I could see them updating the scoring, they did it for SWLCG once they saw how skewed the results were becoming. I've actually warmed up to the idea of:

4pt win

3pt mod win

2pt draw

1pt mod loss

0pt loss

That way every game has 4 points up for grabs, and you're playing for how those 4 points are distributed.

They also need to do something about their tie breakers. Not only does their tiebreaker not go deep enough, it isn't based on player performance. I can't help it if in the first round I'm matched up against the worst player at the tourney. I had a swift victory and got my 4 points (according to my system)... but then ended up tied with someone who got a decent player at the beginning, and had a stronger SoS. I have no control over how that works. Plus, it severely handicaps the player that loses to someone undefeated in the first round and then won the following 3 games, vs someone who won 3 games and then lost to the same undefeated person in the 4th round. I've done the math on the SoS, and ignoring modified wins, the person that lost in the 4th round has a variance of 6 games on his SoS... the guy that lost in the 1st has 10 variance, and is down by 3 on SoS to begin with.

So if you split the variance, the guy that loses in the first round loses SoS by 1 game. If we give each game a 50% win ratio, that means that the person that lost in the final round to the same person that lost in the first will win the tie breaker only 22.7% of the time. Meanwhile the guy that lost in the final round will win the tie breaker 59.8% of the time. They will tie 17.4%... And that 17% of the time, there is no further tiebreaker to determine who wins.

I like the idea of a point for a modified loss. It gives the person who is losing in a close games something to fight for still and does not necessarily kill your SoS as much when your opponent only gets 3 points for the modified win. But I still think 5 points for an outright/unmodified win should still be used - make a full win worth more than a combined modified-win/modified-loss. That is following the idea of soccer that uses 3 points for a win but 1 point each for a tie - just modified to fit the Star Wars tourney point structure.

And be design in a Swiss tournament, you have to accept that if you lose in the first round you probably are not going to play nearly as tough of opponents over the course of the tourney as you are if you lose in the last round - which will affect your SoS. Hopefully the person you lost to in round 1 has a good tournament and finishes near the top, but that doesn't always happen. I have lost to a person in the first round and won the rest of my games and the person that beat me I was his only win. In that case my SoS was not the best. It happens and you just have to deal with it.

Is FFGs tie-break system the best - no. Chess uses Swiss format and has different tie breakers the TO can choose from that seem to work fine. Some of the tiebreaks used have decently complex math so I am not going to go into them here - just stating a fact. When I ran tournaments, I let the computer handle that. But chess does have the rating system that eliminates a lot of the first round pairing randomness that Star Wars still needs to deal with though.

I would like to see improvements in the FFG tournament structure, but they are not going to be easily implemented. Until then, we have to use the rules they have provided us. A good place to start would be a standardized software program for running tournaments that does all the pairings and SoS calculations for you automatically. I have looked and couldn't find anything out there that worked well - pairings were fine, but SoS calculations were something else. A program directly from FFG for TOs to use would be nice - or at least if they could work with a software developer to come up with something. Most local tournaments are small enough to run by hand but getting into Regionals/Nationals/Worlds - it is so much smoother if the tournaments can be automated as much as possible.

Lee

I could see them updating the scoring, they did it for SWLCG once they saw how skewed the results were becoming. I've actually warmed up to the idea of:

4pt win

3pt mod win

2pt draw

1pt mod loss

0pt loss

That way every game has 4 points up for grabs, and you're playing for how those 4 points are distributed.

They also need to do something about their tie breakers. Not only does their tiebreaker not go deep enough, it isn't based on player performance. I can't help it if in the first round I'm matched up against the worst player at the tourney. I had a swift victory and got my 4 points (according to my system)... but then ended up tied with someone who got a decent player at the beginning, and had a stronger SoS. I have no control over how that works. Plus, it severely handicaps the player that loses to someone undefeated in the first round and then won the following 3 games, vs someone who won 3 games and then lost to the same undefeated person in the 4th round. I've done the math on the SoS, and ignoring modified wins, the person that lost in the 4th round has a variance of 6 games on his SoS... the guy that lost in the 1st has 10 variance, and is down by 3 on SoS to begin with.

So if you split the variance, the guy that loses in the first round loses SoS by 1 game. If we give each game a 50% win ratio, that means that the person that lost in the final round to the same person that lost in the first will win the tie breaker only 22.7% of the time. Meanwhile the guy that lost in the final round will win the tie breaker 59.8% of the time. They will tie 17.4%... And that 17% of the time, there is no further tiebreaker to determine who wins.

I like the idea of a point for a modified loss. It gives the person who is losing in a close games something to fight for still and does not necessarily kill your SoS as much when your opponent only gets 3 points for the modified win. But I still think 5 points for an outright/unmodified win should still be used - make a full win worth more than a combined modified-win/modified-loss. That is following the idea of soccer that uses 3 points for a win but 1 point each for a tie - just modified to fit the Star Wars tourney point structure.

