Your right, I was thinking modified Swiss, where you use a strength of victory mechanic to have the two strongest players face each other starting round two. Finding strength of victory in X-Wing is a little more problematic, but still easy enough. Simply prioritize the the following 1) point value of opponents ships destroyed. 2) point differential between opponents. 3) time remaining in round. This simple strength of victory mechanic finds, in every round, who has defeated their opponent in the fastest and most decisive manner. It seeds the players for the next round. Is it perfect... No. However it is easy, efficient and simple... And gets everyone out of the store at a decent time.

Yes, FFG should eliminate Swiss pairing from organized play for X-wing. (And yes, I realize that's not what you meant when you posted. )

The current system of Swiss + single-elimination does an objectively bad job of identifying the best player, if you look at the research on tournament systems. It doesn't even do as well as Swiss, and it takes longer.

What it does well is create a system with just enough uncertainty. If you just play Swiss rounds until you have at most one undefeated player, you typically end up with exactly one undefeated player; it's effectively a single-elimination tournament with non-random seeding, so lots of players will pack up and go home after a single loss. Playing some number of Swiss rounds and then cutting to single-elimination means you get some undefeated players and some players with 1 and even 2 losses. That means lots more people engaged in the outcome of at least the Swiss rounds, which means (from the point of store owners) more people looking at the shelves and buying drinks and snacks.

And Swiss + cut is also relatively short--certainly shorter than something like round-robin pools with a cut to Swiss--although not as short as straight-Swiss or single elimination. So with the current system, I think FFG's Organized Play struck a compromise that's acceptable to many TOs. It's also going to be familiar to veterans of other competitive games, which is meaningful to some degree.

But that doesn't mean Organized Play is right. Double elimination is fairer, does a better job of identifying the best player, and in comparison with the Swiss+cut system wouldn't typically take any longer. It also keeps players around for a fairly long time; everyone is there for at least 2 rounds, which is about an hour and a half in X-wing; 3/4 of your players are there for at least 3 rounds, which is about 4 hours. So I would be very, very happy to see X-wing drop Swiss pairings for their major events and to double-elimination tournaments.

Competitive merits aside, Double Elimination would certainly take longer then the current format at most participation levels.

Currently a 16 person event will take 5 rounds (3 Swiss, Top 4), Double Elim 7-8 rounds. At 32 currently you have 7 total rounds (4 Swiss, Top 8), Double Elim is 9-10. Though I admit maybe my math is off.

While seeding is quicker I do not see where running 2-3 extra rounds is going to help shorten the time it takes to run an SC.

If there are N players and R = ceiling(log(N)/log(2)), then DE takes R + ceiling(log®/log(2)).

So currently a 16-person event takes 3+2 rounds... or 4+2 if you use the chart OP originally sent out, which a lot of SCs did. Double-elimination takes 6 rounds. For a 32-player event FFG recommends 4+3 rounds, or 5+3 if you use the original note, and DE takes 8.

You can add another round on the DE totals if you run a second match between the top pair, but if you take the result of their first meeting as the result for the tournament, it takes one round longer than their current recommendation (the same length as their original recommendation this season), and the results are a lot cleaner and more desirable overall.

But you're right that it doesn't solve the time problem.

Thanks for the math check. It didn't seem correct as I was doing it.

So Double Elim will take between 1-2 rounds longer then the current standard.

I love the elimination rounds. It gives you something to fight for if you lose a match. You know you're probably not going to be number one seed but you still have a chance to win if you can just get into the top X players.

Removing it would result in mass drops.

Put on your "big boy pants" and play a few more games.

I personally am always amazed at home much time (and how often match pairs are wrong) most TOs take in between the rounds. I realize that as the event becomes larger, it becomes more difficult, but there's really no reason for there to be ~30min between rounds. I was TOing a ~20 player event (and playing in it as well), and there was less than 5 minutes between rounds. To the point where we tentatively had dinner scheduled between 3rd and 4th round, but we pushed it out to between 4th/5th round... Which we ended up sliding out to prior to the cut to allow other people to leave earlier. Most people were done within 6hrs (to play 5 games).

