Why does tourney seeding favor successful players?

#61ProzacStylingsPosted 5/4/2013 11:19:35 PM
itsnotmyfault posted...
The point of seeding is to help ensure that the best players are the ones that are placing the best. A person who would have beaten most other players there shouldn't be eliminated because all of the best players are put in the area of the same bracket. Whether it's "fun" to watch shouldn't matter at all, It's about making sure the right players make it the right distance. Ideally something like round robin would produce more accurate results, but as that's not feasible on a large scale, seeding is the sloppy solution.

It's the same way in real sports. You don't have Federer and Nadal play in the the first round because they're two of the best tennis players in the world and don't deserve to be eliminated early in the bracket. Granted tennis seeding is a far more rigid process than what's done for video games, but there is a point to it.


If Federer beats Nadal, Nadal does deserve to be eliminated; no matter what point in the bracket that happens.

If Nadal beats Federer, Federer does deserve to be eliminated; no matter what point in the bracket that happens.

Saying otherwise is exactly equivalent to saying "Put that guy we haven't heard of next to Chris G first round, he doesn't deserve to make it to second round in winners".

They certainly don't "deserve" to make it to the next round in that tournament any more than the next person. Any action or preference otherwise is competitive favoritism, even if it's based on past performance, and it's ugly.

Marvel doesn't even have a "system". They certainly don't go by evo points everywhere. It's just "How the TO feels about it", which is twice as ugly.

In mainstream sports, this actually is done primarily because of entertainment. In mainstream sports, people don't really care about underdogs. People care about the sport their state is good at, and the better their team is, the more hype they get when ___-season comes around and the more they want their team to make it to finals.

In Football, Patriots v Jaguars is boring, and Patriots v Broncos is hype as ****.

In Marvel that is not true at all; #1 Seed v #2 Seed still ends in 'Guessed wrong three times and died', whereas the players less consistently proven can introduce entertaining things like character and tech diversity, and you've got a whole army of spectators that is not cheering for the favorite to win.
---
Quoth the server, "404"
#62itsnotmyfaultPosted 5/4/2013 11:31:58 PM
Your placement at a tournament should be representative of your skill. So no, Federer should not come in last place because no seeding occured. He should come in somewhere higher up and seeding helps assure that that happens. I really don't know how to make that any more obvious to you. The better players should place better and not get bracket screwed.
#63NoizyChildPosted 5/4/2013 11:34:59 PM
From: itsnotmyfault | #302
Your placement at a tournament should be representative of your skill. So no, Federer should not come in last place because no seeding occured. He should come in somewhere higher up and seeding helps assure that that happens. I really don't know how to make that any more obvious to you. The better players should place better and not get bracket screwed.

if they're the better players, shouldn't they prove it by going through the brackets like everyone else? Why should they get to dictate how the tournament is going to end up just by showing up?
---
Signature currently under construction.
#64Alom_o_molaPosted 5/4/2013 11:37:59 PM
When I went to my first tournament, I found out about seeding and was paired up with two experienced players in both winners and losers

Went 0-2 no doubt

But I thought it was pretty fair, I had no qualms. Seeding is fair imo, it allows spectators to see the best of the best battle it out in the top 16 or w/e.

Contrary to a mini pokemon tournament we are holding in my university, there were 2 ladders and the people allocated to a ladder are randomly picked. One ladder had all the hard hitters whilst the other ladder had one hard hitter. That other ladder seemed a lot more unfair to me since he can just curbstomp everyone in there.

I would like to hear SolidAbyss's + JDM thoughts on this since they paired up with somewhat hard hitters, Noel and Yoshi respectively and won.
---
Here Comes a New Challenger Blogs - http://marvelvscapcom.wikia.com/wiki/User:Golden_fireburst/HCaNC_Archives
Founder of Top Tier Heroes - Recruits: 6
#65itsnotmyfaultPosted 5/4/2013 11:38:39 PM
The idea with seeding is they already have proven it. That's why they're seeded highly. Video game tournaments don't do this particularly well, but that's the point.
#66ProzacStylingsPosted 5/4/2013 11:50:07 PM
itsnotmyfault posted...
Your placement at a tournament should be representative of your skill. So no, Federer should not come in last place because no seeding occured. He should come in somewhere higher up and seeding helps assure that that happens. I really don't know how to make that any more obvious to you. The better players should place better and not get bracket screwed.


This kind of intention only makes sense if every tournament entrant is seeded. In professional sports brackets, they are, based on prior performance. An idea of how good every single tournament entrant is is already known, and a lot of work goes into creating an entirely analyzed, fair bracket, which pairs a top seed against a bottom seed.

In video game tournaments, they are not. The top players are seeded, and of the rest are randomly/thoughtlessly arranged; this gives certain players an advantage with a quantifiable(but pretty damned dumb) reward-based system, and randomly bracket-screws several people with no quantifiable system at all. It is entirely unfair, and a half-assed method of managing a bracket.