And be design in a Swiss tournament, you have to accept that if you lose in the first round you probably are not going to play nearly as tough of opponents over the course of the tourney as you are if you lose in the last round - which will affect your SoS. Hopefully the person you lost to in round 1 has a good tournament and finishes near the top, but that doesn't always happen. I have lost to a person in the first round and won the rest of my games and the person that beat me I was his only win. In that case my SoS was not the best. It happens and you just have to deal with it.

Is FFGs tie-break system the best - no. Chess uses Swiss format and has different tie breakers the TO can choose from that seem to work fine. Some of the tiebreaks used have decently complex math so I am not going to go into them here - just stating a fact. When I ran tournaments, I let the computer handle that. But chess does have the rating system that eliminates a lot of the first round pairing randomness that Star Wars still needs to deal with though.

I would like to see improvements in the FFG tournament structure, but they are not going to be easily implemented. Until then, we have to use the rules they have provided us. A good place to start would be a standardized software program for running tournaments that does all the pairings and SoS calculations for you automatically. I have looked and couldn't find anything out there that worked well - pairings were fine, but SoS calculations were something else. A program directly from FFG for TOs to use would be nice - or at least if they could work with a software developer to come up with something. Most local tournaments are small enough to run by hand but getting into Regionals/Nationals/Worlds - it is so much smoother if the tournaments can be automated as much as possible.

Lee

I hate the idea of giving points to the loser of a modified match. This will only encourage the losing play to turn and run for the last few turns to get the 1 point. It will make matches last longer then they need to. Keep in mind the SoS is the system being used right now by FFG if you are about to lose and it's going to be a modified win for your opponent, be the man and congratulate him on his full win and give it to him. After all he counts toward your SoS now and those points help you too.

I think we all need to understand that these stores are just that stores. Frequently the people who run these are volunteers who probably don't know all the rules. Or they are low paid retail staff. Regionals should be better.

For myself I'm happy that there are people who are willing to arbitrate even if things don't go perfectly. my suggestion is be polite make the store aware of your concerns. perhaps even showing them the rules. at that point either continue playing or leave. none of us are forced to participate anywhere.

I'm just happy having places to play and if the stores screw up I can live with it. The prizes aren't exactly money or gold. I think we can manage without them. Recognition is nice but for me and most of you I hope we remember it's just a game and have fun with it.

I think we all need to understand that these stores are just that stores. Frequently the people who run these are volunteers who probably don't know all the rules. Or they are low paid retail staff. Regionals should be better.

For myself I'm happy that there are people who are willing to arbitrate even if things don't go perfectly. my suggestion is be polite make the store aware of your concerns. perhaps even showing them the rules. at that point either continue playing or leave. none of us are forced to participate anywhere.

I'm just happy having places to play and if the stores screw up I can live with it. The prizes aren't exactly money or gold. I think we can manage without them. Recognition is nice but for me and most of you I hope we remember it's just a game and have fun with it.

Why would Regionals be any better?

FFG has no program in place, presently, to certify judges for these events, They've done no vetting beyond an application process that did not involve anything in regards to having a qualified TO.

FFG didn't even follow through in their own scouting process as they did not use the SCs as a litmus test to ensure venues could run a successful event before giving them a Regional

The first part of your post still applies.

I just saw this thread, and once I finally read it I was a little surprised.

First, when there is to be a cut to the Top 4/8/16, SoS is only used to finalize the end of the swiss rounds. Once you've made the cut, you should never drop out of that seeding. There is no reason (barring a player dropping out of the tournament) that a player who makes the top 4 should not get a top 4 prize no matter when they lose.

Second, you can't use single elimination when luck plays such a large part in the game. You can out maneuver your opponent in every round, but if you cant roll hits and evades, you will inevitably lose. Swiss pairings allow a player who had this kind of luck in his first game to recover and bounce back.

I hate the idea of giving points to the loser of a modified match. This will only encourage the losing play to turn and run for the last few turns to get the 1 point. It will make matches last longer then they need to. Keep in mind the SoS is the system being used right now by FFG if you are about to lose and it's going to be a modified win for your opponent, be the man and congratulate him on his full win and give it to him. After all he counts toward your SoS now and those points help you too.

So collusion is better than offering someone something when the match is close to a draw but the rule give a victor at the time things are called.

If you can't pull of a decisive (full) win then why shouldn't your opponent get something even if you happen to carry the day. Just surviving can be a victory so would it kill to give someone you can't crush a point? One more little thing, SoS will mean a lot less if you get something when avoid that crushing defeat. If the loser gets points because you can't crush him he'll already be in a better position because of an added point even if his SoS doesn't look as good because you couldn't seal the deal.