Something that a lot of folks are missing regarding the Swiss rounds: Your first match pairing is entirely random.

If you rely solely on Swiss, your first round will literally define whether you have a good day or bad day. Nothing worse than traveling 2+ hours to an event, lose your first match, and realize that you have NO chance for prizes because of no top 8 cut. At least with a top-X cut, you have a shot at coming back in round 2 (where you will be paired according to standing).

This is a really good point.

I lost my first match at a recent SC 200-0. Made top 4.

I personally am always amazed at home much time (and how often match pairs are wrong) most TOs take in between the rounds. I realize that as the event becomes larger, it becomes more difficult, but there's really no reason for there to be ~30min between rounds. I was TOing a ~20 player event (and playing in it as well), and there was less than 5 minutes between rounds. To the point where we tentatively had dinner scheduled between 3rd and 4th round, but we pushed it out to between 4th/5th round... Which we ended up sliding out to prior to the cut to allow other people to leave earlier. Most people were done within 6hrs (to play 5 games).

Also starting on time helps. Haven't been to a SC that started within 30 minutes of the scheduled start time.

I do know that sometimes running a tournament can be like herding cats.

MoV is a system that's biased against lower point ships. The elimination rounds mitigate this somewhat.

I'm thinking about proposing doing away with elimination rounds (which we currently do not run in friendly monthly tournaments) all-together. After running the correct number of Swiss rounds the top 8 should be tallied. If there are record ties (same win/loss) between players, then those that HAVE NOT played each other will be given a face-off round. Otherwise, whoever won the meeting between the two will have earned the higher place. If there are undefeated players in the Top 8, they will be assigned face-off matches based on points. (Example: 1st - 4th are undefeated. 1st and 2nd will battle for 1st place and 3rd and 4th will battle for 3rd.)

I can understand why people would want to eliminate the Elimination Rounds (Top 2/4/8), but you're suggestion is very problematic in many cases.

"If there are record ties (same win/loss) between players, then those that HAVE NOT played each other will be given a face-off round. Otherwise, whoever won the meeting between the two will have earned the higher place."

What do you do if there's a 3-way tie, where A beat B, B beat C and C beat A?

This is what MoV is for.

"If there are undefeated players in the Top 8, they will be assigned face-off matches based on points. (Example: 1st - 4th are undefeated. 1st and 2nd will battle for 1st place and 3rd and 4th will battle for 3rd.)"

So, after this pseudo-top-4, the player who was won the 3v4 match now has a 5-0 record, but takes 3rd place while the loser of the 1v2 match (who now has a 4-1 record) takes 2nd place? That seems odd... "I didn't lose a single game, but this other guy who lost a game ranked higher than me."

I really like the way FFG does it.

Attended a 26 player store championship this weekend. It started at noon and we had four 75 minute rounds completed by 5:30. Most of us went home at this point at the cut to top 8. That seems like a reasonable amount of time invested and I got to play 4 games of X-Wing (I agree that more rounds is too long for the Swiss when there is a top cut and I really don't like 60 minute rounds). I could see a cut to top 4 for smaller tourneys.

I'm not sure how quickly people expect them to go, but I think if they're run smoothly, that they're really not too long for most players and it should be expected that store championships should be an all day event, imo, but for most players they don't even really take that long. I may be spoiled from other systems where there's 3 games and the day is much longer even with that.

My only actual problem with the current FFG-suggested tournament structure is that the steps between different player counts are too big.

• Up to 8: 3 rounds (3 Swiss)
• 9 to 16: 5 rounds (3 Swiss + Top 4)
• 17 to 32: 7 rounds (4 Swiss + Top 8)
• 33+: 8 rounds (5 Swiss + Top 8)

Locally, our attendance for Store Championships and other tourneys has been between 14 and 18. This means we don't know until the morning of if we'll need 5 or 7 rounds, which makes a difference of over 2 hours. Makes it hard to plan out a schedule ahead of time...

