Дадому »
Супольнасць »
Справаздачы »
Справаздача n°73841
Усе справаздачы
{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"
Што адбылося? Калі ласка, абярыце з ніжэй прапісаныя
Нешта не правільна функцыянуе пры выкарыстанні сайта (не падчас гульні)
Што адбылося? Калі ласка, абярыце з ніжэй прапісаныя
Нешта не правільна функцыянуе пры выкарыстанні сайта (не падчас гульні)
Калі ласка, праверце, ці існуе ўжо справаздача на тую ж тэму
Калі гэта так, ПРАГАЛАСУЙЦЕ за гэтую справаздачу. Справаздачы з найбольшай колькасцю галасоў будуць разглядацца У ПЕРШУЮ ЧАРГУ!
| # | Status | Votes | Game | Type | Title | Last update |
|---|
Дэталёвае апісанне
• Калі ласка, скапіруйце тэкст памылкі, якую вы бачыце на экране (калі яна ёсць).
Not applicable.• Калі ласка, растлумачце, што вы хацелі зрабіць, што вы зрабілі і што здарылася
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• Якім браўзэрам вы карыстаецеся?
Firefox
• Калі ласка, скапіруйце тэкст на англійскай замест перакладу на ваш мову. Калі ў вас ёсць скрыншот гэтай памылкі (добрая звычка), вы можаце скарыстацца Imgur.com, каб загрузіць яго і ўставіць сюды спасылку.
Not applicable.• Дзе можна знайсьці гэты тэкст у сістэме перакладу? Калі так, ці быў ён перакладзены больш за 24 гадзін таму?
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• Якім браўзэрам вы карыстаецеся?
Firefox
• Калі ласка, дакладна і коратка апішыце сваю прапанову, каб зрабіць яе найбольш даступнай для разумення.
Not applicable.• Якім браўзэрам вы карыстаецеся?
Firefox
• Што было намалявана на экране, калі вас заблакавала? (Пусты экран? Частка гульнявога стала? Паведамленне пра памылку?)
Not applicable.• Якім браўзэрам вы карыстаецеся?
Firefox
• Якая частка правілаў не выкананая ў версіі BGA
Not applicable.• Ці відаць парушэнне правілаў у паўторы гульні? Калі так, то на яком хаду?
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• Якім браўзэрам вы карыстаецеся?
Firefox
• Якое гульнявое дзеянне вы хацелі зрабіць?
Not applicable.• Што вы спрабавалі зрабіць, каб выканаць гэтае гульнявое дзеянне?
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• Што адбылося, калі вы паспрабавалі зрабіць гэта (паведамленне пра памылку, паведамленне ў радку стану гульні ...)?
• Якім браўзэрам вы карыстаецеся?
Firefox
• На якім кроку гульні адбылася праблема (якая была інструкцыя ў той момант у гульні)?
Not applicable.• Што адбылося, калі вы паспрабавалі здзейсніць гульнявое дзеянне (паведамленне пра памылку, паведамленне ў радку стану гульні ...)?
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• Якім браўзэрам вы карыстаецеся?
Firefox
• Калі ласка, апішыце памылку адлюстравання. Калі ў вас ёсць скрыншот гэтай памылкі (добрая звычка), вы можаце скарыстацца Imgur.com, каб загрузіць яго і ўставіць сюды спасылку.
Not applicable.• Якім браўзэрам вы карыстаецеся?
Firefox
• Калі ласка, скапіруйце тэкст на англійскай замест перакладу на ваш мову. Калі ў вас ёсць скрыншот гэтай памылкі (добрая звычка), вы можаце скарыстацца Imgur.com, каб загрузіць яго і ўставіць сюды спасылку.
Not applicable.• Дзе можна знайсьці гэты тэкст у сістэме перакладу? Калі так, ці быў ён перакладзены больш за 24 гадзін таму?
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• Якім браўзэрам вы карыстаецеся?
Firefox
• Калі ласка, дакладна і коратка апішыце сваю прапанову, каб зрабіць яе найбольш даступнай для разумення.
Not applicable.• Якім браўзэрам вы карыстаецеся?
Firefox
Гісторыя справаздачы
20. ліс 2024 2:46 • BananaHarambe • Распрацоўнікі яшчэ не паўтарылі памылку:
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.
Дадайце да гэтага дакладу
Калі ласка, згадайце ўсё, што вам здаецца значным для ўзнаўлення вашай памылкі або разумення вашай прапановы:
- Іншая Табліца ID / ID ходу
- Ці F5 вырашыла Вашу праблему?
- Ці з'яўлялася праблема некалькі разоў? Кожны раз? Выпадкова?
- Калі ў вас ёсць скрыншот гэтай памылкі (добрая звычка), вы можаце скарыстацца Imgur.com, каб загрузіць яго і ўставіць сюды спасылку.
Змяніць статус справаздачы на:
bug?id=73841
