[KotD3] Questions & Answers

[Chrazini]

Announcement | Discussion | Registration | Handbook | Questions & Answers | Official Map | Brackets | Discord

Questions & Answers
Post any questions you may have about the tournament here. We will do our best to get back to you as soon as possible. If you have concrete feedback for the tournament, please use the dedicated thread for that instead.​

 

[Chrazini]

Could you elaborate on how the seedings will be done? For example which tournaments will be taken into account, how much do you value current rating vs highest rating and how much does previous tournament performance impact the seeding?

I feel like it's better to exactly show how you will seed the players, so that you can't be accused of bias towards or against players.

The tournaments taken into account at this moment is King of the Desert 2, Hidden Cup 3, Red Bul Wololo 1 and Red Bull Wololo 2. Its impact is 100% - the ladder is not taken into account for players where tournament performance is relevant.

The weight of the current rating and highest achieved rating will be 50/50.

 

[bobbyjns]

Hi Chrazini,

Great handbook once again. One question from me. Regarding players being able to record their games in order to then stream their POV at the same time as the official cast - does this mean they can POV stream during the live weeks onwards?

 

[Chrazini]

Hi Chrazini,

Great handbook once again. One question from me. Regarding players being able to record their games in order to then stream their POV at the same time as the official cast - does this mean they can POV stream during the live weeks onwards?

Players are not allowed to stream their point of view during live games. I must admit this is not entirely clear in the handbook. They may record it during their games and cast it after their match has finished.

 

[Elvaenor]

A quick question, I saw nothing in the handbook regarding point trading on the elo ladder. Is this hard to do on DE or do you capture this rule with other umbrella terms like sportsmanship or cheating? I guess most names in the top 64 are known so it shouldn't be too much of a problem, but it could drive people to push them over the edge into the tournament.
A minor thing I noticed as well in the payout is that each round recieves a larger total sum of the pricepool, but both the quarter- and semifinalists recieve a total of 16% of the pricepool.

Looking really forward to this tournament!!

 

[Chrazini]

A quick question, I saw nothing in the handbook regarding point trading on the elo ladder. Is this hard to do on DE or do you capture this rule with other umbrella terms like sportsmanship or cheating? I guess most names in the top 64 are known so it shouldn't be too much of a problem, but it could drive people to push them over the edge into the tournament.
A minor thing I noticed as well in the payout is that each round recieves a larger total sum of the pricepool, but both the quarter- and semifinalists recieve a total of 16% of the pricepool.

Looking really forward to this tournament!!

It goes without saying that delibirate point trading to ariticifially affect the ladder is strictly forbidden. I would consider this cheating and bad sportsmanship and is definetly not okay.

 

[nimanoe]

How will the groups be determined? Which seeds will be in which groups?
And if for example seed 18 beats seed 15, while there are no other upsets, will seed 18 become seed 15 (because he beat that player) or will he be seed 16 (because he's the lowest seeded player)?

 

[Chrazini]

How will the groups be determined? Which seeds will be in which groups?
And if for example seed 18 beats seed 15, while there are no other upsets, will seed 18 become seed 15 (because he beat that player) or will he be seed 16 (because he's the lowest seeded player)?

Relative to the groups it's going to be:
Seed 1 vs Seed 4
Seed 2 vs Seed 3

Upsets will indeed result in the winning player taking the seed of the opponent.

 

[SouFire]

Will you set a minimal amount of games played?, there are players that have boosted their tg rank to 2900, playing few games in 1x1 and even losing 90% of their games they are in 2100 in 1x1, there are a lot of players that have done that and could qualify with such high ranks.

 

[Festivus]

The tournaments taken into account at this moment is King of the Desert 2, Hidden Cup 3, Red Bul Wololo 1 and Red Bull Wololo 2. Its impact is 100% - the ladder is not taken into account for players where tournament performance is relevant.

The weight of the current rating and highest achieved rating will be 50/50.