Yes, we could require pre-registration but, seriously, with only ~16 players showing up I don't want to turn people away.

We've been going with 6 total rounds (4 Swiss + Top 4). This has been working great. Everyone gets to play at least 4 games, and you can lose a game and still be in the running for Top 4. It also fits nicely into an 8 hour day : 60min per round + 15min between rounds = 7h 15min (plus extra time for the final to play out). Even allows for a short lunch break of 20-30 min.

This allows us to announce the structure of the tournament before hand, and tell people when they can expect the 4 Swiss rounds to finish up, etc.

I like the Elimination Bracket for all reasons that Vorpal Sword stated above. Games are all about having FUN. More people being engaged in the tournament means more people having fun while the try to make the cut, even at 1 or 2 losses.

I mean, I know tournaments have a main goal of determining the "best player in attendance", but they also have the side goal of getting people out of the house and into a community wide event.

Personally, more games of X Wing = More fun, so bring on the 6 round regionals and cut to top whatever. I think it is incorrect to focus on how tired you'll be at the end of the day. I do understand that it makes driving to far away events more costly (hotel) or risky (late night driving), but that's the cost of having something you are passionate about.

At the end of the day, playing 12 hours of tiring games is MORE FUN THAN working for 12 hours.

Are people really complaining about having to play more xwing?

I love that people are actually complaining that they have to play "too much" x wing. I have been to 3 store championships and made top 8 in all 3. Yes they were long days but they were 3 VERY ENJOYABLE long days

Wouldnt the easiest solution be to have different flights as in the worlds tournament last year? Have groups of at most 8 people, for these you need three rounds of swiss. Then, make a cut to the top X, depending on how many groups you had.

Examples:

14 people:

Two groups of seven, three rounds of swiss.

Then a cut to the top 4, where the two top placed in every group play in the elimination. That gives 5 rounds.

24 people:

Three groups of eight, three rounds of swiss.

The a cut to the top eight, where the first and second of each group, as well as the two next best players from all groups participate. That gives 6 rounds.

Wouldnt the easiest solution be to have different flights as in the worlds tournament last year? Have groups of at most 8 people, for these you need three rounds of swiss. Then, make a cut to the top X, depending on how many groups you had.

Examples:

14 people:

Two groups of seven, three rounds of swiss.

Then a cut to the top 4, where the two top placed in every group play in the elimination. That gives 5 rounds.

24 people:

Three groups of eight, three rounds of swiss.

The a cut to the top eight, where the first and second of each group, as well as the two next best players from all groups participate. That gives 6 rounds.

How is splitting into smaller groups for Swiss rounds better than having everyone in one large group?

Seems like you'll get into situations where your groups are unbalanced, with many strong players in a single group, meaning some of these players won't make the cut purely because of group distribution.

Wouldnt the easiest solution be to have different flights as in the worlds tournament last year? Have groups of at most 8 people, for these you need three rounds of swiss. Then, make a cut to the top X, depending on how many groups you had.

Examples:

14 people:

Two groups of seven, three rounds of swiss.

Then a cut to the top 4, where the two top placed in every group play in the elimination. That gives 5 rounds.

24 people:

Three groups of eight, three rounds of swiss.

The a cut to the top eight, where the first and second of each group, as well as the two next best players from all groups participate. That gives 6 rounds.

How is splitting into smaller groups for Swiss rounds better than having everyone in one large group?

Seems like you'll get into situations where your groups are unbalanced, with many strong players in a single group, meaning some of these players won't make the cut purely because of group distribution.

I'm not saying it is better. But you need fewer rounds of swiss. Group inbalance is certainly an issue, as well as different numbers of players in one group, meaning some players can receive a bye, others not. But if you only look for a possibility to get a tournament for a given number of players done in fewer rounds, than splitting into more groups helps, while rising other issues. You just have to make a decision, what is more important. If it's "fairness" of the tournament, then maybe you should not create more groups.

