Jump to content

[Denied]Seeding in official tournaments.


Recommended Posts

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).

Never said I could beat you or them, but it is possible. It is a COMPETITION and placings should at least somewhat accurately show who is more skilled. The only way new players are going to get better is if they lose and see what they did wrong.

 

edit:

for new players they could do tournaments with smaller prizes that people who have won officials can not compete in (alts would be a problem) to encourage new players to get into competitive.

Link to comment

edit:

for new players they could do tournaments with smaller prizes that people who have won officials can not compete in (alts would be a problem) to encourage new players to get into competitive.

Why would they be given smaller prizes? If they win an official tournament they have worked just as hard as competitive players who are currently at the top. I don't think there effort should be any less rewarded if I am honest. 

Regarding the main suggestion, I am not really sure where I stand. I think randomised brackets work best because it is the fairest way in my opinion. I think it would be really discouraging for new players to keep getting beaten in the first round by amazing players.

I remember one of my first tournaments when I got passed the first round (I lost in the second lol) and it was really encouraging to me to carry on trying to improve competitively. I think I would have been really demotivated to keep going if there was seeding, although other players may take that as a challenge (to be the best you have to beat the best) making them more motivated.

Link to comment

Why would they be given smaller prizes? If they win an official tournament they have worked just as hard as competitive players who are currently at the top. I don't think there effort should be any less rewarded if I am honest. 

Regarding the main suggestion, I am not really sure where I stand. I think randomised brackets work best because it is the fairest way in my opinion. I think it would be really discouraging for new players to keep getting beaten in the first round by amazing players.

I remember one of my first tournaments when I got passed the first round (I lost in the second lol) and it was really encouraging to me to carry on trying to improve competitively. I think I would have been really demotivated to keep going if there was seeding, although other players may take that as a challenge (to be the best you have to beat the best) making them more motivated.

If people who have won officials before are not allowed it is an easier tournament so it should be a smaller prize (low tier shinies instead of mid-high tier) and eventually the number of people allowed in those would keep on shrinking, which means they will only get easier.

 

Even with randomized brackets new players still have a chance to get beaten by good players, so idk why so many people are using this argument. It is a competition and being new or bad should not be rewarded in my opinion. There can be seperate events for new people so that they dont feel overwhelmed, or they can practice with matchmaking (when its fixed) or in viridian like everyone else.

Link to comment

Even with randomized brackets new players still have a chance to get beaten by good players, so idk why so many people are using this argument. It is a competition and being new or bad should not be rewarded in my opinion.

 

If the bracket is random i have a possibility of getting paired up against a top tier player, but it's not a 100% probability, with your system new players, or players who have not won officials ( but my concern is about new players ) become just dead meat. Why should i even bother playing an official when i know i'll end up against one of the strongest player having low possibility of winning? Also, the number of official is limited and how many months/years will it pass before someone will do well in a tourney if he will always get hard matches from the beginning? Adding tournament for weaker players is a terrible idea, it promotes an inverse elite of, let me pass the expresion, "weak players" ( and we have few tourney right now, do you seriously think any others will be added? ). Note that a bad player will not win a tourney anyway, maybe pass a round or two against stronger players cause of hax or lucky decision, if he's uses all the luck of his life he can potentially win ONE tourney, but that's all, he'll get rewarded once ok, but that's all, the stronger players will always have the upper hand on tourneys wons and awards ( insert quote form the  Law of large numbers here ). A tourney should be fair for everyone and promote people to actually play, incentivating new players to enter in the competitive scene, what you are suggesting will have the opposite effect ( still can't belive you think a new serie of tournaments would possibly be held ) 

Link to comment

If the bracket is random i have a possibility of getting paired up against a top tier player, but it's not a 100% probability, with your system new players, or players who have not won officials ( but my concern is about new players ) become just dead meat. Why should i even bother playing an official when i know i'll end up against one of the strongest player having low possibility of winning? Also, the number of official is limited and how many months/years will it pass before someone will do well in a tourney if he will always get hard matches from the beginning? Adding tournament for weaker players is a terrible idea, it promotes an inverse elite of, let me pass the expresion, "weak players" ( and we have few tourney right now, do you seriously think any others will be added? ). Note that a bad player will not win a tourney anyway, maybe pass a round or two against stronger players cause of hax or lucky decision, if he's uses all the luck of his life he can potentially win ONE tourney, but that's all, he'll get rewarded once ok, but that's all, the stronger players will always have the upper hand on tourneys wons and awards ( insert quote form the  Law of large numbers here ). A tourney should be fair for everyone and promote people to actually play, incentivating new players to enter in the competitive scene, what you are suggesting will have the opposite effect ( still can't belive you think a new serie of tournaments would possibly be held ) 

If bad player isn't going to win anyways why use a random system to cater to them and give them a false sense of hope?