In professional sports brackets, you can say "This guy deserves to get knocked out first round, he went 3-16."

When you take someone you've never heard of before in a Video Game tournament, and put them next to Chris G, you are functionally screwing that player's chances when they don't necessarily deserve to be knocked out first round. Yes, someone has to play Chris G first(or second lolbye round), but the only fair method to determine that unlucky contestant is randomization. That fairness is dramatically more important than the tragic fate of a 2nd-seed player getting put into Losers Bracket in a double-elimination tournament because he got matched up with a 1st-seed player.
---
Quoth the server, "404"
#67SONIC_305Posted 5/4/2013 11:50:18 PM
DoctorEggman posted...
ProzacIsBack posted...
Khadaj posted...
It's because it beneficial for both the pros and the viewers. If pros were placed against each other in pools, then they all knock each other out. And many matches in pool are not streamed. This not only hurts the players, but it also hurts the fans.

You see two randoms playing against each other and unless they are good, doesn't draw interest. Less people watch the stream, less potential customers view advertisements, and so on. Nobody wants to see a top 8 filled with randoms who had weak brackets. Whereas all the pros knocked each other.

So seeding actually helps the FGC. But many people fail to see this.


ITP, when two pros play eachother, they both get eliminated

So lets rig the brackets to give some players intentional advantages

/lol

//p.s., more people would come and give you money to enter tournaments if brackets were not rigged against them, therefore giving the TO more money and growing the scene
i

:/

Seeding doesn't stack the odds against anyone. What it does do, however, is ensure that the boring one-sided fights happen early on, in pools, and the bigger fights happen later on, like in the finals. Nobody wants to watch big name pro A fight random B in the semi-finals and demolish him just because the brackets were seeded poorly and most of the pros got in the same pools and knocked each other out early.

Seeding weeds out the lesser skilled players and makes the actual games that matter more exciting. And it doesn't give anyone an unfair advantage, the best player at the tourney will still win the tourney. How does seeding make you play worse? Are you easily rattled when you go up against a pro? Did you not expect getting into such a situation when you SIGNED UP?

i love your name :<
---
Japan PSN: Sonikku305 US PSN: KlonoaxGuntz
Games Playing: SASRT, BBCS:EX, UMVC3, KOF XIII
#68Bigezzay08Posted 5/4/2013 11:57:24 PM
Comparing fighting game tournaments to real life sports is comparing apples and oranges. You can't.
---
GT: I AM ONSLAUGHT
#69KhadajPosted 5/5/2013 12:00:30 AM
Here's something you guys haven't mentioned yet. If the best players are spread out across multiple brackets, then that means each pool has only 1-2 elite players. Maybe 3-4 if you're unlucky. With that being said, I don't see how this is unfair to the average players.

You say everyone should work to beat others, but ultimately the worse players will lose and more than likely, the same pros will win the tourney (Justin Wong, ChrisG, Champ, Rog, etc).

Even with seeding, if the no names deserve to be in top 8, then they're reach it. Like Apologyman.
#70ProzacStylingsPosted 5/5/2013 12:15:56 AM(edited)
Khadaj posted...
Here's something you guys haven't mentioned yet. If the best players are spread out across multiple brackets, then that means each pool has only 1-2 elite players. Maybe 3-4 if you're unlucky. With that being said, I don't see how this is unfair to the average players.


It is comparatively unfair because that 1 elite player in the pool does not have to play an elite player in the pool; something that is not done by chance, but by intention.

There are many occasions where a good player has not made it to top 8. Look at the Top 8 for NCR, a bunch of clownshoes.

Forcing Player Y to play known-successful players early on, and guaranteeing Player X does not have to, is favoring Player X. That's Tournament Design 101. Best Case(re: least manipulated) scenario you've only made it so Player X places a little higher than he might have otherwise, Worst Case scenario(re: most manipulated) you've given Player X enough time for the top player that would have beaten him to be eliminated by someone else, and he goes on to win/place.

Doing this can be justified if you know how good both players are, and can seed the bracket from top to bottom. You can say "Player X has the worst record, and is placed against the best player in the first round because somebody has to be there and his record is the closest to Last Place that we've got; Player C has a middling record, so we'll put him against the 7th best pro player so he might make it or might not".

The problems with that:

1) Marvel does not have any kind of competent ratings system that would allow that kind of seeding, even among the "pro" players.

2) Marvel Tournaments do not have any kind of oversight to ensure that seeding would be done via that ratings system, and not via "my friend is coming so we'll give him 2nd seed."

3) When you are accepting random entrants every single major, whose skill you cannot quantify, and cannot seed the tournament from top to bottom, then you're giving some people the shaft and letting other people eek through much easier(at the least, for much longer), and seeding no longer functions as a fair bracket organization mechanic.
---
Quoth the server, "404"