Tournament module 2020 UPDATES: Swiss system v2

[wehmsi]

Hi all !

We (6nimmt Group) have introduced a new interesting variant for the Swiss System.
A Team event concept.
Transposable to all games

The main concept here is to chose players against whom you will NOT compete, they will be your associates.
You can then play a classic swiss pairing system, players from a same team will always play in different tables according to their position in the leaderboard.
Only requirement, all teams must have the same number of players.

We did a test with a manual pairing (a simple excel sheet).
It would be so nice if you could implement this option in our tournaments!
I personnally think it is an easy modification and would help a lot to create new perspectives.

I published a report in the 6nimmt Forum page:
https://boardgamearena.com/forum/viewto ... 291#p74606


Also, repeating myself, but the feature we absolutely need is to allow registering players after a tournament is launched.
The Tournament Manager should be allowed at any moment to:
- boot a player out of a game (if disconnected)
- pause a tournament and look for/invite a substitute

Thank you in advance !

[RobertBr]

I want to congratulate the developers again. This is a much needed addition to the tournament system to cover games that are fundementally designed for more than two people (Carc and Puerto Rico among those I play).

One thing that has come up in the two I have just played is timings. As the number of players goes up the relationship between each individual players time and the maximum time for the match becomes increasingly out of sync (the system calculates the maximum time for the game as the sum of the individual players times). There will always be some players who don't use their time and some players who struggle. If four players have a maximum game length of 5 days, they have 30 hours each. A player might struggle with just 30 hours (you only need to fall foul of three overnights to exhaust it) but the other players still have much more than 20 hours left. If the organiser boost everybody out to say 60 hours (I don't remember exactly what is allowed) they have to allow for the over-all game to run for ten days.
It would be nice to allow have the maximum match length be less than the total of the players times; so perhaps a 5 day match should allow each player 36 hours...

[ExpendableEnsign]

One thing that has come up in the two I have just played is timings. As the number of players goes up the relationship between each individual players time and the maximum time for the match becomes increasingly out of sync (the system calculates the maximum time for the game as the sum of the individual players times). There will always be some players who don't use their time and some players who struggle. If four players have a maximum game length of 5 days, they have 30 hours each. A player might struggle with just 30 hours (you only need to fall foul of three overnights to exhaust it) but the other players still have much more than 20 hours left.

There is currently a Downforce tournament set for 2 days total (12 hours per player). Every game in the first round was decided by time. In two, players were booted for being over 12 hours. In the others, whoever used least time won. I would have expected the order to be decided by player position in the game. (Especially in a racing game, where this is easily calculated.) Instead, whoever gets the best sleep loses!

As the very least this should be documented and players should be warned before joining a tournament, because this is totally unintuitive.

[teff71]

I see some problems on points attribution in Swiss System v2. For example a player who prevent a game from finishing and get 2 points (6 players) while the last player on aside game, finished, get 0 point (7 players)...

Before presenting my suggestion, I explain my criterias.

Strong player who won all his games should not have different points if it is with n or (n-1) players.
Weak player who lose all his games should not have different points if it is with n or (n-1) players.
Ideally, a player which finish his game could have a little more points than excluded ones.

I would like finding a solution with a victory bonus... By now, I suggest the following.

With n players, first gain 2*n, 2nd gain 2*(n-1), (...) and the last gain 2 points. Sum is n*(n+1), and divide by n (important). Exception: players with negative clock when game is interrupted gain 0 point.
When game go with 1 or 2 players less:
- same points for winner and for last player
- points for others players equally distributed between, to keep the same average amount of points.
And in all games, players who tie share points of all their places (for example, 2 players share the 2nd place, they get half points of 2nd and 3rd places).
So the result is that an average player, sometimes winner, sometimes last, sometimes on the middle, is not advantaged or disadvantaged by being in full tables or not full tables.

Example, 7 players
Full table: 14-12-10-8-6-4-2; sum 56, average 8 points per player
6 players table: 14-12-9-7-4-2; sum 48, again average 8 points per player
5 players table: 14-11-8-5-2; sum 40, idem
4 players table: 14-10-6-2; sum 32, idem
3 players table: 14-8-2 ; sum 24, idem

Example, 6 players
Full table: 12-10-8-6-4-2; sum 42, average 7 points per player
5 players table: 12-9-7-5-2; sum 35, idem
4 players table: 12-9-5-2; sum 28, idem
3 players table: 12-7-2; sum 21, idem

[teff71]

Draasil est français (au passage, merci pour le boulot!), donc je le mets aussi en français :

Je vois différents problèmes à l'attribution des points lors des championnats en parties à plus de 2 joueurs (système suisse v2, round robin idem j'imagine). Par exemple un joueur qui empêche la partie de se terminer et se voit attribuer 2 points (à 6 joueurs) quand le dernier de la partie d'à côté (7 joueurs) s'en voit attribuer... 0 (je précise que je n'étais ni l'un ni l'autre).

Avant de proposer des solutions, j'explique mes critères.

Le joueur fort qui gagne toutes ses parties ne devrait pas avoir des points différents si c'est à n ou (n-1) joueurs.
Le joueur un peu moins fort qui perd toutes ses parties ne devrait pas avoir des points différents si c'est à n ou (n-1) joueurs.
Idéalement, un joueur qui termine la partie pourrait avoir un léger gain par rapport à un joueur exclu.

