Can we elaborate on Swiss mechanic, please?

[dDuff.3860]

Can anyone please clarify how swiss works, some teams got 1 loss during seeding and advanced to quarters, while others had the same result and didn't?

Actual question is, Tam we lost to during seeding, lost to a team that we won against during seedings, so all three teams had at least one loss. I'm assuming all the other games for these were win. So of all teams only 1 advanced to swiss? What is the rule for advancing?

thanks in advance

[rng.1024]

I'm pretty sure it's because of how the swiss system tries to place you with a team of equal score after each round.

1st round:

• Random teams get paired

2nd round:

• If you lost the first round, you get placed with a team that also lost it's first match.
• Same if you win, you get placed with a team that won their 1st match.

3rd round:

• If you lost both round 1 and 2 you are out.
• If you only lost the 1st round, you are placed with those who won 1st but lost 2nd.
• If you only lost the 2nd round, you are placed with those who lost the 1st but won the 2nd.

4th round:

• If you lost both 2nd and 3rd, you are out.

• Thing is now it actually becomes single elimination - first to lose falls off the "1 loss can continue" requirement, even if your score was 1-0-1, 0-1-1 or 1-1-0 in the last three games. After these 3 swiss rounds you either progress forward or get dropped, which seems to be your case as you will get placed against teams with the same 2W1L record regardless of order they were in - and if you lose this round you don't make the cut for the "real" single elimination bracket since you've lost more than once.

[rng.1024]

If you are talking about a daily AT and not the monthly one, here is why:https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/100489/adjustments-to-daily-ats#latest

Basically this limits the swiss rounds to 3.As I described during 3rd round in my last post, there are still teams with 2W1L that should be allowed to battle it out, however now they cannot. This is why the post states we only lose 1 game in terms of time per regular tournament, however the teams tied with 2W1L can't all proceed without that last match since the single elimination format only has a set amount of teams it can support.

Unfortunately I don't know what factors decide which teams move on and which gets dropped, or if it's completely random. But it seems unlikely the order of wins/losses count for anything. Maybe the team with the most QP continue. While it's regrettable this is the side-effect, it's all because people felt the daily AT's took to long. It's only an issue however when there's more than a certain amount of teams, so for most daily tournaments it shouldn't be noticeable.

Since the post words it "cuts" into single elimination, it's a fair chance winning the 3rd swiss round matter (1-0-0 and 1-1-0 goes, while 1-0-1 and 0-1-1 stays).

[dDuff.3860]

My team lost 1st round then we won 4 other games and didn't advance into quarter.

[rng.1024]

@dDuff.3860 said:My team lost 1st round then we won 4 other games and didn't advance into quarter.

Sounds like a bug tbh, since in the mAT it should still create matches as long as there are teams in it with only 1 loss.

I'm not sure however how this works with an odd number of teams, you might just have been unlucky where all other teams went 5-1 when you were 4-1.

The devs really need to clarify how swiss works at this point, or rather which factors apply in different circumstances.

[Sindrener.1592]

@Ben Phongluangtham.1065 can maybe clarify

[dDuff.3860]

@rng.1024 said:

@dDuff.3860 said:My team lost 1st round then we won 4 other games and didn't advance into quarter.

Sounds like a bug tbh, since in the mAT it should still create matches as long as there are teams in it with only 1 loss.

I'm not sure however how this works with an odd number of teams, you might just have been unlucky where all other teams went 5-1 when you were 4-1.

The devs really need to clarify how swiss works at this point, or rather which factors apply in different circumstances.

i don't really remember already if that were 4 or 5 matches, but my point is, we lost only 1 game and didn't advance, when the team we lost to did advance higher, despite having at least 1 loss

[Flumek.9043]

won 1 , then lost 2.

got match ready instantly while still in defeat screen, then got kicked out of mAT, didnt even recieve participation rewards.

its a shady buisness

[rng.1024]

Then I really get your frustration @"dDuff.3860"

Given that there can only be 8 teams in the quarterfinals, there's just too many factors to consider.

