Having players report results from their phones would open the tournament up for a ton of potential cheating and you’d still need a central place to accept scores from players who do not have a MP account or don’t have a smart phone (and you’ll still need a central place from which to announce new matches).
I found it easiest to ask the reporting player the game name. They always know it even if they don’t remember their opponent’s name.
We had about 75 players in the event. After the initial rush from the round one games that all started at once I felt things ran pretty well.
It did flop back and fourth between playing the same game twice in a row and both players switching games. David Dronet played 6 of 12 matches on the Team One. Wow. I guess with 75 players that’s probably statistically likely but with 19 arenas available I’d like to see more variation than that.
From what I’ve seen, many/most TDs open up their PCs for players to enter their own results, which is less oversight than the self-submittal with scorekeeper approval. Letting players access the TD accounts seems like more of a potential cheating problem than reporting from phones even with potential early or delayed submission. I still saw several players at the BCO pre-tourney run over to self-forfeit their matches while their opponent was still playing, not too different from doing it on one’s phone.
You’ll need to keep some arenas free to get a better spread. With 19 arenas you should have fewer than 19 in use at all times. This way new arenas are cycled in for each match and you’ll get a better overall distribution.
There’s a big difference between TDs deciding they’re okay with cheating and the software codifying the behavior.
I apologize if this has been asked already but lets say I have 15 players show up for a 16 player PAPA Finals Format event. I add the 15 players and a dummy player but why does the dummy player get assigned to group 1? for example 1/8/9/dummy . What if i want to the top 3 groups to have 4 players and the last group to have 3? Is their a precedence somewhere that the reduction of players start in the first group in this type of format?
Why not just seed the dummy player as 13th?
Typically the dummy player is added as the 16th seed so it is added where the 16th seed is normally placed and that’s in the first group (seeds #1, #8, #9 and #16). You can give the dummy player any seeding you want, but it would be pretty unorthodox to give the dummy player a seed other than #16.
Its unorthodox for a 15 player PAPA Finals Format to have groups 1-3 four players and group 3 three players? If i need to make the dummy player seed 13 that is fine but it isn’t intuitive.
Why are you trying to disadvantage your top seeded qualifier? I don’t understand why seed 4 should get the the advantage.
Thats part of what im trying to figure out, you’re saying top seed should be in the group of 3? From TGP perspective and path of victory being used the top seed is being penalized by earning 1.5 TGP per game in that round instead of 6.
What is “normal” to do in odd player configurations in this format, the higher seed groups have 3 players?
That round will get 2x value on TGP since the majority of the groups are 4 player groups.
I guess with a 3 player group one has 33% chance of making it through which is an advantage compared to a 4 player group where they have a 25% chance of making it through? I assume thats the advantage @gammagoat is referring to? Thanks
Yes. I don’t like talking about this as a probability because I don’t believe in using a uniform prior in this situation. I was assuming top 2 are advancing, so the argument it you only need to beat 1 player. In a 4 player group, you need to beat 2 players. The reason 1 plays 16 is because they earned the right to play the “easiest” opponent. The ghost player is the easiest opponent, they are guaranteed to come last.
It depends of what your plan is in the 3 player groups. Is it 421, i.e. ghost player always takes 0?
Yes. The normal thing when filling an imperfect bracket is to place the dummy players as the lowest seeds.
Just think of a head-to-head bracket of 16 where only 15 players show up. Would you give any player other than the top seed the bye into the second round? This is the exact same thing.
I added this suggestion. Please upvote so Andreas doesn’t think I’m crazy
Add “Games played” column to best game format standings page
When playing a limited qualifier ‘best game’ format a lot of people have trouble figuring out how many games they have left to play.
Other issues are not knowing what position they are in based on scores around them since a lot of players wait until the last minute to put in their final game
Currently the only way to do it for players and TDs is to go into each profile on the standings page and count the number of games played manually.
If there is a simple column on the standings page with a number of games counted toward their score this would save a LOT of time for players and TDs
Unfortunately if 9-11 players show up its back to pen and paper.
If someone can correct me if im wrong, thanks
The bracket doesn’t change when you have dummy players added. 11 players will still be four groups of four players, but seeds 12 through 16 will be dummy players (I’ve marked those with bold)
Group A: 1,8,9,16
Group B: 2,7,10,15
Group C: 3,6,11,14
Group D: 4,5,12,13
In other words seeds #4 and #5 will get a bye into the second round since they are facing two dummy players.
If you only have 11 players you need to shift your bracket size down. For Match Play, pick a 12-person bracket (top four players will get a bye) and add a single dummy player.
PAPA Supports the format above but MP doesn’t. Why?
Because everthing takes time to create and there are maybe nine people who have ever played a bracket like that