How does the staff decide the seedings for every season? Is it based on the teams results in every tournament? Or based on the last MKU season or based on the mood of every staff member? When I look at the Pre-Seedings for S8 I realised that the winner of S7 (DVP) got the first seed S8 despite losing to JBZZ and RK in Agility ll (the tournament between S7 and S8) ARC also got the 4th seed cause we made semi finals in MKU S7 despite the fact we only made it into the top 7 in Agility ll and placed behind teams like HD and RK but on the other hand they only got the 6th and the 7th seed for S8. Now in this Pre-Seedings wf apparently got the 2nd seed cause they are in Conference B although they won S8 and Prestige got the first seed when they didnt get to play MKU yet. They won 3 minor tournaments. I personally feel like the winner of the last season should always get the first seed for next season even if a new team signs up that is better on paper or beat them in another tournament. A first place in MKU should be more important than a first place in Amplify or Agility if you consider these tournaments into your seedings. wf are the defending champions and its Prestiges job to beat them in MKU to claim first seed in my opinion. But they just got it already and wf didnt even get the chance to defend their seed because they didnt win in Amplify?!?!? It just seems unfair to me. And with that being said i do not understand why EU got placed above ARC and Bz when their roster barely changed and they did worse than ARC and Bz last MKU season but got 3rd in a single tournament? They got 13th in Agility lll while ARC got 7th and Bz got 4th in that tournament. So I dont know how Amplify just decides their seed for S9. EU didnt make playoffs last season so based on that it just makes sense to seed them behind ARC and Bz. I dont want to say that EU is trash or anything they are a great team and did super well in Amplify but that single event shouldn't decide a placement especially based off a kinda not well planned tournament like Amplify V. Solid teams like ARC, Sc and Hz had to play in an irrelevant bracket cause our matchups were a lot harder than other teams matchups that ended up playing in Gold Bracket. Dont wanna call out teams but most people know that there were a few teams in Gold bracket that usually stand no chance vs these 3 teams i mentioned. They just got lucky they got to play easier teams in their bracket so they sneaked a good placement and made it into Gold Bracket. Meanwhile ARC played as one team and lost to Hz (a really solid team by now and probably the future D2 champions aka upcoming D1 team for S10 i'd say) and HD (I dont have to talk about HD) so we got a bad placement when we only lost 2 matches that were unfortunately part of the group stage that was the decision maker in what kind of bracket you end up playing..... With that being said I hope staff thinks about the seedings for D1 again cause I feel like the conferences should be different and not stay like that. Its probably just me but at least the D1 seedings seem kinda rushed. I'm down for some discussion if people agree/disagree but imo we should swap Prestige and wf and EU and ARC and maybe some lower seeds in D1 too but thats debatable. Thx for reading
It is genuinely frustrating to see such critical posts like this. There is no cut and dry, surefire way of just
doing the seedings. There are multiple factors at play and we really do try our best to juggle them to a point where everything lines up in the end. Results from events, results during the off-season, transfers within the offseason and coming up to MKU, activity, general experience as a team and the goal of maintaining balanced conferences all have their own attributes at play. That's not even
touching the idea that we also deal with players from the community coming at us with their own opinions, founded by constructive information or not, demanding change, as well as unique factors such as the formatting of Amplify kinda messing around with where teams ended up over where they should have, etc etc.
We know. There's 14 of us from various corners of the community that bring what they know and what they see to the discussion, including having a hand in other staff groups that also organize tournaments. As a collective, we consider
all of this and even before we publish our first draft, we already know that people are gonna show up and complain. We can't please everyone, unfortunately. But it
baffles me that some think that putting these together is so simple.
I personally agree with you that the winner of the previous seasons divisions should maintain their top seeds going into the next season,
however, too many things change from event to event for that to feasibly make sense 100% of the time. We had the same issue with the old format and people coming up to us about being top 2/bottom 2 in their division. You'll notice that certain clauses were removed from our ruleset because we're no longer in a position to guarantee such things - hell, I don't think we could even do that when I first showed up on the MKU team in 2014. If absolutely nothing changed - if no new teams registered, no teams died, not a single player transferred to another team in the span of the offseason and the results in the events between seasons stayed the exact same, then I'd 100% agree with you and it would make our jobs a hell of a lot easier. But they don't, and unfortunately we have to make adjustments accordingly.
Being completely frank with you, D1 is the simplest division of them all to put together. We all know the top teams, and its the easiest to track the top teams' results. The skill gap between D1 and D2 is the most noticeable, AND, players from D1 move around
the least out of any other division and are impacted the least by losing a player because of just how high the skill curve is. Most of the people that are trying to bargain their seeds at the moment are from lower divisions - there's a lot more at play there given the constant shakeups that go on. No offense, I think that's kind of a bigger deal at the moment.
