Obviously I have to think it through more carefully. It’s not immediately obvious to me why that would happen, but I haven’t studied your example closely enough. It’s never come up for me in several years of running a tournament that way with Challonge. Edit to add: I am actually planning to use Max Matchplay to run my pseudo-round-robin this year so that’s good to know.
It’s easy to see if you look at it like that:
There are basically two groups of players,
Group A: players 1, 2, 3
Group B: players 4, 5, 6
After 3 rounds, everyone in group A has played against everyone in Group B, so in round 4, both Group A and Group B players are forced to play against somebody from their own group. Since there’s 3 players in each group, that’s not possible, though.
I don’t think this sort of thing is actually likely to happen in a long running Swiss tournament, but it’s definitely possible. Since in those situations, there’s a choice to be made which players get a repeat pairing, the way “Strict Swiss” handles this in Matchplay is give repeat pairings to the lowest ranked players, so it doesn’t lose ranking resolution in the top end.
1 Like
Yes, I get it now. In the past I had naively assumed that however many rounds you ran, you would just get partway through a round robin, but with the more useful matches prioritized. I see now that the way that Swiss does pairings, because it disrupts the methodical order of a round robin, can have this result. It had just never come up for me and I hadn’t thought of it happening.
I do like that MM with strict Swiss can do a better job of approximating round robin, and that’s going to be my format for my next round robin. Heck, since MM does matches so much more efficiently, I might be able to run an actual complete round robin for the first time!
there’s actually a formula for the optimal number of rounds in Swiss System:
R ≈ 0,2·T + 1,4·n (always round up)
R: #rounds
T: #participants
n: #spots you want to play out
f.e with 32 participants and 4 players qualifying for the finals 12 rounds are optimal.
In other words the first and last 4 players in the standings are placed “correctly” after 12 rounds, all others aren’t yet.
4 Likes
I used Match Play challenge in 2019 against friends for multiple reasons.
Sometimes we could not finish our 7 game series in a single night, so it was a great way to keep track of who won.
We also enjoyed that ratings were affected by this.
MP challenges are a great way to track grudge and money matches as well. Please consider keeping it for Next.
2 Likes
Feedback on the WPPR estimator.
-
First of all, I love it! It’s super fast and it already knows what tournament I’m looking at. While I loved to use the chunkout one, those are two killer improvements right off the bat.
-
Add my vote to the request to let organizers set the default value to show to users. I think it would be nice to still let anyone override that to keep it flexible though. It’s more important to let the player enter in the TGP they want to see, but if you can also let the organizer supply the default that’s a big improvement.
On top of that, I think it’s actually an important feature. I’ve asked local players what they think of the feature and they’ve told me they love it because they get to see the points they can get. These are players who are excited to get 0.4 WPPRs. But they don’t really understand TGP. So I worry that their excitement about the feature will turn to disappointment when they realize they’re getting half of the predicted WPPRs for a tournament with an actual TGP of 48%.
-
I’d love to see you incorporate the standings from the playoffs into the WPPR Distribution table! I’ve always found it frustrating that there’s nowhere to see the standings from qualifying and finals combined. I understand that you can’t just replace the playoff standings with info from the finals; but this seems like the perfect place to put a combined view.
-
It’d be nice for it to account for ties. I see that you have a banner with a note about this. Ties are something that the IFPA has a clear algorithm for, but it’s not intuitive (in my opinion). So if you are able to incorporate ties into this feature it’d be pretty valuable by showing how they work. Tie rules are summarized here.
-
You currently list these stats at the top of the page:
- WPPR value
- TGP percentage
- Players
I propose changing the order and the phrasing to:
- Players
- TGP percentage (estimated by TD)
- WPPR value for 1st
The order implies cause and effect. Players are who showed up, there’s not much control over that. TGP is sometimes influenced by player count (e.g. strikes formats). WPPRs is influenced by both player count and TGP. All three fit above the fold, so I think it’s still ok to list WPPRs last even though it’s the most important of the three. Obviously only include “(estimated by TD)” if you go with the first feature suggested in this post and if the TD has provided a value. “For 1st” is just to help clarify how that is used for players who are new to thinking about tournament points value.
