'Randomised' seating improvement

[hannahtaylor]

In round 2 only these 4 matches had been played and finished (the rest of the matches were on round 1)

 

Darker vs TheDH had already started so when it said my opponent was waiting for me to sign up it was obvious I was against Kokeno. I don't called this 'randomised'. The system should wait until round 1 had finished, or until at least 1 other match has finished, in times like this to actually make the seats randomised

[Quinn010]

1 hour ago, hannahtaylor said:

In round 2 only these 4 matches had been played and finished (the rest of the matches were on round 1)

 

Darker vs TheDH had already started so when it said my opponent was waiting for me to sign up it was obvious I was against Kokeno. I don't called this 'randomised'. The system should wait until round 1 had finished, or until at least 1 other match has finished, in times like this to actually make the seats randomised

 then tours take ages (imagine waiting 1 hour round 1 xD ) 

Edited September 3, 2020 by Quinn010

[kuplion]

1 hour ago, Quinn010 said:

 then tours take ages (imagine waiting 1 hour round 1 xD ) 

Time taken to complete a round shouldn't matter if it improves the quality of the implementation of the tournament system.

[DrakeHope]

If we do that @hannahtaylor that gonna end up Having tournament who last too long. I think its ok for 32 Seat tournament but imagine doing that for 128 or 256 tournament ? Gonna end up Having tournament who last all night and i think Almost all people here cant afford To stay all night online for a tournament.

[PoseidonWrath]

quinn is right if we wait untill every match is done we can also wait if staff adds dungeons (which is in 2090)
i saw lc matches with durations over 45 minutes, so u want to wait for that long?

[Lin]

Please keep on-topic, this isn't the place for team drama.

[hannahtaylor]

8 minutes ago, DrakeHope said:

You both should leave it here, we are here To talk about an idea proposed by @hannahtaylor Btw waiting for your answer about the time's problem that your idea bring.

I see no problem waiting. It would drastically improve the quality. Not even waiting for all the matches, as I said just 1 or 2 more to make the randomisation really work. If some matches are a round behind people are going to have to wait at a certain point anyway.

Edited September 3, 2020 by hannahtaylor

[DrakeHope]

4 minutes ago, hannahtaylor said:

I see no problem waiting. It would drastically improve the quality. Not even waiting for all the matches, as I said just 1 or 2 more to make the randomisation really work. 

Then what would work better in the screen u showed is if both match start in same time, idk if its possible To make but that would improve the randomize system without making tournament last too long.

Edited September 3, 2020 by DrakeHope

[hannahtaylor]

Just now, DrakeHope said:

Then what would work better in the screen u showed is both match start in same time, idk if its possible To make but that would improve the randomize system without making tournament last too long.

That sounds like a whole lot more trouble rather than waiting for 1 more battle to finish. 

[Xigbar]

2 hours ago, hannahtaylor said:

In round 2 only these 4 matches had been played and finished (the rest of the matches were on round 1)

 

Darker vs TheDH had already started so when it said my opponent was waiting for me to sign up it was obvious I was against Kokeno. I don't called this 'randomised'. The system should wait until round 1 had finished, or until at least 1 other match has finished, in times like this to actually make the seats randomised

Look's a bit hard to do that having tiers like Uu and Ou where duels can last long for more than 1 hour.

 

 

8 minutes ago, hannahtaylor said:

I see no problem waiting. It would drastically improve the quality. Not even waiting for all the matches, as I said just 1 or 2 more to make the randomisation really work. 

The problem I think can be that some duels last long for like 1 hour hannar. Is a bit hard to wait for it. 

[DrakeHope]

1 minute ago, hannahtaylor said:

That sounds like a whole lot more trouble rather than waiting for 1 more battle to finish. 

What the point in waiting for 1 more match ? If we take back the screen u showed imagine we add 1 more match if 2 match start Then for the 3rd match u obviously know who u fight that dont solve anything.

[razimove]

 

 

2 minutes ago, Xigbar said:

The problem I think can be that some duels last long for like 1 hour hannar. Is a bit hard to wait for it. 

Then the system is at fault, the system is meant to randomize, if it's not working properly, it needs to be fixed, right? 

[DrakeHope]

Just now, razimove said:

 

 

Then the system is at fault, the system is meant to randomize, if it's not working properly, it needs to be fixed, right? 

The thing here is how To fix it without Having 10hours tournament

[Xigbar]

1 minute ago, razimove said:

 

 

Then the system is at fault, the system is meant to randomize, if it's not working properly, it needs to be fixed, right? 

So u are telling me that all the players need to wait for like an hour to play next round? I don't think thats a system problem. or it is? 

[razimove]

Just now, DrakeHope said:

The thing here is how To fix it without Having 10hours tournament

that's something staff has to come up with, that and also a way to punish people who stall match with no winning purpose like that semi-final OU match on the conkeldurr tournament.

There's no easy solution I guess with the current system. 
 

[kuplion]

3 minutes ago, razimove said:

Then the system is at fault, the system is meant to randomize, if it's not working properly, it needs to be fixed, right? 

 

1 minute ago, Xigbar said:

So u are telling me that all the players need to wait for like an hour to play next round? I don't think thats a system problem. or it is? 

If the randomisation isn't random, then that is a fault with the system, regardless of the supposed time difference.