I love that people are actually complaining that they have to play "too much" x wing. I have been to 3 store championships and made top 8 in all 3. Yes they were long days but they were 3 VERY ENJOYABLE long days

I'm not actually thinking of the players here, though I did see the Top 2 players last night elect to just forgo the match so that one player could get the plaque. I'm thinking of the TOs and store owners who FFG relies upon to run them. I haven't encountered a TO yet who really appreciated having to sit there for 7 rounds of 75-minute matches followed by an untimed final.

Untimed is especially bad because of how durable ships are now, with regenerating E-Wings and Falcons, or Autothrustering IG88s. For perspective's sake, my top 8 matchup yesterday went over 75 minutes before either of us lost a ship. It could easily have gone another two hours had I not gotten a bit more aggressive to ensure I didn't lose on a draw.

I think elimination is great for Regionals and above, which are more serious events for large groups of players. For Store Championships, which are probably the most casual level of the Organized Play, I feel that it's too much of a strain.

I love that people are actually complaining that they have to play "too much" x wing. I have been to 3 store championships and made top 8 in all 3. Yes they were long days but they were 3 VERY ENJOYABLE long days

I'm not actually thinking of the players here, though I did see the Top 2 players last night elect to just forgo the match so that one player could get the plaque. I'm thinking of the TOs and store owners who FFG relies upon to run them. I haven't encountered a TO yet who really appreciated having to sit there for 7 rounds of 75-minute matches followed by an untimed final.

Untimed is especially bad because of how durable ships are now, with regenerating E-Wings and Falcons, or Autothrustering IG88s. For perspective's sake, my top 8 matchup yesterday went over 75 minutes before either of us lost a ship. It could easily have gone another two hours had I not gotten a bit more aggressive to ensure I didn't lose on a draw.

I think elimination is great for Regionals and above, which are more serious events for large groups of players. For Store Championships, which are probably the most casual level of the Organized Play, I feel that it's too much of a strain.

How is splitting into smaller groups for Swiss rounds better than having everyone in one large group?

Seems like you'll get into situations where your groups are unbalanced, with many strong players in a single group, meaning some of these players won't make the cut purely because of group distribution.

The central limit theorem fixes this... for a sufficiently large pool of players. So it's definitely feasible for something like GenCon or Worlds, where it's plausible to have > 128 players, but not so much at the store-championship level.

Another tourney format that also relies on "pools" would be round-robin in pools of 4, followed by a cut of the top half into seeded Swiss rounds. For large groups it has the same number of rounds as FFG's current Swiss+cut structure does, but it's (again) much better at actually identifying the best players.

But it runs into the same problem: if I'm drawing a pool of just 4 players from a group of (say) 32, it's very unlikely that all eight pools will have similar averages. There will certainly be weaker pools and stronger pools, and it's plausible that a player eliminated in the round-robin stage may actually be among the strongest players. The risk isn't big--it's outweighed by a number of more practical factors--but it's definitely there, and it's why something like unseeded double-elimination is probably better on the whole.

Hi all,

The tournament I went to at the weekend had 60 minute games. The TO set the number of Swiss rounds to 5 which meant that everyone was getting at least 5 games, except those who hit a bye (as an odd number of players turned up) who got at least 4 games.

Lunch was an hour and the final eight pairings kicked off around 6 pm.

All in all, it was a very well run event, by a good TO at an excellent venue (shameless plug for Common Ground Games in Stirling).

I can understand why some folks think that running 75 minutes should be the norm, but if someone can build their squad around and learn to slow play the 60 minute round, what's to stop them padding it out another minute or two per turn to eat up the extra 15 minutes?

Yes, there's no doubt that the Swiss rounds can be used to determine the winner, but isn't there just a little bit of excitement generated by wondering if you've made the top eight?

Cheers

Baaa

After running TO for an 11-hour event, it's definitely a topic I'm musing.

