You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
This is a little urgent, since I'm in the middle of running a tournament and have just stumbled into this issue.
I'm trying to divide 14 participants into 4 groups for a round robin stage, like so: 4x4x3x3. However, no matter the seed ordering, I always end up with the following configuration instead: 4x4x4x2. As far as I know, the library does not expose any control over individual group sizes beyond that.
I wouldn't mind writing the code myself, but I'm wondering how feasible that patch would be. From what I gathered, this can't be fixed by adding a custom seed ordering, so I would have to change the group creation mechanism. Would that break something in the process, or is this a theoretical possibility?
Thanks
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
In case others face a similar issue, a workaround is to manually change the group_id of several matches in one of the four-player groups to the two-player group. I also had to change the id's of opponents (ParticipantResult) and finally delete one extra match that was generated for the previously four-player group.
Hey!
This is a little urgent, since I'm in the middle of running a tournament and have just stumbled into this issue.
I'm trying to divide 14 participants into 4 groups for a round robin stage, like so: 4x4x3x3. However, no matter the seed ordering, I always end up with the following configuration instead: 4x4x4x2. As far as I know, the library does not expose any control over individual group sizes beyond that.
I wouldn't mind writing the code myself, but I'm wondering how feasible that patch would be. From what I gathered, this can't be fixed by adding a custom seed ordering, so I would have to change the group creation mechanism. Would that break something in the process, or is this a theoretical possibility?
Thanks
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: