Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

INFERNO RANBAT 8 Survey

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Kirby
    Registered Users Posts: 13,084 ✭✭✭✭Kirby


    Lads, you can't double seed. This is exactly what fifa did for the world cup play-off's and it's a joke.

    By seeding players in the group stage, you are recognising their ability and giving them every chance of getting through. The good players avoid each other in the group stages. This is good.

    But once the group stages are over and we get into knockout stages, it should be a straight up random draw. The top seeds have no divine right to avoid each other. At Evo last year, Wong and Daigo met each other fairly early on with Daigo heading to losers bracket. Random is the only fair way to do it man.

    I didn't realise that it was done like this Azza. I know i've been seeded before so this benefited me, but had I known I would brought this up earlier.


  • Options
    #33
    bush
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,878 ✭✭✭bush


    Im not sure i like the idea of double seeding either. The tournaments end up being too samey. You run into the same people at same stages every time.

    Another thing though. Last time we had 31 players and we still did a group stage. I think we should have just did a 32 man bracket and give one dude a bye, the top seed i suppose. Im not sure how ths seeding works in a 32 bracket though.


  • Options
    #34
    Kirby
    Registered Users Posts: 13,084 ✭✭✭✭Kirby


    Agree with you on the seedings, but you have to do a group stage. Some of us are local enough. I'm less than an hour away. But some people come from a long way and pay their entry fee. They deserve some game time.

    Besides, more games is good and I'm usually done with my group games in ten minutes. Not a long time.


  • Options
    #35
    blag
    Registered Users Posts: 699 ✭✭✭blag


    I had a discussion with the other lads in Belfast yesterday to see what everyones preferred date is and April 3rd seems to be the date that suits everyone best.


  • Options
    #36
    Jim
    Registered Users Posts: 14,181 ✭✭✭✭Jim


    My (quick!) thoughts.

    Entry fee should be €10 or €12, I think €15 is a bit too much and will intimidate new players. The reasoning that its €15 to keep the prize money high to attract the better players is a bit off, as the impression I get (from the Belfast group anyway) is that the money is just really an extra bonus, but isn't needed to coax them down. (that's just my assumption, can't speak for any of the players coming from other parts of the country).

    Seedings should only happen in group stages, and random after that for reasons stated above.

    Keep it double elim for reasons stated above.

    Name change is probably a good idea, but keep the name Inferno somewhere there.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Azza
    Moderators Posts: 5,554 ✭✭✭Azza


    I don't think you guys fully understand how the seeding works.

    As it stands the winner of a group plays the runner up of another group which is the logical way to go about it if you ask me. If you win your group you should avoid playing the winner of another group in the first round of the second part of the tournament as a reward for winning your group. I believe thats how they do it in all tournaments in various sports that have a group stage like this. I think everyone should be able to agree on this point.

    The way I work is that there is 8 groups.
    Group A to H.

    Group A having seed 1 while group H has the last of the top 8 seeded players.
    So the groups get weaker as they go along (on paper anyway).

    If all the top seeded player win there groups they avoid each other in the first round.

    However if a top seeded player in his group doesn't win his group and becomes runner up he can face a seeded player in the first round of double elimination.

    Currently
    Group A winner faces runner up of Group H
    Group B winner faces runner up of Group G
    Group C winner faces runner up of Group F
    Group D winner faces runner up of Group E
    Group E winner faces runner up of Group D
    Group F winner faces runner up of Group C
    Group G winner faces runner up of Group B
    Group H winner faces runner up of Group A

    Under the assumption that all the top seeds win. The winners play the runners up of the other groups in the first round of stage 2. Again assuming the top seeded players win at every stage of the way, the first opportunity for seeded players to meet is in the quarter finals. They only avoid each other in the first round of the upper brackets. After that the seeds meet like follows (assuming the higher seed players wins).

    Quater Finals.
    1st vs 8th
    4th vs 5th
    3rd vs 6th
    2nd vs 7th

    Semi Final
    1st vs 4th
    2nd vs 3rd

    Winners Final
    1st Vs 2nd

    But this does not of course garuntee they will meet in the finals. They could meet in lower brackets if they are knocked out in an earlier stage. Under the current system from the quater finals on people who meet in the group stage can meet again as early as the quarter finals.

