Under straight SoS, all 3 of the players with 10 points have the same SoS of 25, you literally have a 3 way tie in your "example".
So even with SoS as the first tiebreaker, the event places out the exact same way as it would with MoV as the first tiebreaker.
Not to mention this is allot easier to calculate, which means its easier/possible to catch mistakes...
And this is why I think it was changed. People couldn't grasp how strength of schedule works and this is a lot easier.
Oh that is a load of bull. People can't grasp SoS, which most gaming systems use as a tiebreaker of some sort? Including even some professional sports. And every other FFG game, some with more complicate scoring systems then X-wing. You are grasping at straws with that one.
I actually dont think he is grasping at straws. Heres a quote to why it was changed by FFG themselves *cough*
If TOs couldn't add up a few opponents double digit scores for SoS, they will have a harder time adding triple digit MoV scores. MoV scores that require addition bookkeeping from players or TOs in order to make sure they get recorded correctly.
See the OPs example for how easily someone just messes up the math once you have more to keep track of.
Additionally that qoute may have more to do with SoS not actually breaking ties as shown in the OP example as well.
Ive wrapped my head around SoS a few times and once you get into OSOS my brain starts traveling in circles. Can I do the math? yes. Can I add MoV faster with less mistakes? oh yes. Can a player see my SoS mistake if I show everyone? likely not.
Ive always felt bad losing by only 2 points when my opponent is clearly going to to win when time is called. Infact Ive almost conceded in the last five seconds just to give him a full win (since a full loss does nothing to me). This stops that and gives everyone a fighting chance till the end
Edited by TorresseOpponents SoS is annoying, mostly since you have to get some many players scores . But the initial SoS score is both simple and absurdly transparent. Even Opponents SoS is transparent. Margin of Victory requires more book keeping as you now need to get and confirm additional info for from each game beyond just who won (full or partial).
Speaking of Opponents SoS. In his napkin example all 3 players tied for second actually share the same SoS and OSoS. So he managed to highlight why the previous tiebreakers did not work, in actuality.
Edited by ScottieATFContrived? Come up with your own example of randomness and run the results. I am not screaming/trolling, I am giving example after example of why SOS should be the first tie breaker, but all I get is flamed at.
No, you haven't actually given any examples of why SOS should be the first tie breaker. What you have done is present a (contrived, still) example which illustrates the scenario you dislike.
Your example is pretty much irrelevant, because nobody is contesting that it can happen. It CAN happen. We grant that.
Where people part ways is your leap from there to the conclusion that SOS is better. Is your example worse than someone missing a cut because an early opponent dropped? Is it any worse than an early loss trapping you in the bottom half with players who won't do much to help your SOS recover? Is it worse than the effect a random first round has on your overall score? If we're equal players but I randomly draw a good player and beat him, and you randomly draw a bad player and beat him, and I win the tournament entirely because of that random draw (either of us could have beaten either opponent), is THAT better?
Really, people have pointed out a multitude of problems that SoS creates. You keep going "But LOOOOOK!" Yes, we get it that you don't like A. Many of us happen to think A is acceptable if it means getting rid of B, D, C, E, F, 17, Blue, West, and G.
If you think none of those things matter as much as A, that's fine - but you should be comparing that to the other scenarios, not using contrived examples and "you're all just too dumb to handle SoS".
You've got to be kidding me with this napkin math of yours. How do you expect anyone to follow that?
Let's forget for a moment that you have 4 separate 100-0 victories over the event, which in and of itself invalidates your example as indicative of an actual event.
How the hell did player D score a margin of victory of 260 points? 100+60 does not equal 260. Please go check player A's score since you didn't add that up correctly either.
That's suppose to prove that MOV sucks? Only thing it proves is that you didn't bother to check your math and went off half cocked.
Sorry for the one error. I should have done it in a spreadsheet, but pencil and paper was handier. In the end there are still two different results and D still is ahead of G using MOV. Even though G played better players, which is illustrated in the last image. If you like, I will use closer scores, but the result will be the same: A weaker schedule will get you more MOV points. Therefore you will want to get paired down and face weaker opponents. Using MOV will punish players who play tougher/better players. If someone can show me how this is not the case, I'd love to hear it.
I will have real world numbers once we do our tournament this Saturday.
Not to mention this is allot easier to calculate, which
I actually dont think he is grasping at straws. Heres a quote to why it was changed by FFG themselves *cough*
"...we’ve retired the strength of schedule tiebreaker in favor of a new system, margin of victory. This will make it easier for tournament organizers to resolve tiebreakers..."
Not to mention this is allot easier to calculate, which means its easier/possible to catch mistakes...
And this is why I think it was changed. People couldn't grasp how strength of schedule works and this is a lot easier.
Oh that is a load of bull. People can't grasp SoS, which most gaming systems use as a tiebreaker of some sort? Including even some professional sports. And every other FFG game, some with more complicate scoring systems then X-wing. You are grasping at straws with that one.
