[[Request]] Most wanted updates to Tournaments

Tournaments organization / Organisation des tournois
User avatar
BananaHarambe
Posts: 297
Joined: 19 June 2024, 17:40

[[Request]] Most wanted updates to Tournaments

Post by BananaHarambe »

We have had a few updates to tournaments in the last 6 months or so. There have been small, minor improvements that have been all upside since they are additional options for tournament hosts.

As of writing this the new 2025 features are: 1) Option for Auto number of rounds for Swiss and 2) Option to prevent skips.

I wanted to gather everyone's thoughts on the most want tournament features for the developers to add. Ideally these requests would be options, not forced on players, be universally of interest, and fairly easy to implement. Sorry, no rewriting of the swiss pairing algorithm for example, not going to happen. Let's be realistic.

My top requests:

1) Allow only 1 group for group stage tournaments: Outside of BGA the most popular style of competitive tournament is Stage 1 single group Swiss with a top cut to finals (usually 8 or 16 players). We should really be able to implement this in BGA. There is not usually a benefit to splitting up players into groups in Stage 1, all it does is reduce the quality of matchmaking and force more byes or uneven table sizes. This effect is most noticeable with 3p particularly where players need to be split into 3 groups in order to get a sensible player count for Stage 2. When tournament size is lower, this issue becomes even worse by splitting into groups. 3p Swiss would work much better with the option for 1 group, but all group sizes benefit. No changes needed to how many players advance. 32 players advancing is more than enough as is.

https://boardgamearena.com/bug?id=77238 bug report for "Group Stage Tournament Mode: allow 1 Group" please comment and thumbs up! I will recruit more thumbs up via other ways. Currently at 15.

2) New option for Round Robin: Time between each game start (with drop down menu): This is the most common request for round robin, which is the ability to stagger the start times of the games. Currently the time between each game start is 0 minutes, which is unintuitive to players new to BGA and catches every single player by surprise (in my experience). Just have it as a listed option with 0 minutes would clarify that all games start at the same time. For options, I mostly play turn based 2p games in the 5-7 day range so I would want to be able to select 24h/1day or 48h/2day most often. 3+ player does not exist in round robin so no considerations there :)

The drop down times for game duration would be totally fine for this setting, just include 0 minutes at the bottom before 10 minutes and go all the way up to 30 days.

Round Robins can technically be staggered already, but also not really because the host needs to manually set the match date times AND needs to make the start times at least as far apart as game duration. This means you can set up one at a time round robin, but it is incredibly tedious and the scheduling may not work well for group stage and/or when number of participants is unknown. If the matches need to be one at a time, why not just make a Swiss? In my opinion the lack of staggering for Round Robins pushes players to try and solve the issue using the Swiss system, which ends up creating its own problems since Swiss is not supposed to be used for low player, high match number setups.

I would love to be able to set up Round Robins with 8 players per group and use my regular 7 day game duration, but stagger the game starts by 1-2 days to prevent overwhelming players. 7 games staggered by 2 days would mean 12 days between the start of the first and final game, adding about 2 weeks to the tournament. If this were group stage with both Round Robin and groups of 8 the tournament would take about 6 weeks to complete 14 games, which is pretty reasonable.

If sped up to 1 day between game starts it would be 14 games in about 4 weeks, also reasonable.

With current settings this would be 14 games in 2 weeks, which is too fast IMO. I use 10 day game duration instead to stretch it out to up to 20 days, but it always feels rushed regardless.

3) New option for Multiplayer Elimination: number of qualified players OR number of eliminated players (one or the other): I want to make tournaments with the ability to host 3-4 player tables (3 player to smooth out player counts) with only 1 player eliminated per round. From what I've seen, 4 player with 3 qualified is guaranteed to be very clunky as the numbers get lower with no smooth way to progress down even with ideal player count. For 3p 2q this is not an issue because numbers like 90, 60, 40, 27 all work their way down quite smoothly.

3-4p with one player eliminated is currently impossible because a 3p game with 3 qualified would not work so all games would need to be 4p.


4) Add more maximum game duration options: 20 days and 40 days at least. This is a comment request based on the thread below.
Last edited by BananaHarambe on 23 September 2025, 18:08, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
yodamus
Posts: 211
Joined: 18 January 2018, 16:28

Re: [[Request]] Most wanted updates to Tournaments

Post by yodamus »

Lol. I need some time to think about this. I totally agree with your round Robin idea of staggered starts. I remember my first one. Blew my poor old brain away with the frenzy the start can be if 4 or more opponents are online.. Just needs about 15 minutes or so between starts. Especially since many round Robin games are short and quick to play. Also. I have played in a number of multi with 3p and 1 advance. Works great till near the end. Now to make the numbers work perfect.?
Last edited by yodamus on 29 June 2025, 10:08, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Rwain
Posts: 113
Joined: 14 August 2012, 08:24

Re: [[Request]] Most wanted updates to Tournaments

Post by Rwain »

I totally agree. 1) and 2) seem to offer the possibility of major improvement.