And just to reiterate, if you don’t make any of these changes it’s still a great feature.
1 Like
I just want to say these table sorts are awesome.
Sorting by Seed makes things so much easier for me for Activating/Deactivating
6 Likes
How do you find nearby locations on the new version?
And why can’t 2 TDs use the same location on either version? They each have to create the same location, so it shows up twice in the nearby locations (on the old version).
We are in the midle of a MM Match
https://next.matchplay.events/tournaments/94764
I just saw that “max active games” is maximum 10" So with 28 Players to use this “trick” is useless right?
So I can use that to change max active games maybe in the End of the tournament right?
Any reason why it is only 10 games maximum?
For me for a Tournament with more than 24 Players it makes no sense
Are you saying that when max games is set to no limit it only creates 10? Or are you wishing there was a way to create a limit higher than 10?
I have always used the limit to create a bit of a queue, but my group is between 20 to 26 for most of our weekly leagues running this format.
I mean, wishing there was a way to create a limit higher than 10
we were 30 player not 28 just 2 left the tournament as it took much more time than expected.
maxgames with 10 if you are 30 players steals a lot of time.
@haugstrup is there any chance that in next 4 weeks the possible amount of “max active games” will be increased?
Out of my experience, 10 is good if you run tournaments up to 24 Players.
But with 40 people, I fear to risk.
In tournaments, I organize we “have good players but we have also beginners”. So the difference of completed games per player is much bigger than if you have “good players and average players”.
Does anyone have experience with max matchplay with more than 40 Players and more than 30 rounds?
That feature hasn’t been migrated to the new MP yet, nor have I decided what it’ll look like over there.
In the old MP locations from two TDs isn’t connected in any way so you end up with duplicates. Wanting to solve this problem is why none of the location features have been migrated yet. In the new MP new locations you create are connected to the Pinball Map and Scorbit databases over pinball locations and that will potentially allow for de-duplication.
2 Likes
I can never provide timelines for any changes to Match Play.
4 Likes
ok it is understandable
Anyone has experience with MM with more than 40 player and more than 30 rounds?
Thanks @haugstrup for the things you have done with a Matchplay improvements.
As a streamer this has made my life a lot easier. I didn’t think I was going to like the changes but it’s a huge improvement with the broadcast view and other elements.
Thank you!
9 Likes
If you use the randomizer to pick a random number:
-
It doesn’t seem to be inclusive of the upper bound. Entering 10 will return a number from 1 to 9. Entering 2 will always return 1. Entering 1 will give “No result.”
-
If you enter a non-whole number or a number less than 1 it goes to an error page. For example, 10.5 goes to an error page.
-
If you enter letters and Go! it generally goes to the error page.
-
You can enter hexadecimal numbers using the prefix 0x, so if you enter 0x2A you can get a random number between 1 and 42 (actually 41, see point 1 above). If the user enters a hexadecimal number the result should really be given in hexadecimal also!
-
Binary numbers can be entered using the prefix 0b. For example, 0b1100 will be the same a decimal 12. Again results are returned in decimal rather than binary!
3 Likes
So you’re the one who made my error reporting system go off! Thanks for the testing – I don’t think I’ll be returning hex values, but I will fix the errors 
1 Like
For a 4 player finals with multiple games the documentation says:
Group elimination bracket tournaments require at least eight players to fill a bracket. Some smaller tournaments only advance four players to finals. In that case, the finals should not be configured as a group elimination bracket. Instead, choose group match play playing multiple matches per round but only a single round. This will effectively provide you with the same result as if you played a group elimination bracket with only four players.
Is there a way to get a tiebreaker game to display like with 8 or 16 player group elimination brackets? Otherwise it will not “effectively provide you with the same result.”
1 Like
There is not