I don´t want to grouch or something like that, it´s just because of curiousity:

Last tournament, a friend of mine and me had following point distribution:

Friend :

1.Loss: 0 pts

2. Loss: 0 pts

3. Win: 5 pts

4. Win: 5 pts

Me :

1. Loss: 0 pts

2. Win: 5 pts

3. Draw: 1 pt (Z95 + TIE lost, 88 vs 88 pts)

4. Modified win: 3 pts

10 pts vs 9 pts

Is there any strategic explantaion or thinking behind that point system? That I had less points even he had one more loss than me? Is there any argument behind that a "Modifed win + a draw" are in sum less worth that a "win + a loss"? Overall, I had one less defeat than him. Should one draw or modifed win weight more? There should definetively be a better point system than that, look at sports, you never can have a better ranking with one more loss

To punish the kinds of lists that give you modified wins and draws?

I've often pointed out similar issues. I'm personally a fan of the 4 point game. Each game is worth 4 points, and can be distributed as follows: win = 4pts, mod win = 3pts, draw = 2pts, mod loss = 1pt, loss = 0pts. With this distribution, I would recommend switching back to 33pt points being the difference of a mod to a full win.

The biggest problem I have with the current system is that there's no incentive to get a mod loss.. at that point it's go big and take aggressive risks, or lose. One could argue mov, but giving a point trumps all mov tiebreakers.

I've often pointed out similar issues. I'm personally a fan of the 4 point game. Each game is worth 4 points, and can be distributed as follows: win = 4pts, mod win = 3pts, draw = 2pts, mod loss = 1pt, loss = 0pts. With this distribution, I would recommend switching back to 33pt points being the difference of a mod to a full win.

The biggest problem I have with the current system is that there's no incentive to get a mod loss.. at that point it's go big and take aggressive risks, or lose. One could argue mov, but giving a point trumps all mov tiebreakers.

I like that, especially that you get points for mod. loss too.

I don´t want to grouch or something like that, it´s just because of curiousity:

Last tournament, a friend of mine and me had following point distribution:

Friend :

1.Loss: 0 pts

2. Loss: 0 pts

3. Win: 5 pts

4. Win: 5 pts

Me :

1. Loss: 0 pts

2. Win: 5 pts

3. Draw: 1 pt (Z95 + TIE lost, 88 vs 88 pts)

4. Modified win: 3 pts

10 pts vs 9 pts

Is there any strategic explantaion or thinking behind that point system? That I had less points even he had one more loss than me? Is there any argument behind that a "Modifed win + a draw" are in sum less worth that a "win + a loss"? Overall, I had one less defeat than him. Should one draw or modifed win weight more? There should definetively be a better point system than that, look at sports, you never can have a better ranking with one more loss

It actually makes plenty of sense to me. A win is 5, a modified win is barely a win, so it's 3, a draw is a loss (by the definition of both people failed to destroy enough to win), but not a complete loss so it's 1, and a loss is 0. A barely win and a not quite a loss shouldn't really equal a full win, since they're both not as good. It's a bit like a modified win is half a win and a draw is half of that, so two draws and a modified win are 1 full win.

I've often pointed out similar issues. I'm personally a fan of the 4 point game. Each game is worth 4 points, and can be distributed as follows: win = 4pts, mod win = 3pts, draw = 2pts, mod loss = 1pt, loss = 0pts. With this distribution, I would recommend switching back to 33pt points being the difference of a mod to a full win.

The biggest problem I have with the current system is that there's no incentive to get a mod loss.. at that point it's go big and take aggressive risks, or lose. One could argue mov, but giving a point trumps all mov tiebreakers.

I like that, especially that you get points for mod. loss too.

2-2 with wins and mod losses = 4+4+1+1 = 10 points

2-1-1 with win, mod win, loss and draw = 4+3+0+2 = 9 points

I could see going with a half point system to try to make this work:

5 = Win

4 = Mod Win

2.5 = Draw

0.5 -Mod loss

0 = loss

2-2 would be 5+5+ 0.5+0.5 = 11

2-1-1 would be 5+4+2.5 + 0 = 11.5

Players are close, but the guy with only 1 loss is ahead of the guy with 2 losses.

I'd go

Win: 5

Mod Win: 3

Draw: 2

Mod Loss: 1

Gives a little more incentive to go for the full win to discourage negative play.

Q: Why "Mod. win + draw" < "win + loss"?