I think many tournaments administrators are waiting for this.
User avatar
RazorOz
Posts: 388
Joined: 25 June 2022, 13:58

Re: [[Request]] Most wanted updates to Tournaments

Post by RazorOz »

On #2 I'd like to see the options just widened generally. It's very hard to currently set a good system for multiplayer elimination, particularly at certain player counts like 5 player, often only a few numbers work, I'd like to see the option to set # of players per table, and players to qualify per tournament round.

I often feel like the current system is a fight to create a tournament that is actually fair (ie. no players getting byes and the like). Look at something like this https://boardgamearena.com/tournament?id=378841 and the mental gymnastics being used to make the numbers work, it would all be so much easier if players per table and # to qualify could be set per round, and it would also mean more numbers work to begin with rather than having to find magic numbers.

There's a number of things where I'd like to just see greater control. Eg. one issue that often arises in Heat tournaments is players would like to set say a 6 round Swiss (or 12 round) where you play each track once (or twice) so week 1 is USA, week 2 France and so on, from a complexity stand point this shouldn't be impossible, but the tournament infrastructure is so rigid that it doesn't allow for things such as this.

#3 And this should be fairly simply to implement, options for 45, 60, 90 day player rounds. 30 days simply isn't enough for longer games. Again, an example of a problem this creates at Heat, is people keep creating Championship tournaments, every single one ends the same way, with the games all not finishing, it leads to a lot of people getting annoyed and the like, but all it needs is an option for longer tournament rounds, it's virtually impossible to complete a 4 race Championship in Heat at 5+ players, when a single race probably averages around 14 days to complete in such a setting.

#4 This one is just a pet peeve, but I really have no idea why the current system is like this, so why at multiplayer elimination tournament does the first round (and I believe the first round of each phase if you use group phases) do matchmaking so say at a 48 player tournament with 6 per table, that #1 in ELO plays, #9, #17, #25, #33, #41. Firstly, why is it not just random which seems better, but secondly it also doesn't seem to even work the way it's intended as it means the #1 gets the toughest table, it makes no sense.
FSKFSK
Posts: 427
Joined: 12 January 2019, 07:22

Re: [[Request]] Most wanted updates to Tournaments

Post by FSKFSK »

3-4 players with one player eliminated can get messed up at the end.

Suppose you have 7 players at the end. You have a 3 table and a 4 table. Now you have 5 players left. The way this is handled now is there's a bye, and a 4 table with 3 advancing to the final.

However, it does work with 8 players. You have two 4 tables. Then you have two 3 tables. Then you have a 4 table final.

The tournament engine would need to be "smart enough" to plan ahead.

Also, the same thing 4-5 players with one eliminated is guaranteed to get messed up at the end.
User avatar
GTSchemer
Posts: 1130
Joined: 09 August 2013, 03:26

Re: [[Request]] Most wanted updates to Tournaments

Post by GTSchemer »

My biggest wish is that double elimination tournaments were possible, like with fighting videogames.

This would be the same as single elimination, but you get put in a losers' bracket if you lose once, so it's slightly less harsh than one loss kicking you out completely.

For the grand final game, it could either be simplified (winner takes all), or consistent (if the player in the winning bracket loses, another game is played to finish now that both players have lost once each).
User avatar
BananaHarambe
Posts: 297
Joined: 19 June 2024, 17:40

Re: [[Request]] Most wanted updates to Tournaments

Post by BananaHarambe »

RE: Double Elimination

Agreed on Double Elimination as a common tournament structure outside of BGA and being fairly easy to implement since many tournament organizing websites do it already. Displaying the brackets can be a bit of a mess though in my opinion and with the massive size of BGA tournaments I could see it being difficult to display the brackets. The largest double elimination tournament I did was 256 players and 100% online. It was a total mess trying to read the brackets.

One more thing, double elimination only works for 2 players so its usage is partially limited. Although single elimination and Round Robin are also restricted to 2p, just a consideration.

This would take quite a bit of effort for BGA devs to implement, being a whole new tournament mode. At the very least it would only be 2 player, which is easier to code brackets for. I would prefer limited dev project time spent on better options for the existing modes and some bug fixes before doing something like this.

