I really dislike modified victories in non-objective miniature games. If there was truly an objective besides 'destroy all of your opponents ships' then I could understand having different levels of 'winning', but as it stands - it seems to hinder progress more than actually separating players based on skill. There are some modified games that are between very good opponents - rather than rewarding a well played, close game, a modified win punishes both players for the good careful play.

The real culprit (as some have pointed out) is using opponent's points as first Strength of Schedule. I would rather see Opponents Game Win % be used as a first tie breaker, especially since getting a modified loss to someone should not be worse for you than a full loss to someone (should it be better? that I'm not 100% sure).

As an alternative way to think about it (with in the current system); this should hold true for large, appropriately rounded tournaments with n rounds where 2^n > #players. If you get a 'modified loss' it shouldn't matter - your opponent is likely below you if you both end up with the same match wins.

Personally, I've only been involved in a modified result (that I can remember) 1 round out of ~40 organized games. I got a modified loss with 3 healthy TIE fighters chasing a 1 hull remaining loaded named Firespray. One more round and the Firespray would very likely have been destroyed, regardless of what he destroyed of mine. That is when the frustration about modified victories comes in - my tie breakers are now shot, the game was clearly in my favor, and he snaked out a partial win screwing both of us over in the end where I didn't make the cut based on tie breakers and he ended up on the low end with points due to his modified win. Maybe it's selection bias, but many modified wins that I see have someone who is clearly ahead with a healthy small-point ship or 2 (or 3) versus 1 large-point ship that is a sneeze away from being destroyed. (I don't seem swarm v swarm that often any more... but that's another culprit because of the sheer number of ships and timing)

As an alternative, and maybe this is just as flimsy: count hit points to determine a modified win. If one player has twice as many total hit points (hull - damage + shields) remaining as his opponent when time is called - full win, otherwise if there's no clear winner - then it's a modified based on HP remaining. Points on the board aren't as a reflective of game state IMO.

I am not going to call anyone right or wrong here. This game is based on tactics on the board and running away is an acceptable tactic within the game being played at the time.

What I would not like to see and would not accept from my opponent is conceding to give me a full win when I am currently only getting a modified win and vice versa.

That smacks of gaming the system.

If I am up by a large margin, say I have no ships down and my opponent has 1 left and we have plenty of time for me to hunt them down, then conceding is OK. However, in general, you should always play to time or until one player is destroyed.

Agreeing to a loss for advantage in the overall tourney is very gamey....

Why does everyone think that conceding when time comes is such a bad thing? And why is it "selfish" to do so? If, as in the above example, the opponent is chasing you down with 3 ships, and you're running away with your one, you've clearly lost already. Even if that one ship is Fel, a ship running away is a ship not taking shots, and therefore not making progress.

I've played opponents in that same scenario and it takes me 20 min to chase him down and kill him, but he was doing that just to see how long he lived. Had he conceded, we'd be stuck for 30min left and nothing to do. Had I not killed him in time, I would have been fine with him conceding since it was inevitable. It has nothing to do with him getting a better SoS, but rather keeps from screwing me over because he had a faster ship that could just stay out of range.

Alas, if ya'll think that person conceding as time is called is bad, but conceding 30min earlier when he knows he has no chance is fine... then I suggest you rethink your stance. We're all here to play the game, and conceding early reduces the amount that we play. But conceding at time to a superior opponent that you turtled is the right thing to do.

All,

if you concede at the point I already have a full win, then no issue, but to concede when I am only on a modified and give me a full win just doesn't sit well with me. It's gamey. If I can't defeat you for the full win, then tough, I don't get a full win.

I played in a Championship 2 weeks ago and in my second game I won by a modified win. That cost me a place in the cut. My opponent had no chance of beating me and by the thinking expressed here, should have conceded to me so both our chances improved. I can't agree with that. I couldn't finish him off, that is my problem and should not be exploited to the detriment of the other people who gained legitimate full wins. My opponent flew his ships to the bitter end to deny me the full win and it was a better game for that. That is why it's a competition.

Too many people here are railing against folks who are "gaming the system" rather than simply criticizing the system for encouraging the behavior. Gaming the system is what we do every time we play. Is it bad form not to burn a Target Lock for little gain? You know if you were REALLY in that cockpit you would be trying to hit with every shot. Is it bad form to block another player? I doubt some Academy Pilot in a TIE would really be playing chicken with a YT-1300.

