Two Pools 2 | Brackets

[LidaKor]

Qualifier brackets are now out: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...GWX2LF5k0yOjAUagW0p0VVOLjM/edit#gid=491106280

Main event brackets: TBD

 

[BlotchedyDooDah]

Immortals not making the cut

 

[Nerfox]

Immortals not making the cut

Rip. Thing is if you make signups for n teams, the n+1 will always be frustrated no matter what. We already have a few people pulling all nighters to make the event happen so extending the qualifiers to 32 teams was never an option.

 

[Nerfox]

There was an oversight on my part with Rise's seeding account being changed on Saturday - it had the same exact name so I had no chance to catch it but it's rating made the team average of NVGCS go from 2217 to 2264, effectively moving their team up two seeds from 13 to 11, making Legendary Pets drop from 11 to 12 and Chilean Plebs from 12 to 13.

Since no scheduling has happened yet, I've updated the seeding with Rise's new rating. Sorry for the inconvenience!

 

[DaisyChain]

Would really have liked to see the Immortals make their comeback, but that's just how seeds work.
Some very hyped games from the qualifiers already. Sitaux and bruh facing the French team is a fun one for instance.

 

[_Ra_]

Its out fault for not realizing how the seeding works. We only realised on tbr last day. We could've jumped ~100 rated points with little effort if we knew.

Its definitely disappointing. I dont understand why 24 teams instead of 32 for instance. It requires same period of time and you get 8 extra teams.

Oh well, next time.

 

[Nerfox]

It requires same period of time and you get 8 extra teams.

It's eight more series to schedule within the timeframe we've got, 8 more series to cast, meaning at least two more days of casting, it's two more sets of matchup graphics to be made, everything has to have a deadline that's at least two days earlier... I could go on for a while.

Mind you this was originally intended to accommodate 16 teams. Due to hours of unpaid work from the whole team we managed to extend it to 24. It wasn't easy.

At the same time I get the other side of it, I would be furious if I just missed out on getting a chance to play, especially since this is the first huge team game event this year, maybe apart from Drunken Forest.

Thing is, you had a lot of time to read the rules, I put in hours of work to try and explain everything as clearly as possible on the seeding sheet. You also had me and Lida constantly keeping an eye on the Q&A thread, #2p2-questions channel in the tournament discord, our DMs were open... The whole idea of publishing the seeding sheet early (which isn't without it's downsides and it adds hours of extra work) was so that players can keep track of where their team is and adjust their roster or grind their rating in order to qualify. You only have yourself to blame for that part.

Reading and understanding the rules under which you play is just as essential as knowing how to lure a boar... I'd even argue more people lost tournaments to the rules than they lost vils to the boar. Until we are collectively at a point where every pro player can afford a manager to read the rules for them, everyone who wants to participate in any tournament is unfortunately on their own...

...especially if we want to see ourselves as a competitive esports environment. Let's not provide good arguments for people who are against it

 

[Ass_Kickerwa]

I kinda think that there is a case for not considering substitute player's rating if they are the lowest rated (both elo and tourney elo) in the team.
Eg: Freakin team not making it.

 

[Nerfox]

I kinda think that there is a case for not considering substitute player's rating if they are the lowest rated (both elo and tourney elo) in the team.
Eg: Freakin team not making it

1. What constitutes a "substitute"? This is not an easy question to answer.
2. If the subsitute doesn't play in any matches, why sign them up in the first place? For emergency situations? Then what constitutes an emergency? And if they do play, there is a case to be made for considering their rating.

I don't think there is a simple solution - we made an executive decision to count the rating of all three players.

One thing that could be improved upon tho - and thanks for bringing that up - is to not refer to the 3rd player as a substitute. As the current system stands, it's just teams of 2-3 active players, who you can freely swap in and out between maps. I'll keep it in mind for future events and make sure to word the signups properly (or give feedback to whoever writes the post).

 

[_Ra_]

I agree the rules are clear and its fully the players responsibility.

But it still makes sense to me to have different rules for the next tournament. Filling up to 32 teams is a no brainer. Regarding scheduling, it falls on the team, you shouldn't take on extra work because of it. You can also skip streaming every match of round 1. This would be normal.

Hopefully you can consider the feedback for future tournaments. You had a lot of good teams not make the cut which is a shame. Anyway you're doing an awesome job this one, I'm sure it will be a great success.

 

[Nerfox]

I agree the rules are clear and its fully the players responsibility.

But it still makes sense to me to have different rules for the next tournament. Filling up to 32 teams is a no brainer. Regarding scheduling, it falls on the team, you shouldn't take on extra work because of it. You can also skip streaming every match of round 1. This would be normal.

Hopefully you can consider the feedback for future tournaments. You had a lot of good teams not make the cut which is a shame. Anyway you're doing an awesome job this one, I'm sure it will be a great success.

I'm sorry but your response means you are not considering the problem from the organizer's perspective. By expanding this qualifier by 8 teams, you are actively hurting the other 24. This is an international event with timezones clashing and most of the players not being full time aoe2 pros and having other responsibilities (school, work, family...), claiming that scheduling doesn't require any work from the admins is straight up wrong.

When I proposed the 24 team waterfall instead of the original idea of 8 matches between 16 teams, I was working with the following constraints:
- all matches will be casted
- the entire qualifiers should take no more than 4 days of casting

And besides that, if we did expand it to 32 teams, what would the team that's seeded 33 say? Let's expand it to 64? Then to 128? There are 32 signups but that's for the 24 free spots, you would see comments like "It's unfair, I would have signed up if it was 32 teams from the start and easily gotten into the event". And they would be in their right to say that.

I appreciate the feedback. Thing is if anyone writing feedback posts took a moment to consider both perspectives of the problem, they might have come up with actual, useful solutions, or ones that might be wrong but we would have something concrete to discuss and maybe come up with a better version of it. If you are genuinely interested in improving the quality of the future events, feedback thread is your place to go into as much detail as you can and I guarantee you, at least one of the admins will read it, respond to it and pass it on to the team. If you take your time to think up a solution to the problem you are seeing, we will take time to discuss it, evaluate it, see if it works.

 

[Michaerbse]

Hi, I believe the link in the OP is outdated. Could you update it? I believe the correct one now is >this one< (from the discord server)

 

[Boboboy]

1. What constitutes a "substitute"? This is not an easy question to answer.
2. If the subsitute doesn't play in any matches, why sign them up in the first place? For emergency situations? Then what constitutes an emergency? And if they do play, there is a case to be made for considering their rating.

I don't think there is a simple solution - we made an executive decision to count the rating of all three players.

One thing that could be improved upon tho - and thanks for bringing that up - is to not refer to the 3rd player as a substitute. As the current system stands, it's just teams of 2-3 active players, who you can freely swap in and out between maps. I'll keep it in mind for future events and make sure to word the signups properly (or give feedback to whoever writes the post).

I kind of think that we can look at it in a different way. Let's say this 3rd player (who has the lowest rating) is crazy good at arabia and bad at every other maps. Then while this 3rd player drags the average team rating down, the team formed by these 3 players really is better than the team formed by only the 2 players with higher ratings. The point is: this 3rd player should always give something more to the team and make the team better. In this regard, it makes more sense to average the ratings of the 2 players with higher ratings.