From a mathematical point of view, using strength of schedule (SoS) as a tiebreaker in a game with no initial ranking and a relatively small number of rounds produces largely random results--that is, it's only weakly correlated with the underlying skill of players.

Using the margin of victory (MoV) as a tiebreaker isn't random. Although it isn't perfect, it attempts to account for the degree of success in a match; as others have pointed out, it also doesn't penalize players whose opponents later drop from the tournament, which is critically important in large events.

My main thing with MoV, is that it further rewards players who get matched up with new/inexperienced players in the early rounds. Having a first round easy match win should be reward enough for this kind of matchup luck. Giving them a bunch of tiebreaker points for their "seal clubbing" as well just seems... wrong.

Actually it currently does not completely reward that. The MoV points reward that, but you will be matched up against an equally strong opponent, so you are going to be playing against a very strong opponent in the next round. To game the system a bit, if you sandbag your MoV score, you end up playing someone that just squeaked by a win, and should be an easier win in the second round. MoV *should* reward a 100-0 performance, but it's currently a mixed bag.

The "top" players are grinding against each other. The field is not being separated and ranked in the seeding swiss rounds in a traditional way. The way to fix this is to match high MoV to low MoV in a scoring bracket. Pair on match points first, then on MoV, kind of like a top N cut. That would allow the top players to not meet until later rounds (like in a top cut) and allow someone who just happened to lose an fluke early round to bounce back quickly. Essentially a much quicker sorting of players than what we currently have.

Sorry but could we speak using real words, for us "uneducated", please. I have been playing this game since it came out and frequenting this and other X-wing forums for over a year, but (even in context) I cannot puzzle out what "SoS" and "MoV" mean

That would be Strength of Schedule and Margin of Victory. The old and current ways of scoring x -wing tournaments.

Thank you very much!

Never played in a really large tournament (never really wanted to, to be honest) but it sounds to me like SoS really sucks. Not sure I'd want to have my fate determined by such a flawed system.

MoV works just fine.

In some heroclix tournaments, they give points based on the number of health. You could do this with Star Wars, add the number of shields and and number of hull, plus upgrades to either. Shields or hull repaired wouldn't matter only what was left at the end of the game. Then at the end earn that number of points per hull or shield damage for ships that survived.

So if 5 was the value, and you did two shields of damage, then you would earn 10 pts.

As a semi-tangent...

I wonder if some sort of official ELO ranking could work for X-Wing and if it would be of any benefit.

Every iteration of tie breakers and pairings FFG has gone through has made the game better. First it started with SoS, pairing equal record opponents from top to bottom. So the person with the best SoS would play the person with the worst SoS (within the same number of match points obviously). But there was no tie breaker beyond SoS. Then they added OSoS (opponent SoS) as the second tie breaker, which was better than before because all too often the SoS would be the same... For example, at the end of the 3rd round, everyone who has 2 wins has played against someone that is now 1-1, and someone who is either 1-1 or 0-2... So there are only 2 options for SoS. By adding another layer, it decreases the likelihood of a tie (still somewhat likely though).

The first major change though was when they went to MoV. They initially maintained the top MoV plays the lowest MoV. This continued to reward the "best" players by pairing them against the weakest, something that meant that if you got paired against a noob in the first round, the rest of your schedule was MUCH easier that someone who sneaked out a win against Paul Heaver in the first round (like that's ever happened!).

However, the most recent iteration of the rules has the #1 MoV playing the #2 MoV, and the last place playing the next to last place. So if you got an easy win (or are really talented and deserve the full 100-0 win), you will be placed against someone else that wiped the table. Likewise, if you barely sneaked out a win, you'll be playing against someone else who barely sneaked out a win. If your R1 win was sneaked out because it was against Paul, then you should be able to make up quite a bit of ground in MoV against the guy that barely won against a noob. Or if you got a 200pt MoV because you played a noob, you'll quickly lose that ground as you play against someone who deserves the 200pt MoV. The one bad thing about it, is that if you barely lost, you're going to be playing someone that barely lost, and one of you is going to go 0-2, even though that person is probably more skilled than the record indicates.