I don't think a perfect solution exists, however, I have a problem with using tournament results for seeding that:
1) had randomized brackets (HC) leading to some 'tougher' than normal early matchups for players that now affect their seeding
2) compound #1 by seeding based on the results of those already random brackets (mainly RBW1)
3) are a completely different game type than the one being played in this tournament (RBW1 and RBW2)

How can a fair analysis be performed given the circumstances? Is HC3 with randomized brackets weighted the same as KOTD2 results?

I know the ladder results are unreliable - half because people dont take them ladder games too seriously and half because the system can be gamed by timing when/who you play. Until the community comes up with a consistent scrim/seeding methodology this seems like it will always be an issue.

 

[Chrazini]

Will you set a minimal amount of games played?, there are players that have boosted their tg rank to 2900, playing few games in 1x1 and even losing 90% of their games they are in 2100 in 1x1, there are a lot of players that have done that and could qualify with such high ranks.

I was not fully aware of this "exploit" and we will indeed require a minimum amount of games played after investigating this - thank you for the heads up!

 

[nimanoe]

Relative to the groups it's going to be:
Seed 1 vs Seed 4
Seed 2 vs Seed 3

Upsets will indeed result in the winning player taking the seed of the opponent.

Yeah that's what I figured, but I meant to ask how the players will be divided over the groups, like will group A consist of seeds 1, 8, 9 and 16, group B have seeds 3, 6, 11 and 13, group C have seeds 2, 7, 10 and 15 and group D have seeds 4, 5, 12 and 13?

 

[Rey_Fer]

Yeah that's what I figured, but I meant to ask how the players will be divided over the groups, like will group A consist of seeds 1, 8, 9 and 16, group B have seeds 3, 6, 11 and 13, group C have seeds 2, 7, 10 and 15 and group D have seeds 4, 5, 12 and 13?

Then the same thing as BOA could happen where some groups are definitively more difficult thna others

 

[Naraic]

I was not fully aware of this "exploit" and we will indeed require a minimum amount of games played after investigating this - thank you for the heads up!

I'm not sure if you have done your investigation yet.

Just as a further explanation if you havent played on a ladder your positions from other ladders are used your placement games. These first 10 games are played before you appear on the ladder but theres bigger elo movements.

At the moment I'd consider 3 top 100 accounts (2 are smurfs of the one person) to have boosted their rank unfairly this way.

A lot have boosted their rank this way (riut was top 100 after 10 games iirc) but it's not always an unfair boost and they have played enough games since then to back up their rank.

 

[Chrazini]

Yeah that's what I figured, but I meant to ask how the players will be divided over the groups, like will group A consist of seeds 1, 8, 9 and 16, group B have seeds 3, 6, 11 and 13, group C have seeds 2, 7, 10 and 15 and group D have seeds 4, 5, 12 and 13?

I updated the handbook yesterday to make it visually more logical, but I never got back to you - sorry.
I believe you were correct in your assumption, but due groups being re-arranged slightly to it more readable, the group names are slightly different.

Group A: 1, 8, 9, 16
Group B: 4, 5, 12, 13
Group C: 2, 7, 10, 15
Group D: 3, 6, 11, 13

Please do check the handbook once again for how players progress through the group stage. Hope that clears it up.

 

[Chrazini]

I'm not sure if you have done your investigation yet.

Just as a further explanation if you havent played on a ladder your positions from other ladders are used your placement games. These first 10 games are played before you appear on the ladder but theres bigger elo movements.

At the moment I'd consider 3 top 100 accounts (2 are smurfs of the one person) to have boosted their rank unfairly this way.

A lot have boosted their rank this way (riut was top 100 after 10 games iirc) but it's not always an unfair boost and they have played enough games since then to back up their rank.

I have investigated and a rule about it was made the same day. Players are required to have at least 50 games played on their account.

 

[Rey_Fer]

Isa there any spreadsheet where I can see all the registration and who is in and who is out (as in BoA)?

I enjoy this kind of stupid things when i'm bored 11

 

[Chrazini]

Isa there any spreadsheet where I can see all the registration and who is in and who is out (as in BoA)?

I enjoy this kind of stupid things when i'm bored 11

Not as of yet, but I can certainly make that for you

 

[chicklet]

........
Upsets will indeed result in the winning player taking the seed of the opponent.

