Tournament module 2020 UPDATES: Multiplayer Elimination

[sprockitz]

Feedback from initial tournament. https://boardgamearena.com/tournament?id=69033

-A player didn't show up for the finals, resulting in the game not being played and 3 players received a tie for first. Adding something to play with 1 less player when this scenario happens (checking that the game supports that player count). This would allow the game to be played. Tied to this would be if 3 players tie for first they all get the 1st place trophy, which is good, but then 4th place shouldn't receive the 2nd place trophy....a 3 way tie for first should mean there is no 2nd or 3rd.

-When someone doesn't show up and the game isn't played, this leads to an 'arbitrary' advancement. In this case it was finals, so not a big deal, but in other cases getting eliminated when someone else quits or doesn't show up is just wrong. The ideal solution would be to still play the game (or to finish the game if someone quits an in progress game) and then have those results count. I know this isn't how bga is setup when someone quits as the game results are neutralized and everyone but the quitter wins...this would need to be changed for tournaments to work properly with quitters (I realize some game can't currently function if someone quits, but at least implement this for games that can).

-Also an option to use a hard time limit and auto-kick/auto-pass for players that run out of time (in games where it is possible) would be a nice addition.

[Draasill]

Thank you sprockitz, a lot, for your feedback !

What you encountered is an edge case, but an interesting one.

* if you impose a minimum of 4 players, game will be abandoned if a player is missing; I don't really see another way around this.

* indeed there should not be 1st/1st/1st/2nd, but 1st/1st/1st/4th.

* I'm not absolutely sure of what happens if table is abandoned when not at the "end". I'll look up on this.

Thanks again !

[Ranior]

So, I should clarify--the game did launch with the 3 players that showed up. However all of us agreed we didn't want to play a 3 player Terra Mystica game, so we collectively proposed to abandon, did so, and then it just gave us all 1st place awards. We presumably could have played out the game and the system would have worked.

It's just a bit tricky as Mikechike showed up shortly after the game launched and we just went and made a friendly table and played out the 4 player game as we wanted to. So probably kind of messed up this test of the system admittedly.

[sprockitz]

2nd test here. https://boardgamearena.com/tournament?id=69031

brought up another interesting case. 2 advance per game, in this case we have a tie for 2nd in the first round and 1 player 'arbitrarily' advances. I'd recommend both advance in this case.

In later rounds a possibility would be to check previous round finishes as a tiebreaker...for example in 2nd round if two people tie and one won the last game while the other was 2nd, the person with the better finish in the previous round advances. Another option is to always let both advance, unless you are reaching a final table. (going from 8 to 5 b/c of a tie in a 4 player game wouldn't be good...but a quarterfinal going from 12 to 7 versus 12 to 6 would be just fine since you aren't increasing the total number of tables in the next round by letting both tied players advance).

You could also have target numbers that you drive each game to when deciding whether to let extra players advance instead of using tiebreakers.Like 4 player 2 advance you want a factor of 2...4, 8, 16, 32 etc players to have a tournament with all 4p games. Most odd numbers also don't work for getting to a final table if 2 are advancing...so options for best 3rd place advancing if number players in a game is a priority over having exactly 2 advance. So a 5 player with 2 advance has say 30 people. 6 games yield 1

Just a few possible options on how to better handle the tie situation, even having a few choices and letting it be selected by the tournament director would be great (though more work for you).

[Sheffield_refugee]

... we're happy to introduce the "Bracket Elimination" mode !
...
Please post an answer if you are interested in creating such a tournament, I'll give to some of the volunteers a special link with the ability to access the bracket elimination mode.
...

I'd be willing to test the alpha "Bracket Elimination" mode. I create 100+ Can't Stop tournaments a month. A few more couldn't hurt.

[Waddington]

I would like tp test these new tournament modes!

I am interested in setting up a kind of long term tournament, for instance, running 5 months, months 1 to 4 swiss system. then, month 5, single elimination with the 4 winners from previous 4 months .