I don't think the actual system needs to be continued to be tweaked, as there's quite a bit of checks and balances in it now, and without knowing who's who at the beginning, it's probably the best way that it can be handled. That said, in today's meta, a damage based scoring system would be welcomed (imo). Especially against players who abuse the system and run away with their big ship before you can get the last damage in on it. Personally, I find those players the lowest scum of the universe, but officially, it's a sound practice to do in a timed tourney setting (note, running away to regroup is not the same as kyting for the entire tourney once you kill a TIE fighter, or have Han at 2hull or something and intentionally take him out of the fight - even removing an injured A wing while keeping the rest of your squad in to fight is fine imo, even if the only reason is so you end up on the right side of the modified win).

However, if the system is modified to be based on health remaining, do you keep the modified win? I can see arguments both for and against it. In a Fat Han vs. Fat Han death match, if one of them gets the other down to 1 hull, but really only loses to dice (because let's be honest, at that point it's a dice game), do you give the other one the full win? By today's standards, you do because 1) he fully wiped the board, and 2) he has more than the 12pt margin destroyed. Even back when it was a 33 point margin for Full Win vs. Modified, you would get the full win if you destroyed the entire opponent. So, by that logic, the winner should be granted a full win. But let's make a slight modification to the above scenario, you still have the same two fat hans dueling it out, but the support ships are still alive and untouched. One YT is destroyed as time expires, the other has 1 hull remaining. If we take a 64pt Han + 3 12pt Bandits as the mirror squads, that means that the winner destroyed 64, while the loser destroyed 59 points... This is now a modified win. So if that's a modified, why shouldn't the original scenario be a modified? Another slight alteration... instead of 0 and 1 hull remaining, it's 1 and 2 hull remaining. Now the victor get's a modified win even though he won by the same amount technically.

I personally think the modified should disappear. The original goal was that the match was really close and could have ended either way if it didn't have a time limit. Thus why it was reduced to 12 points, as 12 points is the cheapest ship, and indicates that one team has at least 1 more ship worth of firepower left. But if we're going to an overall health based system, then I think the modified win should be thrown out as each individual damage is accounted for, and a "true" winner is easier to determine. In the above scenarios, both times the player that did 1 additional damage would end with the win. Though this could also mean that each round, the winner could change, so it does make it a bit more dependent upon the game clock...

From a mathematical point of view, using strength of schedule (SoS) as a tiebreaker in a game with no initial ranking and a relatively small number of rounds produces largely random results--that is, it's only weakly correlated with the underlying skill of players.

Using the margin of victory (MoV) as a tiebreaker isn't random. Although it isn't perfect, it attempts to account for the degree of success in a match; as others have pointed out, it also doesn't penalize players whose opponents later drop from the tournament, which is critically important in large events.

MoV isn't random but it's almost as related to list structure as it is to player skill.

A semi-competent player with a 2-ship list will have a lot tougher opponents than the same player running a 4-ship list.

I can't think of any better system, but MoV is oddly pushing me to select less solid lists to have a better shot at making cuts.

I can't think of any better system, but MoV is oddly pushing me to select less solid lists to have a better shot at making cuts.

Please explain this to me. I might not be thinking this through completely, but it seems like you would want to maximize your chances of winning every match, as doing so will guarantee you make the cut - most of the time if you go 4-1 you'll still make the cut. It's only when you're 3-2 that MoV makes a difference as to whether or not you make the cut.

If you win every game 100-0 you will be trying to win every match against other players who went 100-0. They are harder to beat than the guys who won 100-26 or 100-50. Low MoV with all wins or nearly all wins is the easiest path to make the cut, on average.

If you win every game 100-0 you will be trying to win every match against other players who went 100-0. They are harder to beat than the guys who won 100-26 or 100-50. Low MoV with all wins or nearly all wins is the easiest path to make the cut, on average.