It seems reasonable if you get past the 3 first rounds with all wins you get placed in the "winner" bracket, and therefore you start filling out those 8 spots here already. This would mean some teams would play fewer swiss rounds than others, and the teams in the "loser" bracket has to duke it out until half is left standing.

This'll have to be done over and over until the remaining quarterfinal spots are taken. Now let's say 6 spots are taken, and there are still 12 teams with only 1 loss. They do a swiss round, where 6 get eliminated and the remaining 6 proceed to the next round. There will be 3 winners this round, all with 1 loss - only there's just 2 spots available in the quarterfinals.

It just seems silly they would hardcode it like this.

[dDuff.3860]

@Ben Phongluangtham.1065

I will be really happy to get a word from you, I get that this mat is over, but i want to know the rules, so next monthly we will be awared.Otherwise swiss makes no sense — 1 loss u out, just like without swiss, lul?

[Ben Phongluangtham.1065]

Cmc looked into this over the weekend. There was an error in the configuration file that didn't have the proper size of the single elimination bracket for the number participants we had. This should get fixed before the next monthly AT. This is intentional in Daily AT's to shave time, but for monthly AT's, we definitely had intended that any team with only 1 loss make it through.

With the set up we had last weekend, the tournament ranks all swiss participants to decide who goes on to the single elimination round. First by win % and then uses opponent win % as a tie breaker. So in this case, the other teams that made it through with only 1 loss faced stronger opponents than you, which is why you didn't make the cut.

[GewRoo.4172]

@Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:Cmc looked into this over the weekend. There was an error in the configuration file that didn't have the proper size of the single elimination bracket for the number participants we had. This should get fixed before the next monthly AT. This is intentional in Daily AT's to shave time, but for monthly AT's, we definitely had intended that any team with only 1 loss make it through.

With the set up we had last weekend, the tournament ranks all swiss participants to decide who goes on to the single elimination round. First by win % and then uses opponent win % as a tie breaker. So in this case, the other teams that made it through with only 1 loss faced stronger opponents than you, which is why you didn't make the cut.

& that seems totally fair! Thank you!

[dDuff.3860]

@Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:Cmc looked into this over the weekend. There was an error in the configuration file that didn't have the proper size of the single elimination bracket for the number participants we had. This should get fixed before the next monthly AT. This is intentional in Daily AT's to shave time, but for monthly AT's, we definitely had intended that any team with only 1 loss make it through.

With the set up we had last weekend, the tournament ranks all swiss participants to decide who goes on to the single elimination round. First by win % and then uses opponent win % as a tie breaker. So in this case, the other teams that made it through with only 1 loss faced stronger opponents than you, which is why you didn't make the cut.

So, from this it looks like the distribution of matches was random, so we randomly didn't get placed into elimination, right?

[ChaliElle.9137]

@dDuff.3860 said:So, from this it looks like the distribution of matches was random, so we randomly didn't get placed into elimination, right?

Simple answer: No.First thing that was checked when making single elimination bracket was winrate of teams. Obviously teams with no losses (100% winrate) got placed into bracked, and then there was too many teams with single loss, so there was second check - average (?) winrate of every team's opponents - the higher the better, because it means that team faced stronger opponents than other teams with the same winrate, meaning that it deserves spot in the single elimination bracket. It's quite unlikely that there would be situation where two teams with same winrate, with the same opponents's average winrate, where they were ex aequo at the last position qualifying for the single elimination bracket - and only in this situation other determining factor would be needed, be it seeding or coin toss.

[rng.1024]

In short, you can say if your loss is against a team that goes on to win all it's swiss rounds, you get +1 wins (an extra) added to your score that sets you apart from everyone else in the loser bracket.

If your loss is against a team that ends up in the 1 loss bracket or worse, you don't get +1 wins added to your final score.

Tip: This 100% means if you go W-W-L in the first 3 games (or any number of swiss rounds), you are placed above those who go W-L-W. So it's really important to win those first 2 games, since this ensures you face a winner bracket team in the 3rd match instead of a loser bracket team, giving you the edge even if you lose.

