Visas atskaites
{THIS_GAME_BUGS}
#73841: "Groups Stage tournaments ought to assign players by the serpentine system"
#73841: "Groups Stage tournaments ought to assign players by the serpentine system"
Kas notika? Lūdzu izvēlies no zemākredzamajiem
Kaut kas nedarbojās pareizi, lietojot vietni (nevis spēles laikā)
Kas notika? Lūdzu izvēlies no zemākredzamajiem
Kaut kas nedarbojās pareizi, lietojot vietni (nevis spēles laikā)
Lūdzu, pārbaudiet, vai par šo pašu tēmu jau ir ziņojums
Ja jā, lūdzu, balsojiet par šo ziņojumu. Ziņojumiem ar vislielākajām balsīm tiek dota PRIORITĀTE!
| # | Status | Votes | Game | Type | Title | Last update |
|---|
Detalizēts apraksts
• Lūdzu nokopē/ielīmē kļūdas ziņu, ko redzi ekrānā, ja tāda ir.
Not applicable.• Lūdzu paskaidro, ko Tu vēlējies darīt, ko Tu izdarīji un kas notika
When I recently created a Groups Stage tournament with five groups (boardgamearena.com/tournament?id=166397), I was surprised to see the groups assigned according to ELO ranking using this "typewriter" method:
GROUP 1: players ranked #1, #6, #11, #16, #21, #26, #31, #36, #41, #46
GROUP 2: players ranked #2, #7, #12, #17, #22, #27, #32, #37, #42
GROUP 3: players ranked #3, #8, #13, #18, #23, #28, #33, #38, #43
GROUP 4: players ranked #4, #9, #14, #19, #24, #29, #34, #39, #44
GROUP 5: players ranked #5, #10, #15, #20, #25, #30, #35, #40, #45.
I call this the typewriter method because after the first "line" of 5 players is assigned to groups 1 to 5, we go back to group 1 before assigning the next "line" (players #6 through #10).
This system is flawed because players in Group 5 have much softer competition than players in Group 1. It makes sense to put the top 5 players in 5 different groups (to give them a measure of "protection" from each other) but on that logic player #1 should face the *softest* competition, not the toughest.
Instead, groups should be assigned by a snake system; Wikipedia labels this a serpentine system: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpentine_system
Player #6 should be in the same group as #5; #7 should be in the same group as #4; and so on. That way the seeds are meaningful, with every player facing (in theory) competition that is a little bit softer than the next-seeded player. (For example, player #4 faces softer competition than #5, who faces softer competition than #6.)
Discussed briefly in the forums last year: boardgamearena.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=88637#p88637• Kāda ir Tava pārlūkprogramma?
Firefox
• Lūdzu iekopē tekstu, kas redzams angļu, nevis tavā valodā. Ja Tev ir ekrānuzņēmums, kurā redzama kļūme (laba prakse), vari izmantot Imgur.com , lai to augšupielādētu un kopētu/ielīmētu saiti šeit.
Not applicable.• Vai šis teksts ir pieejams tulkošanas sistēmā? Ja jā, vai tas ir ticis tulkots pēdējo 24 stundu laikā?
When I recently created a Groups Stage tournament with five groups (boardgamearena.com/tournament?id=166397), I was surprised to see the groups assigned according to ELO ranking using this "typewriter" method:
GROUP 1: players ranked #1, #6, #11, #16, #21, #26, #31, #36, #41, #46
GROUP 2: players ranked #2, #7, #12, #17, #22, #27, #32, #37, #42
GROUP 3: players ranked #3, #8, #13, #18, #23, #28, #33, #38, #43
GROUP 4: players ranked #4, #9, #14, #19, #24, #29, #34, #39, #44
GROUP 5: players ranked #5, #10, #15, #20, #25, #30, #35, #40, #45.
I call this the typewriter method because after the first "line" of 5 players is assigned to groups 1 to 5, we go back to group 1 before assigning the next "line" (players #6 through #10).
This system is flawed because players in Group 5 have much softer competition than players in Group 1. It makes sense to put the top 5 players in 5 different groups (to give them a measure of "protection" from each other) but on that logic player #1 should face the *softest* competition, not the toughest.
Instead, groups should be assigned by a snake system; Wikipedia labels this a serpentine system: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpentine_system
Player #6 should be in the same group as #5; #7 should be in the same group as #4; and so on. That way the seeds are meaningful, with every player facing (in theory) competition that is a little bit softer than the next-seeded player. (For example, player #4 faces softer competition than #5, who faces softer competition than #6.)
Discussed briefly in the forums last year: boardgamearena.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=88637#p88637• Kāda ir Tava pārlūkprogramma?
Firefox
• Lūdzu, paskaidrojiet savu ieteikumu precīzi un kodolīgi, lai tas būtu pēc iespējas vieglāk saprotams.
Not applicable.• Kāda ir Tava pārlūkprogramma?