This sounds a lot like some of the ridiculous discussions over on 40k forums (though much more polite here). The issue there is that the 40k system has many awful little loopholes to be exploited that may be perfectly legal, but don't fit at all with the fantasy aspect of imagining a real battle. The issue here is that the system as it stands punishes you for losing a close match as opposed to being defeated handily. The reason these "exploits" feel wrong, beardy, cheesy, or gamey depending on what part of the world you are in is because the rules directly contradict what we instinctively know should happen.

We have a tournament system that would rank a person with 3 wins and 1 close loss LOWER than a person with 3 wins and 1 total loss. That is a broken system, and we should do something to change the SYSTEM. Asking people not only to play within the rules, with good cheer and a positive demeanor, but also in a way that intentionally makes them lose, all so that they can avoid upsetting someone whose idea of when the proper time to concede differs from their own, is an unreasonable thing to ask or expect.

Give a point to the person with a modified loss, and now the system rewards near-victory instead of punishing it. Problem solved, without needing to accuse others of poor sportsmanship over something as subjective and impossible to define as the proper time to concede. That way people are encouraged to "game the system" by doing what we all want, which is to play as hard and as close as they can.

Edit: Reread the post, and it comes off like I was pinging on some of the posters here which is not my intent. My point is that having a system that encourages "gamey" behavior is the problem, and that discussions about what people should or should not do within "gamey" systems seem ridiculous. I was NOT criticizing the folks here, just the propensity of broken systems to generate these discussions.

I often wondered why they don't just add up actual points killed and if there is a tie, points lost?

For instance I may wipe my opponent for 100 pts, but may lose 58 in return. That seems super simple to me.

Top 4 scores make the cut.

That is actually something that bothers me... you have to record points destroyed/lost, but it never comes into play (except for confirming modified/full win).

I've found that I use them as a further tiebreaker when the SoS is tied up... But I haven't decided the best way to use them yet. NFL uses net points, so I would gravitate towards that being the most fair, but it can also be done more of a kill ratio, which seems more 'star wars-y' to me. And is also less likely to end in another tie.

I don't want to just include points destroyed because some squads are naturally more defensive and therefore will kill less, but lose less as well. It doesn't seem fair to discriminate against those squads. Also, by using kill ratio, (especially if it's in lieu of SoS) it is 100% based on your performance, and does not matter how your opponents did in other games, or who got the bye... yourself included.

I think that you could use the difference in points, so in my example I would score 42 points. If there is then a tie, you could go to total points killed.

I'd have to think about how to handle a bye.....

Well, that's where the kill ratio would work better.

Then in a 4 round tourney, if you have the bye, your ratio only counts the 3 games you played in. But with good players, the differential should continuously grow as you play more games. And bad players (well, on the losing side of the tourney, not to say they're actually bad players) their differential will continue to go negative.

As such, the bye is once again a handicap.

But the ratio isn't affected by the bye. Though it does mean that each game you DO play is more important. So if you lose the first game by 100-70, get the bye the second round, and then win the 3rd round by 100-50... you have killed 170 points to losing 150 = 1.13.

Whereas the same player actually plays the second round and wins 100-80 there, he has a 270 to 230 ratio = 1.17.

So, the bye can still "hurt" you because you don't have the opportunity to squeak out a win, but it's also a guaranteed win, so with that in mind, this small margin of tie breaker is okay imo. Even if you have a 80% win ratio (which is extremely high) you're average result comes out ahead via the bye.

That makes good solid sense. I like that idea.

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.

There is no reason for this. The Bye awarded as a prize for the feeder events is a full SOS Bye. Not only do you get the full point for the Bye but it contributes a higher strength of schedule then is technically possible for a "player" getting beat to obtain.

Yeah, the Byes that people win are different than normal byes.

Ah, I did not know that. That's good information to know. Though in general I was referring to the bye someone gets due to odd number of people.

We have a tournament system that would rank a person with 3 wins and 1 close loss LOWER than a person with 3 wins and 1 total loss.

This is untrue.

While yes the Modified Loss would yield 2 less SoS points to that one opponent, that in no way dictates that the player with the Modified Loss will have a lower total SoS, as it is very unlikely that both players share the same opponents over the event. Though yes it could happen that way.

That Modified Loss guarantees nothing.

Additionally the concept that a full Loss is preferable to a Modified Loss is flawed on it's own. Yes you are sacrificing 2 SOS points, but you are also denying your opponents 2 Tournament Points. Just because you've lost to that opponent doesn't mean you are out of the running for a Top Cut, in fact you could very easily end up placing higher then an opponent that beat you earlier in the event, especially if you deny them the full points.

For instance in a 4 round event, if you were to lose your first round 0-3, then win your next 3 5-0, you'd finish ahead of the person that beat you, provided they also lose a round. If you gave up the full 5 points you'd end up behind them based on head to head performance. You could even earn a Mod Win of your own provided they earn a second and still finish ahead of them.