Basically the longer you can go without losing in the swiss rounds, the higher your chances of entering the single elimination will be - as it should!

Just too bad the single elimination bracket got cut short :/

[Leafstorm.1349]

@Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:Cmc looked into this over the weekend. There was an error in the configuration file that didn't have the proper size of the single elimination bracket for the number participants we had. This should get fixed before the next monthly AT. This is intentional in Daily AT's to shave time, but for monthly AT's, we definitely had intended that any team with only 1 loss make it through.

With the set up we had last weekend, the tournament ranks all swiss participants to decide who goes on to the single elimination round. First by win % and then uses opponent win % as a tie breaker. So in this case, the other teams that made it through with only 1 loss faced stronger opponents than you, which is why you didn't make the cut.

That actually makes zero sense. If those people faced stronger teams due to RNG, but still won and advanced because of that, that means RNG simply did not give our team the opportunity to do the same thing. There should never be a time when you have teams that are of equal wins and losses with only one of those teams advancing. That's due to luck and nothing more. I'm trying to be respectful here, but I've had too many situations like this recently and its starting to feel pretty unfair. Why even spend the time to practice with my tournament team if its just going to come down to luck anyways?

[dDuff.3860]

@Leafstorm.1349 said:

@Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:Cmc looked into this over the weekend. There was an error in the configuration file that didn't have the proper size of the single elimination bracket for the number participants we had. This should get fixed before the next monthly AT. This is intentional in Daily AT's to shave time, but for monthly AT's, we definitely had intended that any team with only 1 loss make it through.

With the set up we had last weekend, the tournament ranks all swiss participants to decide who goes on to the single elimination round. First by win % and then uses opponent win % as a tie breaker. So in this case, the other teams that made it through with only 1 loss faced stronger opponents than you, which is why you didn't make the cut.

That actually makes zero sense. If those people faced stronger teams due to RNG, but still won and advanced because of that, that means RNG simply did not give our team the opportunity to do the same thing. There should never be a time when you have teams that are of equal wins and losses with only one of those teams advancing. That's due to luck and nothing more. I'm trying to be respectful here, but I've had too many situations like this recently and its starting to feel pretty unfair. Why even spend the time to practice with my tournament team if its just going to come down to luck anyways?

that is exactly my point, if our opponents faced opponents with a higher win rate based on RNG mechanism, this sounds pure random.

[Grochaton.6318]

@dDuff.3860 said:Can anyone please clarify how swiss works, some teams got 1 loss during seeding and advanced to quarters, while others had the same result and didn't?

Actual question is, Tam we lost to during seeding, lost to a team that we won against during seedings, so all three teams had at least one loss. I'm assuming all the other games for these were win. So of all teams only 1 advanced to swiss? What is the rule for advancing?

thanks in advance

@"Ben Phongluangtham.1065" said:Cmc looked into this over the weekend. There was an error in the configuration file that didn't have the proper size of the single elimination bracket for the number participants we had. This should get fixed before the next monthly AT. This is intentional in Daily AT's to shave time, but for monthly AT's, we definitely had intended that any team with only 1 loss make it through.

With the set up we had last weekend, the tournament ranks all swiss participants to decide who goes on to the single elimination round. First by win % and then uses opponent win % as a tie breaker. So in this case, the other teams that made it through with only 1 loss faced stronger opponents than you, which is why you didn't make the cut.

Actually the real problem isn't the number of team qualified into final Brackets. It's more how many rounds there are regarding the number of teams participating. I worked a lot with Swiss system in some tournaments, i know it very well, and The purpose of this system is to get at the end 1 team that haven't lost any single games. Or you can have around few teams (most of the time 5-6) with 1 loss.But you can't have at the end of "qualifying phase", like it was the case, 2 teams with no loss.

During the mAT, you had 5 rounds, around 56 teams, and at the end there were 2 teams with 5 wins-0 losses, and around 9 teams with 4-1.

