Home »
Gemeenschap »
Rapporten »
Rapporteren n°73841
Alle rapporten
{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"
Wat is er gebeurd? Selecteer uit het onderstaande
Er heeft iets niet correct gewerkt tijdens het gebruik van de website (niet tijdens het spel)
Wat is er gebeurd? Selecteer uit het onderstaande
Er heeft iets niet correct gewerkt tijdens het gebruik van de website (niet tijdens het spel)
Controleer of er al een rapport is over hetzelfde onderwerp
Zo ja, gelieve dan voor dit rapport te STEMMEN. Rapporten met de meeste stemmen krijgen VOORRANG!
| # | Status | Votes | Game | Type | Title | Last update |
|---|
Gedetailleerde beschrijving
• Kopieer en plak alsjeblieft de foutboodschap die je op je scherm ziet, indien van toepassing.
Not applicable.• Leg uit wat je wilde doen, wat je deed en wat er gebeurde
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• Welke browser gebruik je?
Firefox
• Kopieer en plak alsjeblieft de tekst die in het Engels wordt getoond in plaats van in jouw taal. Als je een schermafbeelding van deze bug hebt (goede gewoonte), kun je Imgur.com gebruiken om deze te uploaden, de link kopiëren en hier plakken.
Not applicable.• Is deze tekst beschikbaar in het vertaalsysteem? Zo ja, is deze meer dan 24 uur geleden vertaald?
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• Welke browser gebruik je?
Firefox
• Gelieve jouw suggestie precies en beknopt uit te leggen zodat het zo makkelijk mogelijk is om te begrijpen wat je bedoelt.
Not applicable.• Welke browser gebruik je?
Firefox
• Wat stond op het scherm toen je geblokkeerd was (Leeg scherm? Een deel van de spelinterface? Foutboodschap?)
Not applicable.• Welke browser gebruik je?
Firefox
• Met welk onderdeel van de regels is geen rekening gehouden bij de BGA-versie?
Not applicable.• Is de inbreuk op de spelregels zichtbaar in de spelherhaling? Indien ja, bij welk zetnummer?
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• Welke browser gebruik je?
Firefox
• Welke spelactie wilde je uitvoeren?
Not applicable.• Wat probeerde je te doen om deze spelactie te laten optreden?
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• Wat gebeurde er toen je dit probeerde te doen (foutboodschap, melding op de statusbalk van het spel, ...)?
• Welke browser gebruik je?
Firefox
• In welke fase van het spel deed het probleem zich voor (wat was de huidige spelinstructie)?
Not applicable.• Wat gebeurde toen je deze spelactie probeerde (foutboodschap, melding op de statusbalk van het spel, ...)?
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• Welke browser gebruik je?
Firefox
• Beschrijf alsjeblieft het probleem met de beeldweergave. Als je een schermafbeelding van deze bug hebt (goede gewoonte), kun je Imgur.com gebruiken om deze te uploaden, de link kopiëren en hier plakken.
Not applicable.• Welke browser gebruik je?
Firefox
• Kopieer en plak alsjeblieft de tekst die in het Engels wordt getoond in plaats van in jouw taal. Als je een schermafbeelding van deze bug hebt (goede gewoonte), kun je Imgur.com gebruiken om deze te uploaden, de link kopiëren en hier plakken.
Not applicable.• Is deze tekst beschikbaar in het vertaalsysteem? Zo ja, is deze meer dan 24 uur geleden vertaald?
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• Welke browser gebruik je?
Firefox
• Gelieve jouw suggestie precies en beknopt uit te leggen zodat het zo makkelijk mogelijk is om te begrijpen wat je bedoelt.
Not applicable.• Welke browser gebruik je?
Firefox
Rapportgeschiedenis
20 nov 2024 2:46 • BananaHarambe • Bug is nog niet gereproduceerd door de ontwikkelaars:
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.
Dit rapport aanvullen
Gelieve hier alle informatie toe te voegen die relevant is om deze bug te reproduceren of jouw suggestie te begrijpen:
- Andere tafel ID / zet ID
- Loste F5 het probleem op?
- Kwam het probleem meerdere keren voor? Altijd? Willekeurig?
- Als je een schermafbeelding van deze bug hebt (goede gewoonte), kun je Imgur.com gebruiken om deze te uploaden, de link kopiëren en hier plakken.
Wijzig rapportstatus naar:
bug?id=73841