I actually dont think he is grasping at straws. Heres a quote to why it was changed by FFG themselves *cough*
"...we’ve retired the strength of schedule tiebreaker in favor of a new system, margin of victory. This will make it easier for tournament organizers to resolve tiebreakers..."
Thank you.
My guess is those who protest against this likes to play hit and run a lot - kill opponents ship and spend rest of time running around, and this strategy is dead with new system
Under straight SoS, all 3 of the players with 10 points have the same SoS of 25, you literally have a 3 way tie in your "example".
So even with SoS as the first tiebreaker, the event places out the exact same way as it would with MoV as the first tiebreaker.
My guess is those who protest against this likes to play hit and run a lot - kill opponents ship and spend rest of time running around, and this strategy is dead with new system
If anything you will see more of it. If a player knows they just need (pick a #) points to make the prize pool, then stalling will become more of a thing, especially in the later/last round(s). Especially if they are going up against the best player. If I went against a better player or a better list, it would behoove me to stall. 88 points is better than 30 points. Power players will abuse this to no end.
I wouldn't like to live in parallel universe you are posting from, its so bleak 
And stallers are going to end up last, as at least few of those who risked confrontation will get better point comparison, so fill your glass 
How would stalling in the last round, when I know I just need Xpts, going to make me last.
I like turtles.
TL;DR: SOS is a terrible tiebreaker system in general, unless you have pre-existing rankings for everyone involved in the tournament. International chess tournaments can do that, but X-wing can't. X-wing should never have adopted SOS in the first place, and I am very, very glad to see it gone.
***
There's really no comparison. The new margin of victory rules mean your tiebreaker score (and therefore tournament standing) depend only on stuff that happened in your actual games, as opposed to what happens to your opponents when they play other people.
.........
And there's actually still more. Suppose you and I both have 3-2 records, and both played someone who went 0-2 in the first two rounds. But my opponent was from just across town and had better things to do with his afternoon, while your opponent is here from out of state and is staying until the bitter end. My guy drops, adding nothing to my SOS, while your guy picks up a win in the second-to-last round and adds another 5 to your SOS. I fall behind you in tiebreakers, for reasons that have little to do with anything that happened at my table, or your table, or anyone's table.
I've cut out a bit of your quote, but there is a/the flaw that you and others seem to (totally) ignore (IMO):
´
You say that "...(the new system) depend only on stuff that happened in your actual games" but in your example I would say the exact opposite happens;
If your opponent bails then you receive a very nice/strong Margin of Victory for your "effort", but the guy at the other table who is actually trying his best to apply his skills and dice luck to beat his opponent might just end up with a horribly low/narrow MOV even though he flew well; he was simply paired against another skilled player (or some hot dice).
Please enlighten me how this in any way is "more fair"??? I am not claiming to understand all the finesses of either system, but anyone who claims that the MOV system is completely flawless are wrong IMO
Let the hate rain begin
TL;DR: SOS is a terrible tiebreaker system in general, unless you have pre-existing rankings for everyone involved in the tournament. International chess tournaments can do that, but X-wing can't. X-wing should never have adopted SOS in the first place, and I am very, very glad to see it gone.
***
There's really no comparison. The new margin of victory rules mean your tiebreaker score (and therefore tournament standing) depend only on stuff that happened in your actual games, as opposed to what happens to your opponents when they play other people.
.........
And there's actually still more. Suppose you and I both have 3-2 records, and both played someone who went 0-2 in the first two rounds. But my opponent was from just across town and had better things to do with his afternoon, while your opponent is here from out of state and is staying until the bitter end. My guy drops, adding nothing to my SOS, while your guy picks up a win in the second-to-last round and adds another 5 to your SOS. I fall behind you in tiebreakers, for reasons that have little to do with anything that happened at my table, or your table, or anyone's table.
I've cut out a bit of your quote, but there is a/the flaw that you and others seem to (totally) ignore (IMO):
´
You say that "...(the new system) depend only on stuff that happened in your actual games" but in your example I would say the exact opposite happens;
If your opponent bails then you receive a very nice/strong Margin of Victory for your "effort", but the guy at the other table who is actually trying his best to apply his skills and dice luck to beat his opponent might just end up with a horribly low/narrow MOV even though he flew well; he was simply paired against another skilled player (or some hot dice).
Please enlighten me how this in any way is "more fair"??? I am not claiming to understand all the finesses of either system, but anyone who claims that the MOV system is completely flawless are wrong IMO
Let the hate rain begin
In Vorpal's example, a player leaves between rounds for some reason (it happens). Under SoS, there's a good chance that he takes the players he's already gone against with him, as their final SoS will be affected by the fact he's not playing another game.
Under MoV, the player who left has no further impact on his previous opponents. Their games with him count towards their MoV but that's it; only their overall tournament performance decides whether or not they make it into the finals.
