The tiebreaker for TI direct invites (if 2 teams are tied in DPC points) rightly prioritizes performance at majors before placement in regional leagues. This makes sense as majors are the biggest stage and most important tournaments of the DPC season.
Weplay's seeding methodology, however, unjustly prioritizes season 2 regional league performance as the tiebreaker and doesn't at all account for past major performance. This results in a ridiculous seeding outcome where QC is seeded first above LGD, Aster, and Alliance (who all have 800 DPC points) and LGD is seeded last, setting up a very lopsided bracket.
What if we were to fix the tiebreaker and have past major performance be the #1 tiebreaker before the other tiebreakers? Then we would get LGD, QC, Aster, Alliance. The UB R1 matchups would be:
VP/Nigma
Aster/Alliance
LGD/NoPing
QC/T1
This looks to be more balanced than the current setup, and it would also get LGD/Nigma on opposite sides of the bracket.
Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk.
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/DotA2/comments/nusv34/the_real_problem_with_weplays_seeding/
