Inicio »
Comunidade »
Informes »
Informar n°73841
Todos os informes
{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"
Qué aconteceu? Por favor selecciona debaixo
Algo non funcionou correctamente ao usar o sitio web (non durante unha partida)
Qué aconteceu? Por favor selecciona debaixo
Algo non funcionou correctamente ao usar o sitio web (non durante unha partida)
Por favor revisa se xa hai un informe sobre o mesmo tema
De ser afirmativo, por favor VOTA por este informe. Aos informes con máis votos se lles da PRIORIDADE!
| # | Status | Votes | Game | Type | Title | Last update |
|---|
Descrición detallada
• Por favor, copia e pega a mensaxe de erro que ves na túa pantalla, se houbera algún.
Not applicable.• Por favor, explica o que querÃas facer, o que fixeche e o que pasou
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• Cal é o teu navegador?
Firefox
• Por favor, copia/pega o texto amosado en inglés no canto do teu idioma. Se tes un pantallazo deste erro (boa práctica), podes usar Imgur.com para subilo e copiar/pegar a ligazón aquÃ.
Not applicable.• É este o texto dispoñible no sistema de tradución? Se é asÃ, foi traducido fai máis de 24 horas?
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• Cal é o teu navegador?
Firefox
• Por favor explica a túa suxestión de maneira precisa e concisa para que sexa o máis sinxelo posible entender o que queres dicir.
Not applicable.• Cal é o teu navegador?
Firefox
• Qué habÃa na pantalla cando se quedou bloqueado? (mensaxe de erro?, pantalla en blanco?, unha parte da interface do xogo?)
Not applicable.• Cal é o teu navegador?
Firefox
• Qué parte das regras non se cumpriron na adaptación da BGA?
Not applicable.• é visible a violación das regras na repetición? Se o é, en que número de movemento?
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• Cal é o teu navegador?
Firefox
• Qué acción de xogo querÃas realizar?
Not applicable.• Qué é o que tratache de facer para activar esta acción do xogo?
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• Qué sucedeu cando o fixeche (a mensaxe de erro, mensaxe na barra de estado do xogo, ...)?
• Cal é o teu navegador?
Firefox
• En que paso do xogo ocorreu o problema (cal foi a instrucción actual do xogo)?
Not applicable.• Qué sucedeu cando tratache de facer unha acción de xogo (mensaxe de erro, mensaxe na barra de estado do xogo, ...)?
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• Cal é o teu navegador?
Firefox
• Por favor, describe o problema de visualización. Se tes un pantallazo deste erro (boa práctica), podes usar Imgur.com para subilo e copiar/pegar a ligazón aquÃ.
Not applicable.• Cal é o teu navegador?
Firefox
• Por favor, copia/pega o texto amosado en inglés no canto do teu idioma. Se tes un pantallazo deste erro (boa práctica), podes usar Imgur.com para subilo e copiar/pegar a ligazón aquÃ.
Not applicable.• É este o texto dispoñible no sistema de tradución? Se é asÃ, foi traducido fai máis de 24 horas?
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• Cal é o teu navegador?
Firefox
• Por favor explica a túa suxestión de maneira precisa e concisa para que sexa o máis sinxelo posible entender o que queres dicir.
Not applicable.• Cal é o teu navegador?
Firefox
Historial de informes
20. Nov 2024 2:46 • BananaHarambe • O erro aínda non foi reproducido polos desenvolvedores:
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.
Engade a este informe
Por favor engade aquà calquera cousa que sexa relevante para reproducir este erro ou entender a túa suxestión:
- Outro DI de mesa / ID de movemento
- Premer F5 resolveu o problema?
- Apareceu o problema varias veces? Tódalas veces? Aleatoriamente?
- Se tes un pantallazo deste erro (boa práctica), podes usar Imgur.com para subilo e copiar/pegar a ligazón aquÃ.
Cambiar o estado do informe a:
bug?id=73841
