Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Killerardvark

Cryodex 4 - Run X-Wing, Armada, or Imperial Assault. Also, Open Source!!!

Recommended Posts

Considering using cryodex at our store championship on Sunday. It's a small, simple tourney - 10 players, 3 rounds, no top cuts.  For the squad ID, just wondering if you know if Yet Another X-wing Squad Builder that list juggler would recognize?  Hunting around the site, I didn't see anything as simple as the 5 digit code on X-wing UK Squad Builder. 

 

EDIT: YASB isn't currently supported because it doesn't have a unique identifier like voidstate ha ( http://xwing-builder.co.uk/view/410187/sable-tca#manoeuvres=hide&view=full )

 

The voidstate id is the number 410187.   That is what you stash into Cryodex.  So right now we only support the voidstate id.

 

It is a small software change to make it so you could just put any URL (YASB, voidstate, or Fabs) into the cryodex field --- this is how the League Play escrow feature currently works.

 

Chris -- can that list id field support taking a url as well?  If it can, I can change the importer to handle it.

Edited by sozin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a small software change to make it so you could just put any URL (YASB, voidstate, or Fabs) into the cryodex field --- this is how the League Play escrow feature currently works.

 

Chris -- can that list id field support taking a url as well?  If it can, I can change the importer to handle it.

 

The ID field can take any kind of text you throw at it. The only concern is how it is being put in the JSON. I'm not sure if I'm escaping any particular characters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious Killerardvark:

 

For the X-Wing module, was the issue with pairings for Ties/Match Wins fixed?  I had issues with this last year at the Dallas Regional and I was at a SC a couple weekends ago where it was an issue as well.  I don't know which version of Cryodex it was most recently.

 

To recap the issue I saw:

Two matches end in a tie, but all the other matches end in full wins.

So:

Player A vs Player B = Tie

and

Player C versus Player D = TIE

 

So all players are at +1  Points

 

The next round Cryodex correctly pairs:

Player A vs Player C

Player B vs Player D

 

In that round Player A and Player B win, so both are +6 Points off previous score and the losing players are still at +1

 

Cryodex will pair

Player A vs Player B (Duplicate)

and

Player C vs Player D (Duplicate)

 

Again because they are the only players with the same points. Trying to "Fix Duplicates" ends with same results.

 

I was able to manually fix it last year by Pairing Up/Pairing Down, which is what you typically do in this situation, but it was a bit of a hassle and took some time to figure it out.  The problem can recur in later rounds if there are sufficient # of rounds or if there are more ties later.

 

A similar issue is possible if multiple matches end in Mod Wins, because it creates a small group of players who are the only ones with the same points.

Edited by Hida77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not an error or an "issue". It's built to work that way right now. If there is a duplicate that cannot be fixed in a simple manner, I toss up a message to the TO that there are duplicates that couldn't be resolved and they need to handle it. Because of the random pairings, I'm unable to accurately state what the "correct" resolution to those duplicates is. Do you fix it by pairing up or down or both? That's a call that needs a TO to figure out. I do have a routine that will fix duplicates no matter what, but that was part of the ordered pairing method. I've debated on adding it in as an option that the TO can decide to manually fix it or let the software give it a shot.

 

I'd love to see TOME's routine to see how they figure it out. If you want to fix all duplicates, at some point you have to make some assumptions and risk being wrong. I prefer to ask the TO to look at it and make the call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not an error or an "issue". It's built to work that way right now. If there is a duplicate that cannot be fixed in a simple manner, I toss up a message to the TO that there are duplicates that couldn't be resolved and they need to handle it. Because of the random pairings, I'm unable to accurately state what the "correct" resolution to those duplicates is. Do you fix it by pairing up or down or both? That's a call that needs a TO to figure out. I do have a routine that will fix duplicates no matter what, but that was part of the ordered pairing method. I've debated on adding it in as an option that the TO can decide to manually fix it or let the software give it a shot.

 

I'd love to see TOME's routine to see how they figure it out. If you want to fix all duplicates, at some point you have to make some assumptions and risk being wrong. I prefer to ask the TO to look at it and make the call.

