1:

Could we make it an option that once a tournament reaches a certain point (perhaps no more than 3 games left for each player) that all remaining games start? It would be especially nice in these 2 player round-robin tournaments where the winner is all but decided, but you have to wait another 3 weeks for the remaining games to finish. Spies and Five are quick two player matches, but it takes more time for the last 10 games to play out than the first x-10 games.

2:

By the way 2 player RR tournaments are scheduled, once two players are available, their game starts. This is terrific, but what if each player were playing two games at a time instead of just one? that would speed things up without the late tournament dump.

Mongrel wrote:

2:

By the way 2 player RR tournaments are scheduled, once two players are available, their game starts. This is terrific, but what if each player were playing two games at a time instead of just one? that would speed things up without the late tournament dump.

Isn't this the Multiple Tournament Rounds setting?

I think Mongrel's 2nd suggestion is to make the Multiple Tournament Rounds setting allow choices in between "play one game" and "play all games". For example I wouldn't mind having 2 or 3 games of Spies going, but I have no interest in playing 15, or even 5, simultaneously, so to avoid that I have my setting to off.

I think one unintended consequence of that (even though I think it is a good idea) is that it will exaggerate his first concern. I suspect the people that will play two games at once are the same that finish their games early anyways - and I don't think dumping a bunch of games on the newbies/unexperienced/whatever that are taking a long time is a good idea.

We have a multiple rounds setting? Noice! I though there was a discussion against that. Where is the option?

And to Amidon, it should be a dump within reason (hence the 3 games condition).

Settings --> Preferences --> Tournament Settings.

What if there was some triggering event that started a new game on people that were lagging behind. Then instead of getting 3 new ones, they started one before the last was finished.

The event could be intrinsic to the game (e.g. a game that last x times the boot limit - where x is a constant.) or intrinsic to tournament (e.g. a majority of players have finished x rounds. Since you have finished x-1, another one will start - where x is updated for each round).

I think if you used 'x' - average number of rounds finished and said that every player with x-2 finished would have to start another game every boot timer interval, this would speed things up, but may be against noobs/patient players and hard to implement.