I'm just going to clarify a few points with Ascension and to subtlety be self-conscious about how we've been rated internationally. Feel free to read everything in a sarcastic tone if you think this post is dick-ish (which it is).
Considering Ascension lost in the first round of their div 2 playoffs and are seeded right behind the other div 2 teams that advanced further, it seems reasonably fair. ...
I understand and at the very least partially agree with choosing to use seedings based of ENSL S3 rankings, however they are quite inaccurate.
These teams have only faced the 'domestic' ascension and are seeded higher than us:
Scurvy - asc 2-2'd them
Virtual Selection - asc lost playoffs 2-3 to these guys, all alien wins and very circumstantially
onFire - never played
Singularity - whether accurate/inaccurate, fair call considering past track record from aggeeeesssss ago
These teams have played the NS2WC ascension and are seeded above us:
BlueBabblerSquad - they are same timezone as Australia and asc plays regularly with a very favoured win rate
Radical - never played
retiring - damaged networks? asc 2-0'd them on the weekend easily, but i think they were missing two of their best players.
Quactus - 2-2'd them in asc's first scrim with the NS2WC team
Group C:
Quactus (formerly Quaxy) went 2-2 with Titus during the season and also beat Damage Networks. OnFire appears to be a strong team (although I think a couple might have left). As I understand Ascension is the best Australian team (correct me if wrong) and may take a round off of the top two, ping advantage or not.
Good luck to all teams involved. especially JektScension (minus karma because his a butthurt little boy & DooMBrIIngeR is better alien.). As for there 14th seed? maybe a little under done. But they did under-performed in there Div 3 bracket but I didn't follow that to closely to know what went wrong exactly.
My Predicitons;
G3 - Sauna & Ducks
CU in Cologne.
1) Thanks for the well-wishes.
2) It was div 2 bracket, we went 22-2 (where one loss was a base rush where i jumped out to solo 2 lerks and 2 skulks for some reason). We got knocked out in playoffs with all alien wins vs Virtual Selection, mostly because i was in a really dirty mood and made close to 0 calls throughout the games.
3) You mean "G3 - Ascension & Ascension"
4) See you in germany
Our regular league standing was 5 wins 1 draw coming out first with 22 points over Scurvy's 18 points, and we get INSTA knocked out in the finals? That makes no sense to me, in any other sport the team who comes first at least gets a second chance.
We lost to Virtual Selection with a half asleep commander (Sorry, Slayar, but you were being shit). So we have ONE bad game and we get knocked out? That's freaking bizzare if as you ask me, especially considering it was our first ever loss on the ENSL league. Feels like last man standing.
We regularly scrim and beat BBS/NRK (sorry any of you guys reading this, we love playing with you....but you know that we basically have a 90% win rate on you guys).
Anyway... we've cherry picked the best players in Australia to compete in the team, some of our players have a 10year playing record since NS1 and when we play well.... you should be afraid.
When we play bad, well, we deserve the ass raping we get.
That's the rules, you play bad you lose & your out. Consistency is the key to survival. You can't really complain about seeding when you didnt get thru to atleast the GF of div 3 even if it was "unfortunate circumstances" & thats why you were seeded 14th. BOL in wc however you guys will go far.
TBH, looking at the brackets you were probably lucky to get into G3. Only group i would see you guys actually taking out possibly top spot.
That's the rules, you play bad you lose & your out. Consistency is the key to survival. You can't really complain about seeding when you didnt get thru to atleast the GF of div 3 even if it was "unfortunate circumstances" & thats why you were seeded 14th. BOL in wc however you guys will go far.
That's the rules, you play bad you lose & your out. Consistency is the key to survival. You can't really complain about seeding when you didnt get thru to atleast the GF of div 3 even if it was "unfortunate circumstances" & thats why you were seeded 14th. BOL in wc however you guys will go far.
TBH, looking at the brackets you were probably lucky to get into G3. Only group i would see you guys actually taking out possibly top spot.
Yeah yeah yeah I know. You know, you get knocked out.
Just disappointing, we lose not because we got outplayed but because our commander was asleep
I'm gonna go slip some pills in Slayar's water overnight or something so he can be wide awake for our matches.