Firefox
• Kas tika attēlots ekrānā, kad Tu tiki bloķēts (tukšs ekrāns? Daļa no spēles interfeisa? Ziņa par kļūdu?)?
Not applicable.• Kāda ir Tava pārlūkprogramma?
Firefox
• Kura noteikumu daļa netika ņemta vērā BGA versijā?
Not applicable.• Vai noteikumu pārkāpums ir redzams spēles atkārtojumā? Ja jā, tad kurā gājienā?
When I recently created a Groups Stage tournament with five groups (boardgamearena.com/tournament?id=166397), I was surprised to see the groups assigned according to ELO ranking using this "typewriter" method:
GROUP 1: players ranked #1, #6, #11, #16, #21, #26, #31, #36, #41, #46
GROUP 2: players ranked #2, #7, #12, #17, #22, #27, #32, #37, #42
GROUP 3: players ranked #3, #8, #13, #18, #23, #28, #33, #38, #43
GROUP 4: players ranked #4, #9, #14, #19, #24, #29, #34, #39, #44
GROUP 5: players ranked #5, #10, #15, #20, #25, #30, #35, #40, #45.
I call this the typewriter method because after the first "line" of 5 players is assigned to groups 1 to 5, we go back to group 1 before assigning the next "line" (players #6 through #10).
This system is flawed because players in Group 5 have much softer competition than players in Group 1. It makes sense to put the top 5 players in 5 different groups (to give them a measure of "protection" from each other) but on that logic player #1 should face the *softest* competition, not the toughest.
Instead, groups should be assigned by a snake system; Wikipedia labels this a serpentine system: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpentine_system
Player #6 should be in the same group as #5; #7 should be in the same group as #4; and so on. That way the seeds are meaningful, with every player facing (in theory) competition that is a little bit softer than the next-seeded player. (For example, player #4 faces softer competition than #5, who faces softer competition than #6.)
Discussed briefly in the forums last year: boardgamearena.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=88637#p88637• Kāda ir Tava pārlūkprogramma?
Firefox
• Kādu spēles darbību Tu vēlējies veikt?
Not applicable.• Ko tu dari, lai panāktu šo spēles darbību?
When I recently created a Groups Stage tournament with five groups (boardgamearena.com/tournament?id=166397), I was surprised to see the groups assigned according to ELO ranking using this "typewriter" method:
GROUP 1: players ranked #1, #6, #11, #16, #21, #26, #31, #36, #41, #46
GROUP 2: players ranked #2, #7, #12, #17, #22, #27, #32, #37, #42
GROUP 3: players ranked #3, #8, #13, #18, #23, #28, #33, #38, #43
GROUP 4: players ranked #4, #9, #14, #19, #24, #29, #34, #39, #44
GROUP 5: players ranked #5, #10, #15, #20, #25, #30, #35, #40, #45.
I call this the typewriter method because after the first "line" of 5 players is assigned to groups 1 to 5, we go back to group 1 before assigning the next "line" (players #6 through #10).
This system is flawed because players in Group 5 have much softer competition than players in Group 1. It makes sense to put the top 5 players in 5 different groups (to give them a measure of "protection" from each other) but on that logic player #1 should face the *softest* competition, not the toughest.
Instead, groups should be assigned by a snake system; Wikipedia labels this a serpentine system: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpentine_system
Player #6 should be in the same group as #5; #7 should be in the same group as #4; and so on. That way the seeds are meaningful, with every player facing (in theory) competition that is a little bit softer than the next-seeded player. (For example, player #4 faces softer competition than #5, who faces softer competition than #6.)
Discussed briefly in the forums last year: boardgamearena.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=88637#p88637• Kas notika, kad veicāt šo darbību (kļūdas paziņojums, spēles informācijas paziņojums,...)?
• Kāda ir Tava pārlūkprogramma?
Firefox
• Kurā spēles solī problēma parādījās (kas bija tā brīža spēles instrukcija)?
Not applicable.• Kas notika, kad mēģinājāt veikt spēles darbību (kļūdas paziņojums, spēles informācijas paziņojums,...)?
When I recently created a Groups Stage tournament with five groups (boardgamearena.com/tournament?id=166397), I was surprised to see the groups assigned according to ELO ranking using this "typewriter" method:
GROUP 1: players ranked #1, #6, #11, #16, #21, #26, #31, #36, #41, #46
GROUP 2: players ranked #2, #7, #12, #17, #22, #27, #32, #37, #42
GROUP 3: players ranked #3, #8, #13, #18, #23, #28, #33, #38, #43
GROUP 4: players ranked #4, #9, #14, #19, #24, #29, #34, #39, #44
GROUP 5: players ranked #5, #10, #15, #20, #25, #30, #35, #40, #45.
I call this the typewriter method because after the first "line" of 5 players is assigned to groups 1 to 5, we go back to group 1 before assigning the next "line" (players #6 through #10).
This system is flawed because players in Group 5 have much softer competition than players in Group 1. It makes sense to put the top 5 players in 5 different groups (to give them a measure of "protection" from each other) but on that logic player #1 should face the *softest* competition, not the toughest.
