Match Play Events Open Thread


It’s even worse. For the current standings every completed game is a cache bust. Doesn’t matter though because what do people really love to do? Hit “refresh” on the standings page. Even with frequent cache busts storing the current tournament standings in a cache would speed up the page significantly.

Yup, exactly my point. The standing page shows partial-round contents so it’s hard to add finished-round statistics there without it being confusing :slight_smile:


emailed a few days ago and haven’t gotten a response so posting here.

Is there any way around the 21.5 point per round adjustment limit?


Sorry about that @Law! You had more things in your email and they require a bit of thought and life just got in the way.

I would have to make changes to allow greater/smaller numbers, but within reason I can do that. What kind of number ranges are you considering?


No problem! I figured, reducing the problem set always helps :wink:

What I’d like would be a way to type a value outside the range of the drop-down menu. If it has to be a drop-down then something in the range of +120 would cover all possible cases, but +40 or so would be workable.


I was thinking the same thing too. Dropdown for the small values; input field for larger values. I’ll add it to my list



  • Implemented the text field for points adjustments mentioned just above here. You can now make points adjustments between -500 and +500 points. Not sure why you’d need to go that high/low but on the other hand: Why not!
  • Added “tournament details” view to Match Play Live where players can see a bit more about how the tournament is configured (what kind of pairing system, scoring system etc.). Click the “view details” link from the “Info” screen
  • Changed the “balanced” algorithms to have exponentially growing cost. Still don’t have a test framework so I’m flying a bit by the seat of my pants. On the other hand the math is approved by @bkerins here: 24 Hour Final Battle PAPA Circuit Event: 2016 – Short version: Balanced should now be even more balanced


balanced more balanced, we all needed that! :slight_smile:

Btw, any change upcoming to support the new WPPR 5.3 coming up? An option to automatically exclude players with less than 50% of the machine played in Best Game from appearing the overall ranking would be great.

A similar option for series could also be good though maybe hard with the whole “X out of X” based on how many “worst scores being dropped”?


I’m still figuring out exactly what to change (IFPA results screen for sure). I’m 99.99% sure I won’t have anything ready for January 1st because real life and holidays :confused:


Thanks for a great and really useful piece of software!

One suggestion for a possible improvement. Bear with me, so I can explain properly…

We were running a league event with three qualifying rounds one month apart, and the top 16 from the three qualifying rounds getting into a final. Top 16 calculated as the sum of points over the three rounds.

Scoring for each qualifying round was 100 points for first, 99 for second, etc.

30 players in each round, so first gets 100 points, last gets 71 points.

Player X comes last three times and collects 3 x 71 = 213 points.

Player Y is very good and wins the first two qualifying rounds, so has 200 points after that. Then a business commitment prevents player Y from attending round 3. Net result:

Player X (who came last three times in a field of 30) has 213 points.
Player Y (who won twice in a field of 30 and couldn’t make it the third time) has 200 points.

Kind of sucks :slight_smile:
So, let’s assume we give the last player in an event 1 point, the second-last player 2 points, and so on. So, with 30 players each time, we would have had:

Player X: 3 points
Player Y: 60 points

Seems much more realistic to me. The “100 points counting down” rule makes sense only if there are 100 or more players in a round. Otherwise, the people who end up near the bottom of the list get disproportionately many points.

So, suggestion: would it be possible to add a scoring mode that implements the alternative scheme? I think it would make a worthwhile addition for events where points are summed over several rounds.




Hello, new user of Great app. I plan on ordering a subscription soon, even though i dont think i NEED any of the extras. Anyway, ran a tournament on Tuesday, and we ran into something that I was wondering was a “known issue and suck it up” kind of thing. 6 person tournament, 3 strikes format. After round one, 3 players had one strike and 3 players did not. For round two, the program matched up the same two people from round one for one of the matches. We were wondering why that was? Did it have to do with the round one seeding format I chose? Attached is a screenshot of the format, and a link. Thanks for this program by the way, it rocks!

~Dave, Syracuse, NY


Alternatively, you could have just had Player Y come in last during Round 3 (which is true), and give them the lowest score of 71 instead of zero. This would give you the same result as your “counting up” method.


@hisokajp had the same issue with the Seattle Pinball Super League. I implemented the “Top 25” and “Top 30” scoring systems for him. They will award points only to the top 25 or 30 players (starting with 25 or 30 points for the top player).

Maybe just use one of those instead of the default scoring system?


@SyracusePinball You have chosen “swiss” for player pairings (this is the default setting for knockout tournaments). This means players with the same amount of strikes are matches against each other.

The app will try to match you with an opponent you haven’t faced before, but it doesn’t try very hard. In this case you had three “winners” after the first round and someone had to be kicked down to play a loser. Match Play just failed miserably at assigning the “winner” a “loser” that the winner hadn’t played before.

I do have a bug open on this particular issue where a player that’s being “moved down” due to an odd number of players in their own section is not treated 100% the way they should be. It’ll get fixed at some point. :slight_smile:


Alternatively, you could have just had Player Y come in last during Round 3 (which is true), and give them the lowest score of 71 instead of zero.

That’s perfectly true of course, but the TD didn’t take that option. I suspect it’s simply a matter of “Match Play can’t do this; we can only use what Match Play offers”. In other words, when people use a program to do the scoring for them, they expect the program to do the lot, without any post-processing (such as assigning a reverse rank to each player) or work-arounds (such as adding no-show people to the tournament).

So, while I agree completely with you, adding a “bottom-up” scoring mode would probably still be useful. In terms of implementing this, I don’t expect it would be too difficult? For “bottom-up” scoring, the points are just the reverse rank for each player.




Pretty sure the situation you want can already be done. What was the format used for each session?


Pretty sure the situation you want can already be done. What was the format used for each session?

Format for each session was highest score.




So best game? I use that same format. You want to choose top 30 for the scoring system. Best score gets 30 points and lowest score gets 1. I believe your TD is using linear which starts at 100.


Awesome, thanks for that. One more question: can the TD set “Top X” after the fact? Because, quite often, people arrive late and catch up, so the number of players in a tournament goes up as the evening progresses.




Great question. I have not run into this yet but I bet you can add players once the session has started. You cannot change the rules of the format, but I believe you can add players and or games/arenas.


“Bottom-up” scoring may be useful in very specific instances, but the every tournament series that have crossed my inbox would be able to have the same result using the Top 25/Top 30 options I mentioned above. I can’t control how your tournament director configures their tournaments. If you’re unhappy you should maybe take it up with them directly?