Tournament module 2020 UPDATES: Swiss system v2

[dudi2]

@Draasill: Is there a "not skip the same player twice" rule implemented? Then skipping would be fair if there are enough rounds and same player will be skipped only if each player was skipped in one round already.

[Draasill]

The matchmaker chooses to skip players who havent't been skipped yet, indeed.

[Wreckage]

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.

I understand this, but when we play 6 nimmt, we want 5 players exactly. I think turn based and real time tournaments should have different ways of starting, just like games do. In real time tournaments it would be great for the director to have control, just like at a real time table.

[Ahla]

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.

Thanks, didn't know that. Since I am not premium, I couldn't check the options available.

Anyway, how "strict" is the matchmaker in order to prevent skipping. Assume we have a tournament with 25 players on 4 max tables, but allowing 3 as min. Would it start 6 4-player games and skip 1, or 3 4-player games and 3 3-player ones, skipping none? I would assume the latter?

Still, I think it would be nice if the tournament manager could kick players who clearly don't even try to keep the time limit, as they risk destroying the entire tournament.

[Draasill]

Anyway, how "strict" is the matchmaker in order to prevent skipping. Assume we have a tournament with 25 players on 4 max tables, but allowing 3 as min. Would it start 6 4-player games and skip 1, or 3 4-player games and 3 3-player ones, skipping none? I would assume the latter?

Here is a tournament with this exact configuration

[Ahla]

Anyway, how "strict" is the matchmaker in order to prevent skipping. Assume we have a tournament with 25 players on 4 max tables, but allowing 3 as min. Would it start 6 4-player games and skip 1, or 3 4-player games and 3 3-player ones, skipping none? I would assume the latter?

Here is a tournament with this exact configuration

Thanks. That tournament however seems like a good showcase on why being able to kick players might be worth implementing. A lot of games decided by remaining time, and a few players have multiple time outs.

Of course, playing a 4-player Terra Mystica in 7 days requires that a large part of the game is played in real time speed, and if a player is not ready for that, it is better to remove them IMO.

[donkeykong66]

I have a comment about the current tiebreaker system: Opponents' Points.

This in itself is a good tiebreaker, as it ranks those that have faced tougher opposition higher than those that played players that didn't perform so well.

However, the current tiebreaker only cares about which players you have faced but not how often you have faced those. This in particular matters for smaller tournaments, especially if "Don't try to prevent same players to be opponents twice" has been selected (which IMO should be the choice for small tournaments to make the top players battle it out in the last couple of rounds).

One such example is the following tournament: https://boardgamearena.com/tournament?id=74352. I faced the high-scoring Brisbane Roar 3 times, and vayne39 twice, and so adding 28 (for Brisbane) and 16 (for vayne) to give me an Opponents' Points of 114 seems a much more accurate description of the strength of my opponents during the tournament. In particular, players that face some opponents multiple times (especially stronger ones) currently have a (tiebreaker-)disadvantage against those that meet a variety of opponents.

I hope this can be implemented for future tournaments, as I really love the addition of multiplayer tournaments!

[jefcasa]

Hello tx for your work.
As a tournament administrator (game Coinche : a table 4 players), I see several problems related in that post:
https://boardgamearena.com/forum/viewto ... 037#p84037
In this game as tables are only 4 players, if one does not come, 3 people can't play during 45mns. If it happens some of them can leave and next turn, even more table don't play as system continue to bring them to a table on second round.

Hints :
A test of connected people 5 mns before tournament start followed by cancelling inscription of non-connected people could be implemented.
Admin should be able to change some parameters of the tournament as number of players min & maxi.

After 3 very bad experiences (people waiting on each round), many tables not playing as players did not come on time first round or leaved because they had to wait on following rounds, we made a group of friends and discussed how we could enjoy playing a tournament with the BGA features.
We made a list of invited people : we ask them to say if they will play during the week before the tournament. We create the tournament 24hours before it starts with the number of players mini = number of players maxi according to the numbers of pre)inscription done. People pre-inscripted are asked to join the tournament.
If it does not work that way we will stop creating tournaments.

[Priskus]

In tournaments with 2 players in games, why system repeat the same game in round 2 and round 3?!

https://boardgamearena.com/tournament?id=80017

davidmleal vs balrogas 2x tables:

https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=165433404
https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=166374796

When the system could skip balrogas (0 points) and make davidmleal play against ocramil (0 points)!

Plesae fix this...

[Priskus]

Same problem here:

https://boardgamearena.com/tournament?id=79990

round 5 round.
Laranjo, Wawa70, Blackstripes 1 point.
ocramil 0 points.

System pairs:
Laranjo vs wawa70
Blackstripes vs ocramil.
https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=167217327

But blacstripes already played against ocramil in round 4.
https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=165892731

So why system don't pair something like:
Laranjo vs Blackstripes
Ocramil vs wawa70

or

Laranjo vs Ocramil
Blackstripes vs wawa70.

Plesae fix this!