3-way Tiebreaker Rules

IN the case of a 3-way tiebreak, total H2H record against all involved is the normal way to go...

However...

It makes zero sense to me why TSM doesn't automatically get 4th because of that very rule...we are using the tiebreaker for one spot only but not the other? I just don't get it. Either it's the tiebreaker for everyone or no one. Can someone please explain the logic to me?

Preface: Not a TSM fan (or hater).

Yeah, Riot doesn't seem to understand that their tie-breaker systems make no sense. You can run through scenarios (e.g.: MonteChristo yt video) where this system is a lot worse that this, and just plain idiotic. Bottom line you shouldn't have head-to-head records defining who progresses/drops from a group stage - a group stage determines who is better across the group not in individual match-ups.

i have to agree with you. and as you can see im from eu. g2 vs tsm for 3rd and loser vs fw for 4th

I logged in to upvote. I'm normally content to make a "TSM international play lol" meme, but the tiebreaker made no sense.

G2 held no logical tiebreakers over TSM. "But they 2-0'd FW!" Yes, but they also lost twice to WE, which TSM took a game from. TSM had just as much merit to the 3 seed as G2.

I'll go further, and assert that any logical tiebreaker that puts G2 in third place would extend to set TSM into fourth over FW. Otherwise, G2 should play TSM for third, and then when TSM loses, they should lose to FW and miss fourth.

I mean, this is TSM we're talking about. The logical arrangement just delays their inevitable international disappointment for 2 games, instead of the one it ended up being. Get that meme in.

{quoted}

Call me a salty NA fan, whatever. But seriously, I don't agree with the current 2-way tiebreaker rules. At MSI, G2, TSM and FW each finished with 4-6 records. Against each other, they finished as follows. G2: 3-1 (2-0FW, 1-1TSM) TSM: 2-2 (1-1, 1-1) FW: 1-3 (0-2G2, 1-1TSM). G2 was awarded third place. This should not have been the case. Even though G2 has the best overall H2H record, why is TSM punished for this? It is not their fault FW lost both of their games to G2. Would it not be a better system to have TSM and G2 play for 3rd place, followed by the loser play FW for 4th? This way nobody is punished for their overall or individual H2H records and is a fair chance at the spot their records reflect.

Rito pls

That would require intelligence and consistency. Either you make them all play a mini round robin to get in or, you take G2 in third and TSM in fourth by the tie breaker. So in effect, 3-1 is better than 2-2 but 2-2 is not better than 1-3. Another moronic way of doing things that screws over NA.

I've stopped following competitive since boosted season of dynamic queue but up voting for visibility. https://www.socialtalent.co/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Visibility.jpeg VISIBILITY

LMAO at NA salty fans calling for a G2 vs TSM rematch for 3rd place. Dudes, tie-breaker exist to find a winner and sort teams from best to worst positions, and that is true in any sport/everyday usage of them.

In the 3 team tie-breaker G2 had clearly the best combined record, it is clear they should have advanced ad 3rd seed, no way they should have been forced to play other games

What do I agree about is the fact that rules seems to be inconsistent. With the rules that correctly reward G2, it would make sense to sort out also the other teams by H2H overall result First, and TSM to qualify as 4 th seed..

I see why It also can make sense to sort things out the things the way they did (resolve one situation at time, so G2 advance and then TSM vs FW is tie-breaker), but at least It should be stated clearer to avoid complaints non-sense complain reasoning later (like, again, claiming that the team with the best 3 team record should not get automatically the highest seed)

{quoted}

Call me a salty NA fan, whatever. But seriously, I don't agree with the current 2-way tiebreaker rules. At MSI, G2, TSM and FW each finished with 4-6 records. Against each other, they finished as follows. G2: 3-1 (2-0FW, 1-1TSM) TSM: 2-2 (1-1, 1-1) FW: 1-3 (0-2G2, 1-1TSM). G2 was awarded third place. This should not have been the case. Even though G2 has the best overall H2H record, why is TSM punished for this? It is not their fault FW lost both of their games to G2. Would it not be a better system to have TSM and G2 play for 3rd place, followed by the loser play FW for 4th? This way nobody is punished for their overall or individual H2H records and is a fair chance at the spot their records reflect.

So there you go G2 best record within the tiebreaker teams so G2 number 3. Why is TSM punished? Cus they didnt 2-0 FW, simple as that. But these rules were already known to everyone, cus its like this every year. But now that TSM is out it has to be changed :D?

This system makes 100% complete sense if you think about it.

Of the two spots that need to be filled from three teams you look at the records between those teams. Any team with a record greater than .500 means they went 2-0 against at least one of those teams and therefore are the top team of that three man group. That team should get the 3rd seed. Then, for the last spot you want the best team from those two, NOT FROM THE THREE. In this case, they have the same H2H record, so one more game has to be played to see who the winner of the three game series is.

I don't see how your suggestion is any more fair. It's better for TSM but worse for G2. In your situation, G2 and TSM would be treated in the same way, while G2 is the one with better H2=H record. While in the current scenario, TSM is put on par with FW even though FW has worse H2H, so it's exactly the same in fairness with the only difference that you give more advantage to TSM (and thus less to G2).

TBH I would just expect a 3-game tiebreaker, but I can actually understand these rules. The only other option would be to say: okay, G2 3rd place, TSM 4th and FW 5th without any tiebreakers, but then again, FW did go 1-1 against TSM.

In the current results, you could conclude (although this is based on way too few matches) that G2 > FW (2-0) and FW > TSM (2-1) so G2 and TSM being 1-1 you'd expect G2 would win. Of course that's just theory, and I agree that it sounds like bullshit if you put it this way, but I think that's the logic.

In the end, the rules have been made before the start of the tournament, the only thing we can do is make suggestions to improve it for the future tournaments;