10 <- see

 Thingol wrote:

Of course you are.

and what's that supposed to mean? that i'm siding against you on purpose cus you're a douche? sorry i've already got that title.

goto 10

I'd be against the Host being able to set up the bracket for a public tournament.

Having a Public tournament based off rankings... eh, I wouldn't be against it necessarily, although I wouldn't push for it as I think the current random system works fine, no reason to spend Dev time on it IMO.  The system for a private tournament, again eh, but seems more work than benefit IMO.

Thingol wrote:

Perhaps Wimbledon and the US Open, the SuperBowl tourney and baseball, hockey and basketball playoffs should just go to a free-for-all based on M57 and Ozy's viewpoints...egads.

Are the teams in those tournaments tracked based upon individual game wins, or just if they win the tourney?  I think how many playoff games you've won is pretty small potatoes compared to how many times you've won the whole thing.  Here the top tournament players is based entirely upon what games they have won, and has nothing to do with how many tournament's they've won.

Personally this would affect me negatively, because 95%+ of the non-tournament games I play are private with friends.   Now because of that I'd always have a disadvantage in seeded tournaments.  I guess as long as it is optional, I'll just avoid those tournaments.

weathertop wrote:

as for my opinion, it'll have to wait for more long-winded explaination after i've had time to think; but right now i think i'm with M57 on this debate.

W, Beware.Thinking will get you in trouble.  Happens to me all the time ..and I appreciate the joke; no explanations can possibly be more long-winded than mine.

I have to admit the issue is more dimensional than I originally thought.  I don't know that I have the horse-power to figure out if Toto's point off-sets the sum of my arguments.

So just for yucks, let's assume that tom sets up optional un-ranked seeded tournaments.  Who would join these?  If there's any question about fairness, you would think that weak players would avoid these tournaments.  Why play a disadvantaged schedule when you can start your own randomly seeded tournament and have as good a chance as the next player. It follows that if there's any question about fairness then either all or no tourneys should be seeded.

So, you guys like the idea of the best two players playing against eachother in round 1...that's bascially what you're saying if you think it through.  And how many of you folks really care about your score (globally, per map, etc)?  I really could care less about my score or anyone else's and I think that folks that do need to re-examine their priorities in life. 

That being said, I do care about the quality of a tourney, especially one in which I'm hosting.  Anyone who has played in one of my tourneys on WF can attest that they will never see a more active host (whether thru commentary, taking interest in all tourney games, or thru booting).  My position comes from an overall concern and not just about my personal score or whatever.  It bothers me just as much when Gimli and Wallace have to play eachother in the first round as when I have to play Andernut in the first round.  Perhaps that is the exception more than the rule - I see tons of posting in these forums about "...that will have a negative effect on me...".

One final point - seeding allows for an underdog.  I've always been an enthusiastic supporter of the underdog (it's what made me a Joe Montana fan).  There's something to be said about winning a game/match against someone you aren't 'supposed' to beat.  I don't know about you guys, but I've had that experience in real life and online.  Two ideals that this great country used to espouse to - rooting for the underdog and competition.

i have no problem with uderdogs or opposition. i just don't see the point here online (yes this may be argument for argument's sake here). if the two best players are set up to play each other in the end ala Delayed Confrontation method; then that same game could be played in round 1 and all the rest can try to knock the winner off afterwards. its the same thing. only difference is, is that there's no televised game for each round enhancing the tension and wanting to see that 'big' game. in other words what's it matter if they face each other first or last if it's about the competition and not score?

Lol

Thingol wrote:

So, you guys like the idea of the best two players playing against eachother in round 1..?

Actually, I love the idea that there's a possibility that this might happen in any given tournament (i.e., very rarely).  I think that players would be energized by the early dismantling of a tournament favorite. All of a sudden their prospects improve.  The dynamic of every tournament will be different.  Although it's possible to look at the games of others in a tournament, by and large this is not a spectator sport; it's about creating a fair experience for all players.

Yertle wrote:

  lol

lol

So...I just perused the last 25 posts of this thread and I REALLY wanted to disagree with M.
1) Because I like to argue with someone who also likes to argue, and
2) Because I spent the entire time trying to figure out a way I could swing the argument back to the M-Engine...because we all know how much he secretly wants all arguments on these forums to end with "M-Engine.  BOOYAH!!"   :)

But the fact is, I'm gonna have to side with him/WT.