Who cares, happened months ago. It's not even relevant to any seeding as the team isn't even the same. We have 1 premier team + quaxy which are beatable so I don't mind our group at all.
I just want to play some NS2, don't give a shit who its against.
Im still having a trouble to understand one rule, about the players. Are you allowed to swap between players if you have 7 on your roster? I mean for example if i cant play on a Saturday, does that mean i cannot play all the other matches? Or how is it now?
Im still having a trouble to understand one rule, about the players. Are you allowed to swap between players if you have 7 on your roster? I mean for example if i cant play on a Saturday, does that mean i cannot play all the other matches? Or how is it now?
You can use any combination of 6 players on your roster in any match and can switch players between rounds, if necessary.
How are the admins supposed to know that? The only way to get you guys a correct seeding is to play seeding matches, which we don't have time for. We're so short on time we have to play 6 matches over two weekends (I'm still bitter about that).
To be honest, I really thought the Ascension you signed up for NS2WC would be the exact same Ascension you used in ENSL Season 3. SILLY ME FOR THINKING THAT SINCE YOU USED THE SAME NAME, SLAYAR.
How are the admins supposed to know that? The only way to get you guys a correct seeding is to play seeding matches, which we don't have time for. We're so short on time we have to play 6 matches over two weekends (I'm still bitter about that).
To be honest, I really thought the Ascension you signed up for NS2WC would be the exact same Ascension you used in ENSL Season 3. SILLY ME FOR THINKING THAT SINCE YOU USED THE SAME NAME, SLAYAR.
Hence, my post was a clarification and not a blaming ;D
fanaticThis post has been edited.Join Date: 2003-07-23Member: 18377Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
edited December 2013
I'm obviously thrilled that the organizers have put their heads back in the game and sorted things out with Eissfeldt, the roster lock rule, and the six player rule. Good job guys, and thanks. When I wrote the OP I gambled that you would come to your senses if I applied enough pressure, and I'm glad to see that it paid off. I knew you (the admins) were capable of competent administration from your past work in NS2, and I hope this kick has jogged your memory permanently.
The rules still say "14. (...) (g) A roster of only six players may be used during the Final Series which includes the Semifinals and Grand Finals.", however. I assume that is just a remnant that you forgot to remove., as you've stated that this rule has been changed.
I don't agree with the comments complaining about bias in the seedings, because it is entirely correct that as the second seed, Titus should have a favorable group.
Editeditedit: Edited out a bunch of stuff that was incorrect. Sorry for the confusion.
ZeframJoin Date: 2004-05-11Member: 28611Members, Forum Moderators, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Gold, NS2 Map Tester, WC 2013 - Shadow, Subnautica Playtester, Pistachionauts, Retired Community Developer
edited December 2013
I didn't catch that before, but Rule 14(g) has been amended.
As for the quarterfinal pairings, even by your wiki page example of a single elimination bracket, the first place seeding plays the lowest place seeding. 1st vs 8th, 2nd vs 7th, and so on. But since this starts out as a robin format moving into a single elimination, it creates boring match ups where teams finishing first and second in the same group would just play each other in the quarterfinals (as noted in your wiki link). To eliminate this, we made match ups against the next closest seeding. So 1st plays 7th, 2nd plays 8th, 3rd plays 5th, 4th plays 6th. If teams perform according to seedings, by the semis, 1st plays 4th and 2nd plays 3rd.
It would be pretty ridiculous to have the 1st seeded team play 5th, 2nd play 6th, 3rd play 7th, and 4th play 8th. Your example provides the least fair scenario for the teams involved.
This was clearly spelled out in the Winners & Horizons Bracket in the google doc sent to teams captains, which you did not receive, but is open to the public.
Assuming the current group labels listed on the website:
If you have A v D then you have rank 1 playing rank 5 in the quarters. This would give Snails the hardest matchup possible for the quarterfinals. By comparison, Godar, who is rank 4 would get the easiest expected match in playing the rank 8 team, Radical.
How do you jive that fact with the underlying goal of giving rank 1 the easiest path?
In the idea you're talking about (AvD and BvC), you would either have to give the R1 team either the hardest group or the hardest quarterfinal. Neither of which would be idea. Under that situation, it would actually be an advantage to be R3 or R4.
