I think i heard in the last H2H podcast that quite a few people start plunging ball if they see think the game is over or not “efficient” to start playing another game. is that common practice?
Was helping someone set up a league the other day and they wanted to go from balanced across the series to swiss after X number of meetings. Will swiss respect the series standings to seed the players automatically or will they need to manually re-seed players prior to every meeting?
At the moment they’ll need to reseed before each meeting
@jay I’m back because it’s more complicated. If they merely use the manual seeding option they won’t get real swiss pairings because they won’t be able to tell MP that some players should be tied. Additionally the first round of a tournament never uses the swiss pairing code because the first round pairings are done using a special setting. If you select “adjacent” for “first round pairing” you’ll get something swiss-like, but it won’t be proper swiss pairings
It seems to me they should be able to take the current series standings at the end of the meeting (with some form of tiebreaker rule in place–for example, I use highest single meeting total and go backwards from there) and then seed the players for the upcoming meeting with adjacent enabled. I actually set up a tournament this way for them when the first event in the series was misconfigured and so they started in a spreadsheet. I simply backfilled a tournament with players seeded in the proper order to generate adjacent groupings of players so the new (properly configured) event would match the groups they began playing with. It worked perfectly. I guess this isn’t exactly Swiss?
It happens, yes.
We used to rank players based on total wins (rather than net wins), and this practice was very common indeed, since there was no real penalty for a loss.
Using net wins - as Match Play does - there’s much less of an incentive to concede. We only see it happening now when players have no realistic chance of catching up.
It’s not exactly swiss, but it’s good enough for jazz
Is there an option for Flip Frenzy to use win percentage rather than net wins? I’m concerned about the top players getting in fewer games because they naturally take longer.
Can you elaborate on why you’re concerned about this?
Win% would favor those with the same net wins and fewer games played.
Opposite, I think? 8/10=80% but 12/14=86% but have +2 net wins. I don’t have any plans of adding win% because the default behavior of using net wins and “most wins” as the tiebreaker gives you the same result. If you want to favor those with fewer games played, switch the tiebreaker to “fewest losses”
Because a player who goes 12-6 in three hours has played shorter (probably less skillful) games than a player who goes 6-3. You’re right though, simply reporting it as a percentage doesn’t address the problem. Using the tiebreaker as lowest number of losses IS available and probably is the best way to address it.
The way you’re laying this out is kind of mixed up.
10 games played: 8 wins 2 losses = 80% with 6 net wins
14 games played: 12 wins 2 losses = 86% with 10 net wins
I’ll stop doing math at 7am now
@haugstrup - we run a 8 player finals format where it’s two rounds… two group semi-finals match play, top 2 advance from each group to finals. This I believe is covered by your papa style match play format. But we also take the bottom losers from each group and put them into a losers group match. Top group finalizes 1-4, bottom group finalizes 5-8. This means everyone plays full duration too…
Looking at your existing formats, that extra losers group match doesn’t fit best I can tell. Any suggestions on how we could leverage the existing features to do it?
also when looking at the initial create tournament page, I don’t see how you’d handle separate divisions in the same event? Am I missing it, or is it common to just run separate tournaments for each?
In my case, there is no qualifying… this is just a playoff for a multi-meet league.
I do 5-8 on paper. Generally 5-8 don’t want to play another full match, we do a one game play off to determine position.
Interesting. At all of my events we play out 5-8 PAPA style and I also pay out 5th place, so there is an extra incentive to play it out.
@YeOldPinPlayer for our event, it’s a house league where the gathering is the event… so giving everyone the same amount of play helps balances out the activities and keeps everyone engaged.
We normally play 5 games in a session… with 2 rounds of 3, we play 6 in the playoffs. This leads to very similar time commitment, while ensuring the # of games is meaningful to establish the winners IMO.
5-8 is really only for WPRR rankings. We do it more for the social engagement than competition. Especially in our lowest division… they could care less… it’s just more pinball to play
New tournament format: Fast Ladders
A new variation on the Ladder elimination bracket is available. In a normal ladder only the loser in each four-player game is elimination.
In a fast ladder both the third place and the fourth place finisher is eliminated and the next two players from the ladder will replace them. Once only four players remain the next game will be the final game (unlike a regular ladder where there will be a three-player and finally a two-player game).
To create a fast ladder create a “Ladder elimination bracket” tournament and switch the “ladder type” option to “fast ladder”.
Thank you to @neilmcrae for donating to make this tournament format possible!
Thanks for pulling it together for us so quickly!
Awesome stuff! Just last weekend I ran our circuit finals in Delaware and we used the PAPA circuit finals format with a twist. To allow people to play more pinball and to have more opportunities to win money, everyone they got knocked out of the original rounds 1 and 2 all played in a Ladder bracket. The main bracket followed the normal rules but the 3 consolation brackets all used the fast Ladder bracket format. I was able to find a workaround but this will be helpful in the future, thanks!