That's fair. Now that I know about the issue I know what to look for and how to fix it manually. I only asked because I was surprised about the issue last year and had to comb through paper to figure it out/fix it on the spot.  At the SC I went  to recently, the TO didn't know how to fix it, which caused some small weirdness on the lower tables. I told him what to do, but he didn't seem comfortable doing it and I didn't push him.

 

I have no idea how to handle this in the pairing algorithm, but I expect that since you can detect the duplicate it might be possible to have a button or something in those scenarios which attempts to alleviate the problem, or at least gives you some options.  I know your code is open source now and I happen to work as a Software Engineer so if I get some time I will see if I can come up with something myself and test/submit it. Was just curious if you had done anything with it.

 

I think this is more of an issue for TOs who don't run larger tourneys regularly because they tend to throw their hands up and say "oh well" when something like this occurs.  Like I said, I figured it out and it didn't impact my tourney, I was just not aware of the issue until it occurred.

 

By the way, I am not trying to be critical at all, was just curious if you guys were aware of the problem and whether or not it was fixed.  I know this isn't the easiest thing in the world and that you guys do it out of your own time.  I will try to pitch in if I can. =)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The last version of cryodex (4.1.4) fails with the xwing pairings and SoS

 

 

Also, The SoS of Imperial assaut fails

Can you explain these two further? I haven't seen any issues.

 

 

At X-wing the sos must be 5, 6, 10, or another number instead of 0,375, 1,75 or any other fractions. Because the sos calculated by adding the total tournament points of a player’s opponents. As soon s the pairings, at ours last tournament we used cryodex 4.1.4 and the clasification was:

 1 YYY       5    200    0.0    1 / 0 / 0

 2 TTT       5    200    0.0    1 / 0 / 0

 3 EEE       5    200    0.0    1 / 0 / 0

 4 ZZZ       5    150     0.0    1 / 0 / 0

 5 HHH       5    125     0.0    1 / 0 / 0

 6 RRR      5    118     0.0    1 / 0 / 0 

 7 GGG     5    115     0.0     1 / 0 / 0

 8 FFF       3    105     0.0    1 / 0 / 0

  9 VVV       0      95    0.75    0 / 1 / 0

10 SSS       0      85    1.25    0 / 1 / 0

11 XXX        0      82    1.25    0 / 1 / 0

12 BBB       0      75    1.25    0 / 1 / 0

13 DDD       0     50    1.25     0 / 1 / 0

14 QQQ      0       0    1.25    0 / 1 / 0

15 AAA       0        0    1.25    0 / 1 / 0

16 CCC      0        0    1.25    0 / 1 / 0

 

And the pairings was: / and must be

1: HHH VS EEE / 1: YYY VS TTT
2: YYY VS ZZZ  / 2: EEE VS ZZZ
3: TTT VS RRR / 3: HHH VS RRR
4: GGG VS FFF / 4: GGG VS FFF
5: CCC VS SSS / 5: VVV VS SSS
6: DDD VS AAA / 6: XXX VS BBB
7: XXX VS QQQ / 7: DDD VS QQQ
8: VVV VS BBB / 8: AAA VS CCC
and always fails the pairings

 

At Imperial Assault the sos and the extended sos must be 3, 4, 9, or another number instead of 0,375, 1,75 or any other fractions. Because the sos calculated by adding the total tournament points of a player’s opponents. And i just see that the pairings fails too in the same way.

Edited by iron_x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The last version of cryodex (4.1.4) fails with the xwing pairings and SoS

 

 

Also, The SoS of Imperial assaut fails

Can you explain these two further? I haven't seen any issues.

 

 

At X-wing the sos must be 5, 6, 10, or another number instead of 0,375, 1,75 or any other fractions. Because the sos calculated by adding the total tournament points of a player’s opponents. As soon s the pairings, at ours last tournament we used cryodex 4.1.4 and the clasification was:

