Skip to content

Cyclone

My feedback

1 result found

  1. 265 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Cyclone commented  · 

    I commented a couple of months ago, but I shall comment again now.

    I have witnessed tournaments for Super Smash Bros. for Wii U (and Melee, actually) that use Challonge to track results. Some of these tournaments use pools. Sadly, the way it's set up, you can only set a certain number of players for each pool. This leads to complications if you have, for instance, 26 people. It's almost like the number of entrants determines how many people you can have in each pool; if you want five people per pool, then there's one lucky sap who gets to have a bye all the way into the brackets because Challonge doesn't know how to add a sixth player to a group to compensate. If the option to set even distribution between groups existed, the tournament organizer might already have decided that 16 people are going to the brackets, top four in the group, and thus four groups are automatically created; this will shuffle six people into each group and then distribute the other two as a seventh member. Those groups will take a little longer to play, yes, but they also can knock out three people. Unlike the current method, which would require setting six per group and dropping two in their own group, or seven per group (to ensure four groups) and have a group of four who all automatically advance.

    Cyclone supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Cyclone commented  · 

    Absolutely! This should be the default way to do groups; what is in there now is not good at all by comparison. Being able to say there are eight groups and thus allowing for expansion of the eight groups rather than saying have a set number of people per group is much more preferable.

Feedback and Knowledge Base