Curse

moriz · Jun 29, 2008, 02:09 AM // 02:09

soooo anet RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GOs up again because they are RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GOing inept....

what else is new?

Guillaume De Sonoma · Jun 29, 2008, 02:32 AM // 02:32

If only I had an epic fail meme

Ekelon · Jun 29, 2008, 03:36 AM // 03:36

I'm sure anet randomized everything a long time ago...

Greedy Gus · Jun 29, 2008, 04:03 AM // 04:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ekelon

I'm sure anet randomized everything a long time ago...

Where do you see anything random?

Iotan · Jun 29, 2008, 04:09 AM // 04:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy Gus

Where do you see anything random?

Skill balances! OOOOHHHHH!!!!

Did they seed teams somehow using ladder rank? I thought I remember them doing something like that before, actually quite a few times. Maybe not for single elims but it had been used for tie breaks, etc. and could be the underlying reason for this mixup?

Greedy Gus · Jun 29, 2008, 07:09 AM // 07:09

Nope, the seeding is correct, although you're right that strength of schedule tiebreakers are rank (ties are really rare enough though). It is a bit confusing that the temporary results rearrange based on ladder rank after the swiss rounds (I think), but it doesn't affect anything. And the single elims have been that same strict pairing since the beginning of mATs. It really seems to be simply coded wrong.

moriz · Jun 29, 2008, 01:09 PM // 13:09

so the pairings are correct, they are just following slightly different rules?

o ok

RotteN · Jun 29, 2008, 01:24 PM // 13:24

well, Anet has dropped the ball so many times when it comes to the competitive side of the game (lol CORPG !) I would've been shocked if they actually got the whole thing right :P

Greedy Gus · May 31, 2009, 12:59 AM // 00:59

Still wrong a year later, still easy to fix if someone cared.

Correct quarterfinals this month should have been: nuts vs. sts, be vs. cry, vk vs. vr, sky vs. aa

Yichi · Jun 01, 2009, 05:48 PM // 17:48

so does this further the notion than that guilds have won monthlies that shouldn't have?

kedde · Jun 01, 2009, 10:42 PM // 22:42

I've been sitting saying the same thing a lot of times over the past long year and a half.

I don't get why seeding isn't used, or at least properly.

Greedy Gus · Jun 02, 2009, 12:22 AM // 00:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yichi

so does this further the notion than that guilds have won monthlies that shouldn't have?

It probably would have changed results unless there was a single dominant team that would beat any challenger. In a lot of monthlies it doesn't seem to matter much, because the seedings earned in the swiss rounds don't seem to have any bearing on results in single elims. But if the top 4 best teams finish as the top 4 seeded teams from the swiss, then you get pretty screwy teams advancing to the later single elim rounds, because the top 4 seeds are pitted against each other in the quarterfinals under the current programming (correct pairing for 16 teams means the top 4 seeds would not meet each other until the semifinals as the final 4 teams remaining).

In the current system as shown on the first page here, it's actually advantageous to be seeded 5th-12th to guarantee you won't see a top 4 seeded team until the final 2 rounds.

Torsen1 · Jun 02, 2009, 03:21 AM // 03:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy Gus

In the current system as shown on the first page here, it's actually advantageous to be seeded 5th-12th to guarantee you won't see a top 4 seeded team until the final 2 rounds.

This is one reason teams often throw the last round of the swiss if they have already qualified for top 16. Placing at the top is not particularly advantageous.

kedde · Jun 02, 2009, 11:24 PM // 23:24

So that's why rawr never flawless the swiss.