Why would you give an opponent more points then you have to when you are still competing in the standings with that same player?

What about a proportional system of some kind, that calculates fractional percentages for damaged ships.

I guess one would look at the % of hull + shields remaining versus how the ship started the game, then multiple the entire cost of that vessel (plus upgrades, etc) by that fraction.

So a Chewie with no upgrades and just 1 hull point left would award its opponent (1-(1/(8+5)))*42 = 39 points.

I mean, it's 92% destroyed!

I think it's fine to keep modified win/loss but as KO said give the loss a point or two. This way you keep people fighting for a win or a modified. I understand people conceding matches to help their SoS but in the long run you are breaking the system that is in place. Either that or have the TO make a ruling at the beginning of the tournament if you will/can concede which would really make it a W/L tourney. I just want everyone to play under the same system so one guy doesn't miss out on the cut because his opponent didn't give him a full win and another's did.

It would also have people fight for a modified loss over a full.

We have a tournament system that would rank a person with 3 wins and 1 close loss LOWER than a person with 3 wins and 1 total loss.

This is untrue.

While yes the Modified Loss would yield 2 less SoS points to that one opponent, that in no way dictates that the player with the Modified Loss will have a lower total SoS, as it is very unlikely that both players share the same opponents over the event. Though yes it could happen that way.

That Modified Loss guarantees nothing.

Additionally the concept that a full Loss is preferable to a Modified Loss is flawed on it's own. Yes you are sacrificing 2 SOS points, but you are also denying your opponents 2 Tournament Points. Just because you've lost to that opponent doesn't mean you are out of the running for a Top Cut, in fact you could very easily end up placing higher then an opponent that beat you earlier in the event, especially if you deny them the full points.

For instance in a 4 round event, if you were to lose your first round 0-3, then win your next 3 5-0, you'd finish ahead of the person that beat you, provided they also lose a round. If you gave up the full 5 points you'd end up behind them based on head to head performance. You could even earn a Mod Win of your own provided they earn a second and still finish ahead of them.

Why would you give an opponent more points then you have to when you are still competing in the standings with that same player?

I don't understand your point. Alternately, perhaps you misunderstood mine. Of course there are other determinants, but SoS is one determinant (a major one) and losing close is worse for your SoS than losing completely. A close loss adds 3 points to your SoS score, a full loss adds 5 points to your SoS score. If all other things are equal, you will be ranked below another player if the only difference between the two of you is that your loss was a close one and he was crushed utterly in his loss.

Your what-if scenario only matters if you and the one specific person you played were the only ones tied and on the cusp. If you are tied with anyone else (and if you are on the cusp, you are tied with half a dozen people or more), then you lose out to every single one of them that lost completely rather than marginally. At that point, out-performing your one opponent STILL won't make up for the disadvantage you put yourself at vs. the rest of the field.

Adding a single point for a close loss ensures that the people who played a very competitive game are ranked higher than people who get clobbered. Because doing so would bring what we expect (the most competitive players have the highest ranking) more closely in line with what the system accomplishes (giving the most competitive players the highest number of points), we would not have to worry about folks "gaming the system". At this point, everyone would be playing for every last scrap of effectiveness they could, every single game, and not giving up if there is anything to be accomplished. That seems to me to be worth the small effort of such a minor change in tournament formatting.

The other problem with SOS as a tiebreaker is that in a Swiss style tournament it matters more when you lose rather than who you lose to.

Let's say you drew Doug Kinney, Paul Heaver, or one of the other top 16 players in a local store tournament. You put up a great battle but fall short in round 1. You're now down 0-1 and facing another 0-1. We'll assume the best possible outcome going forward and you're first round opponent goes on to be undefeated. You destroy your round 2 opponent and move on to face a 1-1. He goes on to win his final 2 games. And you win the third round game and he wins his final game to go to 2-2. Your final round is against a 2-1 and you win so you are 3-1 with a final SOS of (4 + 2 + 2 +2) *5 = 50.

Now let's take a loss in the final round with the worst possible case for you. Your first round opponent loses every one of the four games. Your second round opponent only won the first game. Your third round opponent won 2 of the first three rounds and you lose in the final round which results in the following SOS. (0 + 1 + 2 + 4) *5 = 35

So if things go perfectly, you can recover from a first round loss with your SOS. The likelihood of the above is very small.

I don't have a better solution at the moment but I think something along the line of net point differential of you opponent might be a viable solution.

That was exactly my path at farmageddon.