Match Play Events Open Thread


This is the main reason why MP only has one scoring “mode” for Flip Frenzies: Net Wins. People start cheating heavily if you only count “number of wins” for standings because there’s no penalty for forfeiting. With net wins the person forfeiting is taking a penalty.


Didn’t see it was net wins. Make much more sense now.


Do I understand “net wins” correctly? Say a player has 5 losses and 11 wins. Their net wins is 6? If so, this is a huge improvement to the way I’ve played in a flip frenzy previously.


Yes, that’s correct.


Thanks mate!


Forgot to follow-up on this. A quick search yields at least 10 variations in use:

  • Addams Family
  • The Addams Family
  • Adams Family
  • addams
  • Adams
  • The Addam’s Family
  • The Adam’s Family
  • The Adams Family
  • Addam’s Family
  • TAF


I ran a 37 person tournament on 7 machines at a bar on Wednesday. I’ve literally never run anything with more players than machines, so the “No Arena” thing threw me, until someone explained to me that the software just says “Hey, this group is gonna have to wait and you can assign them the first free game.”

@haugstrup , I owe you many a shot for this piece of brilliance. Things ran smoother than I possibly could have imagined, because you were thinking steps ahead.


I have a test tournament setup to simulate the PAPA Circuit Finals format, the ladder bracket format. Per the PAPA circuit rules, players continue to play the ladder format until 2 players remain, at which point those 2 players will be play a best of 3 format to determine the winner.

The ladder works fine until I’m down to the last 2 players. I select who won game 1, and when I go to start the next round (which would be game #2 between the top 2 players) I’m getting and error at the top that says I need at least 2 players to begin the next round. I’m certain I’m missing something but don’t know what it is.


Matchplay doesn’t do the final 2 best of three for you. I think you need to do that on your own as a separate event or on paper.


Ahh! Thanks for clarifying!


When I start a round and opt not to publish immediately I am unable to change the player order. Is that expected behavior? I’d like to correct the player order BEFORE publishing to Matchplay live, otherwise players see the wrong order unless they refresh again after they see the round come up.


It’s expected but not ideal. I want to fix it but haven’t had time :frowning:


We’ve had about 5 of these tourneys at our location, and they’ve been great. We’ve been using a spreadsheet to keep track of everything and assign the correct players and it works well, but OMG A VIRTUAL QUEUE . It’s really difficult to manage people. We had 37 players on Sunday. Definitely interested in testing the net wins and forfeit = loss, as those are not items we had implemented before. The goal is to make it as fair as possible and I’m glad you’ve thought about ways to do this! As always, you rule.


I concur with Laura. I would also like a feature for the player to be able submit their own scores. I would require some sort of pin from each player to keep it secure. This would prevent queueing for score submission and make the job of tournament director much smoother and the director might even be able to play in the tournament. We have premium accounts btw and love the product…


Did this with 43 players last night. First time using matchplay for it. We were using software a friend had made previously.

The only issue I was working hard to avoid was with having extra games in the system but avoiding it sending players to a different game. With such a large crowd and a limited time 1.5 hours. I didn’t want to waste time and confuse people with people moving around. I only activated enough arenas to have one per two people active. I had two players come up with emergencies and need to leave. That drops the size of my queue down and with a % of a queue system setup I had to be careful it didn’t try to remove a active match and create an open arena people would get moved to.

Is there a way to never switch a game on a player when they are on it? Ideally. Enter all games I feel suites for the event. Leave all active. Start the event and then no arena is ever changed regardless of how many are available. It just creates matches until the desired queue size is met. It will only ever switch to a new arena if I say there is a game malfunction and it switches players.


The % queue size option only applies to the initial queue; the software will never remove an active match unless you click “Arena malfunction”. By deactivating all unused arenas - as you did - players will always play the same game twice in between each stint in the queue.

I played in a 62-player Flip Frenzy on Saturday. We had a mix of Frenzy veterans who were used to staying on the same machine, along with a bunch of players competing in their very first tournament. No one got confused about where they were supposed to go. (It helped that we had both verbal announcements of each new match, and a big screen showing the match-ups. Players can always check their phone to see which game they’re on, too.) All of the feedback from experienced players was positive; they preferred getting to play on a wider variety of machines. And since we had both players return to the desk to report the result after each match (a good idea, to avoid errors), switching machines didn’t waste any time.


You really give me too much credit. Assume that any good ideas in the Flip Frenzy tournament format has come from the large handful of Flip Frenzy veterans who spent a lot of time running test tournaments and providing me with feedback. I’ve played in exactly one Flip Frenzy tournament a long time ago and really learned a ton from the tournament directors who helped me out!

Player score submissions are… complicated. The programming becomes much more complicated since player submitted scores have to be placed in a separate location in the database (since one game finishing results in an immediate new game created it would be pandemonium otherwise).

Additionally the risk of player shenanigans/cheating goes up significantly if players can submit scores without being physically present (like submitting a score before their game is really over).

If you trust your players you could leave your tablet in the hands of the next player in the queue and players can take turns recording results. Then the TD could play in the tournament.

Like Luke says, if you don’t have extra arenas enabled MP will do what you want. When you have game malfunction, click “arena malfunction” and then go activate a fresh arena


Ok I’ll run some more test. Sounds like it’s how I want it but didn’t plan for that scenario through all my other trial runs. So if you start out using 8 arenas say and people start getting taken out it will never recalculate the number of people in queue part and remove a current 8th arena being used. It will just keep shrinking the queue size and not change anything else. Glad to know.


Correct. This is why you can only deactivate players who are in the queue. The only way to grow the queue is to click “arena malfunction”, but that’ll penalize the players on that game because they’ll be put back into the queue (at the top of the queue, but still)

Flip Frenzy is a type of tournament where lots of people leaving before the tournament is over can result in headaches. If you have a bunch of people who are not likely to finish the tournament you may be better off using a different format


Oh for sure. Everyone knew what they were in for. Just sometimes life happens. Not often I get two people that get emergency phone calls in an event.

I just like being over prepared for all scenarios so players don’t see or feel the headaches as well