A (proposed): Because the metric of " not being as much a loser as the next loser " isn't the best metric for finding out who is better at playing.

In other words, it is tied to (i.e. weighted in favor of) how much you win, rather than how much you "don't lose" .

, look at sports, you never can have a better ranking with one more loss

Most soccer uses a 3-1-0 system to keep games from dragging out into boring defensive draws (which happened a lot during the 2-1-0 system).

Under such a system, it's easy to have a team with more losses finish ahead of a team with fewer, thanks to getting more wins (and far fewer draws). This year in the English Premier League, Crystal Palace finished a point ahead of Everton, even though they had 16 losses to Everton's 15, on the strength of 1 extra victory. Newcastle United cleared Sunderland by a point despite having 5 more losses (because they also had 3 more wins).

Hockey gives out points for modified losses (Overtime/Shootout losses are worth 1 point, while still being a full 2-points for the winning team). This past year in the NHL, Washington (with 37 total losses) finished ahead of the NY Islanders (with 35 total losses), thanks to partial points from overtime/shootout losses.

, look at sports, you never can have a better ranking with one more loss

Most soccer uses a 3-1-0 system to keep games from dragging out into boring defensive draws (which happened a lot during the 2-1-0 system).

Under such a system, it's easy to have a team with more losses finish ahead of a team with fewer, thanks to getting more wins (and far fewer draws).

Yes, but a team with same win count plus a draw should not be ranked under the other one.

In your system there are no modified wins, A team with one win and two loss is better than a team with 2 draws and 1 loss. That is ok. But if the number of wins is equal, then next should count the draws

Here, someone with 2 wins is better ranked with someone who has 3 (modified) wins. In my opinion this should not happen

Weighting ranking is ok for me (win > mod. win > draw (> maybe mod. loss?). But the point distribution is strange for me.

The problem with your logic is that you count the modified win as a win, when it is more like a draw. In the current system in order to get an actual draw, points must be dead even, and full win is 12 points more. If you end the game with less than a tie fighter more than your opponent... as far as I am concerned it is a draw and you were lucky to get 3 points.

So your buddies 2 wins and 2 losses are better than your 1 win 1 loss and 2 draws.

Think of a win as getting a hot girl's number. a modified win is getting a hot girl to add you facebook. a loss is getting rejected.

your friend got 2 hot girl's phone numbers. you got 1 and added a friend.

Think of a win as getting a hot girl's number. a modified win is getting a hot girl to add you facebook. a loss is getting rejected.

your friend got 2 hot girl's phone numbers. you got 1 and added a friend.

And a draw is getting followed on twitter

The problem with your logic is that you count the modified win as a win, when it is more like a draw. In the current system in order to get an actual draw, points must be dead even, and full win is 12 points more. If you end the game with less than a tie fighter more than your opponent... as far as I am concerned it is a draw and you were lucky to get 3 points.

So your buddies 2 wins and 2 losses are better than your 1 win 1 loss and 2 draws.

Um, but you are completely wrong, because in elimination rounds a modified win is enough to advance, so it is clearly a win.

I am all for scrapping modified wins and treating victories of less than 12 points as a draw. As pointing out in the original post Modified Wins essentially help no one. I could understand it if a modified loss also gained points, but they currently don't.

Win 5 pts

Draw (<12 MoV) 2 pts

Loss 0 pts

(this has issues with logic in elimination rounds as pointed out above, but no worse than we currently have, maybe we should go to "golden ship" in elimination rounds, next kills wins).

or

Win 5 pts

Modified Win 3 pts

Modified Loss 1 pt

Draw 2 pts

Loss 0 pts

Would be my preferred alternatives.

I guess Draws are so rare because I thought they were 2 points each which means that together both players still don't net the same as a full win. Even modified wins have become very uncommon these days when just 12 more points is required for victory.

I like the 5/0, 3/1, 2/2 scoring concept as it takes away some of the pressure of MoV but breaking more ties with actual game points. Of course how a game earns those breaks can be argued to no end:

Complete game: I'll say it is complete destruction of one side or a victory margin of 25 points or more. The points can be argued but it should be more than a single, simple ship like a TIE or Z-95.

Close game: This is a game that doesn't meet the full game victory margin but it doing to have a leader. Here the difference should be between the full point margin and the effective draw margin will be.

