A few weeks ago, I saw an article that talked about a tournament using a more intuitive point based tournament format. I cannot find it anywhere now. Anyone know where that tourney was held, or where I can find the article.

I think you're talking about the one from Flip the Force. I can't find it either. Supposedly it was called A Game of Scoring. Here's a link to a tournament run using those rules:

http://www.fliptheforce.com/blog-single.php?rid=90

A few weeks ago, I saw an article that talked about a tournament using a more intuitive point based tournament format. I cannot find it anywhere now. Anyone know where that tourney was held, or where I can find the article.

http://fliptheforce.com/articles.php?rid=85

A few weeks ago, I saw an article that talked about a tournament using a more intuitive point based tournament format. I cannot find it anywhere now. Anyone know where that tourney was held, or where I can find the article.

http://fliptheforce.com/articles.php?rid=85

Couple of notes: after playing it in an event, I think Match Points should be 4pts for each objective destroyed as LS and 1pt for each click on dial for DS. Also, it still has issues with Top Cuts that need to be a bit sorted out. But, it is drastically better than the current system, imo

I'd like to see a little more granularity in the LS scoring. Maybe either 1 additional point per damaged-but-undestroyed DS obective, OR 4 minus the damage still needed to finish off one DS objective of the LS player's choice (figuring in any relevant modifiers such as Jabba's Palace), whichever is higher. Either way, maximum of 3 extra points, of course.

I'd like to see a little more granularity in the LS scoring. Maybe either 1 additional point per damaged-but-undestroyed DS obective, OR 4 minus the damage still needed to finish off one DS objective of the LS player's choice (figuring in any relevant modifiers such as Jabba's Palace), whichever is higher. Either way, maximum of 3 extra points, of course.

Funny ... I had exactly the same idea ... The "LS doesn't win" scenario misses the granulatity of the DS dial, both in the official FFG tie-breaker rules and in the proposed alternate scoring.

I was thinking of something like one point per damage done to the (3 - X) most damaged DS objectives to a maximum of 3 points per objective. X is the amount of DS objectives that are in the LS victory pile.

So if the LS loses with no objectives in the victory pile and 4 damage on each objective because their attack (when the Deathstar dial was at 11) with Home One got thwarted thanks to a DS Echoes of the Force and Seeds of Decay in the Edge battle they would still get 9 points (3 per objective) in stead of 0.

And if you just didn't manage to get enough damage on that last objective after already having destroyed two, you'd still score 11 points which would correspond to the DS just not surviving that one additional turn to get the dial to 12.

Such scoring would certainly reflect close-fought battles better than "one extra point for the tie-breaker".

Of course, it would mean a little additional score-keeping on the results-sheet.

I think this differential system would be OK if it had 2 points as a win, 0 points for losing and 1 point for a game draw to time (since that's not really covered well in this system). The only problem I see with this still is it rewards specific play styles (as does the current system) and it doesn't really solve the problem the game has in top cut (which is right now if you win a game, you just try not to lose as badly).

This alternate scoring system sounds much better. I think i will implement this for my games. WookieRoar's approach sounds really god as well. Still, what I am missing is a reward for aggressive gameplay. Maybe -2 Points for the LS for each LS-objective in the DS vicotry pile. LS gains 1 point for each damage on a dark side objective (to a maximum of 5). Each destroyed DS objective is worth 5 points as well. This is linear as it can get from 1 to 15 (In a situation where each of the DS objectives (5 damage capacity) is short one damage and DS destroyed on LS's objectives, that player would get 10 Points (4+4+4-2). Only problem i see with linear scoring for LS is that it doesnt really encourage to finish of objectives. Maybe a scoring where you get 1 point for each 2 damage on an objective and additional 3 for destroying it?

This alternate scoring system sounds much better. I think i will implement this for my games. WookieRoar's approach sounds really god as well. Still, what I am missing is a reward for aggressive gameplay. Maybe -2 Points for the LS for each LS-objective in the DS vicotry pile. LS gains 1 point for each damage on a dark side objective (to a maximum of 5). Each destroyed DS objective is worth 5 points as well. This is linear as it can get from 1 to 15 (In a situation where each of the DS objectives (5 damage capacity) is short one damage and DS destroyed on LS's objectives, that player would get 10 Points (4+4+4-2). Only problem i see with linear scoring for LS is that it doesnt really encourage to finish of objectives. Maybe a scoring where you get 1 point for each 2 damage on an objective and additional 3 for destroying it?

Except that the LS player's victory condition doesn't look at how many of his own objectives have been scored. The ideal tournament system shouldn't use any details from the match except those which determine who won each game, and perhaps by how much (although I suppose that would still run into the issue where a control-oriented LS deck might not do as well as a faster strategy, given that the dial increases at least 1 each turn regardless).

The ideal tournament system shouldn't use any details from the match except those which determine who won each game, and perhaps by how much (although I suppose that would still run into the issue where a control-oriented LS deck might not do as well as a faster strategy, given that the dial increases at least 1 each turn regardless).

It's the "how much" that always causes trouble. Every system that tries to qualify how much somebody won the match by will put pressure on deck design and top cut play beyond just winning games. I'm really interested in trying out the netrunner score system that has no tie breaker point (2 points for winning a game, that's it) and then runs single game, double elimination for the top cut. It's the only proposed system I've seen that doesn't warp the goals other than winning games.

I'm really interested in trying out the netrunner score system that has no tie breaker point (2 points for winning a game, that's it) and then runs single game, double elimination for the top cut. It's the only proposed system I've seen that doesn't warp the goals other than winning games.