    Option 2.
    If we switch to random group drawings, then you could get all sorts of weird things. First you could have the winner and runner up of group A for example playing each other again right away in the first round of the upper bracket. You could have draws like mike vs cobelcog in the first round, and then bush and blag beside them and have the good players take each other out (3 of the top 4 players gone before the semi's) giving a potential easy run for other players who had the good fortune to be on the fire side of the bracket draw. Group winners could being thrown together straight away which means there is zero benefit from winning you group.

    Option 3
    Alturnatively we could do draw where a winner and runner up are randomly drawn together. This makes more sense than option 2. This effectively has the same result of keeping the seeds apart in the first round of the upper brackets. After that the seeds could meet in any order once the quarter finals is reach. However this still leaves the possibility of players who meet in the groups meeting each other again from the quater finals onwards (as they do in the current system).
    While not as big a problem as optoin two it could potentially leave some players with a far an easier run to the finals by having 1 side of the bracket with a far eaiser draw than the other.

    Option 4
    All winners face each other drawn in random order and all runner ups face each other in random order. Again this is a bad idea. All this does is ensure that people that meet in the group stage can't meet again until the finals. This system though as you can see punishes winners of groups and rewards the runner up. Sets up a lob sided bracket with weaker players on 1 side and good players on the other. Obviously a non starter.

    Really only option 2 is a viable alturnative. The only difference is that it will mean less similar match ups from previous tournaments (but not garuntee it) and introduced a random element of luck into the upper brackets from the quater final onwards.
    Kirby wrote:
    The top seeds have no divine right to avoid each other.

    The top seeds don't have any devine right under any system to avoid each other till the finals, with seeding there still required to win their matches to take full benefit from the seeding.
    Bush wrote:
    Im not sure i like the idea of double seeding either. The tournaments end up being too samey. You run into the same people at same stages every time.

    Another thing though. Last time we had 31 players and we still did a group stage. I think we should have just did a 32 man bracket and give one dude a bye, the top seed i suppose. Im not sure how ths seeding works in a 32 bracket though.

    True there have beens similar match ups at the same stages in previous tournaments. Seeding attributes to this, but also the fact that there is few players who have improved there games enough to challenge the top players.

    If we did a 32 man bracket double elimination, the single seeding in that would cause the exact same result as the current double seeding would. You would not reach any seeded players till the quaters at the earlist and it would be the same seed that you currently play if you did.

    This is how its done in Tennis. If number 1 seed wins all his games as does the number 2 seed they won't play each other until the finals. This is what I have in mind with the current seeding system. The tournament starts off easy for the seeds and steadily gets harder.
    Jim wrote:
    My (quick!) thoughts.

    Entry fee should be €10 or €12, I think €15 is a bit too much and will intimidate new players. The reasoning that its €15 to keep the prize money high to attract the better players is a bit off, as the impression I get (from the Belfast group anyway) is that the money is just really an extra bonus, but isn't needed to coax them down. (that's just my assumption, can't speak for any of the players coming from other parts of the country).

    I can understand the viewpoint but my concern is if do lower it, will it permantly stay low because there will always be new players coming and current players who feel they have little chance of winning tournaments (there will be always be more who feel they can't win than can, unless there is a considerable change in peoples levelling up abaility)


    Anyway what ever the majority wants I'll do on both points. I will do another thread shortly with a poll to vote in.


  • Options
    #38
    Doctor DooM
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 25,868 Mod ✭✭✭✭Doctor DooM


    I knew that was the way azza did things even though without fail I come second in my group and end up against someone like bush straight away. I'm pretty sure it's standard?


  • Options
    #39
    Ry
    Registered Users Posts: 2,020 ✭✭✭Ry


    I think option 1 is good to be fair. It's how most tournaments are run.

    Group winners play runners up from other groups and so on. This is why if you don't win your group you will know you have to earn your spot beyond the next point by facing one of the group winners.


  • Options
    #40
    Kirby
    Registered Users Posts: 13,084 ✭✭✭✭Kirby


    "Winner of group A faces runner up of group B" is fine as far as I am concerned. It makes sense and rewards people for winning their group for the first knockout stage.

    But the seedings should stop there, after the first knockout stage. The top seeds have had their benefit and shouldn't have any more help. It should be random out of a hat from after the round of 16.
    Azza wrote: »
    Under the assumption that all the top seeds win. The winners play the runners up of the other groups in the first round of stage 2. Again assuming the top seeded players win at every stage of the way, the first opportunity for seeded players to meet is in the quarter finals. They only avoid each other in the first round of the upper brackets. After that the seeds meet like follows (assuming the higher seed players wins).

