Tournament Operations Manager version 1.0 has been released

[ninetales1234]

Good software except for one thing

anyone find bugs yet?

I noticed that in that in Tournament Manager 1.16, the user can exceed the minimum number of swiss rounds, but in the latest version of software, I couldn't find a way to do that. I don't see why they would make it that way (unless it's an error). Anyone who's organized swiss tournaments should know that the higher the ratio of rounds to players, the more accurate the results. Also, I'm sure that many would agree with me that it would be somewhat upsetting not being able to win a tournament just because you lost one round. If you only have the minimum number of swiss rounds in a tournament, then it is effectively a single elimination tournament, in terms of determining the winner. If you have more than the minimum number of rounds, then having one loss won't necessarily stop you from getting first place.

I really like the new software. It's great for doing age-modified swiss and it does OP OP Win% automatically; And being able to print all the stats between rounds is amazing! :thumb:
However, I think that it has taken a step backwards in that it no longer has the ability to exceed the minimum number of swiss rounds. It is important for a TO to be able to do this. I sent an e-mail to [email protected] about my concerns. I hope the software gets fixed.

 

[Professor Dav]

I noticed that in that in Tournament Manager 1.16, the user can exceed the minimum number of swiss rounds, but in the latest version of software, I couldn't find a way to do that. I don't see why they would make it that way (unless it's an error). Anyone who's organized swiss tournaments should know that the higher the ratio of rounds to players, the more accurate the results. Also, I'm sure that many would agree with me that it would be somewhat upsetting not being able to win a tournament just because you lost one round. If you only have the minimum number of swiss rounds in a tournament, then it is effectively a single elimination tournament, in terms of determining the winner. If you have more than the minimum number of rounds, then having one loss won't necessarily stop you from getting first place.

Actually, I believe you are incorrect here. Anyone who has run a good number of swiss tournaments knows that the further beyond the 'ideal' number of rounds you run, the more convoluted the results become. The goal of Swiss Draw, in every TCG I've ever encontered, is to determine a clear winner, in the least amount of time, while allowing everyone who wishes to compete, the chance to stay in the tournament until the end. Once you get to the 'optimum' rounds, you generall (not always) have one undefeated player. Swiss states that you always try to pair like-records, there is no valid pairing here. So, now you are pairing a 1 loss with a 0 loss. If the 1 loss wins the round, you now have 2 or more players with one loss, further convoluting the situation. We will not be supporting swiss tournaments in a manner that allows them to be run in this manner.

I really like the new software. It's great for doing age-modified swiss and it does OP OP Win% automatically; And being able to print all the stats between rounds is amazing! :thumb:
However, I think that it has taken a step backwards in that it no longer has the ability to exceed the minimum number of swiss rounds. It is important for a TO to be able to do this. I sent an e-mail to [email protected] about my concerns. I hope the software gets fixed.

I'll evaluate your concerns here, but this was discussed at length during development, and we disagree with the statement that "It is important for a TO to be able to do this". So, right now, as far as we're concerned, there is nothing in this regard that needs to be 'fixed'.

Thanks,
Dave

 

[NoPoke]

I found a serious bug.. When I imported registered players from the old TM program all named looked fine. But when re-opening the program, all the special norwegian characters like "æ", "ø" and "å" are messed up.

Friends of mine named Stålnacke became StÃ¥lnacke... and Sømod became Sømod... not too cool.

...and I can't just edit these names and re-enter the program.. they still go back to their alien alter ego names...

[EDIT]... More trouble. I found out I couldn't view the standings and not the game history of most of the players... I thought this was all due to me importing all these players... so I deleted them all... and entered 8 new test players with non-"æøå" names... Everything went smoothly (even though I miss the ability to decide how many rounds to play myself, and mixing swiss with a single play cut off... in one tournament..,)

But next time I tried to enter manually an "Æøå" guy, and exit and re-enter... and he was now called "Åæøåæøe"... so this problem isn't just related to importing players (even though standings/match history worked smoothly when using all newly added players...)

I have Java on automatic update, and checked I have the correct version. I run Windows XP Home.

This may be related to the spash screen that also comes up without the acute over the e in Pokemon. I didn't think much of the error at the time since I frequently hve difficulty with accented characters. Ah just noticed that the spash screen in TOM 1.01 has changed.

 

[MvdV]

Just downloaded the program. It seems it has hardly any flexibility. How do I run a tournament with 8 players and I want all players to play each other (7 rounds)? The program only allows 3 rounds. And manual pairing? No longer possible?

 

[M_Liesik]

That's called Round Robin. POP does not support that format, so neither does our software.

 

[MvdV]

OK. another example: I have 16 players, so the program suggest 4 rounds. But rounds end quicker than expected and we have time left for another round (all players want to play that extra round). Then what? Again no flexibility in the program. I can think of several other examples, but I think you will get the point. So your suggestion is I keep on using the old TMS program (with all it's nasty bugs)? Or do all tournaments manually?

 

[Daddiursa]

We have always used to have a Top 4 cut-off when there are 8-15 players, and a Top 8 cut-off if there are 16+ players... Now you can only have a Top 4 when 14/15 or more ppl attend...

How come?

 

[ninetales1234]

OK. another example: I have 16 players, so the program suggest 4 rounds. But rounds end quicker than expected and we have time left for another round (all players want to play that extra round).

You should be announcing the number of rounds for that event BEFORE it begins, so you shouldn't be going an extra round.

 

[GymLeaderPhil]

We have always used to have a Top 4 cut-off when there are 8-15 players, and a Top 8 cut-off if there are 16+ players... Now you can only have a Top 4 when 14/15 or more ppl attend...