Instead, groups should be assigned by a snake system; Wikipedia labels this a serpentine system: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpentine_system
Player #6 should be in the same group as #5; #7 should be in the same group as #4; and so on. That way the seeds are meaningful, with every player facing (in theory) competition that is a little bit softer than the next-seeded player. (For example, player #4 faces softer competition than #5, who faces softer competition than #6.)
Discussed briefly in the forums last year: boardgamearena.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=88637#p88637• Kāda ir Tava pārlūkprogramma?
Firefox
• Lūdzu aprakstiet radušos problēmu. Ja Tev ir ekrānuzņēmums, kurā redzama kļūme (laba prakse), vari izmantot Imgur.com , lai to augšupielādētu un kopētu/ielīmētu saiti šeit.
Not applicable.• Kāda ir Tava pārlūkprogramma?
Firefox
• Lūdzu iekopē tekstu, kas redzams angļu, nevis tavā valodā. Ja Tev ir ekrānuzņēmums, kurā redzama kļūme (laba prakse), vari izmantot Imgur.com , lai to augšupielādētu un kopētu/ielīmētu saiti šeit.
Not applicable.• Vai šis teksts ir pieejams tulkošanas sistēmā? Ja jā, vai tas ir ticis tulkots pēdējo 24 stundu laikā?
When I recently created a Groups Stage tournament with five groups (boardgamearena.com/tournament?id=166397), I was surprised to see the groups assigned according to ELO ranking using this "typewriter" method:
GROUP 1: players ranked #1, #6, #11, #16, #21, #26, #31, #36, #41, #46
GROUP 2: players ranked #2, #7, #12, #17, #22, #27, #32, #37, #42
GROUP 3: players ranked #3, #8, #13, #18, #23, #28, #33, #38, #43
GROUP 4: players ranked #4, #9, #14, #19, #24, #29, #34, #39, #44
GROUP 5: players ranked #5, #10, #15, #20, #25, #30, #35, #40, #45.
I call this the typewriter method because after the first "line" of 5 players is assigned to groups 1 to 5, we go back to group 1 before assigning the next "line" (players #6 through #10).
This system is flawed because players in Group 5 have much softer competition than players in Group 1. It makes sense to put the top 5 players in 5 different groups (to give them a measure of "protection" from each other) but on that logic player #1 should face the *softest* competition, not the toughest.
Instead, groups should be assigned by a snake system; Wikipedia labels this a serpentine system: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpentine_system
Player #6 should be in the same group as #5; #7 should be in the same group as #4; and so on. That way the seeds are meaningful, with every player facing (in theory) competition that is a little bit softer than the next-seeded player. (For example, player #4 faces softer competition than #5, who faces softer competition than #6.)
Discussed briefly in the forums last year: boardgamearena.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=88637#p88637• Kāda ir Tava pārlūkprogramma?
Firefox
• Lūdzu, paskaidrojiet savu ieteikumu precīzi un kodolīgi, lai tas būtu pēc iespējas vieglāk saprotams.
Not applicable.• Kāda ir Tava pārlūkprogramma?
Firefox
Ziņojuma vēsture
2024 20. nov. 2:46 • BananaHarambe • Attīstītāji vēl nav izlabojuši kļūmi:
I agree that the Serpentine system should be implemented for setting up group stage tournaments so that each group has roughly the same average skill level.
How does the Serpentine system handle an uneven number of players? Current system is basic "typewriter" like you said so my most recent double RR tournament had 2 extra players, 41st and 42nd rated with 8 groups that were assigned to group 1 and group 2. So we had 2 groups of 6 and 6 groups of 5.
With Serpentine System I assume it would just add them to groups in order using the "snake" algorithm so they would have been placed in groups 8 and 7 with the snake going backwards since each group has 5 people prior to the last 2 people.
How does the Serpentine system handle an uneven number of players? Current system is basic "typewriter" like you said so my most recent double RR tournament had 2 extra players, 41st and 42nd rated with 8 groups that were assigned to group 1 and group 2. So we had 2 groups of 6 and 6 groups of 5.
With Serpentine System I assume it would just add them to groups in order using the "snake" algorithm so they would have been placed in groups 8 and 7 with the snake going backwards since each group has 5 people prior to the last 2 people.
Pievieno kaut ko šim ziņojumam
Lūdzu, pievienojiet šeit visu, kas šķiet svarīgs, lai reproducētu šo kļūdu vai saprastu jūsu ieteikumu:
- Cita galda ID / gājiena ID
- Vai F5 atrisināja šo problēmu?
- Vai šī problēma parādās vairākas reizes? Katru reizi? Nekonkrētās reizēs?
- Ja Tev ir ekrānuzņēmums, kurā redzama kļūme (laba prakse), vari izmantot Imgur.com , lai to augšupielādētu un kopētu/ielīmētu saiti šeit.
Mainīt pārskata statusu par:
bug?id=73841