[Xigbar]

Just now, kuplion said:

 

If the randomisation isn't random, then that is a fault with the system, regardless of the supposed time difference.

I see clearly random brackets each time a tournament is happening. U dont face the oponent who is fighting below you. I dont see a clearly problem with it. 

 

4 minutes ago, razimove said:

that's something staff has to come up with, that and also a way to punish people who stall match with no winning purpose like that semi-final OU match on the conkeldurr tournament.

There's no easy solution I guess with the current system. 
 

Punish a player just cause he is playing stall. Thats a bit rude. isn't it? Even if u think he have no chance to win. He is trying with their own strat. Why the punishment then?

[kuplion]

4 minutes ago, Xigbar said:

I see clearly random brackets each time a tournament is happening. U dont face the oponent who is fighting below you. I dont see a clearly problem with it. 

But this wasn't truly random this time which is the highlighted issue. Because only a few players had finished the round it was easy to see who the opponent was going to be.

[xMago]

Hannah's idea makes sense but it will not always be possible, it should be made random and as long as 2 duels of the previous round end, the next round can begin.
this way it would still be somewhat random without knowing 100% which of your 2 opponents is yours.

[Xigbar]

Just now, kuplion said:

But this wasn't truly random this time which is the highlighted issue. Because only a few players had finished the round it was easy to see who the opponent was going to be.

That's a fact for sure and I'm agree. But don't happen all the time. Both of us know how systems works and sometimes use to fail but not all the time. Maybe this time failed. Next time won't. Keeping an eye in the automated tournament system can be the solution we all looking for. 

[razimove]

19 minutes ago, Xigbar said:

Punish a player just cause he is playing stall. Thats a bit rude. isn't it?

no he legit did it on purpose they had win cons and never actually tried to use them, to the point staff had to close it.

also it was just an example of flawed system in existence, that also needs solutions to. 

Edited September 3, 2020 by razimove

[hannahtaylor]

Another idea I had for it was, if the bracket isn't full then round 1 plays and round 2 wait until everyone is there. It'll be just the same amount of time as if you started in round 1. It's NOT waiting any longer. It's NOT going to 'take hours more' 

[XelaKebert]

13 hours ago, Xigbar said:

That's a fact for sure and I'm agree. But don't happen all the time. Both of us know how systems works and sometimes use to fail but not all the time. Maybe this time failed. Next time won't. Keeping an eye in the automated tournament system can be the solution we all looking for. 

Honestly, here's how I see this issue.

 

On the one hand, I definitely agree that making a change that could result in a tournament lasting longer is definitely a problem and should be avoided as much as possible. On the other hand, if the system is not reliable enough to randomize pairings all of the time, then it should be tweaked so that the reliability is higher.

 

That being said, I don't necessarily agree with the idea of tweaking the system now. There should honestly be an analysis of duel data from past tournaments since the system has been introduced. If there are a large number of instances where the system makes the early pairings predictable, then tweaking the system is the way to go. If it turns out that this is merely an edge case and not the norm, the system is fine.

 

As far as how a tweak could be made to the system so that pairings are less predictable early on, up the required number of completed duels from the previous round before pairing. The increase doesn't need to be anything drastic either. For example, if the current threshold is 8 duels, then it could be bumped to 12 duels. In any case, there will always be a tradeoff as far as time it takes for a tourny to complete and making the pairings less predictable. So only increasing by a small number would yield the best results simply because that extra time means more duels get closer to completion which could make it so when pairings are started more players are being thrown into the shuffle.

[Xigbar]

5 hours ago, XelaKebert said:

Honestly, here's how I see this issue.

 

On the one hand, I definitely agree that making a change that could result in a tournament lasting longer is definitely a problem and should be avoided as much as possible. On the other hand, if the system is not reliable enough to randomize pairings all of the time, then it should be tweaked so that the reliability is higher.

 

That being said, I don't necessarily agree with the idea of tweaking the system now. There should honestly be an analysis of duel data from past tournaments since the system has been introduced. If there are a large number of instances where the system makes the early pairings predictable, then tweaking the system is the way to go. If it turns out that this is merely an edge case and not the norm, the system is fine.

 

As far as how a tweak could be made to the system so that pairings are less predictable early on, up the required number of completed duels from the previous round before pairing. The increase doesn't need to be anything drastic either. For example, if the current threshold is 8 duels, then it could be bumped to 12 duels. In any case, there will always be a tradeoff as far as time it takes for a tourny to complete and making the pairings less predictable. So only increasing by a small number would yield the best results simply because that extra time means more duels get closer to completion which could make it so when pairings are started more players are being thrown into the shuffle.

That's something can solve the actual problem, thats a good idea for sure. Other idea is to return to the old system and continue testing this one in few tournaments only, but play with different tournament system each tournament is kinda hard. 

[XelaKebert]

18 hours ago, Xigbar said:

That's something can solve the actual problem, thats a good idea for sure. Other idea is to return to the old system and continue testing this one in few tournaments only, but play with different tournament system each tournament is kinda hard. 

Returning to the old system would have to be a blanket action. Splitting the tournament structure so that you have two different types of tournament pairings running at the same time is bound to cause unintentional issues. The objective better solution is to determine if this new system is still viable long term or if reverting to the old system is more viable.