player needs to win twice) Grand Finals are rounds set to 3, best 3 out of 5 (or 4 out of 7 sometimes) Instant Kills allowed Winner keeps same character, loser can switch
Spirit Juice Posted September 10, 2009 Posted September 10, 2009 Correction: rounds in games are always set to best of three. Actual games required to win a match are two out of three. Some tournaments do best of five games for loser's/winner's/grand finals, but it really just depends on time/if the participating players want to do best of five or best of three.
Nakkiel Posted September 10, 2009 Posted September 10, 2009 Correction: rounds in games are always set to best of three. Actual games required to win a match are two out of three. Some tournaments do best of five games for loser's/winner's/grand finals, but it really just depends on time/if the participating players want to do best of five or best of three. I probably didn't word the rounds very well. When I said best 3 out of 5 I meant 3 out of 5 matches
RPGsFTW Posted September 11, 2009 Posted September 11, 2009 Well it sounds like we were doing it correct over here. You sure that's it? Nothing else to add? I just wanna be sure we aren't doing anything wrong. And also, aren't loser's final AND grand finals both set to best of 3 rounds with best 3 out of 5 set wins for the win?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now