Draw: This is simply the game where neither side wins and by default neither side loses. The only catch here is that instead of requiring a dead even game a Draw should be called if the scores are within a certain number of points. This should be fewer points than a full ship so definitely less than 12 which makes me think a difference of 6 points or fewer should be considered a Draw. Now MoV would still be tracked so if you killed 24 points to their 21 points the game is still a draw but you earn 103 pts of MoV while they only earn 97 points; the one who may be winning still has an edge but it now razor thin.

I DO like the idea of a Draw being possible within a certain point margins, rather than requiring dead even points. Then I also think the pts for a Draw should be increased to 2.

Just think, this will remove the meta gaming of "my squad is 98 pts with my Han being 1 pt lower than the average Fat Han, so if we are down to Turret vs Turret, I win by 1 pt". Instead, players within +/- 3 pts or something get a draw, and 2 pts each. Modified wins COULD stay at the <12pt margin, I think this is the right choice.

A problem with the "draw" is that so many people, at least is sure seems the way in America, can not wrap their head around the idea that two sides are effectively equal today and that an obvious winner will not emerge from a single engagement. Sometimes an elimination needs to take place NOW but that is only when you are in elimination play.

The modified win was for games that are so close they are less than a full ship (12 points) away. Right now the lowest ship cost is an academy pilot (along with bandit squadron pilot and bynree pirate) which is at 12 points. If say you won by 2 or even 7 points it can be argued that you didn't win by much thus the modified win. However If you won by say 16 points then theoretically you have destroyed 1 more ship worth of "materials" thus winning by the 1 ship metric.

As mentioned before a loss is still a loss no matter if your opponent won by 1 or by 100. There is no such thing as a close loss or modified loss. The only thing a modified loss does is deny your opponent 2 match points. (It could almost be argued to be sportsmanlike just to concede just so that you don't take match points off the table)

A draw rarely happens because very few list have ships that are exact points. Unless against a full mirror list draws will incomplete games will often not match up on the point loss (unless no one lost a ship). However if no side is clearly the winner than no side is the loser thus the match points should be evenly split.

The system is set up to reward players that win. So thus why a full 12 point lead gives you 5 and a narrow lead only gives you 2/5ths of a full win.

The draw is well to promote competitiveness. Since no one wins a draw it can't be worth as much as a win. But since no one loses a draw it can't be 0. So only 1 point. Unlike modified draws when not conceding to prevent the loss of a couple of match points conceding a draw will lose you a match point but keeping that point will take 3 match points out. I guess there is no love for ties.

I guess this is the only way to keep the match scoring in order since a Tie (no pun intended) does give out 2 match points (1 to each player) while a modified win gives out 3. It could be argued that your friend had 2 wins and you only had 1 win and 2 draws since a modified win is sort of like a draw. Now if you had another modified win then you would have match (and beat) your friend. So with the scoring system Wins are the most important. True that you didn't lose as much but you definitely didn't win as much as your friend. You know what they say " Go Big, or Go Home! "

...

As mentioned before a loss is still a loss no matter if your opponent won by 1 or by 100. There is no such thing as a close loss or modified loss. The only thing a modified loss does is deny your opponent 2 match points. (It could almost be argued to be sportsmanlike just to concede just so that you don't take match points off the table)

A draw rarely happens because very few list have ships that are exact points. Unless against a full mirror list draws will incomplete games will often not match up on the point loss (unless no one lost a ship). However if no side is clearly the winner than no side is the loser thus the match points should be evenly split.

The system is set up to reward players that win. So thus why a full 12 point lead gives you 5 and a narrow lead only gives you 2/5ths of a full win.

The draw is well to promote competitiveness. Since no one wins a draw it can't be worth as much as a win. But since no one loses a draw it can't be 0. So only 1 point. Unlike modified draws when not conceding to prevent the loss of a couple of match points conceding a draw will lose you a match point but keeping that point will take 3 match points out. I guess there is no love for ties.

...

That good old "if you're going to lose anyway you should just concede" argument was extensively used when SoS was the tie breaker. If you're going to lose then you'll get nothing but if you don't maximize your opponent's Strength (my giving him a full win) you are also hurting your own chances.

In a war (which we could compare to a tournament) there certainly is value for the loser in the close fight. It either means you destroyed a significant portion of their forces weakening them later on so you can defeat them more easily in a rematch or you've manage to save a significant portion of your own force to use them again later. One side does gain an advantage but that doesn't mean all objectives are complete.

It is also possible to have battles be a draw. Maybe neither side "wins" but if there are no winners then there are no losers either. Meaningless battles happen.