    Quater Finals.
    1st vs 8th
    4th vs 5th
    3rd vs 6th
    2nd vs 7th

    The seeds get their benefit by getting a weaker group. That is their reward for being a top seed. No consideration to seeding should be given to anyone beyond that point.

    Drawing the quarter finals as a "1st vs 8th" seed situtation is instituting a double seeding situation and shouldn't happen. When it gets to that stage it should be random.


  • Options
    #41
    BanjoB
    Registered Users Posts: 531 ✭✭✭BanjoB


    Hope this isnt the 3rd of April weekend.. Cant make it then :(


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Azza
    Moderators Posts: 5,554 ✭✭✭Azza


    Kirby wrote:
    "Winner of group A faces runner up of group B" is fine as far as I am concerned. It makes sense and rewards people for winning their group for the first knockout stage.
    Kirby wrote:
    Drawing the quarter finals as a "1st vs 8th" seed situtation is instituting a double seeding situation and shouldn't happen. When it gets to that stage it should be random.

    You kinda contradict yourself with those two paragraphs. What you suggest first isn't random. There is a logical pattern behind it.

    A random system would see the winner of Group A face a randomly selected runner up. You would also choose randomly from a hat the order of the first round in the upper brackets. So you don't have all the group winners lined up to play each other in the quarter finals.

    This is the only viable alturnative if people want it. However I believe its merely placing more emphasis on luck over skill. Granted a random draw does not garuntee that the the brackets will have weaker sides, it might turn out quite balanced due to pure chance. However if you consistently run a tournament like this your going get some lob sided upper brackets eventually. I for one would find winning a tournament due to my having an easy pass to the finals while all the other top seeds elminated each other a rather hallow victory.


  • Options
    #43
    Azza
    Moderators Posts: 5,554 ✭✭✭Azza


    Just reading on Wikipeda. In tennis they actually only ensure only the top 2 seeds are kept in different brackets while the rest is randomly drawn to avoid repeat match ups in successive tournaments even at the expense of unbalanced brackets.

    The NFL and NHL use a re-seeding system while the NBA doesn't. Just as an example. There isn't a defacto standard, so I'll leave it up to what the majority of people here want.


  • Options
    #44
    Doctor DooM
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 25,868 Mod ✭✭✭✭Doctor DooM


    Ok, net working now.

    The second seeding Azza is using basically only ensures that you don't run into the same people from your group. Thats all.

    Saying one format and "just get an xbox stick" is ignoring the fact the game is a little different on different formats. I have considerable difficulty adapting precharging from PS3 to 360 for example. Also, the Ps3 screens don't lag as much as the XBOX. If you think they do, I suggest you play a bit more on the PS3 version and see if you still feel that way.

    For other reasons Azza's already mentioned, it's not really feasible to use 360 only in XGC. Unlocks for example, and the physical size of the place. If you really wanted one format only, we'd need a new place.

    That new place would have to be in Dub city.

    I also totally oppose single elim.

    I tend to get knocked down to losers straight away. Then I tend to come fifth/sixth fighting my way up.

    If the tournaments were single elim, I wouldn't have the breathing room of that loss. I'd have to change character to Ryu to deal with those bad matches which inevitably I run into at some point. I honestly believe single elim will lead to good players not getting to shine and/or people being forced to make character choices which will effect the diversity of our scene.

    Also, it simply means you get more game for your money if you get through the group stages.

    Dunboyne would make the Northern lads 2.5 hour trip into a 3.5 hour trip.

    I live about 20 minutes away from it but for actual competitions it's not good.


  • Options
    #45
    Liquidswords
    Registered Users Posts: 158 ✭✭Liquidswords


    Tennis is for sexuals of the homo kind. Kirby means Champions League style tournament where there's seeding in groups, the number 1's fight the number2's in the first round of knockouts then you have to man up and take on whoever you're placed against via a draw.

    This is a vastly superior format IMO, if you're getting to the quarter finals you shouldn't care who you draw, you came here to crack heads right? Or did you come to fight the same guy as last time and beat him again in a 7-3 matchup just to inflate your ego?


  • Options
    #46
    Doctor DooM
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 25,868 Mod ✭✭✭✭Doctor DooM


    Liquidswords wrote: »
    Tennis is for sexuals of the homo kind. Kirby means Champions League style tournament where there's seeding in groups, the number 1's fight the number2's in the first round of knockouts then you have to man up and take on whoever you're placed against via a draw.

