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.
I can never provide timelines for any changes to Match Play.
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!
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!
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 
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.”
There is not
Hello. I have been using the new version for about a month now.
Where are the tiebreaker numbers displayed? I needed to see them at an event, and ended up having to go back to the old version to find them.
Thank you!
If you are referring to the “automatic tiebreakers”, they no longer show in the new version in its current iteration.
Okay, here we go. Tiebreaker values are displayed using the same format as in the old MP, but in the new version you can click on the magic numbers and get explanations for what they represent.
Here’s a short video from a Head-to-head match play style tournament using the standard tiebreaker:
But different tournament formats display different values. Here’s what the info dialog looks like in a target match play tournament:
Not all tournament formats have tiebreaker values visible. For example, any tournament that has bespoke ways of building the standings (brackets of all sorts, amazing race etc.) won’t display the tiebreaker values.
Hi Andreas,
I did a lot of testing on Max Matchplay back in Nov, finally looking to put it into practice in a few months.
One thing I miss from the old flip frenzy Big screen view was the list of recent results.
At the moment big screen view is rather empty especially for smaller events (ours are around 24 players). It would be great if we could see the recent results again.
Is there any reason behind it’s omission in the newer version?
I’m doing a round of updates for MAx MP before too long and the big screen view experience will get a fresh coat of paint then as well
Quick notes from a 8-Game Max MatchPlay from last night.
I’m sharing this because I don’t know if it was just bad luck that Brandon/Dennis had to get paired again, or if there was something about the fact that they just entered the queue that prevented them from being considered for the next draw.
https://next.matchplay.events/tournaments/95240/stats/matches
My guess is that it’s a bit of bad luck. I haven’t looked at the tournament, but if Brian/Dennis had played everyone left in the tournament (their only remaining unfaced opponents had all already completed 8 matches) then Brian/Dennis would not be assigned another opponent until the release valve is used.
The waiting room is always processed by sorting players by number of games completed (and secondarily by amount of time in the waiting room). But if there is no “perfect” opponent to be found the player will be skipped (unless the release valve is used).
Had you been able to recognize this situation (little chance without the software helping you), then you could’ve used the release valve earlier and Brian/Dennis could’ve avoided playing each other twice in a row. They still would’ve ended up with repeat opponents, just different ones.
@tommyv if you reload, TDs can set the default TGP value for WPPR estimates. The other suggestions are good and I have them on a list for a later date. I can’t fit them in now.
It looks great, thanks!
If you do get around to the other suggestions at some point, I think it may be helpful to also let the TD to decide to “Show WPPRs for all positions” or “Show WPPRs based on ties”. I was at a tournament recently where the finals was run on paper rather than in Match Play Events. If you showed ties from qualifying it wouldn’t include all of the point values that actually ended up getting used because after finals the ties ended up across different positions.
Or just don’t do that one and keep it the way it is where WPPRs are displayed for every position without taking ties into account. That leaves it up to the person viewing the page to know how ties affect the distribution of points but at least they have all of the information.
An improvement I’d like to see for ease of IFPA submission, and now with the WPPR estimates, is amending the unqualified rankings for finals. At the moment if you have a qualifying and finals you will want to show WPPR calculated from qualifying.
It all works for me as a tournament director, but I think it confuses players a bit unless I walk them through how it works.