But then if you do lose a game when you've gone 100-0 every game, you're now at the top of the tie breakers and will make the cut. If you intentionally win 100-50, and then you unintentionally lose a game, you're now out of the cut.

Heck, if you want the "easiest" path to the cut, lose 0-100 the first round. Now you'll be playing worse opponents, be basically guaranteed a R2 win, and then hope that you can win that final match putting you at 4-1 instead of 3-2 because you have no chance at making it at 3-2.

And if it's an even bigger tourney (like the Gencon top 64), not all 4-1 people will make it, so you either have to be flawless (only 2 people are), or have a pretty darn good MoV, so being "middle of the road" might get you the easier match ups, but then you're not going to be at the top of the pack when the time comes for the cut.

I wonder if you got points for bringing ships down to half strength would it change the meta a bit. I'm tired of seeing the larger ships at the bigger tables. I feel that they are solid builds, but they are also optimized for tournament play. This usually filters down to regular store play when people read online about the "best" lists around. I'd love to see less than 25% of the top lists as large, turreted ships.

From a mathematical point of view, using strength of schedule (SoS) as a tiebreaker in a game with no initial ranking and a relatively small number of rounds produces largely random results--that is, it's only weakly correlated with the underlying skill of players.

Using the margin of victory (MoV) as a tiebreaker isn't random. Although it isn't perfect, it attempts to account for the degree of success in a match; as others have pointed out, it also doesn't penalize players whose opponents later drop from the tournament, which is critically important in large events.

MoV isn't random but it's almost as related to list structure as it is to player skill.

A semi-competent player with a 2-ship list will have a lot tougher opponents than the same player running a 4-ship list.

I can't think of any better system, but MoV is oddly pushing me to select less solid lists to have a better shot at making cuts.

How low can you drop your MoV in the first rounds and still make the cut afterwards? That's the question...

In my case, I played a lot of tournaments with no cuts (and even one where the number of rounds was too small), so keeping my MoV low is not something I would do.

I wonder if you got points for bringing ships down to half strength would it change the meta a bit. I'm tired of seeing the larger ships at the bigger tables. I feel that they are solid builds, but they are also optimized for tournament play. This usually filters down to regular store play when people read online about the "best" lists around. I'd love to see less than 25% of the top lists as large, turreted ships.

That's the entire point of the thread, it's a system that rewards builds with expensive ships, ones you don't lose in a win. Sure, you have a chance of a 100-50, but if you play against another 2-ship player for instance, once you kill one of his ships you have pretty good chances of winning it without losing one yourself. At least this is my gut feeling, not something I can prove.

I know, but I just wanted to throw my weight in the field of "anything to stop the big, turreted ships".

From a mathematical point of view, using strength of schedule (SoS) as a tiebreaker in a game with no initial ranking and a relatively small number of rounds produces largely random results--that is, it's only weakly correlated with the underlying skill of players.

Using the margin of victory (MoV) as a tiebreaker isn't random. Although it isn't perfect, it attempts to account for the degree of success in a match; as others have pointed out, it also doesn't penalize players whose opponents later drop from the tournament, which is critically important in large events.

MoV isn't random but it's almost as related to list structure as it is to player skill.

A semi-competent player with a 2-ship list will have a lot tougher opponents than the same player running a 4-ship list.

I can't think of any better system, but MoV is oddly pushing me to select less solid lists to have a better shot at making cuts.

I agree that two-ship lists have an inherent... I don't even want to call it an advantage, exactly, but they interact with MoV differently than a list that distributes its points across a larger number of ships.

On one hand, you have tougher opponents (or at least opponents whose matches have suggested a large gap in skill). On the other hand, your average MoV is typically better, which (as others have pointed out) has benefits at cut time. It would definitely be a better system if the playing field were more level than it is.