Thingol: I do love seeded tourneys.  They have a definitive advantage because they do so often lead to some of the best tournament drama.  And they do so often lead to some of the best teams in the tournament to be the ones competing for the finals.

But with Wargear, I see two problems with this theory:
1) We're not creating "big master" championships, which are being used to determine the best of the best at a given event.  If WG was going to host a "2012 World Championship of WG" (sidebar: someone make that happen) tournament, I'd love to see a round-robin to determine the seeding of a phenomenal seeded elimination tournament.  Because that's the purpose of a seeded tourney: to determine a champion of a long term season, like in the examples given above (every major sports franchise).
But that's not what the average "Hey let's play a 16 person elimination, anyone can enter tournament" is about.  You can't compare the NCAA tournament to the average pickup basketball game at your local YMCA.  You don't seed teams when it's just a dozen guys getting together with the sole purpose of avoiding work, school, wives/girlfriends, or some combination of the above.
It's just a tournament for tournament's sake.
When you were in fifth grade and playing four-square at recess (do they still have recess??) you didn't go around and rank everyone so that some players were given bye weeks until the crappy players were embarrassed into going to play on the slides with the other fat kids.  No, the first four to play were the first four who were lined up at the front door of the building in a runners stance when the bell rang and they got there first.  That's it.

2) When you disassemble the entire game: we're still talking about playing a game that is based purely on probabilities/luck.  Yes, skill does play a factor, because Black Dog isn't just an anomoly. 
But either way, WG is closer to the World Series of Poker than it is to the Duke drawing a 2 seed.  Duke buys it's seed (via fantastically generous boosters), which is why we give them a free pass every year.  But Phil Ivey and Gus Hansen make it deep into the finals every year NOT because they did amazingly well all year (which they did) and therefore were sat at tables with peons for the first 18 tables of the tournament so they could build big stacks.  They make it because they are amazing card players, despite both the game being a game of luck and the random chance that they might have to sit across from each other on day 1.

And to disagree with a previous accusation of M:  Just because I think THESE tournaments should be randomly seeded, doesn't automatically mean that I LIKE watching a #1 and #2 seed play each other in the first round.  I think it sucks for both of them.
But the fact of the matter is: I dislike EVEN MORE the concept that a new player to WG, who is quietly approaching the 7th graders and asking to play, who has finally sacked up to come play with the elite 7th graders has to endure punishing loss after loss because of crappy seeding.  I want this site to be one of inclusion, not ranking antagonism.

But then again, maybe all of this is just because I was the fat kid throwing rocks on the slide because I liked the sound it made.

BorisTheFrugal wrote:

So...I just perused the last 25 posts of this thread and I REALLY wanted to disagree with M.
1) Because I like to argue with someone who also likes to argue,

You wanna piece of me?  Bring it!  Let's find something to disagree about. :)

..and yeah, my big dream has been bashed around; I guess we'll never find out what we're all missing.  Thanks for the backhanded plug anyway.

And to disagree with a previous accusation of M:  Just because I think THESE tournaments should be randomly seeded, doesn't automatically mean that I LIKE watching a #1 and #2 seed play each other in the first round.  I think it sucks for both of them.

I didn't say everyone would like it..  Sure, the #2 guy won't be happy, but consider the plight of the poor low-ranked schmo that gets paired against the #1 seed in the first round.  ..and seriously?  You wouldn't 'like' it if you were in that tournament (and not ranked #1 or 2)?

BTW, I really like your WSOP example.  I got to thinking that in cases where personal money is concerned, you don't see seeded events.  Who would pay for a crappy schedule?

I also like the idea of a WG World Championship event or series of events (Seeded but un-ranked).  Maybe someone can start a new thread on that.

Great comments, Boris.

I motion to get a Double Elimination style developed and then see if seeding is still needed after that.

Boris, while I disagree somewhat with your comments, I like the way in which the arguments were made.  Cheers.

I still think the seeding should be an option and it should be up to the discretion of the host to use personal seedings or seed based on some calculation.