The Tournament Director Forums

Main => Help Me => Topic started by: Mahound on December 19, 2010, 04:25:35 PM

Title: Additional points for final Table - diifferent results in beta 6 and 2.5.11
Post by: Mahound on December 19, 2010, 04:25:35 PM
 
In a previous post on October 13, 2010, 04:11:29 PM, i asked for help concerning a points system hat i wanted to implement

You were kind enough to offer the formulae
(n - r + 10) + (max(0, 4 - floor((r - 1) / 10)) * 10) + if(r < 9, max(0, 100 - (r * 10)) + if(r = 1, 10))

I have used this formulae twice before and it has worked great. And give s exactly what i asked for.
However now there is a slight problem.

In this example using TD 2.5.11 below there are 64 entrants
1st place gets 213 points
2nd, 63, 192.00
3rd, 62, 181.00
4th, 61, 170.00
5th, 60, 159.00
6th, 59, 148.00
7th, 58, 137.00
8th, 57, 126.00
9th, 56, 105.00
10th, 55, 104.00
DOWN TO
61st, 4, 13.00
62nd, 3, 12.00
63rd, 2, 11.00
64th, 1, 10.00
EXACTLY AS WHAT WAS DESCRIBED
HOWEVER IN TD beta 6
This is what happens
1st,151.00
2nd,130.00
3rd,119.00
4th,108.00
5th,97.00
6th,86.00
7th,75.00
8th,64.00
9th,43.00
10th,42.00
Then when you get to position 31 it goes into minus figure and awards
pos 31 -9
pos 32 -10
the last 5 positions get
60th -48
61st -49
62nd -50
63rd -51
64th - 52

Any ideas as to why there is a discrepancy in the 2 different points awarded systems
 
Title: Re: Additional points for final Table - diifferent results in beta 6 and 2.5.11
Post by: Corey Cooper on December 19, 2010, 09:00:45 PM
Make a backup (on the Database tab), include your database, saved tournaments, and preferences, and send me the resulting ZIP file.
Title: Re: Additional points for final Table - diifferent results in beta 6 and 2.5.11
Post by: Mahound on December 20, 2010, 05:50:06 AM
zip files as requested, there are no saved games as they have been run on 2.5.11
Title: Re: Additional points for final Table - diifferent results in beta 6 and 2.5.11
Post by: Mahound on December 31, 2010, 08:59:39 AM
Cory,
I think i found out why this was going wrong. When you input the formulae and test it (beta 2.6b4).  The results were going wrong. When i was testing. i was inputting the number of players in the start and end range and testing the formulae like that.  I have now found that if i enter the number of players in the buy ins on the points for playing formulae, in the tournament info section, the formulae works exactly as it does in the 2.5 v.
I didn't just get it wrong and post it. i did try several different ways before i posted. I think  that sometimes its a case of not seeing the wood for the trees
My apologies if i caused you some unnecessary work
Mahound
Title: Re: Additional points for final Table - diifferent results in beta 6 and 2.5.11
Post by: Corey Cooper on December 31, 2010, 09:27:08 AM
It did not cause me additional work.  In fact, I'm sorry, because somehow I missed your post so I never tested anything!  Sorry about that!  Glad you got it worked out.

And a related note: I changed a couple of things on the formula test dialog that could cause some confusion and I have a note to revisit one in the near future.  First, the "n" or "numberOfPlayers" variable isn't listed on the page anymore (directly).  Given that this is one of the most important variables, it will likely cause some confusion.  In revamping formulas and normalizing the variables for all formulas and conditions, I chose to give each variable a standard name and then a list of aliases.  In this case, I chose "buyins" as the standard variable, and it has aliases "n" and "numberOfPlayers".  This keeps it backwards compatible, but for those looking for the "n" variable on the screen, it will probably be a bit confusing before they discover "buyins".  And on the "Test for All" dialog, I made it more flexible by allowing you to choose a variable and seeing the results as this variable changes values, but it's a bit confusing as most formulas vary on the rank, so changing the value range doesn't always give back what you expect.  I plan to merge this into the main dialog at some point (at least that's the plan for now) and hopefully reduce some of the confusion.