Part of the problem is that we're trying to graft tiebreakers on to Swiss play, which is hard to do: Swiss itself is an answer to a question about how you can efficiently estimate the skill levels of a large number of players, using an incomplete set of direct comparisons. Tiebreakers in Swiss play are therefore about comparing a group of players who have the same number of wins but have never met head-to-head.

As someone said upthread: it's the worst possible system, except for all the others.

How about this...

1. Create the best list you can play well (note: may not be the BEST list out there by other's standards but is best list for YOU).

2. Practice with this list against a variety of opponents playing a variety of lists.

3. In the tournament, play to the best of your ability.

4. A Win is a Win (get as many of those as possible); try not to loose (if you do, accept it with grace, learn from it and move on).

5. Advance as far as you can in the tournament, while having fun and leaving all opponents impressed not with your level of skill but with your strength of character.

I say all this not to be demeaning but to caution those who would spend a lot of time and brain cells trying to figure out how to design a list that is not overly effective and then trying not to win by too big a margin. If such intellectual endeavors are how you get your jollies, then carry on but I would think it would be harder to achieve success through this "cleaver and cunning plan" than to just play your honest best. Not sure how I would feel if I found out that my opponent was intentionally not playing his best.

I wonder if you got points for bringing ships down to half strength would it change the meta a bit. I'm tired of seeing the larger ships at the bigger tables. I feel that they are solid builds, but they are also optimized for tournament play. This usually filters down to regular store play when people read online about the "best" lists around. I'd love to see less than 25% of the top lists as large, turreted ships.

That's the entire point of the thread, it's a system that rewards builds with expensive ships, ones you don't lose in a win. Sure, you have a chance of a 100-50, but if you play against another 2-ship player for instance, once you kill one of his ships you have pretty good chances of winning it without losing one yourself. At least this is my gut feeling, not something I can prove.

Take this hypothetical situation where we give points and determine winners for destruction of HP and not complete ships.

*2 large ship list vs 4 small ship list. The large ship list was able to destroy one of the smaller ships for 25 points and do light damage on others while loosing more then half of each ships HP.

So if we reward the destruction of HP the small ship player has won the match, yet the ultimate goal of the game is still the destruction of the enemy fleet.

I can somewhat understand and support a system where the tiebreakers are calculated from the HP surviving and yet the Match Wins are still measured in their current state. This might provide situations where the looser will have a higher tiebreaker score and provide a better situation for him in the tournament standings. Yet it will put extra burden on the tournament organisation where you have to first calculate who won the match and later the HP destroyed.

I like MoV because it is more about what I did than what my collective opponents did.
(Because, you know, it is all about me.)

Also, MoV and\or SoS is not the way to fix two big base ship lists. (swarms are)

Well, if you're comparing MoV and SoS, then MoV is clearly superior. As Vorpal says, SoS produces generally meaningless results, and even if MoV skews, I'll take "connected to reality but skewed" over "crapshoot" any day.

So does MoV reward 2-ship builds? I don't honestly think it does, at least not inherently. Big points in a single ship means big swings - if it survives, you win big. If you lose it, you lose just as big. You can get Captain Kagi into the mid-50s, cost wise, and fill the rest with a Phantom. Is that list going to have an advantage for MoV?

Where things get ugly is that the current fat ships tend to skew defensively. Han, Dash, Kenkirk, even Chiraneau are all built with defense in mind. 3PO. R2-D2. Engine Upgrade. Ysanne Isard. They excel at surviving to the late game, and they excel at surviving once they get there. So more often than not, that big ship ends up being the survivor, which DOES skew it.

MoV is pretty much the most realistic good option for tiebreakers. It captures the quality of the game played, and (at least IMHO) will even out the early randomness so the "clubbing baby seals" problem really isn't as bad as some people think. The problem is not with the scoring system, it's with the game itself.

I wonder if you got points for bringing ships down to half strength would it change the meta a bit. I'm tired of seeing the larger ships at the bigger tables. I feel that they are solid builds, but they are also optimized for tournament play. This usually filters down to regular store play when people read online about the "best" lists around. I'd love to see less than 25% of the top lists as large, turreted ships.