Yes, that the only reason why SoS is bad. But FFG should have addressed this particular case instead of switching their tie breakers. SoS is still the second tie breaker after all.
A good SOS system should not penalize other players for a player who drops. The dropped player's SOS rating would just stay the same, because the dropped player is not playing anyone else anymore. Therefore their SOS rating doesn't go down nor up.
What software were all these places using that it penalized players who stopped playing?
The SoS is by definition the sum of a player's scores. If a player drops, he cannot win more games and all his opponents will have a weaker SoS than if he had continued to play.
That's why SoS is so unpopular: your ranking depends on the score of others…
WRONG! Let's break this down.
The SoS is by definition the sum of a player's scores. If a player drops, he cannot win more games and all his opponents will have a weaker SoS than if he had continued to play.
That's why SoS is so unpopular: your ranking depends on the score of others…
"SOS is the sum of a player's scores." The player's scores end when they drop.
"If a player drops, he cannot win more games..." He also can't lose anymore as well.
" and all his opponents will have a weaker SoS than if he had continued to play." You assume the dropped player was going to win. Dropping DOES NOT mean the dropped player will get losses for the rest of the tourney.
"That's why SoS is so unpopular:" I too would hate SOS if this is the way it was calculated, good thing it is not.
So how would you calculate an SoS where one of the players drop?
If an opponent drops, his score ends… how is it different than all his remaining matches are losses?
If a player drops his SOS will not get weaker, but it also won't get any stronger, and that is main problem, as his opponents SOS can't get any better in later rounds. In my 6 years of ranked MTG I had lots of games waiting last round to see who won, as his winning or loosing directly interfered with you getting into top 8, even if players where far behind in points. That feeling of your result influeced by other people and being not in your control is bad. With new system its all in your hands, if you can win 100 -0 force is with you you, and no random player winning or loosing 5 rounds after can't take it from you.
Redblock, that is exactly this feeling I was talking about. However it won't disappear: player's will still have to wait for others to finish their matches to see how the tie breaks. So their ranking will depend on how well others will have played as well.
The only way to be sure your future is in your hands is to win 100-0. Hence, you'd better hope you encounter weak players. And the schedule is a factor again
TL;DR: SOS is a terrible tiebreaker system in general, unless you have pre-existing rankings for everyone involved in the tournament. International chess tournaments can do that, but X-wing can't. X-wing should never have adopted SOS in the first place, and I am very, very glad to see it gone.
***
There's really no comparison. The new margin of victory rules mean your tiebreaker score (and therefore tournament standing) depend only on stuff that happened in your actual games, as opposed to what happens to your opponents when they play other people.
.........
And there's actually still more. Suppose you and I both have 3-2 records, and both played someone who went 0-2 in the first two rounds. But my opponent was from just across town and had better things to do with his afternoon, while your opponent is here from out of state and is staying until the bitter end. My guy drops, adding nothing to my SOS, while your guy picks up a win in the second-to-last round and adds another 5 to your SOS. I fall behind you in tiebreakers, for reasons that have little to do with anything that happened at my table, or your table, or anyone's table.
I've cut out a bit of your quote, but there is a/the flaw that you and others seem to (totally) ignore (IMO):
´
You say that "...(the new system) depend only on stuff that happened in your actual games" but in your example I would say the exact opposite happens;
If your opponent bails then you receive a very nice/strong Margin of Victory for your "effort", but the guy at the other table who is actually trying his best to apply his skills and dice luck to beat his opponent might just end up with a horribly low/narrow MOV even though he flew well; he was simply paired against another skilled player (or some hot dice).
Please enlighten me how this in any way is "more fair"??? I am not claiming to understand all the finesses of either system, but anyone who claims that the MOV system is completely flawless are wrong IMO
Let the hate rain begin
In Vorpal's example, a player leaves between rounds for some reason (it happens). Under SoS, there's a good chance that he takes the players he's already gone against with him, as their final SoS will be affected by the fact he's not playing another game.
Under MoV, the player who left has no further impact on his previous opponents. Their games with him count towards their MoV but that's it; only their overall tournament performance decides whether or not they make it into the finals.
He most certainly has an impact on the player (Player A) that he forfeits to. He grants Player A a VERY good MOV and thus indirectly has an influence on anyone who have the same points as Player A in a tie.breaker situation. Agree?
Anyway, I am more than willing to see what will happen in the "new MOV world"
So how would you calculate an SoS where one of the players drop?
If an opponent drops, his score ends… how is it different than all his remaining matches are losses?
OK Frydaddy, I see now I was not considering SoS as a percentage.
Here is the main issue I have with MoV as the first tie breaker :
- player A won all his matches, except against player B. With SoS as the 1st tie breaker, he ends up 2nd of the tournament
- with MoV, player A is now 4th. He had a tougher schedule, hence as weaker MoV. Yet he lost only his last match. Player N who was 4th is now 3rd. He lost his first match and hence had an easier schedule, hence an higher MoV.
