[[Request]] Most wanted updates to Tournaments

[dschingis27]

But in both cases the default is "typewriter", which should not be an option at all! At least, I cannot think of any legitimate reason that a tournament would be set up using the typewriter method. The two options should be serpentine and random, as proposed in the official report: https://boardgamearena.com/bug?id=209802

I agree that typewriter should not be the default. The question is which of the others should be the default then? Probably Serpentine?
Do we already know what "Random" means exactly? Is it completely random assignment into groups or is there still some seeding and the randomn assignment is within seeding categories?

For me, the best setup would be what has been common in many sports. Say, 16 players must be distributed into 4 groups of 4. We make 4 pots according to the Elo ranking (rank 1 to 4, rank 5 to 8, rank 9 to 12, rank 13 to 16) and each group gets exactly one player from each pot at random. This leads to groups being balanced on average and we wouldn't have the systematic odd Elo gaps between players in the groups. (E.g., in the example with 16 players, with Serpentine the Group 1 has rank 1, 8, 9, 16, I don't like that so much, particularly when you make tournaments where only group winners advance.)

[Mathew5000]

Oh, interesting. I was assuming that "random" means there is no seeding at all (every player has an equal chance of being placed in any of the groups and Elo is not considered at all). But perhaps "random" means the pot system that you describe. It wouldn't be that hard to test; you could set up a couple of tournaments and get a screencap of everyone's Elo just before the groups are assigned. But it would be nice if the developer came here to say exactly how "random" group assignments work.

Note that in the "pot" system, the player ranked 4th (by Elo) is given a large advantage over the player ranked 5th, because #4 is protected against #1, #2, and #3, while #5 has no real protection (a 25% chance of facing the #1 ranked seed). Whereas in serpentine, both #4 and #5 are protected against the top three seeds.

I'm the one who invented the name "typewriter" for what is now the default system (see https://boardgamearena.com/bug?id=73841 ) and maybe I shouldn't have given it a name because it only adds legitimacy to a system that should never be used.

[dschingis27]

Note that in the "pot" system, the player ranked 4th (by Elo) is given a large advantage over the player ranked 5th, because #4 is protected against #1, #2, and #3, while #5 has no real protection (a 25% chance of facing the #1 ranked seed). Whereas in serpentine, both #4 and #5 are protected against the top three seeds.

That is indeed a nice feature of Serpentine, thank you for pointing it out.

If only balance was the goal, then "Serpentine" is the optimum because it guarantees a balanced distribition as much as possible all the time. But there is another thing I desire which is "spice". I don't like it that the top Elo players only meet opponents from the middle and the end of the Elo-ranked player pool. There should be a chance that they get some real competition early on.

The completely "Random" setting would mostly serve my "spice" desire but if it's completely random, then some very unbalanced groups can happen, too. That is why most sports use a mixture of seeding and random draws to balance out between "balance" and "spice" (next to other things of course). Imagine in the upcoming soccer world cup with 48 teams, the number 1 and 2 seeded teams were guaranteed to not meet any opponent higher than rank 23 and 24 in the groups. I don't think people would like that and it would be perceived as boring and unfair.

I create a lot of popular tournaments that start with many small groups and only 1st places advance. For instance, I have one with 128 players distributed into 32 groups of 4. Now with Serpentine, the Group 1 has rank #1, 64, 65, 128, which provides the #1 player a big advantage if only group winners advance. Don't get me wrong, it's still better than the current typewriter system where Group 32 is always so much weaker than Group 1.

I have a "Random" group-stages tournament starting on 2nd April, I will check out what happens.

[RazorOz]

I agree that typewriter should not be the default. The question is which of the others should be the default then? Probably Serpentine?
Do we already know what "Random" means exactly? Is it completely random assignment into groups or is there still some seeding and the randomn assignment is within seeding categories?

It means completely random, even from table assignment. For example in my World Cup's the #1 ranked player would always be table 1 in round 1 under the old method, I changed it to random player distribution this season, and I am at table 5.

I would agree that typewriter should not be default, serpentine should be, because you do create an issue that how many creators will even change this option. At the moment it's hard to tell as you don't know which tournaments were created before this change, where typewriter is now displayed as the option chosen, where the creator never had an option to change that.

[dschingis27]

It means completely random, even from table assignment. For example in my World Cup's the #1 ranked player would always be table 1 in round 1 under the old method, I changed it to random player distribution this season, and I am at table 5.

This is off-topic but you have a tendency to make points that don't say anything or are confusing. I mean that in good-faith spirit to make you aware.
- First, are you the #1 ranked player? I cannot know! Probably you are because your sentence doesn't make sense otherwise?!
- Your example doesn't mean anything, it doesn't show at all that it's not the "pot system". You are probably correct in what "Random" is but why do you give an example that would be possible in both systems?

[RazorOz]

This is off-topic but you have a tendency to make points that don't say anything or are confusing. I mean that in good-faith spirit to make you aware.
- First, are you the #1 ranked player? I cannot know! Probably you are because your sentence doesn't make sense otherwise?!
- Your example doesn't mean anything, it doesn't show at all that it's not the "pot system". You are probably correct in what "Random" is but why do you give an example that would be possible in both systems?

I am #1. It is not possible under serpentine or typewriter. Under both those systems the #1 is always table 1 in round 1.

[dschingis27]

I can confirm also from my own tournament that "Random" means "completely random". I kinda like it, it makes sure that top Elo players do not have a guaranteed easy life in the first tournament stage. And weaker players can hope for weaker opponents.

[koningco]

I hope the bug for tournament with 12 hour timeframes will be fixed soon. Apparently 50+ upvotes is not enough to pick this up quickly: https://boardgamearena.com/bug?id=209956

[Meeplelowda]

Apparently 50+ upvotes is not enough to pick this up quickly

There are requests with 100s of upvotes (even over 1000) that have not been acted on, so I don't think this is at all surprising.

[DerIKM]

Imo there should be a tournament simulator that allows to forsee how BGA would set up each round of a tournament under certains participants counts and settings