Curse

Greedy Gus · Apr 26, 2008, 11:11 PM // 23:11

Does this tournament pairing look wrong to anyone else?

Code:

1 sup
--------1 sup
16 grim
----------------1 sup
3 euro
--------14 sa
14 sa

------------------------10 dr

5 goh
--------12 rawr
12 rawr
----------------10 dr
7 og
--------10 dr
10 dr

----------------------------------------10 dr

2 be
--------15 me
15 me
----------------15 me
4 vd
--------4 vd
13 scam

------------------------15 me

6 rezz
--------11 lax
11 lax
----------------8 mkay
8 mkay
--------8 mkay
9 best

The reason for seeding a tournament is so the strongest teams are spread out so they don't cannibalize each other before getting to the final rounds. The proper pairing/placement for a seeded 16-entrant tourney can be seen here: http://www.guildwars.com/competitive...ketupdates.php.

If the swiss results are to be taken seriously (and they certainly are for the 1st round), then the quarterfinals matchups on warrior's isle should have been: [sup] vs. [mkay], [vd] vs. [rawr], [me] vs. [dr ], [sa] vs. [lax]. For instance, under no circumstance should [sup] have been paired with [dr ] before the final match.

Double checking with all the previous mATs (as far back as june 07), the round pairings for the mAT single elims aren't random, and are in fact programmed wrong. With this system, it's only possible for 2 of the top 4 seeded teams to make it to the final 4.

ups.

------

Just as a good example, look at the second mAT ever. The top 4 seeded teams had to fight each other in the quarterfinals:

Code:

1 Stealing Society
------------------------1 Stealing Society
16 Bambis Dont Say
------------------------------------------------3 The Benecia Renovatio
3 The Benecia Renovatio
------------------------3 The Benecia Renovatio
14 Revive Teammates

------------------------------------------------------------------------5 Peace And Harmony

5 Peace And Harmony
------------------------5 Peace And Harmony
12 Supernova Jpn
------------------------------------------------5 Peace And Harmony
7 Kinetic Fusion
------------------------7 Kinetic Fusion
10 Ominous Latin Name 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------6 Virtual Dragons 

2 Cry For Eternity
------------------------2 Cry For Eternity
15 The Last Requiem 
------------------------------------------------2 Cry For Eternity
4 Hellas Team 
------------------------4 Hellas Team 
13 Virtus Post Victoriam 

------------------------------------------------------------------------6 Virtual Dragons 

6 Virtual Dragons 
------------------------6 Virtual Dragons 
11 Heart Of Ashes And Dust 
------------------------------------------------6 Virtual Dragons 
8 Team Of Renegades
------------------------9 Clan Kgyu 
9 Clan Kgyu

And sorry if this is OFN, but it seems most of us didn't know about the incorrect pairing/placement.

IMMORTAlMITCH · Apr 26, 2008, 11:16 PM // 23:16

It seemed wrong to me but I never could be bothered to actually look at the seeds.

DutchSmurf · Apr 26, 2008, 11:51 PM // 23:51

Not really the good time of the day for me to check the math myself. But can it be that the scores of the Swiss round keep being important, including the numbers behind the dot? Something like, after the first round sup is still the highest ranked (of course). But with the updated results, can it be possible that Me beats SA on the tiebreaker, making SA the lowest rank left, so they get to face sup? The difference between Me and SA was 0.001 point, but I guess beating the second seed be gives more points then beating 3rd seat Euro. With dR and mkay fighting a guild that only won 4 rounds, while rawr and lax beat a guild with 5 wins, that might change the results there to end with the quarter finals we got.

Not sure about this, but since there is a tiebreaker displayed in the playoff rounds too, it might get used in some way for the pairings .

Mace Gridlock · Apr 27, 2008, 04:33 AM // 04:33

I dont play gw at a high pvp level but with that said I have played in many sporting events and participated in many playoff brackets.

Any bracket setup that doesnt allow for the top 4 seeds to advance to the semifinals is wrong.

If that bracket you posted above is correct.. anet f'd up pretty bad with the pairings for the second rounds.

A 3 seed should never face a 1 seed before the semifinals and a 4 seed should never face a 2 seed before the semifinals.

l Teh Mighty Warrior l · Apr 27, 2008, 04:44 AM // 04:44

So between this, the terrible servers, and holding the monthly on the 3rd anniversary 200 districts afk on 9 rings farming their lucky/unlucky titles, this is a really great job on Anet's part.

Div · Apr 27, 2008, 04:54 AM // 04:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by l Teh Mighty Warrior l

So between this, the terrible servers, and holding the monthly on the 3rd anniversary 200 districts afk on 9 rings farming their lucky/unlucky titles, this is a really great job on Anet's part.

I think there were only ~100 total districts this time

xhappy feetx · Apr 27, 2008, 06:24 AM // 06:24

Pce out Anet

IMMORTAlMITCH · Apr 27, 2008, 09:58 AM // 09:58

Bttw aren't #1 and #4 and #2 and #3 supposed to be on the same side of the bracket? (Meaning #1 can't play vs #2 or #3 until the final)

jiggles · Apr 27, 2008, 01:35 PM // 13:35

dont mean to sound silly, but wasnt that the whole point of this thread? ^^

miles · Apr 27, 2008, 03:55 PM // 15:55

i was under the impression that in the top 16 all teams are reseeded and the swiss rounds are not taken into account at all. than again i might be completely wrong.