 1 YYY       5    200    0.0    1 / 0 / 0

 2 TTT       5    200    0.0    1 / 0 / 0

 3 EEE       5    200    0.0    1 / 0 / 0

 4 ZZZ       5    150     0.0    1 / 0 / 0

 5 HHH       5    125     0.0    1 / 0 / 0

 6 RRR      5    118     0.0    1 / 0 / 0 

 7 GGG     5    115     0.0     1 / 0 / 0

 8 FFF       3    105     0.0    1 / 0 / 0

  9 VVV       0      95    0.75    0 / 1 / 0

10 SSS       0      85    1.25    0 / 1 / 0

11 XXX        0      82    1.25    0 / 1 / 0

12 BBB       0      75    1.25    0 / 1 / 0

13 DDD       0     50    1.25     0 / 1 / 0

14 QQQ      0       0    1.25    0 / 1 / 0

15 AAA       0        0    1.25    0 / 1 / 0

16 CCC      0        0    1.25    0 / 1 / 0

 

And the pairings was: / and must be

1: HHH VS EEE / 1: YYY VS TTT
2: YYY VS ZZZ  / 2: EEE VS ZZZ
3: TTT VS RRR / 3: HHH VS RRR
4: GGG VS FFF / 4: GGG VS FFF
5: CCC VS SSS / 5: VVV VS SSS
6: DDD VS AAA / 6: XXX VS BBB
7: XXX VS QQQ / 7: DDD VS QQQ
8: VVV VS BBB / 8: AAA VS CCC
and always fails the pairings

 

At Imperial Assault the sos and the extended sos must be 3, 4, 9, or another number instead of 0,375, 1,75 or any other fractions. Because the sos calculated by adding the total tournament points of a player’s opponents. And i just see that the pairings fails too in the same way.

 

Ah, i see your mistake. Yes, according the part of the tournament document, the SOS is done as a cumulative amount. If you read the section about their tournament software they discuss their version of SOS which is an average of SOS based on the number of games each opponent played. This prevents someone's SOS from getting screwed by a player who drops out of the tournament. 

 

I decided to keep my software running the same way that TOME (FFG's software) is running. Frankly I think it is more fair. Also, with the wide range of MOV, it is pretty rare to have a tie of MOV when you get to the end of the tournament. Typically the MOV tie is only seen at the top between players with perfect MOV and on the bottom with players who have 0 MOV.

 

The pairing is done at random within a point group which is well documented in the tournament rules. MOV and SOS do not matter during pairing. At all, not one bit.

 

TLDR: Software is working as expected. Hope that all makes sense. I'm happy to explain more if you have further questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, thanks for the clarification. But TOME is the worst software that exist, you shouldn't take as a model

TOME is getting better. It's run a few large X-Wing tournaments lately fairly smooth. Still has a few kinks to work out.

 

Just put out 4.1.5 with the fix for Armada MOV.

Awesome thanks Killerardvark!! You rock! Love your tournament software. It is just so user friendly!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Windows 10, Cryodex 4.4.0 is completely failing to generate any pairings at all for me. I create a list of players, create a tournament, add all the players to the tournament, and then "Generate Next Round" does nothing at all. Is there any sort of known issue here? What can I try to see if I can fix it?

Edited by EdgeOfDreams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried to run a tournament, and the program started to make stranger things. For example, on second round, the program paired the 1st one against the 3rd one. The 2nd didn´t play against the 1st on the first round.

 

Why I had that problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried to run a tournament, and the program started to make stranger things. For example, on second round, the program paired the 1st one against the 3rd one. The 2nd didn´t play against the 1st on the first round.

 

Why I had that problem?

 

People are paired against other people with the same amount of wins, but it's randomized. If the first 6 players (let's say) have 1 win, they won't be paired in the expected 1-2, 3-4, 5-6 way. It used to be that way before, but it changed at least a year or 2 ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I tried to run a tournament, and the program started to make stranger things. For example, on second round, the program paired the 1st one against the 3rd one. The 2nd didn´t play against the 1st on the first round.

 

Why I had that problem?

 

People are paired against other people with the same amount of wins, but it's randomized. If the first 6 players (let's say) have 1 win, they won't be paired in the expected 1-2, 3-4, 5-6 way. It used to be that way before, but it changed at least a year or 2 ago.

 

But it changed again on the new rules, am I right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been using Cryodex for our tournies and leagues for quite awhile. My laptop took a dump on me and I had to buy a new one. I updated java downloaded Cryodex and now it won't run...no idea what I am doing wrong...any assistance would be appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...