I'm really interested in trying out the netrunner score system that has no tie breaker point (2 points for winning a game, that's it) and then runs single game, double elimination for the top cut. It's the only proposed system I've seen that doesn't warp the goals other than winning games.

That would be good. Though I find myself wondering why they haven't been doing that all along. A:NR tournaments came before SW tournaments, didn't they?

It wouldn't be good or work, at all, in my opinion.

Right now, playing two games in this system helps to negate some of the 'luck' factor created by the structure of the game. In a single-game system, there are zero elements at play when it comes to 'fighting' against luck based strategies. If one player gets a stronger opening hand than the other, they will win and there's (very little) the opponent can do about it.

In a single-game system, players will best benefit from running a deck that can/does win off of luck rather than skill. IE, in a single-game system, 99% of LS players will play nothing but Sleuths.

You can look at the most recent mistake of Dash/Freeloaders. By giving the environment a deck that simply wins off of luck of the draw, it forced nearly every single player at three large regionals in one weekend to run nothing but that deck. Why? Because it won fast and most DS decks weren't capable of stopping it. It warped the meta, created a huge negative play experience, and was dissolved very quickly.

The same thing will happen in a single-game match system for this game. All players will play the deck that has the odds of drawing an unstoppable opening hand, thus securing that they advance in the event. All players not running a luck-based deck would be at a disadvantage.

It's just too one-sided of a concept, when this game has received such large 'luck based' strategies in the last year.

The proposed replacement system is solid, however it does not incorporate a solution the Top Cut dilemma.

The scoring for Netrunner is fine (each win is worth 2pts and you record your win/loss record for each side, which are then used as tie-breaks) and I've TO'd two events of that in the last couple of months. It falls apart a bit on ties (there are way too many scenarios in which players will tie on points), but it represents how well you played each side, which is the goal.

Their system was goofy as well, and recently switched to a double elimination bracket for their Top Cuts. There are lots of problems there, #1 being that the bracket can be a nightmare for TO's to deal with. I'm not too familiar with the luck-factor currently involved in Netrunner, but obviously if it is the same as SWLCG, they will have problems.

We need a good solution for Top Cuts and soon, imo. Currently, the Top Cuts create an entire different way of playing -- you more often play not to lose than playing to win. It's not healthy and certainly shouldn't be used to determine who goes forward.

My problem with your system is that it still encourages players to win better or lose better, and really is just a slight tweak on the definition of "better" compared to the current rules. As long as that concept exists there's deck building pressure. That's the real reason that Dash/Freeholders was such a problem: not that it could randomly win, but that it could randomly win in such a way that winning "better" was impossible by winning turn 1 with the dial on 1 (now you could even splash a Nudj in the deck for a possible dial 0 win).

I definitely disagree on what people would run in a single game, double elimination system. In that format, it makes no sense to run a deck that wins less often but can occasionally get an awesome setup and win. The current system allows that because your other deck can bail you out when one deck loses. If people play nothing but Sleuths in a Netrunner-like double elimination system it's because they think it has the highest chance of winning a given game (good thing, we want people to play the deck because they think it can win the most games).

I do agree that double elimination brackets are a little harder to run for the TO, though I've had Netrunner players tell me that it hasn't been a problem when I brought that up in other threads. There is a pretty nice, easy to follow bracket in the Netrunner rules that works for a top 8 cut and should help people get used to it preparing for a larger event.

Basically, I think something like the Netrunner system is the best proposal I've seen because it completely does away with any consideration except winning games. I am open for suggestions beyond SoS for seeding tie breaker, but only if that doesn't involve needing to "win better" or "lose better."

Anyone in Portland or the surrounding area? I'm close to both Guardian Games and Red Castle, and it would be cool to see a scene for this game develop. Doesn't look like either of those stores have events yet.

In any case, let's get together and play! I've only got my feet wet, playing 4 games with the starter decks, and not having built any decks yet. I'm looking to do that soon.

______________

RS 3 Gold

I am open for suggestions beyond SoS for seeding tie breaker, but only if that doesn't involve needing to "win better" or "lose better."

I am open for suggestions beyond SoS for seeding tie breaker, but only if that doesn't involve needing to "win better" or "lose better."

What about a system that took deck composition into account, and gave weight to playing less-common objective sets? Like, say the majority is running 2x Palpatine, 2x Vader, 2x Counsel, making those sets weaker in determining seeding. It would ONLY regard decks in the event itself; this would prevent deckbuilding to exploit the system (unless you choose to go the Vizzini route and play a deck with nothing you think will be popular). Just throwing the idea out there; I realize it's pretty mav. And I'm not really sure how it would even work from a logistical standpoint. I suppose each objective set would receive a number value based on its showing at the event, and these would be added together from each objective set to determine a particular deck's seed value.

It's an interesting idea. I think logistically it's a nightmare, especially at a large event (I forget how many of us were tied with 28 points on the bubble at GenCon last year, but it was a bunch of us) which probably kills it as a usable idea.

I think the first problem is defining the goal of the tie breaker a little better. Is it to find the better player or who had the better day? You could argue that the "plays rare sets" method does a good job at finding the better player/deck builder, they're either winning with worse sets or built better enough decks to make up for their play skill. Doesn't really do much to tell you who played a better tournament that day though. SoS and Flip's methods are both trying to determine who had the better day, either by quantifying the strength of the opponents they played in SoS or quantifying a quality of victory/loss in Flip's method. SoS has the downside of being outside of your control (which is why so many people dislike it), quality of victory/loss methods have the downside of defining something that matters beyond just winning or losing. Hence why there's always tradeoffs.