With the Bellevue/Omaha Game Shoppe store championship yesterday there were numerous discussions concerning the modified win. Basically no one likes it and a new tactic was developed to practically eliminate it from play. Is there a better solution?

The problem with modified wins: For those who win, they are now stuck with only 3 points and are now behind those who got full wins and have a tough time of ever catching back up. Those who lost (and especially early) have a tough time of ever clawing their way back into contention due to screwing their strength of schedule (tie breaker) with a loss of 2 points for your opponent and pushing your opponent down in the standings due to their own SOS. Thus further depressing your SOS in the future.

The improvised solution: If you are ever going to take a loss on a modified basis, conceed the victory to give your opponent the full victory. Currently, it is the only way to keep from completely screwing yourself going forward. I'll admit I used this tactic yesterday and know of at least a couple others who did as well.

The exception: You're at 3-0 versus a 2-1 or similar. Give them a modified to prevent them from leap-frogging you.

An alternate possibiility: Go to a modified win at 3 points and a modified loss at 2 points. If the goal is to admit the game was close, give the "loser" something to prevent them from conceeding and it will serve to help the modified win SOS.

Rip me a new one but there was some general assent among a diverse group that this possibility had some appeal. If nothing else, we'll probably see a lot more conceeding victories in future tournaments.

There is another solution: Play until one side is eliminated. Such a tournament lasts several days.

I know you likely heard me talking about this.

I think you're absolutely right. The loser in a modified loss has nothing to gain from the winner getting a modified win and actually has something to gain from a full loss getting a higher strength of schedule. I do think people would play for the modified points and it would make the game more exciting at the end of the match.

My Suggestion...

Full Win: 5

Modified Win: 3

Draw: 2

Modified Loss:1

if you cant beat your opponent in the time given, then you don't deserve the full points. This is coming from a guy who doesn't win alot.

I like Kelvan's suggestion that a modified loss be 1 point. The game still doesn't award the full win's 5 points but a 3/1 point split does show a close fight which ends up favoring one side.

I'm also thinking that a "Win against the bye" should only be 4 points instead of a full 5 points. That's still better than a modified win but is saying you didn't actually destroy someone. Somewhere I just saw a post about someone going 1-2 in a tournament but finishing BEHIND someone who they destroyed and who never won a game because the other guy was lucky enough to draw the bye.

I agree with Kelvan and Enskywalker. My observation is that Draws would be so rare as to be meaningless. However, as long as we are considering a change, I would suggest adding this one.

Opponent Eliminated or Time is called and you have destroyed 40+ points more than your opponent: Full Win

You Destroyed more than 10 points more than your opponent, but less than 40 points more: Modified Win

Neither player destroyed more than 10 points more than their opponent did: Draw

Your opponent destroyed more than 10 points more than you did, but less than 40 points more: Modified Loss

Basically, you would have to outscore your opponent by at least 40 to get a full win. If neither side can outscore the other by at least 10, it is a draw.

It seems to me that if you can't even outscore your opponent by the margin of a single TIE fighter, the game really was so close it should be considered a draw.

... the other guy was lucky enough to draw the bye.

Call that unlucky. In a tournament I want to play, not draw a bye.

In the end, punishing someone for a bye strikes me as wrong. If he earned it by winning a lower level championship, then it needs to be a full win against an undefeated opponent. I guarantee you that winning even the smallest tournament was more difficult than winning a single game on round 1, and the first round bye earned by doing so is supposed to be a reward not a punishment.

If you receive a bye during a tournament, especially in the first round, you have done nothing to deserve having your score diminished. Being unlucky enough to have to sit out a game already is punishment enough, you came to play after all and for your $10 entry fee are already getting less for your money. Adding insult to injury by penalizing a player for something they cannot control does not seem in any way the right way to do business, in my opinion.

Not to mention byes really hurt your strength of schedule. You are pretty much guaranteed to be in the bottom of your point bracket.

Sithborg definitely hit the nail on the head there. A bye, while granting you a full win as it should, is actually the worst Strength of Schedule as they count for zero when determining tie breakers. Means you are pretty much guranteed to be bottom seed in your bracket.