When you play Swiss system, the number of rounds depends on number of teams engaged:

0-2 teams: 1 round.3-4: 2 rounds5-8: 3 rounds (sometimes until 8 teams, some games make play each team angainst each other)9-16: 4 rounds17-32: 5 rounds

33-64: 6 rounds65-128: 7 rounds etc...

So with 56 teams, each one has to play 6 games for "qualifying phase". At the end of that phase, you should get 1 team with 6-0, 5 or 6 with 5-1, and 13 or 14 with 4-2 ( the one or two bests qualified for Final Brackets). And after that it should have been TOP 8 teams qualified for team with 6-0 (The number of teams into TOP depends as well on how many teams are engaged).Most of the time, to define the number of teams qualified into the final brackets you take 12,5% or 25% of the teams that are engaged. ( depends on how many teams engaged, most of the time 25%+ for for 32 teams or less, and 12.5%+ for 33 teams or more)

Swiss is the most fair system actually, but you have to play "qualifyng phase" fully during mAT if you want people to do not complain. This is the most fair system, because the tie-breaking is calculated according the opponents you faced, AND it's logically calculated according the opponen'ts of the opponent's you faced.But if you cut the number of rounds, it won't be fair anymore, because some teams that can get a better tie-break with the last game to go to Final bracket, won't be able to go through. And they'll keep a bad tie-breaking, that can be caused by low ranking teams they faced during first games.

So if you want the teams with 1 loss to go to the final bracket, just give opportunity to that teams to play all the rounds, even if i understand you want to shave time for Daily ATs. At the end , with all the rounds played, you have the true ranking of the teams, and the the pairings for final bracket is more realistic.

And imo, if you increase number of teams into final brackets, it will allow all X-1 teams to go through, but you won't shave time (because you get one more round), the bad tie-breaking will keep the same, and the pairings into the final bracket will be wrong.

http://swisstriangle.net/

In this website you can calculated number of rounds.

[rng.1024]

@dDuff.3860 said:

@Leafstorm.1349 said:

@Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:Cmc looked into this over the weekend. There was an error in the configuration file that didn't have the proper size of the single elimination bracket for the number participants we had. This should get fixed before the next monthly AT. This is intentional in Daily AT's to shave time, but for monthly AT's, we definitely had intended that any team with only 1 loss make it through.

With the set up we had last weekend, the tournament ranks all swiss participants to decide who goes on to the single elimination round. First by win % and then uses opponent win % as a tie breaker. So in this case, the other teams that made it through with only 1 loss faced stronger opponents than you, which is why you didn't make the cut.

That actually makes zero sense. If those people faced stronger teams due to RNG, but still won and advanced because of that, that means RNG simply did not give our team the opportunity to do the same thing. There should never be a time when you have teams that are of equal wins and losses with only one of those teams advancing. That's due to luck and nothing more. I'm trying to be respectful here, but I've had too many situations like this recently and its starting to feel pretty unfair. Why even spend the time to practice with my tournament team if its just going to come down to luck anyways?

that is exactly my point, if our opponents faced opponents with a higher win rate based on RNG mechanism, this sounds pure random.

It's not random. It's because they stayed in the winner bracket longer than you (therefore fighting opponents with higher winrate).

• If you lose your 1st game, you are last on the 1-lose roster (loser bracket).
• If you lose your 2nd game, you are next to last on the 1-lose roster (loser bracket).
• If you lose your 3rd match you are third last on the 1-lose roster (loser bracket)
• If you lose your 4th game you are fourth last on the 1-lose roster (loser bracket).
• and so on.

Basically what the bug caused to happen here, was to not include the full list (and therefore the f.ex 5 last) of the 1-lose roster (loser bracket) into the final single elimination rounds.

In OP's case, any team who won the 1st swiss round placed higher.

The 1st round is always random, so everybody is at the same advantage/disadvantage - as fair as a coin toss. However all opponents have no track record here and can go either way in the next round , which is not RNG at all just mean they won their match and you didn't.