The way the tournament is currently set up, R1 gets the easiest group, second easiest quarter final, and easiest semi. R2 gets the second easiest group, the easiest quarter, and the second easiest semi. R3 and R4 follow the same respective relative positions. I'm not sure why you'd ever want to give the R1 team anything but the easiest possible path, as you originally stated in your recent post.
Your own single elimination link disagrees with your AvD and BvC setup. In AvD, R1 plays R5, despite there being R6 - R8 available. In single Elimination, you would have R1vR8 in the quarters.
fanaticThis post has been edited.Join Date: 2003-07-23Member: 18377Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
Looking at it in depth, it's possible that I've managed to confuse myself. If it turns out I've messed up, I apologize for the trouble. My Internet is giving me some real headaches right now and I can't access the website I would normally visit to check things like this to be sure, but I'll repost if it turns out I was right to begin with. In the meantime I'm editing my original post to prevent further confusion.
I also did some checking around for other systems, and it turns out there are lot more different ways of seeding and reseeding teams from group play into single elimination brackets than I first imagined, so in either case the NS2WC pairings might not be as unorthodox as I had convinced myself they were.
fanaticThis post has been edited.Join Date: 2003-07-23Member: 18377Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
edited December 2013
Ok so, yeah, it turns out I did confuse myself. The pairings I was thinking of would only apply if the groups were seeded with Group A having seed1+seed5, Group B having seed2+seed6, Group C having seed3+seed7, and Group D having seed4+seed8.
I'm sitting here right now thinking about in which situations it makes the most sense to use that format, and in which situations it makes the most sense to use the group format the NS2WC currently uses (Group A having seed1+seed8, Group B having seed2+seed7, Group C having seed3+seed6, and Group D having seed 4+seed5), which I previously advocated. I think the current NS2WC format gives greater benefits to higher seeded teams, which may or may not be a good thing depending on how you look at it.
Edit, further theorycrafting: It seems to me that the NS2WC format should be used when only one team progresses from each group, whereas the format used in the examples from i46 linked above should be used when two teams progress from each group. If this line of reasoning is correct, I was wrong to advocate the current NS2WC format in my post a few pages back, before the groups were made.
tl;dr: I messed up. At least this proves I was right when I said the admins are competent in my previous post.
I have no idea what fana was talking about but I agree with the current "seeding system" in full. I believe the seeding of some teams is incorrect but using the ENSL S3 seeding is quite acceptable and the correct path choice as it removes any drama of people disagreeing with any "manual seeding" and there was no time for seeding matches.
The current system is fair from a team looking up the ladder as every number you get your team seeded higher gives you better odds of escaping the group. If you consider each row in the seeding image as a Division (similar to ENSL) and trust the accuracy of the seeding, the team in the division above you becomes weaker as you push further through your own division. For example, a team seeded "8 would be division 2" (in my analogy), and if they pushed their rank up to 7, their "division 1" competitor is only rank 2, as opposed to rank 1 - a weaker team (again, based on the assumption that seeding is accurate). Also, the teams in the below division follow the same pattern vice versa.
Who said 2nd would get the easiest quarters?
What if snails come 2nd in their group and radical happens to find a great scrimming team?
Ps: The aussies should be in the american group, if only for the pings, basing the qualifiers on 250ms matches vs euros is dumb, same thing for the asians etc...
Oh and why isnt IM rated just behind quactus? Isnt mostly the comm from premiere div while quac is made solely of premium content?
Ps: The aussies should be in the american group, if only for the pings, basing the qualifiers on 250ms matches vs euros is dumb, same thing for the asians etc...
Oh and why isnt IM rated just behind quactus? Isnt mostly the comm from premiere div while quac is made solely of premium content?
Herakles Lannister, out.
250 vs 250 ping -- corners have never been so scary. help.
Ps: The aussies should be in the american group, if only for the pings, basing the qualifiers on 250ms matches vs euros is dumb, same thing for the asians etc...
Oh and why isnt IM rated just behind quactus? Isnt mostly the comm from premiere div while quac is made solely of premium content?
Herakles Lannister, out.