Are you sure that's the best way to do it? If the seeding has been done properly, the winning player will have an inflated seeding and skew the relative strength/weakness of the groups much more than if seedings were reassigned numerically based on the original.

 

[AguaSucia]

Nacho aoe. Can you broadcast the event ???

or is it still forbidden

 

[chicklet]

Are you sure that's the best way to do it? If the seeding has been done properly, the winning player will have an inflated seeding and skew the relative strength/weakness of the groups much more than if seedings were reassigned numerically based on the original.

Just to highlight with a practical example using the group compositions from @Chrazini above.

If Seed 28 upsets seed 4 (for sake of argument; Miguel beats Yo in a Bo3) then the groups with original seedings would like this....

Group A: 1, 8, 9, 16
Group B: 28(4), 5, 12, 13
Group C: 2, 7, 10, 15
Group D: 3, 6, 11, 13

Seed 5 in group B now has an objectively easier path to qualification than seeds 3, 2 and 1... despite the lower rating.

Surely it is better to bump the seeding of everyone below 4 to maintain the integrity and balance of the original seeding system.

 

[D_Cool]

Just to highlight with a practical example using the group compositions from @Chrazini above.

If Seed 28 upsets seed 4 (for sake of argument; Miguel beats Yo in a Bo3) then the groups with original seedings would like this....

Group A: 1, 8, 9, 16
Group B: 28(4), 5, 12, 13
Group C: 2, 7, 10, 15
Group D: 3, 6, 11, 13

Seed 5 in group B now has an objectively easier path to qualification than seeds 3, 2 and 1... despite the lower rating.

Surely it is better to bump the seeding of everyone below 4 to maintain the integrity and balance of the original seeding system.

I don't think this is an issue - it's the system used in many sports e.g. the tennis grand slams. If the seed 28 manages to beat seed 4, there's an argument they're probably a lot better than there seed suggests anyway so putting them in a group with seed 1 (as your system would) may lead to a really hard group. Also, there's a good case that the 28 seed should be rewarded for an upset rather than taking on the lowest seed and having more very difficult matches.

Your way would work too - I just don't particularly think one system is better or worse than the other.

 

[chicklet]

....
Your way would work too - I just don't particularly think one system is better or worse than the other.

Yep. I don't disagree with that.

Making the organisers aware of the consequences of a particular decision will help them make a more informed choice and prepare the rational in the event of potentail criticism.

If that's done, then I won't have any complaints.

 

[Rey_Fer]

the problem is making groups in the middle of a tournament, that doesn't happen in tennis, but happened in BOA and we had a problem there

In a braket, if a lower seed beats a higher seed he gets his seed in reward for his performance and it's a good thing whereas in a group stage this could mean having a worse spot, so no reward and unbalanced groups.

Anyway, whatever is said at the beginning of the tournament must remain

 

[nimanoe]

I don't think taking over the seed from the opponent you beat makes much sense (outside of the Single Elimination format of course). If seed 16 beats seed 1, that doesn't mean that they are now the best player.
It also feels a bit weird that seeds 2-16 don't have a chance to improve their rating, while seed 17-32 can all improve their seeding. This means that it might actually be better to be seed 18 than to be seed 16.
I would suggest that if there are multiple players that beat a higher seeded player in the qualification, they will get ranked based on how high their opponents seed was, while the higher seeds that beat lower seeds will move up.
Example: If seed 17 wins vs seed 16, seed 19 vs seed 14 and seed 28 vs seed 5 then seed 1-4 will stay the same, seed 6-13 will gain one place and become seed 5-12 and seed 15 will become seed 13. The 3 players that upset in the qualification stage will be ranked on how high their opponent was seeded, so seed 28 will become seed 14, seed 19 will become 15th seed and seed 17 will become 16th.

Anyway, whatever is said at the beginning of the tournament must remain

I think this should be true once the tournament has started, but since it hasn't started yet, we can make small changes. This is especially true for this topic, as it wasn't originally in the rulebook, but added after I asked for clarification.