First off I thought the Open Classic tournament was mostly great overall, I love straight up standard settings tournaments the most. I also thought that the seeding didn't end up being that horrible, but I do think that most people can agree that it wasn't great either, especially if Hera had played and had ended up meeting Liereyy in the Ro16.
One solution for the seeding problem I would like to bring up, that I haven't seen mentioned yet, is the format that was used for KOTD3. The seeding was done by adding average 1v1 rating together with a certain amount of points according to the player's placement in the last few S-Tier tournaments. With this method Liereyy, who according to only his 1v1 rating would have been 18th seed, ended up being seed 2.
If you look at the early brackets and the resulting groups I think most people would agree that they were exceptionally fairly seeded for the time and that lopsided brackets that occured later were only the result of upsets, something nobody should complain about, imo. I think this method is also better than seeding solely by tournament elo from that website (forget what itÄs called), because it weights placements that are long past too high.
Any seeding done according to some experts estimation of the top 32 players or whatever would also be totally stupid and unprofessional in my opinion. Through my preffered method players would also be rewarded with better seeds if they place higher in recent tournaments, something that is essential for good seeding and good competition and something that is standard practice in other esports.
I am honestly surprised that nobody has brought this method up yet, because I believe many people thought KOTD3 was one of the best tournaments in recent memory, something that the seeding was a factor for. Is there some problem with this method I am overlooking?
One solution for the seeding problem I would like to bring up, that I haven't seen mentioned yet, is the format that was used for KOTD3. The seeding was done by adding average 1v1 rating together with a certain amount of points according to the player's placement in the last few S-Tier tournaments. With this method Liereyy, who according to only his 1v1 rating would have been 18th seed, ended up being seed 2.
If you look at the early brackets and the resulting groups I think most people would agree that they were exceptionally fairly seeded for the time and that lopsided brackets that occured later were only the result of upsets, something nobody should complain about, imo. I think this method is also better than seeding solely by tournament elo from that website (forget what itÄs called), because it weights placements that are long past too high.
Any seeding done according to some experts estimation of the top 32 players or whatever would also be totally stupid and unprofessional in my opinion. Through my preffered method players would also be rewarded with better seeds if they place higher in recent tournaments, something that is essential for good seeding and good competition and something that is standard practice in other esports.
I am honestly surprised that nobody has brought this method up yet, because I believe many people thought KOTD3 was one of the best tournaments in recent memory, something that the seeding was a factor for. Is there some problem with this method I am overlooking?