I don't know if I dislike the situation that we have right now with the snap conceding that happens at the end of a match. There are not a lot of games out there that even don't have a "modified" win and simply go win loss. I almost would prefer doing away with modified wins all together personally rather than make the system more complex.

I almost would prefer doing away with modified wins all together personally rather than make the system more complex.

I could get behind that, especially coupled with the earlier mention of making <10pt difference a draw. So if you win by 11+ you win outright. If you win by 8, you draw since it could have gone either way. Though that level of black/white could also suck if you only won by 9.

Given, modified wins don't take into account level of health. A game yesterday ended Chewy vs. 2 Academy pilots. Chewy got the (modified) win, even though the academies were both at full health and chewy had 1 hull remaining. If you played just 1 more round, the Academies would have gotten the full win.

*shrug. There's no perfect way to do this. At least the large events cut to top 16, so the folks that "matter" get to play full games. Though the same argument can be made regarding who's on the bubble at that point. Aw well. There's always next time.

Sithborg definitely hit the nail on the head there. A bye, while granting you a full win as it should, is actually the worst Strength of Schedule as they count for zero when determining tie breakers. Means you are pretty much guranteed to be bottom seed in your bracket.

I don't know if I dislike the situation that we have right now with the snap conceding that happens at the end of a match. There are not a lot of games out there that even don't have a "modified" win and simply go win loss. I almost would prefer doing away with modified wins all together personally rather than make the system more complex.

This also is a a much better idea than the modified win.

I was gonna post a thread to see how people felt about conceding games when your opponent has a modified win, and whether or not someone players are nice enough to do that.

My opinion is, if the game really could have went either way, and both players had multiple full life ships left, then I would not concede, and have my opponent get the modified win.

On the flip side, if I have multiple ships at low life, and my opponent didn't get the full win JUST because the last few dice rolls didn't get the final hit, then I would concede to my opponent.

@Khyros

If you were talking about my game, then it was actually 2 Academy Ties and 1 Saber + PTL left vs the 1 hp Chewy with no upgrades. I had 58pts destroyed and he had 52, so the modified. Barring extreme dice, that would have been a full win in 1 more round! We could have gotten to play then!

It's a circumstance like that where I would concede the full win, especially if I was already 0-1, meaning no chance of top 4 anywyays. Though, not everyone would do that, or even think of doing that, as it doesn't always cross your mind when the TO comes around.

I definitely know we can't force people to concede, and it is hard to make rules that cover all the gray areas, since dice can really swing a game for the worst with just 1 more round, but I'm certainly not a fan of the current system.

Maybe, sticking with the dice deciding our outcomes, we can roll dice to earn a full win when under 33pt lead. Maybe roll 3 dice, need 3 hits if winning by <11pts, 2 hits for <22, 1 hit for <33. Or even something simpler. The TO can supervise it, or something.

@ Phil, Yeah I was. There really was no reason for you to not have the full win in that situation.

Full Win - 4 points

Modified Win - 3 points

Draw - 2 points

Modified Loss - 1 point

Loss - 0 points

To me, this seems better. It can allow modified wins to run next to full wins a little more.

I don't like the idea of players just conceding a victory. There could be some improper things going on there. This coming from someone who got 2 modified wins a week ago and lost out on top 8 at a Store Champs due to it.

I can't believe I'm reading this stuff. Where is the "Spirit of the Game" in this?

To say "my opponent would have won if not for some bad rolls so I'll concede" may seem like the "honorable" thing to do, but by doing so you're possibly screwing the others that don't have an opponent like you. Seriously, dice is part of the game. We all like to believe that a game would have gone this way or that way based on how the dice should have rolled, but that's the game. Deal with it.

And the line between this and collusion is so fine, how is a TO going to be able to discern the difference? If I were to witness this in the tournaments I run I'd seriously consider dq'ing the perpetrators. And though this isn't exactly collusion it's a half step at most away from it.

And my last thought:

I understand the concept, but what happens when you get edged out of the cut by that guy? What if him having a modified win would have dropped him out and put you in? If he wins out then there's nothing you can do anyway. But if you both finish 3-1 wouldn't you rather he had a modified so your 3 full wins would beat him? If he had a hard time beating you, isn't there a chance he'll have a hard time down the road?