Cause we are "Imagine", and people have to Imagine that we are 5th seed
SebMelbourne, AUJoin Date: 2013-04-01Member: 184576Members, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver, WC 2013 - Silver, Retired Community Developer
Nice double post slayar, l2forum pls
But yeah, the high ping matches will be interesting if not a little unfortunate to see take place. Oh well, it's a world cup and that's the price of entry for an Australian team.
Comments
The Ascension signed up for the NS2 World Championship has a different set of core players than the Ascension which was signed up for ENSL S3. If you're curious:
http://ausns2.org/showthread.php?831-NS2-World-Championship-Team-Australia
I understand and at the very least partially agree with choosing to use seedings based of ENSL S3 rankings, however they are quite inaccurate.
These teams have only faced the 'domestic' ascension and are seeded higher than us:
Scurvy - asc 2-2'd them
Virtual Selection - asc lost playoffs 2-3 to these guys, all alien wins and very circumstantially
onFire - never played
Singularity - whether accurate/inaccurate, fair call considering past track record from aggeeeesssss ago
These teams have played the NS2WC ascension and are seeded above us:
BlueBabblerSquad - they are same timezone as Australia and asc plays regularly with a very favoured win rate
Radical - never played
retiring - damaged networks? asc 2-0'd them on the weekend easily, but i think they were missing two of their best players.
Quactus - 2-2'd them in asc's first scrim with the NS2WC team
You misunderstand completely, we aren't the ones stuck in Group C...
http://youtu.be/JJ5290-0lw0?t=1m44s
1) Thanks for the well-wishes.
2) It was div 2 bracket, we went 22-2 (where one loss was a base rush where i jumped out to solo 2 lerks and 2 skulks for some reason). We got knocked out in playoffs with all alien wins vs Virtual Selection, mostly because i was in a really dirty mood and made close to 0 calls throughout the games.
3) You mean "G3 - Ascension & Ascension"
4) See you in germany
TL;DR
HEY GODAR
Our regular league standing was 5 wins 1 draw coming out first with 22 points over Scurvy's 18 points, and we get INSTA knocked out in the finals? That makes no sense to me, in any other sport the team who comes first at least gets a second chance.
We lost to Virtual Selection with a half asleep commander (Sorry, Slayar, but you were being shit). So we have ONE bad game and we get knocked out? That's freaking bizzare if as you ask me, especially considering it was our first ever loss on the ENSL league. Feels like last man standing.
We regularly scrim and beat BBS/NRK (sorry any of you guys reading this, we love playing with you....but you know that we basically have a 90% win rate on you guys).
Anyway... we've cherry picked the best players in Australia to compete in the team, some of our players have a 10year playing record since NS1 and when we play well.... you should be afraid.
When we play bad, well, we deserve the ass raping we get.
TBH, looking at the brackets you were probably lucky to get into G3. Only group i would see you guys actually taking out possibly top spot.
sorry mf
Yeah yeah yeah I know. You know, you get knocked out.
Just disappointing, we lose not because we got outplayed but because our commander was asleep
I'm gonna go slip some pills in Slayar's water overnight or something so he can be wide awake for our matches.
I just want to play some NS2, don't give a shit who its against.
To be honest, I really thought the Ascension you signed up for NS2WC would be the exact same Ascension you used in ENSL Season 3. SILLY ME FOR THINKING THAT SINCE YOU USED THE SAME NAME, SLAYAR.
THAT'S CAUSE YOU'RE FREAKIN BAD. Just kidding, I love you man.
If you make it to Germany I'm 100% cheering you on... but only if you promise to take your shirt off on stream.
Might want to get your facts straight.
MATE
Hence, my post was a clarification and not a blaming ;D
The rules still say "14. (...) (g) A roster of only six players may be used during the Final Series which includes the Semifinals and Grand Finals.", however. I assume that is just a remnant that you forgot to remove., as you've stated that this rule has been changed.
I don't agree with the comments complaining about bias in the seedings, because it is entirely correct that as the second seed, Titus should have a favorable group.
Editeditedit: Edited out a bunch of stuff that was incorrect. Sorry for the confusion.