I hate the idea of giving points to the loser of a modified match. This will only encourage the losing play to turn and run for the last few turns to get the 1 point. It will make matches last longer then they need to. Keep in mind the SoS is the system being used right now by FFG if you are about to lose and it's going to be a modified win for your opponent, be the man and congratulate him on his full win and give it to him. After all he counts toward your SoS now and those points help you too.

So collusion is better than offering someone something when the match is close to a draw but the rule give a victor at the time things are called.

If you can't pull of a decisive (full) win then why shouldn't your opponent get something even if you happen to carry the day. Just surviving can be a victory so would it kill to give someone you can't crush a point? One more little thing, SoS will mean a lot less if you get something when avoid that crushing defeat. If the loser gets points because you can't crush him he'll already be in a better position because of an added point even if his SoS doesn't look as good because you couldn't seal the deal.

If you put on some kinda reward to the modified loser it will change the game and how it's played today. So here I lose on match and you just run your ass off for 20 mins to get one point and we both finish 2-1, but now you should be rewarded a higher placing for running? To really be fair the system they have in place now works great at 16+ players and is dicey under 8. How many people generally show up in the events you've played at?

If you put on some kinda reward to the modified loser it will change the game and how it's played today. So here I lose on match and you just run your ass off for 20 mins to get one point and we both finish 2-1, but now you should be rewarded a higher placing for running? To really be fair the system they have in place now works great at 16+ players and is dicey under 8. How many people generally show up in the events you've played at?

Two people finishing 2-1. And what's that now? 10, 8 or 6 points depending on the type of win. Of course when you advocate that the only REAL thing to do if you're not going to win is make sure your opponent gets a FULL win I guess that make both of them 10 points. Too bad that the person you beat who also went 2-1 gave you a full win instead of a modified win when both of his wins were outright for 10 points; now his "generosity" costs him as a result of the head to head loss.

If a win is a win then why have "modified" wins in the first place? Or perhaps the better question is "if a loss is a loss and making sure your opponent's SoS is as high as possible for any tie breakers why should there be a modified win?" If a draw is 2 points each I see no reason a partial victory shouldn't give the "loser" partial credit for the game he played.

I could see them updating the scoring, they did it for SWLCG once they saw how skewed the results were becoming. I've actually warmed up to the idea of:

4pt win

3pt mod win

2pt draw

1pt mod loss

0pt loss

That way every game has 4 points up for grabs, and you're playing for how those 4 points are distributed.

They also need to do something about their tie breakers. Not only does their tiebreaker not go deep enough, it isn't based on player performance. I can't help it if in the first round I'm matched up against the worst player at the tourney. I had a swift victory and got my 4 points (according to my system)... but then ended up tied with someone who got a decent player at the beginning, and had a stronger SoS. I have no control over how that works. Plus, it severely handicaps the player that loses to someone undefeated in the first round and then won the following 3 games, vs someone who won 3 games and then lost to the same undefeated person in the 4th round. I've done the math on the SoS, and ignoring modified wins, the person that lost in the 4th round has a variance of 6 games on his SoS... the guy that lost in the 1st has 10 variance, and is down by 3 on SoS to begin with.

So if you split the variance, the guy that loses in the first round loses SoS by 1 game. If we give each game a 50% win ratio, that means that the person that lost in the final round to the same person that lost in the first will win the tie breaker only 22.7% of the time. Meanwhile the guy that lost in the final round will win the tie breaker 59.8% of the time. They will tie 17.4%... And that 17% of the time, there is no further tiebreaker to determine who wins.

I feel your pain. I got unlucky in the first round and lost (howl + SD, range 3, behind a rock, all 6 blanks). Then, to no fault of my own, I played someone who went 0-4. It didn't matter that I wiped him out 100-0 in about 30 minutes. I received 0 points for beating him badly and thus was blocked from the top 4 elimination rounds.

Personally, I think SoS is a crummy tie breaker. In a tournament, my final rank should be based solely on my performance, however, SoS says that my performance is determined by other people's performance. That grinds my gears.

I wonder if it's time to finally switch to using something like an ELO rating to help build brackets (like chess tournaments do).

If you've beaten the people you're in a tie with, you automatically place above them. Most games do it that way. It makes more sense than points lost etc.

If you haven't played them and tie for ranking, it's better than a roll off.

The only problem I really have with the tournaments at a "local" level is the fact that the Tournament Organizers are not versed on the fact that if a TO wishes to participate in the tournament, there has to be a second non-participant TO present.