Just to make clear: I'm not opposed to changing the scoring system, just not cool with players conceding like that.

Don't get me or any of the other posts wrong Dark_Malus, I'm not upset! I mean, I still pulled off second place with 3-0, and even I didn't get second, I'm not one to hate the rules of the game. I'm just curious about what people think about it, and I included a recent example of mine I can more point to one or two decisions of mine that would have put that 1 damage on, and that's more what I think about.

I wouldn't expect my opponent to ever concede, as that makes no sense for him competitively. I haven't actually been in a situation where I might concede, so I would REALLY weight my chances of top places before doing it.

I just know this specific system causes some not fun situations, and wonder if we can get to a solution that reduces some of the bad situations.

I believe in giving the loser points for a modified lose is dangerous. It very we'll could open the door for the run and hide tactic for the last few turns to squeak out a few points.

And that's the whole point of the Modified Win, to prevent a quick kill, and then spend the rest of the game running. Conceding just for the full points is a little close to collaboration for my liking.

You know, I think that a person should be able to turn in a bye from the store championships for 1 point in their tournament standings. They can still get the regular bye and get 5 points, but risk them getting hosed for SOS, but if they turn in their bye for 1 point and then go on to win against a live opponent first round, they would have a total of 6 points. This would reflect their upper standing against other drop ins that didn't win, but wouldn't make them be behind other players that won against a live opponent first round that would have a SOS later in the tournament.

As far as conceding a game, it is perfectly legal to do so in the official tournament rules. In fact the third bullet point under the section "End of Match" is specifically about conceding. And the last sentence is "It is considered good sportsmanship to concede defeat when there is no reasonable chance for victory."

"No reasonable chance for victory" is a very nebulous idea, and will vary from person to person. Especially in a game that is as dependent on dice as this one. If a game came down to just my HWK with Blaster Turret vs Dark Curse, should the HWK player concede because he has little chance of killing Dark Curse, but he is ahead in kills? It's not necessarily wrong to concede, but I don't think it should be considered the "proper" way to do it.

Although one thing I saw in my last tournament compared to the one before that. 75 minutes really is the right amount of time to get clear victors.

As far as conceding a game, it is perfectly legal to do so in the official tournament rules. In fact the third bullet point under the section "End of Match" is specifically about conceding. And the last sentence is "It is considered good sportsmanship to concede defeat when there is no reasonable chance for victory."

Definitely, I agree that it is acceptable and legal. But not when being used as some here have been suggesting.

"When there is no reasonable chance for victory" is also very subjective and open to interpretation.

My interpretations:

If you're in the situation where your opponent has 3 ships left and you only have 1 with 1 HP remaining (or some similar situation) and want to concede, then as a TO I would accept that. If time has been called (or will soon be) and you realize you're not going to pull it out and want to concede so you get a strength of schedule boost, then I would not accept it.

There is no honor in conceding like that. I'm not saying make your opponent chase your last limping ship across the board. But the only way to be fair (at least in tournament play) is to play everyone as hard as you can. If others have to earn their full win, then so should your opponent. Simple as that.

And please don't tell me that everyone talking about this conceding stuff was thinking about being good sports (ok, maybe some were). The concept is about winning and putting yourself in a better position to win.

I apologize if I come off rude or abrasive. I am a regular TO and I am passionate about what I do. There are some things that really piss me off. I do not like seeing people trying to take advantage of the system.

Play to win, but fly casual.

I agree "no reasonable chance for victory" is very open to interpretation. I must have just misunderstood your meaning when you said that you would consider conceding grounds for disqualification. I understand now that you mean only if the person was trying to game the system.

As for the example of the near dead HWK vs Dark Cures I don't think that would be time to concede. If for no other reason than the player with the HWK likely is the one winning at that point.

But perhaps the real problem is using strength of schedule as the tiebreaker. Since the number of points that each player has killed is already being counted up total margin of victory point wise should be used to break ties. Or just total points that each player has killed without considering points lost. This would incentives trying to take down as many of your opponent's ships even when you are loosing badly.