As for the quarterfinal pairings, even by your wiki page example of a single elimination bracket, the first place seeding plays the lowest place seeding. 1st vs 8th, 2nd vs 7th, and so on. But since this starts out as a robin format moving into a single elimination, it creates boring match ups where teams finishing first and second in the same group would just play each other in the quarterfinals (as noted in your wiki link). To eliminate this, we made match ups against the next closest seeding. So 1st plays 7th, 2nd plays 8th, 3rd plays 5th, 4th plays 6th. If teams perform according to seedings, by the semis, 1st plays 4th and 2nd plays 3rd.
It would be pretty ridiculous to have the 1st seeded team play 5th, 2nd play 6th, 3rd play 7th, and 4th play 8th. Your example provides the least fair scenario for the teams involved.
This was clearly spelled out in the Winners & Horizons Bracket in the google doc sent to teams captains, which you did not receive, but is open to the public.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqsROSvAX1imdGtXbUw4S0dGMUlCMXRna1RNUFJzUGc&usp=drive_web#gid=2
If you have A v D then you have rank 1 playing rank 5 in the quarters. This would give Snails the hardest matchup possible for the quarterfinals. By comparison, Godar, who is rank 4 would get the easiest expected match in playing the rank 8 team, Radical.
How do you jive that fact with the underlying goal of giving rank 1 the easiest path?
The way the tournament is currently set up, R1 gets the easiest group, second easiest quarter final, and easiest semi. R2 gets the second easiest group, the easiest quarter, and the second easiest semi. R3 and R4 follow the same respective relative positions. I'm not sure why you'd ever want to give the R1 team anything but the easiest possible path, as you originally stated in your recent post.
Your own single elimination link disagrees with your AvD and BvC setup. In AvD, R1 plays R5, despite there being R6 - R8 available. In single Elimination, you would have R1vR8 in the quarters.
[posted before above edit, sorry]
I also did some checking around for other systems, and it turns out there are lot more different ways of seeding and reseeding teams from group play into single elimination brackets than I first imagined, so in either case the NS2WC pairings might not be as unorthodox as I had convinced myself they were.
An example of this format can be seen in the group stage and the brackets from the i46 TF2 tournament.
I'm sitting here right now thinking about in which situations it makes the most sense to use that format, and in which situations it makes the most sense to use the group format the NS2WC currently uses (Group A having seed1+seed8, Group B having seed2+seed7, Group C having seed3+seed6, and Group D having seed 4+seed5), which I previously advocated. I think the current NS2WC format gives greater benefits to higher seeded teams, which may or may not be a good thing depending on how you look at it.
Edit, further theorycrafting: It seems to me that the NS2WC format should be used when only one team progresses from each group, whereas the format used in the examples from i46 linked above should be used when two teams progress from each group. If this line of reasoning is correct, I was wrong to advocate the current NS2WC format in my post a few pages back, before the groups were made.
tl;dr: I messed up. At least this proves I was right when I said the admins are competent in my previous post.
The current system is fair from a team looking up the ladder as every number you get your team seeded higher gives you better odds of escaping the group. If you consider each row in the seeding image as a Division (similar to ENSL) and trust the accuracy of the seeding, the team in the division above you becomes weaker as you push further through your own division. For example, a team seeded "8 would be division 2" (in my analogy), and if they pushed their rank up to 7, their "division 1" competitor is only rank 2, as opposed to rank 1 - a weaker team (again, based on the assumption that seeding is accurate). Also, the teams in the below division follow the same pattern vice versa.
What if snails come 2nd in their group and radical happens to find a great scrimming team?
Ps: The aussies should be in the american group, if only for the pings, basing the qualifiers on 250ms matches vs euros is dumb, same thing for the asians etc...
Oh and why isnt IM rated just behind quactus? Isnt mostly the comm from premiere div while quac is made solely of premium content?
Herakles Lannister, out.
250 vs 250 ping -- corners have never been so scary. help.
Cause we are "Imagine", and people have to Imagine that we are 5th seed
I'm not your mate, buddy.
youtu.be/zuQK6t2Esng?t=3s
But yeah, the high ping matches will be interesting if not a little unfortunate to see take place. Oh well, it's a world cup and that's the price of entry for an Australian team.