Allow 1 Group for Group Stage

One more suggestion that I think about all the time, but forgot to include initially, allow only 1 group for Group Stage Tournaments! Single group top cut tournaments are arguably the most popular tournament type in existence outside of BGA. Competitive card games and video game tournaments are very often a single group Swiss tournament with a Top 8 or Top 16 cutoff for single elimination finals! It is literally everywhere! Even look at sports leagues...they are often one long season of round robin, playing each other team twice (one at home, one away) followed by a playoff series of single elimination for Top 8 or Top 16?

I want this option for BGA because it makes it SOOOOO much easier to arrange Swiss stage 1 with single elimination finals for various player counts. Trying to arrange a Swiss top cut for 3p was difficult because I want a multiple of 3 for players to finals, and make finals 3p 1q. But now, how do I get 9 players to Stage 2? I need to make 3 groups? Now I need to make sure each group has enough players in it to have unique opponents after splitting the group in 3 so my tournament size is very restricted.

Allowing 1 group for Group Stage seems like a very easy request to implement. I wouldn't expect much coding to change it. I think the benefits are quite high as it allows us to effectively add a proper "finals" to any tournament type.
User avatar
yodamus
Posts: 211
Joined: 18 January 2018, 16:28

Re: [[Request]] Most wanted updates to Tournaments

Post by yodamus »

Oooooo...really like the easier format 1 group for group stage tourneys with lots of players. With as you say top 8 or 16 for se. I would think fairly easy for bga to implement too.
User avatar
BananaHarambe
Posts: 297
Joined: 19 June 2024, 17:40

Re: [[Request]] Most wanted updates to Tournaments

Post by BananaHarambe »

yodamus wrote: 06 July 2025, 18:54 Oooooo...really like the easier format 1 group for group stage tourneys with lots of players. With as you say top 8 or 16 for se. I would think fairly easy for bga to implement too.
100% yes please! Seems about as easy to implement as the new prevent skips and Auto Swiss features so I think it’s realistic :)

There are one or 2 related bug reports suggesting it that you can also thumbs up and leave a comment on. Can’t find them now, but might link them here with an edit later.
User avatar
Mathew5000
Posts: 661
Joined: 02 January 2021, 01:41

Re: [[Request]] Most wanted updates to Tournaments

Post by Mathew5000 »

BananaHarambe wrote: 27 June 2025, 19:30 I wanted to gather everyone's thoughts on the most want tournament features for the developers to add. Ideally these requests would be options, not forced on players, be universally of interest, and fairly easy to implement. Sorry, no rewriting of the swiss pairing algorithm for example, not going to happen. Let's be realistic.
Here's a few minor changes that I think would have large benefits, especially for the types of tournaments that I play in, roughly in order of what I would prioritize most highly:

1. For turn-based, offer the tournament creator more options for max game duration. Especially, add the options of 20 days and 40 days. https://boardgamearena.com/bug?id=55235 (currently 24 upvotes)

2. Warn if turn-based tournament has playing hours. Why do I rank this so highly? Right now, I think "playing hours" are a good idea in principle, but in practice they usually work poorly because too many entrants are unaware of the playing hours when they register. With a warning (preferably with the times and time zones stated expressly and unambiguously), the system of playing hours would become much more useful! https://boardgamearena.com/bug?id=29609 (currently 16 upvotes)

3. Allow more variation in the selection of playing hours; not only 12-hour windows, but also windows of 4, 6, 8, or 16 hours. https://boardgamearena.com/bug?id=130167 (currently 5 upvotes)

4. In Swiss system tournaments, change default to "DON'T try to prevent repeat pairings". https://boardgamearena.com/bug?id=170168 (currently 1 upvote)

5. In "Groups" tournaments, assign players to groups by the serpentine system. This is one where most players might not perceive a problem, and if the issue is fixed (by adopting the serpentine system for group assignment) most players wouldn't really perceive a difference. Despite that, this is an important issue because under the current system, groups are always unbalanced, with group 1 having tougher competition than group 2, which has tougher competition than group 3, and so on. https://boardgamearena.com/bug?id=73841 (currently 9 upvotes).

In my own limited experience with coding, projects almost always turn out to be more difficult and more time-consuming than I would have predicted at the outset. I am not saying that the changes I list above would be easy for the devs to implement. Rather, I'm saying that the changes above would improve BGA tournaments and I suspect they might be easier to implement than some other more complex changes.
Post Reply

Return to “Tournaments / Les tournois”