From the X-wing Tournament Rules [version 1.4]:

The TO may participate in a tournament for which he or she is responsible only if there is a second Tournament Organizer present. This second TO must be present and announced at the beginning of the tounament, and is responsible for all rulings for games in which the primary TO is playing.

During a tournament, there must be at least one TO who is not playing. Tournament Organizers and Judges for premier championship tournaments (Regionals, Nationals, and Worlds) are expected to commit their full attention to organizing and judging the event, and therefore are not permitted to participate in their own Regional, National, or World Championship events as players.

Granted the majority of the second paragraph revolves around large tournaments.

I understand these tournaments are meant to be fun, and everyone wants in on that fun. But there has to be a way to identify the TOs.

The problem that I had at a recent event was that the Tournament Organizer "on record" was also a participant, without a "second" (non-paricipant) availabe to act as Judge. I had a few issues that I needed an "official" ruling. Since there was not a seond TO, I had to ask a friend to rule.

There needs to be a way a venue, when applying to hold an event, to put the TO, and the second or more (if needed) on record, since the event itself has to be remitted to Fantasy Flight for approval. I can only surmise that one person can only say, "I'll be the Tournament Organizer." Done. He's the TO, no questions asked.

In most cases people can agree who is the next person with the best grasp of the rules, FAQ and odd situations that may come up.

Yeah. But as I said, the next person must be willing to bow out as a participant in the tournament, and take the role of the TO.

It will be difficult to find a willing soul, since everyone wants to play.

DId you already discussed about draw? Because IMHO having the exactly same scoring to get a draw is ridiculous for two reasons:

1, it is very very hard for it to ocurr.

2, to lose a match for 1, 2 or 3 points... is very dissapointing.

Did you consider changing the draw scoring range to 11 or less? I mean difference for each player destroyed points, if it is below 11 points it is a draw and if it is 33 or more it is a complete victory, so being between 11 and 33 is a modified victory.

What do you think?

DId you already discussed about draw? Because IMHO having the exactly same scoring to get a draw is ridiculous for two reasons:

1, it is very very hard for it to ocurr.

2, to lose a match for 1, 2 or 3 points... is very dissapointing.

Did you consider changing the draw scoring range to 11 or less? I mean difference for each player destroyed points, if it is below 11 points it is a draw and if it is 33 or more it is a complete victory, so being between 11 and 33 is a modified victory.

What do you think?

DId you already discussed about draw? Because IMHO having the exactly same scoring to get a draw is ridiculous for two reasons:

1, it is very very hard for it to ocurr.

2, to lose a match for 1, 2 or 3 points... is very dissapointing.

Did you consider changing the draw scoring range to 11 or less? I mean difference for each player destroyed points, if it is below 11 points it is a draw and if it is 33 or more it is a complete victory, so being between 11 and 33 is a modified victory.

What do you think?

I actually had a draw on points at a 12-person tournament a few weeks ago. We both destroyed 46 points of each other's squads. We recounted twice. Everyone there was stunned.

DId you already discussed about draw? Because IMHO having the exactly same scoring to get a draw is ridiculous for two reasons:

1, it is very very hard for it to ocurr.

2, to lose a match for 1, 2 or 3 points... is very dissapointing.

Did you consider changing the draw scoring range to 11 or less? I mean difference for each player destroyed points, if it is below 11 points it is a draw and if it is 33 or more it is a complete victory, so being between 11 and 33 is a modified victory.

What do you think?

What's this is reference to?

While a true "draw" should be possible and award equal points that should only happen if there is a true draw. Now if we want recognize a close game which is kind of what a modified win is supposed to do I believe there should be points awarded to the 'loser' as well. If a draw splits points 2-2 then having a modified win splitting points 3-1 shouldn't seem unreasonable; nobody is getting the 5 points a full win gets so full wins are still rewarded.

I feel your pain. I got unlucky in the first round and lost (howl + SD, range 3, behind a rock, all 6 blanks). Then, to no fault of my own, I played someone who went 0-4. It didn't matter that I wiped him out 100-0 in about 30 minutes. I received 0 points for beating him badly and thus was blocked from the top 4 elimination rounds.

Personally, I think SoS is a crummy tie breaker. In a tournament, my final rank should be based solely on my performance, however, SoS says that my performance is determined by other people's performance. That grinds my gears.

I wonder if it's time to finally switch to using something like an ELO rating to help build brackets (like chess tournaments do).

I Think SOS is used for sportsmanship. Yeah great, you beat a guy who didn't win another game all day, and you did it in just a few rounds. Now take the remaining time to help that guy out, show him a better way to use his ships, or set up/ maneuver, or better pick his squad next time. This will help him in the long run, and could help you now.

There have been plenty of tournaments where I played a guy, beat him, worked with him, and then was pulling for that player against one of my regular playing buddies, just to help my SOS.