I understand this topic has been discussed before but I would like to raise it again.

What do people think of seedings first of all?

I'm not saying, personally, that they should prevent certain players from being drawn against others rather they could reflect the amount of tournament wins or highest rank or any other credible reflection of skill.

I know some people might ask what is the point?

My inital response is that it's another achievement to attain. It would hopefully give the game a greater level of competition. In addition, it would let other players know instantly how good a certain individual is without looking at the amount of tournament wins they have.

It's obviously open to discussion, that is what i'm asking for!

Finally, I just think there are more pros to it than cons, no pun intended

Cheers, Ped

Make the seeding based on rank lol - maybe that would stop all the ridiculous resetting and more importantly deactivations.

Ahh, very good thought Jan! But, could that not apply to tournament wins too?

Actually it was more or less meant as a joke, since tying rank to tournaments is never going to happen with the current mentality toward the ranking system for this game.

In all seriousness would been fun though, since giving players more reasons not to reset or deactivate their accounts would been a very good thing indeed - in my opinion.

And yes, the far more realistic option of seeding based on tournament wins would do the same job toward the above goal.

And to return a bit more to the topic at hand: Seeding in tournaments is a very good idea and would be very fair.

Thanks for the input Jan! Hopefully more will feel the same way as you!

although cons - to put them out there -

i find in the chat room a lot of players are put of tournys because they have to play winners (which is quite silly really)

im just wondering that the players without wins would have more of a hard time to win and you would get more players who have already won a tourny, winning and could perhaps put off other players - especially to those tournys where a lot of winners enter

Yes, seeding does imply a bit of a rich-get-richer effect, then again that's partially the point....

If you have a competition with two top players and the rest mediocre or worse, you should of course avoid the chance of those two top players meeting each other any earlier than the final.

dont they already have seedings when you look at the tournament page? The person with the highest amount of wins is listed first in the list of remaining players.

Dont think its needed - at the end of the day, sport is weird that any result is possible....seedings are normally used to try and get the best players playing each other at the end of a tournament, not as a 'guide'. We already have everyone listed in the tournament with tournament wins in brackets.

a case of the cream rises to the top - although in shorter games that are first to 5 or less thats not always how things end up

i wouldn't mind seedings if it makes for a better ending just up to nick i guess (as it always ultimately is)

It's not really proper seeding though. I just think that, even aesthetically, it would be worth more if it said a particular seed rather than showing the amount of tournament wins. With regards to zante, it's interesting as the current system perpetuates the same thought of "the rich get richer" or something to that effect and if anything it's more overwhelming, I would say, seeing someone with 100 tournament wins than a (1) by someone's name..

Yes, but it has no impact on the draw for each round (which would be the point)




And that would be the motivation behind seeding here too - no difference.

Virtually any real life cup-type tournament I have ever seen uses seeding in one way or another.

The last point of yours Jan is very valid its ubiquity throughout other sports proves that it's a good system and should at least be tried.

Anyone else care to weigh in?

Seedings would, presumably, only apply in Round 1 as from then on the path forward is already clearly mapped?

Similarly, presumably (lol), the top seeds would then always benefit from the multitude of byes that usually happen in Round 1 too?

Have to say personally I think the current 'open' English FA Cup style draws for each round work the best and benefit the majority over the minority.

Even in the FA cup though, the teams in the prem come in later than the lower league

My original thought was that it wouldn't effect who a players got drawn against as I don't feel you should be hindered and end up against the better players if you are better. Then it merely encourages people to reset and miss getting drawn against the more able players..

It would be the other way round

seeded players would play unseeded players because ideally, the best 2 players would end up in the final

this would have the reverse effect on resetting - as players would strive to get more wins to have an easier time - although they would still have to beat the good players to win

and i dont think seeded vs seeded would necessarily cause more resets as players would want to win tournys regardless - it just means they may not enter - if they reset they would lose the wins they have worked to get

Regardless, I think we're kind of digressing. I wanted, primarily, to talk about the idea of it being introduced. The intricacies of it can be discussed later on when it has gained enough popularity and backing..

Yes. In order for talk about seeding to be relevant at all, the path from round to round will have to be predetermined and public, just like for any normal real life tournament.

Yes

In which case all that needs to happen is to decide on the basis for the seeding, whilst accepting that the seeding may not necessarily be based on ability.

If anyone was to moan about their seeding, or lack of, then at least they know how to go about changing it if they want to!!

As for that seeding criteria - maybe a coefficient could be calculated based on ranking score, tournament wins, win percentages and achievements in the game type weighting each part of it as appropriate. Complicated to decide on in the first instance but probably better in the long run than using only one of these aspects alone??