Link to comment

If bad player isn't going to win anyways why use a random system to cater to them and give them a false sense of hope?

 

 

i remember my first officials, i was already happy of getting past round one, and that somewhat kept me motivated to go on 

 

I remember one of my first tournaments when I got passed the first round (I lost in the second lol) and it was really encouraging to me to carry on trying to improve competitively. I think I would have been really demotivated to keep going if there was seeding

 

To keep them motivated ad go on playing, it's something to let grow self confidence. Anyway let reverse the question to you

 

If bad players will get paired up against the stronger opponents anyway, why should they bother playing just to get beaten every single time? 

Link to comment

 

 
 

 

 

To keep them motivated ad go on playing, it's something to let grow self confidence. Anyway let reverse the question to you

 

If bad players will get paired up against the stronger opponents anyway, why should they bother playing just to get beaten every single time? 

 

Because there's a prize and they want to win. Same reason everyone plays in a tournament.

 

Also, there is a second place prize, and the second best player should get it. So seeding >

Link to comment

If bad player isn't going to win anyways why use a random system to cater to them and give them a false sense of hope?

So they can win every once in a while, have fun, encourage them to keep playing comp and most importantly so the same top 4 people or so constantly win
Link to comment

I think its a great idea!!!!    Losing doesn't discourage people, other players do by winning poorly or spectators that are being dicks.  Tell people the mistakes they are making or what they could have done better, show them its a friendly environment, and they will be back regardless of a win or loss.

 

 

[spoiler]for old times sake, love you all[/spoiler]

Link to comment

If I may interject here. We do not seed official events because seeding relies on objective statistics that we do not track. Below are two examples of seeding processes. Keep in mind that accurate and objective seeding would require several weeks worth of data for us to track. Now, that's not to say that it isn't possible. A few players have attempted to objectively rank players on here based on tournament wins, appearances in various stages of tournaments, etc. While those were pretty well done, to some degree, they were never used to seed a tournament to my knowledge and have since fallen into disuse.

 

*NFL Tiebreaking Procedures

NCAA Seeding Process

 

*Note: I chose the tiebreaking procedures because that is the NFL seeding process.

Link to comment

support seeding for bigger tournaments like jag's invite, masters, underdog etc. normal official tournaments should just stay randomized, especially since you never know which participants and reserves will actually show up it'd end up taking longer.

Link to comment

If I may interject here. We do not seed official events because seeding relies on objective statistics that we do not track. Below are two examples of seeding processes. Keep in mind that accurate and objective seeding would require several weeks worth of data for us to track. Now, that's not to say that it isn't possible. A few players have attempted to objectively rank players on here based on tournament wins, appearances in various stages of tournaments, etc. While those were pretty well done, to some degree, they were never used to seed a tournament to my knowledge and have since fallen into disuse.

 

*NFL Tiebreaking Procedures

NCAA Seeding Process

 

*Note: I chose the tiebreaking procedures because that is the NFL seeding process.

the part i bolded isn't correct. Jag hosted a tournament which he seeded based off of the rankings he made, although that tournament was an invitational so ONLY people from his ranking statistics were there. I'll try to find the bracket.

 

EDIT: http://challonge.com/BattleoftheElite

 

EDIT again: and here's the thread where he said he seeded it https://forums.pokemmo.eu/index.php?/topic/21049-battle-of-the-elites-advanced-tourney-today-broken-moves-added-on-page-5-and-op/?hl=jag

Link to comment

Seeding some tourney like master of masters etc could be a good idea.

 

But for others tourney it would be unfair for all the "non-good" players, and the tourney just turn easier for good players by knowing they have low chance to lose from the start and have more chance to go to the final, shuffling bracket is the fairest way, without advantage/disadvantage anyone.

 

As already said, a double elimination can fix it but it take several hours to host.

