lackattack wrote:yorkiepeter: The move to standard labels was not done to punish organizers. It provides a reliable identifier which can be used to search for tournament games and link them to other tournament information in new ways. For example, by matching the label with the privilege, organizers can now be identified and allowed to drop games. I
asked the public for feedback on the concept on June 28.
----------------------------------------------------------
kendoh99, Forza AZ and yorkiepeter: Could you guys run your tournaments without any free form text but with several labels (e.g. one for each division). Is free-form text a must or can you adjust to the system if we set up multiple labels for you?
I'm trying to avoid having 2 fields (1 standard + 1 free-form) because I find it to be unintuitive. I think 1 field is simpler for the participants and easier to code.
----------------------------------------------------------
Come on lack that was 1 line at the bottom of a suggestion for watched games posted 2 weeks after the previous post. Is it any wonder this was missed?
As to your point about multi labels, yes i could i suppose work with that on my world championships, but not the 1 v 1 league or supreme doubles player league.
This requires 36 games doubles games setting up every 2 weeks for 10 weeks. There are 3 divisions each requiring 360 games that is over 1000 games. This tourny has been carefully designed to use the partial tourny field. The idea is that each of 6 players will partner each other for 6 games and there opponents will be taken from the other 4 players. So in order to know who should join which game i include a code such as abdf, which means that players a and b will play d and f. This is necessary as for that sequence i will have abcd,abce,abcf,abde,abdf and abef. Once a and b have joined i can see at a glance who to pm to join next. Each day i search on partial name 'supreme doubles d1 r1' this will give me all 36 games and i can see who is next to join the game and thus who to pm. without that i would have to keep manual records instead which is possible but would double the amount of time this would take to organise time which i can't afford. Therefore even though i am very enthusiastic about this i would have to abandon it.
The problem with the 1 v 1 league is the number of games needed. I have 11 leagues of 10 players. Each player plays 18 games. That means to pm these individually would require something like 2000 PMs! So I have devised a way where I create the games in the following format '1 v 1 div n xxx' where n is the division number and the xxx is the first 3 letters of the home players name. Now if you were playing you may find your home games by putting the following in tournament field '1 v 1 div 9 lac' you could then join your home games. to find away games ie your opponents home games put in the partial tournament field '1 v 1 div 9' and it will show you your opponents home games and you would join one game from each set. When I come to check the games i would put in '1 v 1 div 9 lac' then i can see at a glance which games you've won, lost and which are still waiting for players.
I am sorry, but these tournys were designed under the old system. I am not being awkward when i say that i could not run a 1000 game plus tourny any other way and regrettably both these tournys would have to be abandoned. The 1 v 1 tourny has already completed one full successful season with 120 participants.
An awful lot of players would be disappointed if this were to happen. I ask you again was this change really necessary? Was the system broken? if not then why fix it? There are a number of eagerly awaited enhancements on your to do list that your customers will just love - surely your valuable time would be better served there?
I ask you again - please can we go back to the old way?
this really is a backward step and you will lose quite a few of your organisers.
)
So I already edited my local copy and the test site was already altered. I realized it was easier to rush and get it in working condition rather than bringing a backup copy up-to-date. This isn't the first time this happened, I really should install a version control system. But that will take time & effort and needs to be prioritized with other updates.
