Hello Friends!
Next weekend I will be the HJ of a competetive REL event, that combines standard and modern over 2 days. (ie. 3 Rounds of Standard and 3 Rounds of modern on day 1 and then 2 rounds of each on day 2, there is no cut between the days). We would like it to be possible for players to be paired twice each day (once for each format).

Is this in any way feasible in WER? If no, is there any sensible way of achieving this?

If relevant the event is sanctioned as casual constructed in WER.

Thanks in advance :)

~Thiesen

First, thanks for clarifying how it'll be run as competitive, but reported as casual constructed.

All of the WotC software runs under the idea that players cannot play each other multiple times through a Swiss portion, ignoring it only within a draft pod. There is no setting that I am aware of between the three programs to turn that off.

If I had to scorekeep an event under those exact rules, I think there's a way I could accomplish it in DCIR, but it wouldn't be pretty, and that event couldn't be exported in a report-able way, so some additional work would need to be done in WER.

Thinking about it a bit further as I'm writing this, if you fudge the requirements a bit, you could get close here if you:

- Enter players into your Casual Constructed event in WER.
- Once complete, export players. (report the Casual Constructed event once late entries are no longer possible)
- Create a new, unsanctioned Draft tournament and import the players.
- Run the tournament as a 12-round event consisting of four 3-round drafts.

Looks like WER could support that structure.

In this setting, I recommend pairings outside the pods.

Pairing outside the pods will get more important the later in the
event things are. On day 1 it may make no difference, but on day 2
things can get weird with podded pairings. (that top pod with a x-0, a
couple of x-2's and some X-3's could easily get the X-3s paired
against the x-0, doing weird things to tiebreakers and making a mess
of the tournament when there are several X-3 players they could get
paired against)

On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 4:59 AM, Valentin Hauser
<forum-23713-0ba7@apps.magicjudges.org> wrote:
> In this setting, I recommend pairings outside the pods.
>
> ——————————————————————————–
> If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this email. Or view
> and respond to this message on the web at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/153090/
>
> Disable all notifications for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/23713/
> Receive on-site notifications only for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/23713/?onsite=yes
>
> You can change your email notification settings at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/notifications/settings/



–
Gareth Pye - blog.cerberos.id.au
Level 2 MTG Judge, Melbourne, Australia
“Dear God, I would like to file a bug report”

Thank you all for your helpful answers.
Jordan, trouble is that I'll have to stick to 10 rounds of swiss since the structure has been announced and ppl have planned their travel. Maybe I should just run it as one 10-round swiss and then let pairings get weird in the end. (It's unlikely we will be more than 80 players)

Anders - about a year ago I spent some time creating an Excel file for a local event which featured 24 players across 2 days of drafting and constructed (3 rounds draft, then 4 constructed, then 3 draft, then 4 more constructed). Depending on how much time you have and your Excel Wizardry ability, it might be possible to modify it to your needs. For 24 it goldfished quite well, the only major issue being that pairing the last few rounds gets quite messy as people at the top have often played almost everyone else around them - especially if someone is X-0 in Constructed. The other issue is handling byes (especially in Draft Pod creation).

But if you'd like me to send you the file to have a look at, I can talk it through with you over Facebook or something.

Obviously though, this doesn't go through WER, and I don't know the legality of manually creating the event in WER as a Casual event or something and inputting all the pairings and results manually after the event is finished.

There is nothing preventing you only running 2 rounds per pod. And do
realise that Jordan wasn't suggesting the players do drafts or play in
their pods. He was just pointing out that WER should allow players to
be paired against the same opponent each time you create new pods.

On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 11:01 PM, Mark Mc Govern
<forum-23713-0ba7@apps.magicjudges.org> wrote:
> Anders - about a year ago I spent some time creating an Excel file for a
> local event which featured 24 players across 2 days of drafting and
> constructed (3 rounds draft, then 4 constructed, then 3 draft, then 4 more
> constructed). Depending on how much time you have and your Excel Wizardry
> ability, it might be possible to modify it to your needs. For 24 it
> goldfished quite well, the only major issue being that pairing the last few
> rounds gets quite messy as people at the top have often played almost
> everyone else around them - especially if someone is X-0 in Constructed. The
> other issue is handling byes (especially in Draft Pod creation).
>
> But if you'd like me to send you the file to have a look at, I can talk it
> through with you over Facebook or something.
>
> Obviously though, this doesn't go through WER, and I don't know the legality
> of manually creating the event in WER as a Casual event or something and
> inputting all the pairings and results manually after the event is finished.
>
> ——————————————————————————–
> If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this email. Or view
> and respond to this message on the web at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/153129/
>
> Disable all notifications for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/23713/
> Receive on-site notifications only for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/23713/?onsite=yes
>
> You can change your email notification settings at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/notifications/settings/



–
Gareth Pye - blog.cerberos.id.au
Level 2 MTG Judge, Melbourne, Australia
“Dear God, I would like to file a bug report”

We had a similar problem in our local store. At the end of the year there was the league final and the format is 3 rounds of standard, 3 rounds of draft and 3 rounds of modern with 8 players. The first fourth and seventh round should have the same pairings (cross pairings after final league standings).

We tried running three different tournaments and combined results but were not happy with it.

Thank you for all your feedback. I'll try playing around in WER tomorrow to see if I can make your suggestions work.

Mark - We expect 60+ players so I doubt that any level of excel skills can keep the event running at an acceptable pace, but thank you very much for your suggestion :)

For a playgroup I'm a part of, we had an obnoxious multi-format rounds type of setup with four rounds of swiss constructed and three of draft; With only 18 players I opted just to randomly generate pairings for the first round and then manually record match results and compute tiebreakers, pairing at random when things were identical. By the 3rd or 4th round there weren't any people with identical records. I didn't have to try and report it as it wasn't a sanctioned event however, and I was working this from a laptop using R for most of the bookkeeping. But it only took me about 10 minutes a round to get all the pairings done, which is minimal when we're talking about a best of three formats round similar to the SCG player's championship single elimination rounds.

can we know what was the final result of this experiment??

this was a walk through my local TO was sent by their WPN rep for running this sort of event