    This is a vastly superior format IMO, if you're getting to the quarter finals you shouldn't care who you draw, you came here to crack heads right? Or did you come to fight the same guy as last time and beat him again in a 7-3 matchup just to inflate your ego?

    Thats the way it's done already... I think people are missing that.


  • Options
    #47
    Liquidswords
    Registered Users Posts: 158 ✭✭Liquidswords


    I thought it was bracketed so if he beats him and he beats him they fight as oppossed to we finish this round and draw those remaining from a hat.


  • Options
    #48
    Placebo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,070 ✭✭✭Placebo


    **** all of you.


  • Options
    #49
    Doctor DooM
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 25,868 Mod ✭✭✭✭Doctor DooM


    Liquidswords wrote: »
    I thought it was bracketed so if he beats him and he beats him they fight as oppossed to we finish this round and draw those remaining from a hat.

    You're confusing me in this post but effectively the winner from one group fights the runner up from another and so on for all groups. Thats all, if I understand correctly.
    Placebo wrote: »
    **** all of you.

    Ah you love us really.


  • Options
    #50
    Liquidswords
    Registered Users Posts: 158 ✭✭Liquidswords


    Doctor DooM wrote: »
    You're confusing me in this post but effectively the winner from one group fights the runner up from another and so on for all groups. Thats all, if I understand correctly.

    Yes that's all well and good but that's only the first round of knockouts. Whoever writes up the brackets can shape them so (if the top seeds win) the top seed, seed number 1 will fight seed number 8, 2 fights 7 and so on keeping 1 and 2 away from eachother until the final. This is the way things are currently, no?

    In the Champions League however after the first round of knockouts where the winners fight the runners up nobody is protected from anybody else. From the quarter finals onward you are no longer afforded the luxury of a guaranteed weaker opponent. You are forced to prove you can beat anyone still in the competition because you can be drawn against any one of them. Then in the semi finals the same, no pre-defined path, you can draw any of your 3 remaining opponents.


  • Options
    #51
    Doctor DooM
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 25,868 Mod ✭✭✭✭Doctor DooM


    Liquidswords wrote: »
    Yes that's all well and good but that's only the first round of knockouts. Whoever writes up the brackets can shape them so (if the top seeds win) the top seed, seed number 1 will fight seed number 8, 2 fights 7 and so on keeping 1 and 2 away from eachother until the final. This is the way things are currently, no?

    In the Champions League however after the first round of knockouts where the winners fight the runners up nobody is protected from anybody else. From the quarter finals onward you are no longer afforded the luxury of a guaranteed weaker opponent. You are forced to prove you can beat anyone still in the competition because you can be drawn against any one of them. Then in the semi finals the same, no pre-defined path, you can draw any of your 3 remaining opponents.

    He could but he doesn't and I know he doesn't because he's asked me several times to randomly draw which groups which seeds are going in! Seed one has just as much chance of running into seed 2 after the first knockout round as anyone else who's gotten through, I think.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Liquidswords
    Registered Users Posts: 158 ✭✭Liquidswords


    Azza wrote: »

    Currently
    Group A winner faces runner up of Group H
    Group B winner faces runner up of Group G
    Group C winner faces runner up of Group F
    Group D winner faces runner up of Group E
    Group E winner faces runner up of Group D
    Group F winner faces runner up of Group C
    Group G winner faces runner up of Group B
    Group H winner faces runner up of Group A

    Under the assumption that all the top seeds win. The winners play the runners up of the other groups in the first round of stage 2. Again assuming the top seeded players win at every stage of the way, the first opportunity for seeded players to meet is in the quarter finals. They only avoid each other in the first round of the upper brackets. After that the seeds meet like follows (assuming the higher seed players wins).

    Quater Finals.
    1st vs 8th
    4th vs 5th
    3rd vs 6th
    2nd vs 7th

    Semi Final
    1st vs 4th
    2nd vs 3rd

    Winners Final
    1st Vs 2nd

    For the third time, what Kirby was saying was to have the players drawn against each other randomly from quarter finals onward, as oppossed to (theoretically) giving them an easy ride.


  • Options
    #53
    Kirby
    Registered Users Posts: 13,084 ✭✭✭✭Kirby


    Exactly.

    And I didn't contradict myself at all Azza. You just aren't understanding my post. I'll reiterate.

    Winners of groups playing Runners up of groups makes perfect sense for the first knockout round.. It rewards people for winning their group.

    But after that round, everything else should be completely random, out of a hat. There should be no seeding, or 1st vs 8th nonsense once that round is done.

    No contradiction there.

    This is the way it should be done. It's the way its done at Evo, if that helps you.

    The current way we do it, isn't random. It's double, treble and quadruple seeding for every round. Seed 1 and 2 make it to the semi's, "Oh, they can't play each other". Thats nonsense. It should be random.


  • Options
    #54
    chopperbyrne
    Registered Users Posts: 10,976 ✭✭✭✭chopperbyrne


    Liquidswords wrote: »
    For the third time, what Kirby was saying was to have the players drawn against each other randomly from quarter finals onward, as oppossed to (theoretically) giving them an easy ride.

    We'd have to do draws for winners quarters and semis and draws for the rounds of losers bracket too.

    It's a little bit too much.


  • Options
    #55
    Kirby
    Registered Users Posts: 13,084 ✭✭✭✭Kirby


    It really isn't. for quarters, you write down eight names. Hold them in a cap and pick them out. It takes ten seconds. Then do the same for losers.

    Its actually alot quicker because no seeding arithmetic needs to be done once the knockout stages start. It's wham, bam, thank you Dan. And its fair.


  • Options
    #56
    Azza
    Moderators Posts: 5,554 ✭✭✭Azza


    Liquidswords and Kirby are right in that the top 2 seeds are kept apart until the finals, and the top 4 seeds are kept apart till semi's and the top 8 being kept apart till quarters. (This makes the very big assumption they get out of the groups and win all there knockout matches).

    Its abit hard for me to rig the tournament when I can't control who wins every match.

    However saying the top players getting an easy ride is incorrect, there is steady increase of dfficulty instead as they progress instead of random luck.

    Going random means they could get a much more difficult or much easier path to the final.

    With a random draw anyone including a player totally undeserving of it could get to the finals not on skill but on pure luck. He gets there and then gets hammered which isn't exactly entertaining for the spectators. He drops down to the lower brackets and gets hammered again. Its not a sure thing to happen of course but its a possibility.

    Kirby I stand corrected on your point about contradicting yourself. I did indeed misread your post. Sorry about that.

    Just the checked EVO's rules and I don't see anything that say's it format is the way you described. You got a link floating about?

    Really its a question of weather you want a pre-determined path from the quarters on (and your making a huge assumption all the seeds win and don't get dump into the lower bracket before hand) or you want random chance to determine the path from the quarter finals.

    As I said I will go with what the majority wants.


  • Options
    #57
    Kirby
    Registered Users Posts: 13,084 ✭✭✭✭Kirby


    I don't have a link to the evo rules. But if you watch it every year you get the feel for how it works. As I said, Daigo and Wong ended up drawing each other fairly early on. They met again in the final in the end aswell for a rematch.

    Nobody is suggesting you are rigging it mate. We know you aren't. But the format needs tweaking. Everything is fine up until the quarter and onwards in both winners and losers. From that point it should be a random draw. Thats all we are saying.


  • Options
    #58
    A-Trak
    Registered Users Posts: 2,315 ✭✭✭A-Trak


    On the date,

    It seems split between next weekend and the 3rd.

    I'd push for next weekend, as we haven't had one in over 2 months.
    Also, if we wait thee 3 weeks for the 3rd, it'll be before we can have the next.

    With one next week, we can definitely have one in April as well.


  • Options
    #59
    D4RK ONION
    Moderators Posts: 8,678 ✭✭✭D4RK ONION


    A-Trak wrote: »
    On the date,

    It seems split between next weekend and the 3rd.

    I'd push for next weekend, as we haven't had one in over 2 months.
    Also, if we wait thee 3 weeks for the 3rd, it'll be before we can have the next.

    With one next week, we can definitely have one in April as well.
    If we leave it for the 3 weeks on the 3rd, it allows those who prefer this weekend to free up 3 weeks away; whereas having it this weekend means that those who wanted it 3 weeks away probably couldn't free up this weekend.


  • Options
    #60
    Ken B
    Registered Users Posts: 684 ✭✭✭Ken B


    A-Trak wrote: »
    On the date,

    It seems split between next weekend and the 3rd.

    I'd push for next weekend, as we haven't had one in over 2 months.
    Also, if we wait thee 3 weeks for the 3rd, it'll be before we can have the next.

    With one next week, we can definitely have one in April as well.
    Is ther any way of giving this post a giant NO THANKS...!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    BanjoB
    Registered Users Posts: 531 ✭✭✭BanjoB


    Any week but the 3rd lads!!!!
    Any!!


Advertisement