New event management software

[StuartL]

Note: This first post was originally a response to the first post of the "How to run a better AWS?" thread http://robotwars101.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=2018

From the discussions following AWS40 it seems we can improve on how we run the AWS. This is no criticism of Will and his team, but an acknowledgement that there is always room for improvement.

So what have we learned?
1. It's not very broke, so don't over-fix it! It was only a bit over time so let's not go too mad.
2. The pits need to be close to the arena.
3. We need to improve the visibility of upcoming fights so that people are ready and fight changes are faster.

The biggest challenge and the biggest effect is improving the visibility of what's happening. Who's in, who's out, which round/group we are in etc etc.

AntLog was designed as a logging tool, not really an event management system. It handles its designed task well, but one consequence of its design is that upcoming fights are not always visible. Simply projecting it on a big screen won't improve things very much.

So what do we need from an event management system? I would suggest the following requirements (I'm sure I've missed a few):
1. Must be stand-alone and not rely on an internet connection
2. Must handle up to 128 entrants
3. Must handle multiple groups or some other method of keeping robots from the same team apart as long as possible
4. Must provide visibility of upcoming fights, even when these are in different groups
5. Should be free so that any number of people can download/install/use it
6. Should not rely on other paid applications (e.g. Microsoft Office)
7. Should work on multiple platforms, Windows, Linux, MacOS

I have looked around and failed to find anything that comes even close to meeting these criteria. If anyone knows of or can find anything suitable it would be great!

The other option is to come up with something of our own. I am happy to contribute but would really appreciate some help if anyone is willing/able. Discuss...

_________________
Gary, Team BeligerAnt

I've actually been working on a web-based solution to these problems. It's early days but mostly works. If I can find a few more hours coding time between family and work I'll be able to get something online for people to criticise

The system actually completely dispenses with 'groups' since there's no need if you've got a computer and a database behind it, groups are only necessary if you want to compartmentalise a league-style system. Opponents for each bout are chosen on a weighting system which biases the decision based upon the double-elimination chart theory in a round-by-round approach.

The advantage of a web based system with a backend DB is that you can have many web interfaces open at the same time, one for the administration, one for the 'recent bouts', one for the 'upcoming bouts', etc. It also means that people with much more talent than I can design the look with CSS

Note: If you're worried: The double-elimination logic doesn't change nor the flow from first round to final stages, they're just no longer called quarter-final, group-stages, semi-final and final. These are labels we can add at a later date. Because of the way the database works the logic to choose single, double or even triple elimination is trivial and can even be changed mid-competition.

[StuartL]

OK, here we go.

What I've done is knocked up a quick demo of a web interface. The calculations and maths are hidden behind the scenes in PHP and SQL stored functions.

The intent of the design was to allow several interfaces to be run in parallel (a scoreboard, an 'upcoming matches' display, the admin interface etc) all pulling data from the same database.

Right now the code is shocking (needs some fairly major rewrites), there's virtually no CSS, there's (literally) no security and if many people hit it simultaneously I imagine there's several race conditions as it does no DB locking.

However the logic behind the scenes is pretty simple and if the idea is liked it won't take much to solve the above problems.

If you're interested in what I've done please look, I'd be interested to hear criticism and further ideas. In particular I'd like people to see if my logic is correct.

Known limitations:

• It's ugly both as a front end and at the code level. Both are easy to fix if people like the premise.
• There's no security. Anyone can currently modify anything, so be conscious if something odd happens that someone else may also be playing at the same time.
• There's only a player list and a match list. I expect to throw together a scoreboard and upcoming matches pretty quickly if people like it.
• It automatically generates as many matches as soon as each round is finished. It keeps going until there's an overall winner.
• If you add players after you've started creating matches the current match table is wiped, this is because the existing results don't make sense if there's a new player.

Please play and criticise...

http://www.livings.co.uk/competition/

[EpicentrE]

Currently, it doesn't appear to be separating the Winners and Losers side of Double Elimination. In fact, after the first 4 fights are done, it appears to randomize who is fighting who from the pool of players remaining.

[StuartL]

Currently, it doesn't appear to be separating the Winners and Losers side of Double Elimination. In fact, after the first 4 fights are done, it appears to randomize who is fighting who from the pool of players remaining.

That's correct, but it should bias the same way. i.e. Losers should have more battles. Are you not seeing that?

[StuartL]

Oops, you were right. In one of my edits the losers weren't biased.

All other things equal the losers get more matches, otherwise it's random.

[EpicentrE]

Currently, it doesn't appear to be separating the Winners and Losers side of Double Elimination. In fact, after the first 4 fights are done, it appears to randomize who is fighting who from the pool of players remaining.

That's correct, but it should bias the same way. i.e. Losers should have more battles. Are you not seeing that?

That is indeed what is happening, in that everyone has two "lives", however double elimination normally has players split into "winners" and "losers" streams. Everyone starts in the winners stream, in which they can only fight other people in the winners (until the grand final), and stay there until they've lost one match, at which point they join the losers. Players in the losers stream only fight other losers (until the grand final) and are eliminated if they lose a match.

Look at this for an example:


Edit: Ok, you beat me to the post by a second! I'll have another play shortly and let you know how I get on.

[StuartL]

That is indeed what is happening, in that everyone has two "lives", however double elimination normally has players split into "winners" and "losers" streams. Everyone starts in the winners stream, in which they can only fight other people in the winners (until the grand final), and stay there until they've lost one match, at which point they join the losers. Players in the losers stream only fight other losers (until the grand final) and are eliminated if they lose a match.

This is currently unimplemented.

So, in effect, when I pick matches I should only match opponents if they have same number of lost matches as the player I'm picking for? That's pretty easy to do. When do you stop this behaviour? When you get to two players left or earlier?

Edit: I believe I've just implemented this. It still prefers to play matches against opponents you've never played before over picking ones with the same number of losses. I can reverse this bias easily, so that it prefers to play against people who've lost the same number of times you have in preference to the number of games or in preference to choosing new opponents. This switch would take me seconds and should affect your overall decision

[peterwaller]

Call me a Luddite but I still think the paper charts gave good visibility of both fights had and those to come.
With each group on a seperate A3 sheet it is large enough to be seen an updated.
It also make the published results easier to understand.

[StuartL]

Call me a Luddite but I still think the paper charts gave good visibility of both fights had and those to come.
With each group on a seperate A3 sheet it is large enough to be seen an updated.

With HTML and CSS I can make this as big as a projector can project and it's dynamically updated (currently on a ten-second poll)

It also make the published results easier to understand.

I can run a scoreboard in a new frame the same way the existing ones are and give you an ordered list of winners that's also dynamically updated, similarly easy to print out if you want to archive a hard copy.

[peterwaller]

I have no doubt but that is OK when the events are held in schools and universities, with lots of tech help, but many evants are run in village halls and scout huts with no access to projectors or little more than a laptop. We are in danger of making the running of AWS events to complex for individules to host as they have in the past.