Tom,

Would it be possible to incorporate a seeding option into tourneys? Top 4 or top 8?  This would alleviate top players from having to play in the opening round...and while there is the possibility of meeting in the finals of a double-elim, that still doesn't quite match the excitement of moving forward in the top bracket with the anticipation of playing a familiar face near or in the finals.

I would imagine this could be done by adding one more step following the last player joining.  The tourney host would then seed the top 4 or 8 players/teams and then the tourney would commence.  Seeded players would be spread out from each other at the outset.

So the host could potentially put the top players away from him/herself so as to not face them until later?  

If the host considers himself/herself a top seed, certainly.

Wouldn't be such a good tourney host if they did so without said qualification.

To me, this goes beyond just myself...I hate creating tourneys and seeing other top players play eachother in rd 1 and then coast for 3 or 4 games.

How about if instead of letting the tourney host rank, just use some combination of the global points and points for that particular map to rank.

General tournament ranking should play a factor as well as board ranking, and global ranking.

So is there consensus that seeding is a good dea? At this point I'm not against seeding, but I my sense is that it would have an impact on tournament rankings if it happens.

Ozyman:

..I hate creating tourneys and seeing other top players play eachother in rd 1 and then coast for 3 or 4 games.

The converse of this argument is that if you use seeding, better players will coast to the last rounds, which begs the question, doesn't seeding favor better players?  Won't their easier paths to the final rounds enable them to play more games with a higher percentage of wins, and ultimately give them more of an advantage in the overall rankings?

If my above argument is true then I'm not a fan of using any Tournament rankings to seed players, either General or Board related.  O's idea of using Global and Board rankings makes more sense.

The converse of this argument is that if you use seeding, better players will coast to the last rounds, which begs the question, doesn't seeding favor better players?

No, better players favors better players (or rather winning) - why do all tournaments in all sports use seeding:

a) the vast majority are single elim

b) because they want the tourney to build as it goes along; as someone who has hosted - granted, we don't have a seated audience who would benefit thus. 

c) seeding does not negatively affect lesser players - they still have the same issues in trying to win against whomever they are playing.

Furthermore, if seeding is incorporated, and a tourney is held iteratively, past results can factor into the seeding...and every once in awhile, a suprise player will arise...there's a bit of fun to that.  There's nothing like an unknown upsetting a top seed early and going on a run.

Also, seeding will to some degree eliminate the need for double-elim...so tourneys can move faster.

Edward Nygma wrote:

General tournament ranking should play a factor as well as board ranking, and global ranking.

I agree that seeding should be automatic (vs. host-specified) based on ranking.

However, I disagree with the above.  Seeding should be based on board ranking only.

What is there about global rank and tournament rank that has anything to do with the potential success on a particular map?

Here are a few examples (not meaning to pick on anybody, but just to illustrate):

falker is top ranked in global ranking.  He is a great player, yes, and has gotten to that position by mainly playing boards he likes (A&A, CC, Fallout).  So how would that help him if he was in a tournament for Bomb Factory, for example?

Toto is top ranked in tournament ranking.  A quick glance at the tourney wins and most are from Antastic maps.  So, again, Toto is a great player, but how would his success with past tourneys on a particular map at all effect his potential to win a future tourney on a different map?

Using the Board Ranking  is the best way to go.  It will be a true indicator of tourney success for that player for 99% of the cases.  The rare exception would be somebody who only played private/tourney games for their experience and never played ranked games.

~ ATH

does tourney play count towards your board ranking? i didn't think so...in which case that's not much of something you can base on.

weathertop wrote:

does tourney play count towards your board ranking? i didn't think so...in which case that's not much of something you can base on.

Don't understand your point here.

If someone is good at a board, then they'll have a high board ranking.  If a tourney is started on that board, then they would be highly seeded.

No, I don't believe tourney play counts towards your board ranking.

In my informal searches on the internet I can find a lot of info on how to fairly seed but I'm having trouble finding evidence that seeding is intrinsically fair or unfair.

In my search, when the question "Why Seed?" is asked, the answer invariably seems to be, "So that good teams or better players don't get knocked out in early rounds."  This type of response implies that higher seeded players have an advantage.   On the other hand, and to my surprise, no one comes out and says that seeding is inherently unfair.

Thingol:

c) seeding does not negatively affect lesser players - they still have the same issues in trying to win against whomever they are playing.

How can this be true? In a seeded tournament, lower ranked players are much more likely to face top ranked players in early rounds.  Thus, they are much more likely to get eliminated early in the tournament, and over the course of multiple tournaments are much more likely to end up with a record that doesn't reflect their abilities.  Over time they fall lower in the rankings.  The converse is true for high seeds.  They consistently face easy opponents in the first rounds and their records become inflated. It looks like a vicious cycle to me.

M57 wrote:

In my informal searches on the internet I can find a lot of info on how to fairly seed but I'm having trouble finding evidence that seeding is intrinsically fair or unfair.

In my search, when the question "Why Seed?" is asked, the answer invariably seems to be, "So that good teams or better players don't get knocked out in early rounds."  This type of response implies that higher seeded players have an advantage.   On the other hand, and to my surprise, no one comes out and says that seeding is inherently unfair.

For the sake of argument, one could say that not seeding is inherently unfair in favor of the lower-ranked players.  A player who is not really that good at a board could potentially coast to the finals without challenge.  I would take those odds every time if I was in that situation.

AttilaTheHun wrote:

For the sake of argument, one could say that not seeding is inherently unfair in favor of the lower-ranked players.  A player who is not really that good at a board could potentially coast to the finals without challenge.  I would take those odds every time if I was in that situation.

I'm not buying this.  Statistically speaking, in a non-seeded tournament, no-one has an advantage.  This is practically the definition of fairness.

Can anyone definitively prove that seeded tournaments are fair to all?

M57 wrote:

AttilaTheHun wrote:

For the sake of argument, one could say that not seeding is inherently unfair in favor of the lower-ranked players.  A player who is not really that good at a board could potentially coast to the finals without challenge.  I would take those odds every time if I was in that situation.

I'm not buying this.  Statistically speaking, in a non-seeded tournament, no-one has an advantage.  This is practically the definition of fairness.

Can anyone definitively prove that seeded tournaments are fair to all?

What kind of proof are you looking for? What statistics support that in a non-seeded tournament, nobody has an advantage?  How would you provide definitive proff that non-seeded tournaments are fair to all?

You could say the same thing about a seeded tournament, on a game-by-game basis.  No matter how the initial matchup is decided, each player has the same chance of success.  Granted, a better player has a better chance of success based on their skill, but this sounds like circular logic:  i.e. "In the seeded tournament, just as in the current system, the better player will always have the better chance of success because they are a better player."

So, in the end, it doesn't seem to me like anybody could ever prove the fairness of a single game matchup, whether seeded or unseeded.  Current system vs. "proposed" system.

Seeds are based off of potential/probability of success.  But for each game, the seed itself is not giving any unfair advantage.

Now, as for the tournament as a whole, I would agree that seeding makes it more likely for higher seeds to meet in the finals vs. earlier in the tournament.  But is this really a question of "fair" vs. "unfair?"  Is it more "fair" to have a better player beat you early in the tournament vs. later? or vice versa?

AttilaTheHun wrote:

  Is it more "fair" to have a better player beat you early in the tournament vs. later? or vice versa?

It is in my favor to be beaten by a better player later in the tournament (On average, I will have a better record as I am eliminated from all the tournaments I enter)

It is not in my favor if I am beaten by a better player earlier in the tournament (I will have a worse record on average at the point where I am eliminated from the tournament.

It is "fair" to have a better player beat me at a random point in the tourney, ..or in the middle of the tournament "on average".

What do I want for proof? Well, I guess I'm looking for someone to point me to a reasonably reputable and definitive document or site on the subject.  Short of that, simply convince me that I'm mistaken.  I am not set in my conviction, though I must admit that I'm getting entrenched with and feeling confident about my logic, which means there could be a gaping blind spot in my reasoning.

Here's an article worth looking at: http://www.davidmarcus.com/Articles/Seed.pdf

(let me know if the link doesn't work)

For Wargear, it would make sense to first decide the reason (if there is one) behind wanting to seed.  The article talks about a principle called "Delayed Confrontation."  This seems like really the heart of the debate w.r.t. tournament seeding.

If the majority of tournament players are for Delayed Confrontation, I'm guessing it's less about a culminative Final (maximize ticket sales, tv ratings, etc.) and more about integrity of the competition (see middle of page 3). In the final round, most folks would want to look at the final table and say,"Yes, those are all good players who I would expect to make it to the final table."

Now, as far as tournaments go, we actually already have an anti-Delayed Confrontation.  After the randomized 1st round, the Swiss system actually pits all of the best players from Round 1 against each other in Round 2.  Is this system fair?

After reading the article and before writing this, I thought I knew where I stood on Delayed Confrontation.  However, now I'm not so sure.  Overall this is good debate!  I think it comes back to the original issue, albeit with maybe a more defined question: "Does the Wargear community want to include Delayed Confrontation as a principle for tournament setup?"

~ATH

M57, Jesus Christ, get a clue.

It's blatantly unfair for the best 2 players to play in round 1 while an average player coasts thru several rounds...period!  End of story.  If you argue against that, than you have no idea of fairness to begin with and are just arguing for argument's sake.

Not to mention, it's the main reason why tourneys allow for double-elim (like I said earlier)...which elongates tourneys substantially.

Finally, what I'm arguing for is an 'option' for the host to use seeding...if you feel said tourney is unfair to join, feel free to decline.