Okay that is what i did and i didn’t mind it, i was just seeing if there was a way of making preset banks or something instead of going into each game and changing the category. i was thinking that maybe there was a way (for example) make a group A and go and choose a bunch of games that you want in group A and a bunch of games for Group B, i was thinking something similar like when you are adding your arenas or players and you can add multiple at a time (which is a really handy feature of the new software that i really like 
)
@haugstrup, any ideas why there might be a difference in Ties scores between the old and the new version?
I’m watching a tournament right now where they had to play a shootout, because a player was assuming he’s qualified, using the old version, but he wasn’t in the new one, and they didn’t know which one to trust.
Standings (old): WCPP Main Saturday Life on Mars 4 March '23 Head To Head • Standings • Match Play Live
Standings (new): Match Play Events
Old ones seem way lower.
Yes, that is exactly how banks work. For example, three games per round. Create a bunch of banks with three games each. Then when the software chooses an arena, it will choose a bank (balanced, random, etc)
If no automatic tie breaking is used, how is the order of players in the standings determined, if they have the same amount of points/strikes?
Trying to figure out whether it’s fair to set player order in shootouts according to the player order on the standings page.
I believe it is random if you refresh they change order so no real good way of doing it. This is why I use strength of schedule whenever I can for tiebreakers.
They don’t for me, and they are the same in both the old and the new version for me.
I probably wouldn’t use the standings for player order, myself, but I’d like to know whether it’s deterministic in some way, so I can give an informed recommendation.
The new software is great, thank you!
’
I have a feature request for Series, the series I run compiles scores where it’s the sum of a player’s best 2 tournaments in the series (with 3rd best, 4th best, etc being used as tie breakers if necessary). The only options that exist right now are to drop x amount of lowest scores, not take x amount of highest scores, but since all players might have played a different amount of events in the series I’m not sure if the drop feature will work for me.
Thanks!
3 Likes
If a player doesn’t participate in an a series event, they are treated as having 0 points from it. So basically, if you take the total number of events in the series minus the 2 that you wanna keep and make that the number of “worst results to drop,” then the final standings should be what you want. For example, 4 total nights, top 2 count, “drop 2 worst” should function properly for you in the end.
There will be an issue with the way the standings are done and displayed until the end of the league though. I’ve mentioned the issue before, at least as I understand it to work. (Match Play Events: The Next Generation - #370 by Shaub)
@haugstrup I ran into some weird behavior while creating a finals. I chose Group elimination bracket with 12 players. I confirmed the right 12 players were displayed (after tiebreaker adjustments) and I clicked to create the tournament. It ended up only adding 9 players.
This tournament allowed for public registration and the organizer had several duplicate players and some “retired” players in their player list. I’m guessing that one of those three factors caused the issue.
I manually added the players to the finals and made corrections to the player seeding.
I also went into that organizer’s player list and merged the duplicates that I could find. That may make it harder for you to diagnose what went wrong (sorry).
I’m just passing the info along in case you want to look into it as a possible bug.
Feature suggestion
Please consider adding two new settings to Group elimination bracket.
Standings for eliminated players
- Standings based on points
- Standings based on elimination round
Seeding after first round
- Reseed based on original relative seeding
- Reseed based on previous round points
- Use bracket structure from original seeds
Current behavior is “Standings based on points” and “Reseed based on original relative seeding”. A player complained to me recently about the incongruity between those two behaviors. For eliminated players, the points they earned are compared against those earned by players eliminated from other groups and the standings and ties are based on “points earned” rather than “round eliminated”. But for players who advance their points have no effect on their seeding in the next round. In particular this can have a big effect for the players advancing from the round of 12 to the semifinal.
I’m happy to add more context and examples if those proposed options aren’t clear.
"For eliminated players, the points they earned are compared against those earned by players eliminated from other groups and the standings and ties are based on “points earned” rather than “round eliminated”.
I just did a test and the behaviour for me appears to be final standings based first on “round eliminated” and then ties broken by points earned in a players’ final round. So even if a player knocked out in the semi-finals was able to accumulate more points in their matches than a player knocked out in the finals, the player that made the finals would still place higher, regardless of points earned.
It may not be directly set out in MatchPlay but if a TD doesn’t want to break ties for players eliminated in the same round, they can submit the results to the IFPA in a way that reflects that.
Saturday we plaid MAX-Matchplay with 26 Player 36 rounds. Started 10:30 AM finished around 10:30 PM. For many players, first time to play this format and almost everyone liked it.
As “Max active games” only support 10 at the moment after 10 Rounds, we reduced the amount of machines to 12. So each time we create games, 2 players with the highest amount of rounds was not playing. Just after round 32 we set “Max active games” to smaller amount.
I know, one of the ideas of MM should be like “endless round-robin” if you take off 1 player all his games are deleted. I understand well if you do this with small amount of rounds it is fine. As we played 36 rounds, chances are high that for example there are players after 30 rounds they see they will not qualify for finals, find any excuse to quit. That means TGP will go down for everyone.
My suggestion would be in future release of MM that tournament director should have an option that if a player decides to quit after playing 50% of all rounds, if all games should be deleted or not. Just need to tell the person who want to quit, that he may only leave the tournament after pair rounds (Like 28, 30, 32, etc) So it will be sure that in the end all players have the same amount of games in the end of the tournament. So it is fair for everybody and no TGP is lost.
1 Like
This weekend when I was trying to claim my player in a tournament on my iPhone 12 mini I found it impossible to click on the link at the bottom of the player profile to do so. I would have to drag the panel up to see the link but it would drop back below the bottom of the screen when I let go and you can’t click on links when you’re dragging. Putting the button higher up in the panel would be helpful.
2 Likes
Sorry, that’s what I meant as well. It would have been more clear if I had said:
Yes, reporting the results to the IFPA as ties is definitely an option even with no changes to the software.
I chose to not do that in this case because I would rather have one annoyed player instead of risking annoying more players by potentially downgrading their final standings from what they could see in match play events. But with good upfront communication I think that’s a good option.
I was more leaning towards leaving the standings on the default “Standings based on points [and elimination round]” and switching to “Reseed based on previous round points” if an option like that were to become available in the future.
This same kind of scrolling problem happens frequently in the player all matches fly out panel too. It’s not as bad there because it’s just hiding information rather than preventing interaction.
@haugstrup maybe an uncomplicated/inelegant fix would be to add an extra element at the bottom of these displays to create a little buffer?
he has added space for this reason already but I think a bunch of extra space at the bottom would help this. I had notified him a while back about that feature/bug so it’s probably an easy fix 
but then I am not a tech guy!
1 Like
Well, there’s either a bug in the old implementation or in the new implementation. Can you help me out and determine which one? Or make a small tournament where the numbers are more easily verified manually?
I don’t remember but it’s either random or in the order of their player id number.
Skimming the code the only reason players would be filtered out is if the player is deactivated in the tournament.
I’m very hesitant to add options like this to group brackets. Group brackets are built like PAPA finals and while a bit wonky in certain choices it’s a format with a long history of working in a very particular way. The MP version works the same way as the version in Karl’s Never Drains software and there’s value in that.
1 Like