Match Play Events Open Thread


I like the idea. It makes sense to go to a 3 player game and wish I would have looking back. But this would definitely make it easier to do that next time the scenario presents itself.


We’re using Swiss right now and looks like there is an error with it.

A 2 strike player got matched with a 0 strike player, with all other matches pairing 0 strikes, 1 strikes and 2 strikes to each other. Round 3 Mi Casa Su Casa


Aw crap. I made a change to better take tiebreaker scores into account but may have broken something else. I’m not at a computer but will double check once I’m back home later today


@alwysmooth was is just one player that got misplaced? If it’s just one player it’s an existing issue that I will get fixed but it’s a thing that doesn’t happen very often.


It only happened to one pair of players, but happened again in another round. It didn’t have any negative impact as it was early and players didn’t notice or complain. I just wanted to make you aware of it. Thanks for looking into it so quickly.

You can take a look at the tournament, its’ the Mi Casa Su Casa: Parte Dos tournament today.


@haugstrup is there no way to adjust player points when using best-game formats? If there is not, is there a way to adjust points in a series? I’m not seeing anything for either of these.

We use a multi-group format for our league where the lowest score a player can earn on a game is capped by the smallest group in attendance using 100-99-98 scoring. IE if there is one group of 18 and one of 17, the two lowest scores on each game in the group of 18 will get 84 points since that is the lowest score possible in the group of 17. I’m evaluating using matchplay for reporting but it looks like there is no way to do this points adjustment.



@Law There’s no way to adjust point in a best game tournament (or in the series itself). It could quickly get pretty messy :confused:

How to you award points to the other 17 players in the group of 18? Is it just the player(s) in last place that get bumped up?


That’s correct- most players are unaffected, just the lowest scores possible are capped.

We added this after needing to switch to multiple groups due to increasing attendance and not being able to get through 30+ players on one game in a reasonable time frame. Capping it at the bottom has less impact than the other way around and typically only impacts new players.


If there are three players left and only two of them have already received a bye (not an unusual situation), I think the other player deserves a bye.

Personally, I strongly favour keeping things as they are, or at least giving TDs the option.


This is good input, thank you!


It appears even if one of the players in that tournament has been deactivated… Any solution to that? thanks


This is on me. I wanted to stay conservative to prevent tournaments from being messed up from a player playing themselves after a merge. I neglected to check whether the player being merged actually played any games in the tournament. I’ll get it fixed eventually but for now your best best is to retire the duplicate player.


Hi Andreas. We just played a 22 round head to head tournament, swiss pairings. The players really enjoyed this format, it was a lot of fun.

It seems that the pairing algorithm doesn’t work too well for 1 v 1 games, or maybe I got the settings wrong, players were matched with the same person 3 or 4 times in a row, even though there were other possible opponents on the same score.

Format: Head-To-Head Match Play
Seeding: Random
General pairing: Swiss
Player order: Balanced
Arena draws: Balanced
Duration: No Limit
Matches per round: 1
Value of byes: Half
Tiebreaker: Standard

I had previously run a test simulation and I did not notice this problem. The setup was the same.



With Swiss pairings and the fact that you’re only dealing with zero, .5, and 1 as point values, I think this is keeping everyone’s scores very close through the tournament hence causing lots of rematches as those people have similar point totals.


@chuckwurt is exactly right. This is exactly what’s supposed to happen with swiss head to head pairings. With 26 players in a head to head tournament swiss is meant to find a winner in 5-6 rounds.

If you know you’ll be playing this many rounds and your primary motivation is to avoid repeat opponents pick “balanced” instead of swiss. Or go for 25 rounds and play a complete round robin!


Thanks. The primary motivation is to have a ladder to climb, a king of the hill experience. This has the benefit of matching people of similar ability, the best with the best and the casual with the casual. The players loved it and want to do it again.

The disappointment in the outcome was that while there might have been 4 people sharing the same point score to choose from the same pairings eventuated, 3 or 4 times in a row. Maybe the solution is to turn off tie breaking? Could tie breaking then be turned on at the end?


Disabling tiebreakers will help because you’ll have more people tied so the swiss algorithm has a bit more freedom to choose opponents. Unfortunately you cannot turn it on again after the tournament has started.


Tiniest of updates: Point adjustments are now viewable on MP Live. Details on the feedback forums:


TD accountability, I like it! :slight_smile:


Another update due to a suggestion from the feedback forums:

The “Modify players” dialog box now lets you add or remove players from any game with some caveats:

  • You cannot add/remove players if the game is already completed. You must delete results first in that case. You can still replace players in a completed game
  • In a head-to-head tournament, you must always have two players (so you cannot add/remove players there)
  • In a group tournament, you must always have three or four players

Despite these limitations this is still useful in group tournaments where you can now add late players to existing groups or remove late players from existing groups (provided it’s not a three-player group).

You still cannot do much with the bye game. I will tackle that as part of: (go vote!)