IMMORTAlMITCH · Apr 27, 2008, 04:11 PM // 16:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by miles

i was under the impression that in the top 16 all teams are reseeded and the swiss rounds are not taken into account at all. than again i might be completely wrong.

No for the single elim the first round #1 is matched up with #16, #2 with #15 etc.

Wether or not it's random after that I'm not sure, but the #1 seed should never be able to play the #2 seed before the finals.

Zabe · Apr 27, 2008, 04:15 PM // 16:15

uhh! diz iz gud, lets replay all monthlies because of this in the next year, mkay? =O

Guillaume De Sonoma · Apr 27, 2008, 07:09 PM // 19:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by IMMORTAlMITCH

Bttw aren't #1 and #4 and #2 and #3 supposed to be on the same side of the bracket? (Meaning #1 can't play vs #2 or #3 until the final)

Only in any well ran tournament I have ever been in.

C2K · Apr 27, 2008, 07:18 PM // 19:18

It doesn't look like they changed the brackets since the start of the MATs. While I agree that it is a poor setup, with this being the last real money MAT, if they would have changed the bracket structure I think alot of people would have cried foul because of that. But with that being said, since MATs are transitioning into in-game prizes, this would be a perfect time for Anet to fix it, that is if they care.

Greedy Gus · Apr 27, 2008, 08:26 PM // 20:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by C2K

While I agree that it is a poor setup, with this being the last real money MAT, if they would have changed the bracket structure I think alot of people would have cried foul because of that.

12 wrongs don't make a right. It's a behind the scenes organization anyway, and is simply programmed incorrectly. It's not as if they ever announced the setup; fixing this would in no way change peoples' strategy, it would simply make for a better (less wrong) tournament for any following MATs.

C2K · Apr 27, 2008, 09:52 PM // 21:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy Gus

12 wrongs don't make a right. It's a behind the scenes organization anyway, and is simply programmed incorrectly. It's not as if they ever announced the setup; fixing this would in no way change peoples' strategy, it would simply make for a better (less wrong) tournament for any following MATs.

Understood, but for the sake of consistency, it was probably best left alone until after this one anyway. It is a problem that should have been addressed back after the first 2 MATs. If it was addressed before the last real-money MAT(aka Friday Night), I'm sure at least a couple of people would have been pissed off by it due to lack of consistency.

Its something that can hopefully be fixed for the future now, but I really think the err 7 issue should and hopefully will hold priority.

Greedy Gus · Apr 27, 2008, 10:09 PM // 22:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by C2K

Understood, but for the sake of consistency, it was probably best left alone until after this one anyway. It is a problem that should have been addressed back after the first 2 MATs. If it was addressed before the last real-money MAT(aka Friday Night), I'm sure at least a couple of people would have been pissed off by it due to lack of consistency.

I was disagreeing that anyone would notice or be upset.

Quote:

Originally Posted by C2K

Its something that can hopefully be fixed for the future now, but I really think the err 7 issue should and hopefully will hold priority.

Priority sure, but there's no quick fix to addressing online disconnects on an automated system. Money tournaments just work best on LAN with active administration. ATs are a lazy way for anet to keep 1st party tournaments going, which is better than nothing but really won't ever be perfect.

This issue is just a simple mistake that can be corrected with ease.

Greedy Gus · Jun 28, 2008, 09:29 PM // 21:29

Would you have guessed, this is still borked. dR vs. rawr final shouldn't have been possible with their seeding.

Code:

1 dR
------------1 dR
16 isis
------------------------1 dR
3 qe
------------14 mkay
14 mkay

------------------------------------------------1 dR

5 sts
------------12 nap
12 nap
------------------------12 nap
7 vod
------------10 spnv
10 spnv


2 ew
------------2 ew
15 qq
------------------------4 sup
4 sup
------------4 sup
13 baby

------------------------------------------------8 rawr

6 stp
------------6 stp
11 bdv
------------------------8 rawr
8 rawr
------------8 rawr
9 ouha

awowa · Jun 28, 2008, 10:52 PM // 22:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guillaume De Sonoma

Only in any well ran tournament I have ever been in.

Traditionally it's supposed to be 1v16, 2v15, etc.. The problem that the tournament directors realized is that you end up with teams facing the same teams in every tournament; which is bad for business and the spectators. So the tournament directors had to change it; and what they did was create 'group' brackets where the byes go to the highest placed players/team if there are any to distribute. Then teams are set in groups and randomly selected to be paired against the opposite groups (ie - teams 2-4 would randomly be paired against 13-15, 5-8 to 9-12. It's started to become the new standard for single-elim tournaments.

thought some people would find that interesting.

romO · Jun 29, 2008, 01:58 AM // 01:58

Wait a sec... so if rawr was the 8 seed... that means that we should have played them on... FROZEN?!?!?!!?!?!??!

ARENANET, GIVE ME ANOTHER GOLD CAPE THAT ATTACHES TO THE BOTTOM OF MY CURRENT ONE AND DRAGS ON THE FLOOR. OTHERWISE PREPARE TO BE DESTROYED.

p.s. I don't actually care, but it's kind of weird to think that we would have won if it wasn't for some kind of weird matching error.