Is this something doable?

thanks in advance

[sprockitz]

Noticed another thing in this tournament with the matchmaking in round 2. In this tournament top 2 advance from first round, in this case all the first place finishers play in the 2nd round and all the 2nd place finishers also play. This makes a 'hard' table and 'easy' table, should re-rank players after the first round based on finishing 1st or 2nd so that those players are split up in the next round.

https://boardgamearena.com/tournament?id=69345

[flolem]

Please post an answer if you are interested in creating such a tournament, I'll give to some of the volunteers a special link with the ability to access the bracket elimination mode.

I would be interested to create a bracket tournament with 4 players per game.
How can I proceed ?

[Chauff]

I would be interested too

[Chauff]

Et bien c'est vraiment très, très bien fait ! Mes tournois ne sont pas encore finis, mais sur la création et le début de tournoi c'est du très beau boulot

J'ai créé plusieurs tournois, pour tester pas mal de paramètres (dont certains qui ne me semblaient pas optimaux du tout), les voici :
Kindgom Builder : https://boardgamearena.com/tournament?id=71069 : 4 joueurs (3 minimum) => 2 qualifiés. 48 inscrits
Tokaido : https://boardgamearena.com/tournament?id=71070 : 4 joueurs (3 minimum) => 2 qualifiés. 19 inscrits
Welcome To : https://boardgamearena.com/tournament?id=71234 : 6 joueurs (4 minimum) => 3 qualifiés. 36 inscrits
Can't Stop : https://boardgamearena.com/tournament?id=71236 : 4 joueurs => 1 qualifié. 64 inscrits
7 Wonders : https://boardgamearena.com/tournament?id=71267 : 3 joueurs => 2 qualifiés. 32 inscrits
Sushi Go : https://boardgamearena.com/tournament?id=71269 : 4 joueurs (3 minimum) => 1 qualifié. 64 inscrits
Lucky Numbers : https://boardgamearena.com/tournament?id=71331 : 4 joueurs = > 1 qualifié. 109 inscrits

La création est fluide, il y a pas mal de garde-fous pour empêcher de faire des bêtises. Peut être que ça vaudrait le coup de mettre un message d'info (non bloquant) quand on a des paramètres pas optimaux, qui vont donner une fin de tournoi un peu galère (si le nombre de qualifiés n'est pas un diviseur d'un nombre de joueurs autorisés par partie, par exemple), et quand c'est pas le cas de conseiller sur le nombre de joueurs max, si la formule mathématique n'est pas trop compliquée ("joueurs par partie" * (1/"% de qualifiés par partie")^k doit marcher, je pense).

Je me suis posé la question de permettre un nombre d'éliminés par partie à la place du nombre de qualifiés, je ne sais pas si ça aurait un intérêt ou si ça complexifierait inutilement.

Sur le déroulement :
- ça semble être un tirage au sort intégral, est-ce que ça aurait un intérêt de faire un système de têtes de série basé sur le ELO ?
- la gestion des "BYE" a l'air top
- l'indication du % d'avancement des parties, c'est vraiment cool, toute l'interface pour voir les parties d'un joueur aussi !
- est-ce qu'on pourrait avoir un petit indicateur d'avancement du tournoi ? Quelque chose comme : 1er tour : 3 parties terminées sur 12
- ça dépasse le cadre de ce format, mais quand une table "prend du retard", est-ce qu'on pourrait inciter à le rattraper (soit un message, soit faire apparaitre cette table en priorité dans l'ordre dans lequel les tables apparaissent pour les joueurs) ?
- je n'ai pas encore eu l'occasion de voir la gestion des parties qui se finissent au temps, ou quand un joueur est expulsé parce qu'il a dépassé. Est-ce que ça qualifie tous les autres, ou est-ce que c'est un tirage au sort ?
- Comme l'a signalé Sprockitz, les 1ers jouent contre les 1ers, les 2èmes contre les 2èmes... ça pourrait effectivement pousser à "sous-jouer".