 

And I don't think host some "low level" tourney could work, someone who can't basicly participate may take part by logging on a second account, even using there IP to reconize them can't be use due to VPN popularity.

Link to comment

frags lost first round of ou monotype. proves seeding just helps, and wouldn't make it unfair. gg guise

I don't really think that you can compare a 4v4 Monotype tournament to a 6v6 OU standard tournament. Part of a monotype is down to luck, what team your opponent brings can really put you at a disadvantage.

Link to comment

frags lost first round of ou monotype. proves seeding just helps, and wouldn't make it unfair. gg guise

That doesn't prove shit... He could have lost if there was seeding, but it would still be unfair for the most of the time. Please just let this stupid thread die. It needs put out of its misery
Link to comment

I don't even know why this is an argument. Tournaments are random. If you're the worst player in all of Pokemon existence and you have to face the best player, so be it. Pokemon is usually just lots of luck, so maybe sometimes you're just not lucky enough to be able to pass through rounds, but hey, just wait until luck is on your side and you can get those 1 or 2 critical hits that push you over the top and let you win. In my opinion, Pokemon battling doesn't take that long to get good at, so if you just really study it and learn from experience (I.E losing a lot of times), everyone can be good, and our system can stay the same. If you don't like luck, get out. Luck is what runs these tournaments, sorry sweeties.

Link to comment

I think that seeding should be implemented in the future where it can be done automatically (PvP Tower?), but for now there really isn't a fair way that I can think of to do it. Competitions should have seeding. It is a competition and new players have plenty of chances to improve besides official tournaments. There are far more Unofficial Tournaments, and people spamming tournaments for cash in-game, so idk why so many people use that as an argument. Official tournaments, even if not invitationals or masters should be treated as if the competition is the best of the best no matter what (that is the whole point of official tournaments imo.) so seeding would make it fair considering there is a 2nd place prize and the 2nd best player should earn that.

Link to comment

The only tournaments that should be treated as the "best of the best" are invitationals... since they are the best of the best. 

 

New comers and veterans deserve a randomized bracket. Sometimes you'll have a novice player, other times you will meet another veteran. That is what is fair for non prestigious tournaments. It would be especially more ridiculous to seed gimmicks such as the Monotype, Guts, Stab, etc. Some things are meant to be for a bit of fun, not complete tests of skill. Even standard tournaments have RNG in them.

Link to comment

The only tournaments that should be treated as the "best of the best" are invitationals... since they are the best of the best. 

 

New comers and veterans deserve a randomized bracket. Sometimes you'll have a novice player, other times you will meet another veteran. That is what is fair for non prestigious tournaments. It would be especially more ridiculous to seed gimmicks such as the Monotype, Guts, Stab, etc. Some things are meant to be for a bit of fun, not complete tests of skill. Even standard tournaments have RNG in them.

If there is a good prize (shinies), it is a competition. Period. Competition can be fun however, but it should be as fair as possible. RNG is going to happen, never said it wouldn't so idk why this is an argument. Every official tournament is prestigious to some extent (go look at LYLE's page on round table, they take pride in winning tournaments no matter what it is.) Tournaments that are not "complete tests of skill" should be saved for unofficial and spontaneous tourneys.

Link to comment

If there is a good prize (shinies), it is a competition. Period. Competition can be fun however, but it should be as fair as possible. RNG is going to happen, never said it wouldn't so idk why this is an argument. Every official tournament is prestigious to some extent (go look at LYLE's page on round table, they take pride in winning tournaments no matter what it is.) Tournaments that are not "complete tests of skill" should be saved for unofficial and spontaneous tourneys.

No tournament is a perfect test of skill, so you're saying there should only be unofficals and sponts?

 

I have no mentioned anything about pride, please do not attempt to appeal to emotion, that's not proving a point. 

 

You are mistaken when you say that randomized brackets for non invitationals are not fair. Over a long enough time frame they are fair. It's been explained several times in this thread that giving a person who is new a "hard" match is actually what would not be fair. I am unsure if you haven't read the posts here, if you don't understand them, or if you have some solid points that you're not sharing here. 

Link to comment

For real kid, everyone keeps raising new valid reasons why this is good and you just keep pointing out the same couple reasons expecting us to change our minds. It's time for your bad idea to go to rest, let it be.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.