Good. I brought this issue up in I think 2019 after I caught a TD eliminating what I consider to be “chance” games (short flippers, super old, etc.) after the first round and they got super upset with me. They claimed they were doing it to “speed things up” but it’s completely unfair and if the first round has to play the machines then the last round should have to play the same machines.
IFPA also needs to make a rule to allow for tournament software review if a player wants it or require all tournament software to be open source. A piece of software that pull at “random” shouldn’t be allowed unless players can review how “random” that code is. Swearing at people and calling them all kinds of horrible names because they asked for a software review in a FB group should never happen. I really didn’t like it when it happened to me.
Do you really think that requesting Pinball software source code is a reasonable request at a tournament or otherwise?
But if you send @haugstrup a note, he’s been more than willing to chat with me about how the combination of settings and how they will make the drawing behave. For instance. You can choose random arena draws, but if you also have Swiss pairings selected, the random draws could seem less random due to the fact that the software is handcuffed to pairing players with like standing first.
I think that if someone asks to see the algorithm that handles how machines and players are picked they should be allowed to see that. I don’t think that full source needs to be released but there should be as much transparency as possible when it comes to how players and machines are picked.
A lot of us who play write software and usually if a software dev brings up an issue they have valid reasons as to why they think that there’s an issue. As a developer I listen to people when they think that there’s an issue and see if I can reproduce it myself and fix it if it is real. I don’t scream and swear at people.
I’m not going to mention the software or the dev that I had issues with but I’m glad that people are now at least willing to explain what their software is doing. There should be more of that in pinball.
1 Like
There aren’t that many people writing pinball tournament software. If you’re talking about me just tag me. 
Match Play’s code for pairing players and arenas have been open-source since before there even was a Match Play app (first commit over 9 years ago). Knock yourself out: GitHub - haugstrup/TournamentUtils: Generate player groups for match-play tournaments
I’m happy to have conversations on the topic, but I don’t want to spend a bunch of time unless people are willing to do their homework first. I’ve had very fruitful collaborations over the years – both the strict swiss pairing code and the greedy player pairing class came out of collaborations with other software engineers, but it’s not useful for me to spend time educating random folks who have thought about the issues for like 5 mins and think they have an “easy” fix for their pet peeve.
You would not have any pinball tournament software in that case 
5 Likes
I’m struggling with the driver for this rule.
Pinball is pinball surely? If it’s on classics, EMs, Dmd’s, lcds or whatever? Players with skill will still perform and win?
I’m not talking about you but I’d prefer to not call out anyone in particular since I’m not here to start a fight. Match Play has done a lot to advance the software forward and it seems like Match Play tries to be as open as possible about how the software works. You’re kind of the standard at this point in time.
I know that your match code has always been open source and it’s awesome that you’re willing to share that much. This is exactly what I’m talking about when it comes to transparency and what you’ve done is the level of disclosure that I’m looking for. I also know that you have a ticket system so if people think they find something they can report it and you’re active on the forums.
I think that if software is used that’s “random” the developer should at least be willing to explain the logic or have a ticket system so people can report an issue if they find one. My issue was pretty specific and it got to the point where I could predict it but when I tried to report it people really came after me. That shouldn’t happen.
2 Likes
I’m sorry people were jerks. If this was really a implementation of random that sounds really odd because all programming languages have a built-in randomizer to use. It’d be a weird way to spend your time to build your own randomizer. “Balanced” is different in that there are plenty of choices to make when implementing those algorithms.
Maybe tell the software developer to use the Match Play pairing/randomizer/balanced code since it’s proven to work 
1 Like
I will add one thing because it’s often a point of confusion: Drawing random machines provide more repeat machines chosen than people expect. It’s not unusual for “random” to produce a result where a player is tasked with playing the same machine twice, thrice or even four times in a row.
It’s counterintuitive because people have an idea that “random” will provide even choices across a tournament. In reality the opposite happens because a given player will have the same chance of getting a repeat machine as they will getting any other machine.
Which is exactly why the “balanced” option exists. “Balanced” produces results that that most people want when they say they want “random”.
5 Likes
Ya it sucks that people took it the way that they did but there’s nothing I can do about it. I’ve tried to reach out to people but I’ve gotten no response so it is what it is.
I am glad that you’re working to make it feel more random since getting stuck on the same machine can be defeating for a lot of people. You are right that without some influence a “random” number will often give you more dups than something that has a little bit of logic in it.
Anyway sorry about getting off topic but I do feel like pulling machine mid tournament and seeding are related since they’re things that they player can’t control.