There are certainly limitations in how you can deal with it - reducing time between matches is extremely problematic, and basically impossible anyway. Reducing from the 75-minute rounds to 60-minute is basically game-breaking, and I'd never attend a venue that did that. Cutting out a lunch break certainly increases your available time, but then your players are hungry and cranky, and are you really getting their VERY BEST? (Ostensibly the reason for the number of rounds?)

I mean...after even 4 rounds of swiss, our 33-player event had a clear leader - only two players had a 4-0 record; and one of those with a 'modified' win, resulting in both a difference in match score and considerable difference in MoV.

And that's pretty typical of events I've been at - given FFG's recommendation that a 33-player event have six rounds of Swiss before a 'cut to top 8'...I dunno, makes my head spin. I can't see what the point in that would be? I could certainly see the value in six rounds of Swiss on its own. That would definitely help refine the player rating, but adding three more rounds in a 'cut to top 8' afterwards? Why??

As in happens, in our event, the 1st place player beat the 8th place in elimination #1, but then lost to the winner of the #4 vs #5 matchup in elimination #2. The ultimate winner of the event was originally, from Swiss rounds, in 6th place - having a 3-1 score with average MoV for it. (NOTE: That's absolutely not a criticism of the players - all of those last three rounds were amazing...but they'd have been just as amazing with one round less and all of them settled via Swiss pairings vs single-elimination) So...did the elimination rounds really help identify the player who was having the best day/strongest list? I dunno.

So...yeah, OP, I guess I don't really see the value, myself, of the extra pile of single-elimination rounds on top of the Swiss rounds. For our event size, FFG suggests 6 rounds Swiss and 3 rounds elimination. I think we got, for a Swiss+elimination format, as good a result as anyone would have wanted with just 4 rounds Swiss + 3 rounds elimination. But I'm pretty sure that 6 rounds of Swiss, alone, would have split that difference even better.

FFG does not require 6 rounds of Swiss for any level of attendance for SCs. I just checked the updated SC info email they sent out and anything over 32 is 5 Swiss Top 8. At every attendance level above 8 FFG cut out 1 round of Swiss from this years requirements.

Got a source for that information?

This is what was on the flyer that came with the Store Championships kit we just ran this weekend:

Got a source for that information?

This is what was on the flyer that came with the Store Championships kit we just ran this weekend...

After a lot of stores complained, FFG followed that up with an e-mail that (IIRC) reduced the number of Swiss rounds by 1 for each bracket after the first.

EDIT: Not meaning to imply that an e-mail is a good way to handle something like this, or that you're at fault for not seeing the e-mail.

I'm thinking about proposing doing away with elimination rounds (which we currently do not run in friendly monthly tournaments) all-together. After running the correct number of Swiss rounds the top 8 should be tallied. If there are record ties (same win/loss) between players, then those that HAVE NOT played each other will be given a face-off round. Otherwise, whoever won the meeting between the two will have earned the higher place. If there are undefeated players in the Top 8, they will be assigned face-off matches based on points. (Example: 1st - 4th are undefeated. 1st and 2nd will battle for 1st place and 3rd and 4th will battle for 3rd.)

I can understand why people would want to eliminate the Elimination Rounds (Top 2/4/8), but you're suggestion is very problematic in many cases.

"If there are record ties (same win/loss) between players, then those that HAVE NOT played each other will be given a face-off round. Otherwise, whoever won the meeting between the two will have earned the higher place."

What do you do if there's a 3-way tie, where A beat B, B beat C and C beat A?

This is what MoV is for.

"If there are undefeated players in the Top 8, they will be assigned face-off matches based on points. (Example: 1st - 4th are undefeated. 1st and 2nd will battle for 1st place and 3rd and 4th will battle for 3rd.)"

So, after this pseudo-top-4, the player who was won the 3v4 match now has a 5-0 record, but takes 3rd place while the loser of the 1v2 match (who now has a 4-1 record) takes 2nd place? That seems odd... "I didn't lose a single game, but this other guy who lost a game ranked higher than me."