...

As mentioned before a loss is still a loss no matter if your opponent won by 1 or by 100. There is no such thing as a close loss or modified loss. The only thing a modified loss does is deny your opponent 2 match points. (It could almost be argued to be sportsmanlike just to concede just so that you don't take match points off the table)

A draw rarely happens because very few list have ships that are exact points. Unless against a full mirror list draws will incomplete games will often not match up on the point loss (unless no one lost a ship). However if no side is clearly the winner than no side is the loser thus the match points should be evenly split.

The system is set up to reward players that win. So thus why a full 12 point lead gives you 5 and a narrow lead only gives you 2/5ths of a full win.

The draw is well to promote competitiveness. Since no one wins a draw it can't be worth as much as a win. But since no one loses a draw it can't be 0. So only 1 point. Unlike modified draws when not conceding to prevent the loss of a couple of match points conceding a draw will lose you a match point but keeping that point will take 3 match points out. I guess there is no love for ties.

...

That good old "if you're going to lose anyway you should just concede" argument was extensively used when SoS was the tie breaker. If you're going to lose then you'll get nothing but if you don't maximize your opponent's Strength (my giving him a full win) you are also hurting your own chances.

In a war (which we could compare to a tournament) there certainly is value for the loser in the close fight. It either means you destroyed a significant portion of their forces weakening them later on so you can defeat them more easily in a rematch or you've manage to save a significant portion of your own force to use them again later. One side does gain an advantage but that doesn't mean all objectives are complete.

It is also possible to have battles be a draw. Maybe neither side "wins" but if there are no winners then there are no losers either. Meaningless battles happen.

Interesting point on the strength of schedule thing. Yeah that is sort of funny that conceding could provide an advantage when facing a loss by a modified win.

Meme aside, yeah if it was a modified win why not give the other player a draw. The strength of schedule and match points would not be too construed with more points going to those that win their games. The way I look at it if they did the oponenant of a modified match win scores a draw you would have

• Match Win/ Loss : 5 points to Winner, 0 to loser (5 points total)
• Modified Match Win/ Draw : 3 points to Winner , 1 point to Loser (4 points total)
• Draw/Draw : 1 point to each (2 points total)

This way it would be better to not concede because conceding always gives you 0 points over 0. Also it still rewards more for winning matches and even a modified win would be significantly better than a draw. However without the modified match loss being nothing more than a loss it still takes a lot out of modified match wins.

But yeah back on the match points and how it ends up. Well in a big tournament the swiss rounds is what is used to ranks up the top 8 (or 16) players. So lets just go with say 4 swiss rounds.

So the maximum # of match points before the first batch of elimination would be 4 wins for 20 points.

So of course some one that wins all 4 rounds should be able to advance to the next round. Lets also remember that A person that wins all 4 matches will leave 4 other players with a single loss.

Lets go down one level. 3 wins and a modified win. That would be 18 out of 20 points. Again with 4 other players that have 1 loss. 2 points less don't seem too much so should still be a guaranteed top 8. (keep in mind the tournament retains those 2 points that were loss)

Down 1 more step. 3 Wins and a draw. That would be 16 out of 20 points. This time there will only be 3 other players with a loss and another player with a draw which could have the same match points. This is where you start to see most of the cut. (the tournament retains 3 points)

And of course 1 loss and 3 wins will leave you with 15 out of 20. If the top 8 cut gets down to this level this is where MOV and Strength of Schedule is determined on who advances to the next level. So i think the biggest impact MOV has is in those who have a 75%-80% win ratio. As you see here you can see how close some of the match points can get and often see the ties for placing the top 8. With only 8 slots you will need tie breakers. Now of course more matches will provide a wider margin between the 1st place and 8th place but that will also take more time. There is only a certain amount of hours that have daylight in a single day. Yeah it is kind of funny that you had less losses than your friend, but face it you did not have 3 out of 4 wins. Instead you had 1 win (and a half) while your friend had 2.

A funny thing that people seem to hate because it actually may be collusion is what happens when two people with all full wins meet in the final round of Swiss. We know that in pretty much any tournament a person who is X-0 will make the cut and if they don't I suspect there weren't enough rounds of Swiss played. This means the X-1 crowd is what is often fighting for those last spots on the cut. Of course when it come to points a player who is at X-0-1 should be outscoring an X-1 player allowing the guy with the tie to jump ahead.