That's the entire point of the thread, it's a system that rewards builds with expensive ships, ones you don't lose in a win. Sure, you have a chance of a 100-50, but if you play against another 2-ship player for instance, once you kill one of his ships you have pretty good chances of winning it without losing one yourself. At least this is my gut feeling, not something I can prove.

Take this hypothetical situation where we give points and determine winners for destruction of HP and not complete ships.

*2 large ship list vs 4 small ship list. The large ship list was able to destroy one of the smaller ships for 25 points and do light damage on others while loosing more then half of each ships HP.

So if we reward the destruction of HP the small ship player has won the match, yet the ultimate goal of the game is still the destruction of the enemy fleet.

I can somewhat understand and support a system where the tiebreakers are calculated from the HP surviving and yet the Match Wins are still measured in their current state. This might provide situations where the looser will have a higher tiebreaker score and provide a better situation for him in the tournament standings. Yet it will put extra burden on the tournament organisation where you have to first calculate who won the match and later the HP destroyed.

I've given this some thought before, and the answer is actually pretty simple. Not only do you award victory by destroyed ships, but you put both the ship's cost and remaining HP in MoV. A full-HP Academy is worth 24, 2-HP academy is worth 20, 1-HP academy is worth 16, dead academy is 0 (or the other way, if you want to calculate from the opponent's side). This way, you still have incentive to finish a ship off, but every HP counts. I've actually thought about this from the perspective of AI design for X-wing, and this would be a valuable reward metric to aim for.

That calculation is easy to do for a academy, but when you get into a 53 point 13 hp falcon you will get fractioned points which might cause problems from tournaments with 10+ people. Also damage recovery mechanics like r2d2 will skew results.

You would also need to reevulate a ship if it has hull/shield upgrade. Which might give birth to situations like a sontir fel giving 12 points per hp without a hull upgrade and 9 points with a hull upgrade.

I can't think of any better system, but MoV is oddly pushing me to select less solid lists to have a better shot at making cuts.

Please explain this to me. I might not be thinking this through completely, but it seems like you would want to maximize your chances of winning every match, as doing so will guarantee you make the cut - most of the time if you go 4-1 you'll still make the cut. It's only when you're 3-2 that MoV makes a difference as to whether or not you make the cut.

Because a list with 2 hard to kill ships will most often win because it is harder to get a ship down (so scoring points) in a time frame of 60 minutes.

I take 1 of your small ship down, then the rest of the game I just need to run away and avoid you until time is up. If you can't take down one of the big ship, I win, you lose even if the big ship was about to blow up.

So we need a MoV system that give points based on damage done to ships. Simply the ship value divided by its hitpoints multiplied by damage done would fix this very odd problem.

That calculation is easy to do for a academy, but when you get into a 53 point 13 hp falcon you will get fractioned points which might cause problems from tournaments with 10+ people. Also damage recovery mechanics like r2d2 will skew results.

You would also need to reevulate a ship if it has hull/shield upgrade. Which might give birth to situations like a sontir fel giving 12 points per hp without a hull upgrade and 9 points with a hull upgrade.

Absolutly not.

Round down fractions. So a 53 points Falcon gives 4 points per damage done (53/13 = 4.08, round down is 4). If you kill it, it gives the full 53 points.

If it has hull/shield upgrade, just divide its points value by its total.

Only final tage of the ship is considered. So if it can recover shield, you do not calculate all the damage you did during the game. Just the final damage done (hull/shield lost when game end).

Mov problem swings the other way as well.

I've had an opponent slow play when he knew he was losing therefore decreasing the mov victory/loss.

He's surprisingly quick when he's winning though :-/

Very annoying.

Personally think most problems people are complaining about are fixed with longer rounds.

Games should be finished within an hour but as long as people will abuse the clock with hard to kill lists or slow play it will always be a problem. I personally think a game isn't finished until the last ship/side standing.