If you went into a single elimination ranked 4th on points, wining your game bumps you up to 3rd. Honestly, I'd just call it a day at the end of Swiss, but I'd love to give undefeateds (if there are any) a chance to break ties (over a single place) with a game.

My last Store Championship only had two undefeated squads. Had there been three I would have proposed he was third on points (because it doesn't seem fair to have the 4th placed squad, which has suffered a loss, get a chance at the undefeated's 3rd place) without an elimination match.

Again, I'm not saying do this for regional, national, or world championships. But Store Championships are still considered a Competitive event and not a Premiere event. Furthermore, the rules clearly state that the TO may cut to a championship bracket after Swiss rounds. Not that he must. Seeing how the rules do have guidelines for a championship bracket, I amend my original idea to an easier one.... CUT OUT THE CHAMPIONSHIP BRACKET ALL TOGETHER! 5 or 6 rounds of X-wing is enough...

After running TO for an 11-hour event, it's definitely a topic I'm musing.

There are certainly limitations in how you can deal with it - reducing time between matches is extremely problematic, and basically impossible anyway. Reducing from the 75-minute rounds to 60-minute is basically game-breaking, and I'd never attend a venue that did that. Cutting out a lunch break certainly increases your available time, but then your players are hungry and cranky, and are you really getting their VERY BEST? (Ostensibly the reason for the number of rounds?)

I mean...after even 4 rounds of swiss, our 33-player event had a clear leader - only two players had a 4-0 record; and one of those with a 'modified' win, resulting in both a difference in match score and considerable difference in MoV.

And that's pretty typical of events I've been at - given FFG's recommendation that a 33-player event have six rounds of Swiss before a 'cut to top 8'...I dunno, makes my head spin. I can't see what the point in that would be? I could certainly see the value in six rounds of Swiss on its own. That would definitely help refine the player rating, but adding three more rounds in a 'cut to top 8' afterwards? Why??

As in happens, in our event, the 1st place player beat the 8th place in elimination #1, but then lost to the winner of the #4 vs #5 matchup in elimination #2. The ultimate winner of the event was originally, from Swiss rounds, in 6th place - having a 3-1 score with average MoV for it. (NOTE: That's absolutely not a criticism of the players - all of those last three rounds were amazing...but they'd have been just as amazing with one round less and all of them settled via Swiss pairings vs single-elimination) So...did the elimination rounds really help identify the player who was having the best day/strongest list? I dunno.

So...yeah, OP, I guess I don't really see the value, myself, of the extra pile of single-elimination rounds on top of the Swiss rounds. For our event size, FFG suggests 6 rounds Swiss and 3 rounds elimination. I think we got, for a Swiss+elimination format, as good a result as anyone would have wanted with just 4 rounds Swiss + 3 rounds elimination. But I'm pretty sure that 6 rounds of Swiss, alone, would have split that difference even better.

FFG does not require 6 rounds of Swiss for any level of attendance for SCs. I just checked the updated SC info email they sent out and anything over 32 is 5 Swiss Top 8. At every attendance level above 8 FFG cut out 1 round of Swiss from this years requirements.

Got a source for that information?

This is what was on the flyer that came with the Store Championships kit we just ran this weekend:

However, someone could have showed me last year's flyer instead, so I could very well be wrong.

EDIT:

Vorpal Sword reminded me that it was an FFG email that actually reduced the number of rounds to a MAX of 5. Problem solved.

Got a source for that information?

This is what was on the flyer that came with the Store Championships kit we just ran this weekend...

After a lot of stores complained, FFG followed that up with an e-mail that (IIRC) reduced the number of Swiss rounds by 1 for each bracket after the first.

EDIT: Not meaning to imply that an e-mail is a good way to handle something like this, or that you're at fault for not seeing the e-mail.

This is correct. FFG suggested we cut a round out of swiss if we were holding a championship bracket. Honestly, next year I'm just going to suggest we run the full 4 or 5 and then call it a day on points. No one was having fun anymore past 9 or 10pm.