True but a modified win is not really a win it is more of a draw that could have won in overtime if there was an overtime. A person with 4 modified wins had barely won any of their games where as a person with 3 wins and one loss could have just gone against a person that had the other 3-0 and is now 4-0.

In this scenario the 4 modifies wins is 12 match points the person who wen against a top 8 has 15 points and the top 8 has 20.

So is 4 narrow victories worth more than a 3-1 whose only loss is to a 4-0? IMHO the 3-1 should also make the cut, if that person faced against the 3mod-0 he could have won and also be 4-0 or could have given another mod win.

True but a modified win is not really a win it is more of a draw that could have won in overtime if there was an overtime. A person with 4 modified wins had barely won any of their games where as a person with 3 wins and one loss could have just gone against a person that had the other 3-0 and is now 4-0.

In this scenario the 4 modifies wins is 12 match points the person who wen against a top 8 has 15 points and the top 8 has 20.

So is 4 narrow victories worth more than a 3-1 whose only loss is to a 4-0? IMHO the 3-1 should also make the cut, if that person faced against the 3mod-0 he could have won and also be 4-0 or could have given another mod win.

Name me a sport that penalises a player/team because they did not win by "enough"...the only one I can come up with that is remotely close is Super Rugby where teams scores a bonus point for scoring 4 or more tries. Bear in mind this system has less impact because A. wins and bonus points wins are reasonably close to together (4 versus 5 point) and B. there are bonus points for close losses (being within less than 7 points) and C. they play more games across the season so a single game has less impact overall.

However, that is not actually a bad way to do it, 4 points for a win (1 or more MoV), 1 bonus point if you wiped out your opponent. Keeps both swiss and cut rounds consistent as to the win condition. Loser get a bonus point if they lose by less than 12.

Also your entire logic flies out the window when your player with four modified wins a knock-out tournament or top 16 cut where all your so-called "draws" are clearly wins. A modified win is a win regardless, the player should not be penalised for it.

Also just to keep reinforcing the point, in sport there is no such thing "barely won" or "narrow victory". History does not care how you won by, just that you did.

True but a modified win is not really a win it is more of a draw that could have won in overtime if there was an overtime. A person with 4 modified wins had barely won any of their games where as a person with 3 wins and one loss could have just gone against a person that had the other 3-0 and is now 4-0.

In this scenario the 4 modifies wins is 12 match points the person who wen against a top 8 has 15 points and the top 8 has 20.

So is 4 narrow victories worth more than a 3-1 whose only loss is to a 4-0? IMHO the 3-1 should also make the cut, if that person faced against the 3mod-0 he could have won and also be 4-0 or could have given another mod win.

Name me a sport that penalises a player/team because they did not win by "enough"...the only one I can come up with that is remotely close is Super Rugby where teams scores a bonus point for scoring 4 or more tries. Bear in mind this system has less impact because A. wins and bonus points wins are reasonably close to together (4 versus 5 point) and B. there are bonus points for close losses (being within less than 7 points) and C. they play more games across the season so a single game has less impact overall.

However, that is not actually a bad way to do it, 4 points for a win (1 or more MoV), 1 bonus point if you wiped out your opponent. Keeps both swiss and cut rounds consistent as to the win condition. Loser get a bonus point if they lose by less than 12.

Also your entire logic flies out the window when your player with four modified wins a knock-out tournament or top 16 cut where all your so-called "draws" are clearly wins. A modified win is a win regardless, the player should not be penalised for it.

Also just to keep reinforcing the point, in sport there is no such thing "barely won" or "narrow victory". History does not care how you won by, just that you did.

The whole point that a match win over a modified win is that the winner won by more than one ship. Now since not all ships are equal and some ships are worth more fore example killing a Fat Han is worth way more points than killing an Academy pilot you have to go by MOV to determine how much each kill is worth. A modified win says that a person theoretically won by 1 ship the lowest point cost be it academy pilot, bandit squadron pilot or bynree pilot. If the margin of victory is less than 12 points then you really can't say that the victor won by one kill more thus a modified win as it was close but it one person happen to kill higher value ships.

However that is the whole concern is with MOV and all the meta talk right now as amount of damage done is not necessarily equal to victory points. Point fortresses help to retain the amount of points so that even if only 3 TIE fighters are destroyed and the Fat Han is at 1 hit point left. Sure the Fat falcon took more than 9 hits but it counts as 0 victory points for the match. Thus the full win and 5 match points go to the Fat Han.