J'aurais aimé proposer une solution avec une prime au gagnant de chaque partie, en attendant je propose celle-ci, que je trouve assez juste.

A n joueurs, le 1er gagne 2*n, le 2nd 2*(n-1), (...) et le dernier 2 points. Le total vaut n*(n+1), et se divise donc par n (c'est important pour la suite). Exception: les joueurs "en négatif" quand la partie est interrompue gagnent 0 point.
Pour les parties avec 1 ou plusieurs joueurs en moins :
- on conserve les points du premier et du dernier
- on répartit les points des autres pour conserver la même moyenne de gain par joueur.
Et dans toutes les parties, les ex-aequo se partagent les points de toutes leurs places (par exemple, 2 ex-aequo pour la 2nde place se partagent à parts égales les points des 2e et 3e places).
Le résultat est qu'un joueur moyen, qui est parfois premier, parfois dernier, parfois au-milieu, n'est ni avantagé ni désavantagé par le fait d'être dans des parties complètes ou incomplètes.

Exemple à 7 joueurs
Partie complète : 14-12-10-8-6-4-2 ; total 56, donc 8 points en moyenne par joueur
Partie à 6 : 14-12-9-7-4-2 ; total 48, toujours 8 points en moyenne par joueur
Partie à 5 : 14-11-8-5-2 ; total 40, idem
Partie à 4 : 14-10-6-2 ; total 32, idem
Partie à 3 : 14-8-2 ; total 24, idem

Exemple à 6 joueurs
Partie complète : 12-10-8-6-4-2 ; total 42, donc 7 points en moyenne par joueur
Partie à 5 : 12-9-7-5-2 ; total 35, idem
Partie à 4 : 12-9-5-2 ; total 28, idem
Partie à 3 : 12-7-2 ; total 21, idem

[galehar]

Hello,
We have some problems with Race for the Galaxy tournaments which are using the new swiss system v2. I've already posted a topic about it, but I figured maybe this was the place to talk about it.
Anyway, several tournaments have been created with a time limit of 24h wich is way too low for 5 players game. We have asked the admins to cancel them which apparently they did, because they are marked as "over", but they still have on-going games (at least the first 2). Any way to really shut them down?

https://boardgamearena.com/tournament?id=67543
https://boardgamearena.com/tournament?id=67559
https://boardgamearena.com/tournament?id=69095

We also have these 2 which are still running, the latter has just started. Can the first one be cancelled? Can the time limit be changed to 3 days for the second one? If not, can it be cancelled?

https://boardgamearena.com/tournament?id=67758
https://boardgamearena.com/tournament?id=68999

Thanks!

[Wreckage]

Thanks for developing this!
I have played in a few of the 6 nimmt tournaments using swiss v2, in real time. The system works generally well once it's running.

The biggest problem is getting the event started. In the latest tournament, the event started and we all realized the settings for the games were wrong. There is no way out. All 30 players had to agree to abandon the first game, join the next table, abandon again, and so on. It takes 30 minutes to abandon our way out of a 5-round tournament so that we can change the settings and create a new tournament and start again. If one player leaves, it could take all day to stop the tournament. A ''cancel event'' button for the tournament manager is really needed.

Another problem is players registering and then not showing up. This should be similar to starting a real time regular table. The manager needs to click ''start event'' instead of the event starting by the clock only. Then each participant needs to click ''accept''. If someone isn't there then the manager can cancel start and try to recruit another player and click ''start event'' again. This way we can have the exact number of players we want just like at real time normal tables.

Thanks for all the work

[Ahla]

I think tournaments is a very good addition to the site. Big thumbs up for everyone involved. A few ideas on improvements (since I almost exclusively play turn based, these are meant for turn based tournaments):

Try to avoid skipping players. If at all possible, make the players that would be skipped play a game with less players. The suggestions and reasoning from teff71 above is great. This makes the tournament fairer and more fun for everyone. You join to play, not to be skipped and gain free points.

Give the tournament manager the ability to kick very late players. Of course, there are more or less serious time outs. Many tournaments run a tight schedule, so if you are unlucky in the "time zone lottery", there is not much you can do. If a player times out late in the game, and tries to avoid it and finish the game, that should be ok, but people not even showing up, or timing out in the first few turns should be kicked IMO. Maybe also give players the ability to quit the tournament if something came up IRL.

I also think there should be a severe reputation penalty for not showing up/time out too badly, as it is much more disturbing than in a regular game. How about a few weeks of tournament ban? Not sure if it is doable to distinguish between time outs from people really trying (who should not be punished) and those who don't care at all.

[RobertBr]

+1 to Ahla's remark, I started a separate thread about this but the skipping option really needs to be blocked for multiplayer turn based tournaments.

[Draasill]

Try to avoid skipping players. If at all possible, make the players that would be skipped play a game with less players. The suggestions and reasoning from teff71 above is great. This makes the tournament fairer and more fun for everyone. You join to play, not to be skipped and gain free points.

Hi,

the matchmaker already tries its best to prevent skipped players

Most of the time, there will not be any skipped player; it happens when you set a "minimum" number of player per table to be too high.

For exemple, if you set a tournament with 19 players :

• with 5 players per table, and 5 players minimum, you will have 3 x 5p tables, and 4 players skipped;
• with 5 players per table, and 4 players minimum, you will have 3 x 5p tables, 1 x 4p table, and no player skipped.

This is mostly because some games are very different depending on number of players.

You are free to configure the minimum player by table, as you wish.