How come?

There are too few players in the event to make a large cut to single elimination. It's just not necessary to do that many. Take 25% of the attendance for each age group and that should be your optimal cut for single elimination.

 

[Rainbowgym]

The only thing I mention, there is a big difference between what POP want to support and what is actually done at tournaments.

What should be logical: minimum of 8 players in any agegroup needed to sanction/support a tournament.
Otherwise you could end up attending to a CC and only have to play 3 rounds. For most people not worth the money/time to attend at least international.

If this system works as I understand out of this topic, it could only lead to mass fraude in some international countries. But what's new?

 

[MvdV]

You should be announcing the number of rounds for that event BEFORE it begins, so you shouldn't be going an extra round.

Read my message carefully. I can think of a lot of things that can cause the need to alter the number of rounds after you have started your tournament. The one I mentioned is that suddenly there's time to play an extra round. The other way around: certain things happen that delay your tournament resulting in the need to play less rounds.

Just another example: I want to decide the top cut. I want to pair manually... and so on.

Flexibility, that's should be the keyword.

The way the new TOM program is currently designed, I can't see any use for it in small tournaments (and that's reality for most tournaments in the Netherlands and most other European countries).

 

[Rainbowgym]

The way the new TOM program is currently designed, I can't see any use for it in small tournaments (and that's reality for most tournaments in the Netherlands and most other European countries).

Why not, we have already a LD who is able to upload tournaments which are reported/played with draws.
So why not being a bit creative with TOM?

I'm working on an example and hope somebody will try it out in TOM, I don't have it.
But I'm really concerned for the younger kids, attending at tournaments where the majority is 15+.

 

[Rainbowgym]

Example

tournament Age Modified Swiss
players: 4 in 10-, 16 in 11-14 and 12 in 15+ (so a total of 32)
What will be the amount of rounds played in TOM? 4 or 5?

If it's 4 please enter this:
players named in 10- : A10 , B10 , C10 , D10.
Player A10 wins round 1 and 2
Player B10 wins round 1 loose round 2 (to player A10 if I'm correct)

round 3, A10 loose, B10 wins.
round 4, A10 loose, B10 wins.

Who is going to win the prices of this tournament in the agegroup 10 and under, A10 or B10?
Or is the tournament ready for the players in 10- after 2 rounds?
And against who is A10 paired in the 3rd round? an 11-14 player or a 15+?

Thanks

 

[Daddiursa]

There are too few players in the event to make a large cut to single elimination. It's just not necessary to do that many. Take 25% of the attendance for each age group and that should be your optimal cut for single elimination.

I know it might not be necessary... but up here we play FOR FUN, not just trying to determine a winner as fast as possible so we can go home and do some really interesting stuff... At our store tournaments we are mostly about 14 ppl on average, devided amongst 11-14 and 15+ groups. We play 4 rounds and the best 4 players play a single elimination cut off. Ppl sometimes travel an hour to attend these tournaments, I'd feel ashamed giving them only 3 rounds...

I've talked to the local TO at the store and he says that if he puts the new system into use, then he will let the competitors play a 4th round + a top 4/8 cut-off, even if the system won't allow. As for POP ranking points, only the 3 first matches will count (+ a single-elim, cut-off if there were more than 14 ppl), but at least we get the time to play (and have fun) that we are used too...

 

[Rainbowgym]

Daddiursa - that's one of the scenario's which already past my mind. But what is going to happen with CC's?
Who is going to get the prizes? The one winning the "official" matches, or the one winning after the day is over?

Do you get my point? It's no insult towards you and your TO, I do understand the reason.
it's a pure and given fact that strange situations will accure and were can you complain if things are not happening the way POP demands? Nowere, you take the risk to become suspended and called disrupting POP.

IF TOM works the way I suspect, it will go hand in hand with a lot of "fraude" (don't know the correct expression).

 

[P_A]

You have the word right, just the spelling is a bit off. I'm sure everyone can understand you Lia, but you just need to drop the last "e". I can see your point. If someone can't make the tournament program fit the circumstances, shady people will fabricate the circumstances to fit the program. Seems like a dispicable way of doing things, but I suppose these things will happen sooner or later.

 

[Daddiursa]

But what is going to happen with CC's?

I ask myself that question. I'll talk to Eskil and we can see what's best. I don't think theres CC's before February here in Norway, so we have lotsa a time to think...

 

[NoPoke]

I don't think that there will be a problem with large tournaments. The players wont notice much difference if any.

I believe that some of the reasoning behind TOMs rigidity is in order to reduce the likelihood of fraudulent tounaments. Along with ensuring that the players experience of tournament play is as uniform as practical.

My prediction is that where complaints arrise those complaints will come from players in the smaller tournaments. Time will tell if the rumblings from those attending smaller tournaments will become a roar loud enough that POP feel the need to act. Its very early days.

 

[Rainbowgym]

My prediction is that a lot of International players are afraid to complain/feedback, even if they know things are not according the rules. I have a very bad experience with giving feedback and ask questions about rules and trying to get them implented.

Problems will arrise in several occasions:
Large tournaments,but with 1 pod (most likely 10-) having little players.
Small tournaments, about price awarding and total rounds to play.
IN All cases if there is no action taken in an early stage, will lead to a decrease of players.

Topics like this can take care to be ahead of these problems, based on knowledge of the involved people.
It can be seen as Pre-feedback or disruption.

My 2 cents.

 

[Tego]

EDIT: I misunderstood and got hod-headed a bit too quickly, but decided to delete my original post.