Todos los 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 ha pasado? Por favor, selecciona una de las opciones siguientes
Algo no funcionó correctamente al usar la página web (no durante una partida)
¿Qué ha pasado? Por favor, selecciona una de las opciones siguientes
Algo no funcionó correctamente al usar la página web (no durante una partida)
Por favor, comprueba si ya hay un informe sobre el mismo tema
Si es así, por favor VOTA por este informe. ¡A los informes con más votos se les da PRIORIDAD!
| # | Status | Votes | Game | Type | Title | Last update |
|---|
Descripción detallada
• Por favor, copia/pega el mensaje de error que ves en tu pantalla, si hay alguno.
Not applicable.• Por favor, explica lo que querías hacer, lo que hiciste y lo que pasó
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 navegador estás usando?
Firefox
• Por favor, copia/pega el texto mostrado en inglés en lugar de en tu idioma. Si tienes una captura de este error (buena práctica), puedes usar Imgur.com para subirla y copiar/pegar el enlace aquí.
Not applicable.• ¿Está este texto disponible en el sistema de traducción? Si es así, ¿ha sido traducido hace más 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• ¿Qué navegador estás usando?
Firefox
• Por favor explica tu sugerencia de manera precisa y concisa para que sea lo más fácil posible entender lo que quieres decir.
Not applicable.• ¿Qué navegador estás usando?
Firefox
• ¿Qué había en la pantalla cuando se quedó bloqueado? (¿mensaje de error?, ¿pantalla en blanco?, ¿una parte de la interfaz del juego?)
Not applicable.• ¿Qué navegador estás usando?
Firefox
• ¿Qué parte de las reglas no se ha respetado en la adaptación de BGA?
Not applicable.• ¿La infracción de las reglas es visible en la repetición de la partida? Si es así, ¿en qué jugada?
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 navegador estás usando?
Firefox
• ¿Qué acción de juego querías realizar?
Not applicable.• ¿Qué es lo que trataste de hacer para activar esta acción del juego?
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 sucedió cuando lo hiciste (el mensaje de error, mensaje en la barra de estado del juego, ...)?
• ¿Qué navegador estás usando?
Firefox
• ¿En qué etapa de la partida ocurrió el problema? ¿Cuál era la instrucción actual del juego?
Not applicable.• ¿Qué sucedió cuando trataste de hacer una acción de juego (mensaje de error, mensaje en la barra de estado del juego, ...)?
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 navegador estás usando?
Firefox
• Por favor, describe el problema de visualización. Si tienes una captura de este error (buena práctica), puedes usar Imgur.com para subirla y copiar/pegar el enlace aquí.
Not applicable.• ¿Qué navegador estás usando?
Firefox
• Por favor, copia/pega el texto mostrado en inglés en lugar de en tu idioma. Si tienes una captura de este error (buena práctica), puedes usar Imgur.com para subirla y copiar/pegar el enlace aquí.
Not applicable.• ¿Está este texto disponible en el sistema de traducción? Si es así, ¿ha sido traducido hace más 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• ¿Qué navegador estás usando?
Firefox
• Por favor explica tu sugerencia de manera precisa y concisa para que sea lo más fácil posible entender lo que quieres decir.
Not applicable.• ¿Qué navegador estás usando?
Firefox
Historial de informes
15 oct 2022 9:35 • Mathew5000 • Los desarrolladores aún no han podido reproducir el error:
See above.
20 nov 2024 2:46 • BananaHarambe • Los desarrolladores aún no han podido reproducir el error:
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.
Agregar a este informe
Por favor agrega aquí cualquier cosa que sea relevante para reproducir este error o entender tu sugerencia:
- Otro ID de partida / ID de jugada
- ¿Se resolvió el problema al pulsar F5?
- ¿Apareció el problema varias veces? ¿Cada vez? ¿Aleatoriamente?
- Si tienes una captura de este error (buena práctica), puedes usar Imgur.com para subirla y copiar/pegar el enlace aquí.
Cambiar el estado del informe a:
bug?id=73841
