الصفحة الرئيسية »
تواصل اجتماعي »
تقارير »
أبلغ عن n°73841
جميع التقارير
{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"
ماذا حدث؟ يرجى اختيار من أدناه
شيء ما لم يعمل بشكل صحيح أثناء استخدام موقع الويب (ليس أثناء اللعبة)
ماذا حدث؟ يرجى اختيار من أدناه
شيء ما لم يعمل بشكل صحيح أثناء استخدام موقع الويب (ليس أثناء اللعبة)
يرجى التحقق مما إذا كان هناك بالفعل تقرير عن نفس الموضوع
إذا كانت الإجابة بنعم ، يرجى التصويت لهذا التقرير. يتم إعطاء التقارير ذات أكبر عدد من الأصوات الأولوية!
| # | Status | Votes | Game | Type | Title | Last update |
|---|
وصف مفصل
• يرجى نسخ / لصق رسالة الخطأ التي تراها على الشاشة ، إن وجدت.
Not applicable.• يرجى توضيح ما تريد القيام به ، ماذا فعلت وما حدث
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• ما هو متصفحك؟
Firefox
• يرجى نسخ / لصق النص المعروض باللغة الإنجليزية بدلاً من لغتك. إذا كان لديك لقطة شاشة لهذا الخطأ (ممارسة جيدة) ، يمكنك استخدام Imgur.com لتحميله ونسخ / لصق الرابط هنا.
Not applicable.• هل هذا النص متاح في translation system ؟ إذا كانت الإجابة بنعم ، فهل تمت ترجمتها لأكثر من 24 ساعة؟
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• ما هو متصفحك؟
Firefox
• يرجى توضيح اقتراحك بدقة وإيجاز بحيث يكون من السهل قدر الإمكان فهم ما تعنيه.
Not applicable.• ما هو متصفحك؟
Firefox
• ما الذي تم عرضه على الشاشة عندما تم حظرك (شاشة فارغة؟ جزء من واجهة اللعبة؟ رسالة خطأ؟)
Not applicable.• ما هو متصفحك؟
Firefox
• أي جزء من القواعد تم مخالفته في تصميم التبني لدى BGA
Not applicable.• هل انتهاك القواعد مرئي عند إعادة اللعب؟ إذا كانت الإجابة بنعم ، فبأي رقم؟
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• ما هو متصفحك؟
Firefox
• ما هو نشاط اللعبة الذي أردت القيام به؟
Not applicable.• ماذا تحاول أن تفعل لتحريك هذا العمل اللعبة؟
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• ماذا حدث عند محاولة القيام بهذا (رسالة خطأ ، رسالة شريط حالة اللعبة ، ...)؟
• ما هو متصفحك؟
Firefox
• في أي خطوة من اللعبة حدثت المشكلة (ما هو تعليمة اللعبة الحالية)؟
Not applicable.• ماذا حدث عند محاولة إجراء هذه الحركة داخل اللعبة (رسالة خطأ ، رسالة شريط حالة اللعبة ، ...)؟
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• ما هو متصفحك؟
Firefox
• يرجى وصف مشكلة العرض. إذا كان لديك لقطة شاشة لهذا الخطأ (ممارسة جيدة) ، يمكنك استخدام Imgur.com لتحميله ونسخ / لصق الرابط هنا.
Not applicable.• ما هو متصفحك؟
Firefox
• يرجى نسخ / لصق النص المعروض باللغة الإنجليزية بدلاً من لغتك. إذا كان لديك لقطة شاشة لهذا الخطأ (ممارسة جيدة) ، يمكنك استخدام Imgur.com لتحميله ونسخ / لصق الرابط هنا.
Not applicable.• هل هذا النص متاح في translation system ؟ إذا كانت الإجابة بنعم ، فهل تمت ترجمتها لأكثر من 24 ساعة؟
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• ما هو متصفحك؟
Firefox
• يرجى توضيح اقتراحك بدقة وإيجاز بحيث يكون من السهل قدر الإمكان فهم ما تعنيه.
Not applicable.• ما هو متصفحك؟
Firefox
سجل التاريخ
نوف 20 th 2024 2:46 • BananaHarambe • لم يتم استنساخ الأخطاء من قبل المطورين حتى الآن:
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.
اضف لهذا البلاغ
الرجاء إضافة أي شيء يبدو هنا ذا صلة من أجل إعادة إنتاج هذا الخطأ أو فهم اقتراحك:
- تعريف طاولة/تعريف حركة
- هل حلَت F5 المشكلة؟
- هل ظهرت المشكلة عدة مرات؟ كل مرة؟ بطريقة عشوائية؟
- إذا كان لديك لقطة شاشة لهذا الخطأ (ممارسة جيدة) ، يمكنك استخدام Imgur.com لتحميله ونسخ / لصق الرابط هنا.
تغيير حالة التقرير إلى:
bug?id=73841
