Thanks for the explanation, that is pretty much what I guessed. What about adding a confirmation dialog if the score entered is > 6 digits and ends in a non-zero?
Can’t think of many games this would cause to be annoying, and it would likely fix the mistakes.
Not a bad idea!
Hey Andreas, Not a big deal, but just a weird thing I’ve noticed.
I run a few comps myself with Matchplay, however, when I’m made a scorekeeper of a comp run by someone else I can’t seem to access the other comp as a scorekeeper. I just keep getting a message saying “you aren’t a scorekeeper of any events”.
Not sure what I could be doing wrong if anything. Just wanted to let you know about the issue.
I’d like to dig into this a little deeper. Can you email me at play@matchplay.events with a link to a tournament that’s acting up?
I’d like to create a two-strike group knockout tournament and I want the top 4 players to have byes for the first round. In order to do this, I’ve been adding the top 4 into the second round. I’m choosing adjacent pairing for the first round and when I add those players into the second round, the system still attempts to put them into adjacent pairing, but I want them to be paired up swiss-style.
I figured out a workaround by cloning the tournament and adjusting the strikes and the seeding. It works but is quite time consuming. Is there a better way of doing this that I’m missing?
Oh man, you’re entering a world of pain 
The MP knockout tournaments are not meant to be used with byes… The reason you are getting wacky pairings in the second round is something you’d never be able to guess: Swiss pairings are made by comparing the number of wins. Since your bye players didn’t play in the first round they all have 0 wins and thus will be treated the same way as everyone who lost their first game for the purpose of pairings.
If you want swiss pairings you have to adjust the strike count. As you’ve discovered it’s a lot of clicking.
One alternative would be to have all players playing from the start, When each of the top 4 players lose their first game, then give them a strike adjustment. The more I think about it the better I like that approach. Same result, but more pinball being played 
Interesting solution. Actually, I found out that if I address the strikes even before the tournament begins, it does seem to be calculating correctly.
I learned something new too! (why are computers so hard)
@nudgey, instead of saying they get byes, it might be easier to start them off with an extra strike at the beginning as you said, and say that the top 4 get a “bonus strike”.
Or you could allow the top 4 immunity from one strike, where you subtract a strike in the round of their choosing. @haugstrup might be able to speak to whether or not that’s a dumb idea.
I’ve used Match Play to run a similar, but more elaborate format for a season final (1st: 5 strikes, 2nd-3rd: 4 strikes, 4th-6th: 3 strikes, 7th-10th: 2 strikes).
The strike adjustments were made at the start of the tournament, and it worked great!
I’m a big fan of formats that give extra chances to the top qualifiers as an alternative to byes.
@haugstrup I have been using the software to do round robin tournaments and it’s been great! However, there have been a few complaints that people are having to play certain games way too much.
I currently select the games to be random for each match. Is there a way to have an option to have random games, but have the game chosen be somehow weighted towards a game that neither person in the match has played yet?
I am typically using this format when I only have 8-10 players show up. There is 8 games available for play. Well actually seven (I don’t like using LOTR unless I have to)
You want to select “balanced” arenas instead of random.
Just checked. My only options for the arenas is to do random or manually pick them. No balanced options like picking the player match ups.
I figured it out. The balance arena option is not available for round robin tournaments. Anyway to add it?
Is there a tournament type that I can run that I put the players into random groups of four and they play on 6 games, and I log their scores for all six games and the software awards points based on how their score on the 6 games stacks up against all the other players in the tournament?
This is a popular qualifying format I like to use. Then the finals would be standard PAPA group match play.
Edit: looks like the best game format would work if I mess with its settings. However, I want the scoring to be based off the number of players. For example, if there are 24 players, and you score the top score on a game, you get 24 points. If you get the worst score, you get 1 point. Anyway to adjust the points that are awarded?
Sorry for the late response, I’ve been traveling without internet access.
I’ve made a note to add balanced arenas for round robin tournaments. I have to first check if it’s possible because round robin tournaments are special snowflakes. If it’s possible, I’ll do it.
It’ll take me a little while though. I have a ton of stuff to get done in July…
I must admit I’m wary of adding direct support for this kind of format. It seems that your random opponents matter more than your play? Unless all players are the same level of player it seems like luck plays a huge part in whether or not a player gets to advance to finals
Seems like any herb format software would achieve what he is looking for there.
I clearly shouldn’t be writing messages at 6am while jetlagged. Yes, best game is the way to go. @chuckwurt I saw your email about the points stuff. I’ll respond separately because I Have Questions.
Had an issue come up last night at our tournament.
Tourney was a 2-strike, 4-player group, bottom two players get strikes.
We had a game break down and had to move a group (which was a 3-person group), no problem, re-assigned them a random game through the software.
They finished the game and I went to enter the results. I wasn’t entering scores, just finishing positions.
So I go to click on the players, and it only fills in 2nd/3rd/4th, and won’t ever show 1st place as an option for the 3 players. This then led to not being able to save that data because it seemed to be waiting for me to get that 1st place entered somewhere, even though I couldn’t.
I was able to get through it by entering scores for the 3 players, and then it did show up as 1st/2nd/3rd, but seemed like an interesting bug worth reporting nevertheless.
Josh