Wins are not pointless. US Nationals 2nd place got 2nd because of a game where he got well over 130 points in a Fire Lanes objective. He had a MOV of over 400 or so that game. It is huge. It was also a win that lead to that.

I come from 40k and MtG and I HATED the you win you move up a table. All that matters there is the win not how the win was achieved. This system is far more balanced in that regard though it has issues since nothing will please everyone

Congratulations, you have officially confused the heck out of me. You can't say wins matter when in so far as the math goes we can prove they don't. It isn't whether you win or not, it is by how much you have won. That system, for like the 5th time, emphasizes dice over sound play.

And while I totally get that you don't like winning and moving up in the rankings as a result that unfortunately is kind of what tournaments are supposed to do. The more you win the higher the table number gets and the closer you get to seat one.

Now by all means have a point system in place, even the MOV as it stands, to break ties but not at the expense of the W/L.

I too come from 40k and MTG, and Warmahordes, Flames of War, Dystopian Wars, Fantasy, Bolt Action, BFG, Dropzone Commander, Legend of the Five Rings, and few others. This is the only system I have ever seen where being the only 3-0 means you still might not take home the gold.

On a side, the win should be the only thing that matters. Because it mitigates the dice. If I can still play to the objective and score a win despite not being able to land shots that is a GOOD system. What we have is "can't hit water if you fell out of the boat?" to bad, pack it up. No no, doesn't matter how well you played, you only killed one ship in that game and this other dude tabled. Nope, doesn't matter you won every game and he lost one, he rolled better than you did. Farkle.

This isn't an issue with the current design of x number of Swiss rounds and cut to top x. Once the second day starts, it's 4 rounds to a single undefeated player with the cut being top 16.

And with smaller events, 16 and less, it's a simple 4 rounds to a single undefeated player.

A 3-2 player can quite conceivably win a 5 round tournament on points, and while I like the idea of weighting wins, the current system has some flaws.

This isn't an issue with the current design of x number of Swiss rounds and cut to top x. Once the second day starts, it's 4 rounds to a single undefeated player with the cut being top 16.

And with smaller events, 16 and less, it's a simple 4 rounds to a single undefeated player.

It very much is an issue as the current tournament guidlines specify, sub 32 is 3 rounds of swiss and over 32 is 5. There is currently no top cut.

A 3-2 player can quite conceivably win a 5 round tournament on points, and while I like the idea of weighting wins, the current system has some flaws.

Yeah, my bad missing the no cut to top x. I'm used to so many of their systems doing that. I still say that it a bad enough system that it needs to be looked at further. The last undefeated player should be the overall winner.

Going from 128 to a single undefeated takes 7 rounds. That's doable for a 2 day event. Four then three. Even at the longer 2.5 hour time limit for 400 points. After all, you're talking about a large multi day event.

I think some people are confused about this. (Or, maybe I am.)

I think that people are confused because they are unaware of the four layers of calculation, and seem to be focusing on only two of those layers. The four layers are:

1. Wins/Losses (W/L)
2. Tournament Points (TPs)
3. Margin of Victory (MoV)
4. Strength of Schedule (SoS)

Winning matches matters, because you tend to get more TPs from a win than you get from a loss, 5-5 being the exception.

Also, if you don't win, you don't get MOV points for a match.

Here's the rule from the Tournament Rules (pg.2 under Tiebreakers)

If two or more players have the same number of tournament points, they
are ranked based on each player’s cumulative margin of victory from
games they have won. (emph. added)

So, where people seem to be complaining about MoV, I think they're thinking about TPs.

Let's say you have 4 ships and 300 points and I have 2 ships and 100 points in squadrons. Now let's say I kill 3 of your ships getting 250 some odd points but you manage to win the game and take out both my ships. Well you only get 200 points but you won the game (rules state that the winner is either the one with the most points or the person who kills the other persons ships), I on the other hand get 250ish points and move up since I won by a 6-4 or a 7-3 victory. You on the other hand drop down, but hey you won the game!

I don't think this is correct.

In this scenario you (the guy with the squadrons) do not get any MOV points, because losers of games don't get MoV points (see quote above). In this scenario, both players get 5 TPs and 0 MoV.

I (the one without the squadrons who "won" the match) do not drop down in the rankings. I get placed right above you, if our cumulative MoVs are equal.

That matters for the final round, but it doesn't really matter for the rounds before that. In fact, it might be a slight disadvantage, because I'm more likely to be paired with a tougher opponent in the following round than you are.

I like the tournament scoring system. It rewards you for the totality of your victory, not just for winning. I've seen 5-5 wins with 8pt MoV. I've seen 10-0 wins with 385 MoV. Should these two victories be treated as equal? I don't think so.

In the very first movie in the very first scene, can you point out the fighter there?

This may not be terribly helpful or relevant, but I take issue with this as an argument.

The first scene of the first movie wasn't a battle, it was a chase. I could just as easily ask you to point out ANY battle sequence in ANY of the movies that doesn't involve starfighters.

Yavin? Starfighters.

Hoth? Starfighters (Also less of a battle than an escape, same with the asteroid field, but still)

Endor? Starfighters.

Naboo? Starfighters.

Geonosis? This may be the singular exception to the rule.

Coruscant? LOTS of starfighters.

I can appreciate that Armada itself is focused on the capital ships, but the "Star Wars" part of the title carries heavy connotations of ace pilots in starfighters greatly affecting the outcome of the battle.

X-Wing seems to be going away from MoV too (writing is on the wall in the tournament rules and the hints about the new software). It's skewed the metagame to the extreme where now folks are too afraid to lose a ship.

I think a win-loss system is a good thing - right now that's effectively what you have, except you're marginalizing anything but a list designed to totally decimate your opponent.

I think some people are confused about this. (Or, maybe I am.)

I think that people are confused because they are unaware of the four layers of calculation, and seem to be focusing on only two of those layers. The four layers are:

1. Wins/Losses (W/L)
2. Tournament Points (TPs)
3. Margin of Victory (MoV)
4. Strength of Schedule (SoS)

Winning matches matters, because you tend to get more TPs from a win than you get from a loss, 5-5 being the exception.

Also, if you don't win, you don't get MOV points for a match.

Here's the rule from the Tournament Rules (pg.2 under Tiebreakers)

If two or more players have the same number of tournament points, they

are ranked based on each player’s cumulative margin of victory from

games they have won. (emph. added)

So, where people seem to be complaining about MoV, I think they're thinking about TPs.

Let's say you have 4 ships and 300 points and I have 2 ships and 100 points in squadrons. Now let's say I kill 3 of your ships getting 250 some odd points but you manage to win the game and take out both my ships. Well you only get 200 points but you won the game (rules state that the winner is either the one with the most points or the person who kills the other persons ships), I on the other hand get 250ish points and move up since I won by a 6-4 or a 7-3 victory. You on the other hand drop down, but hey you won the game!

I don't think this is correct.

In this scenario you (the guy with the squadrons) do not get any MOV points, because losers of games don't get MoV points (see quote above). In this scenario, both players get 5 TPs and 0 MoV.

I (the one without the squadrons who "won" the match) do not drop down in the rankings. I get placed right above you, if our cumulative MoVs are equal.

That matters for the final round, but it doesn't really matter for the rounds before that. In fact, it might be a slight disadvantage, because I'm more likely to be paired with a tougher opponent in the following round than you are.

Win/loss is totally wrapped into the tournament points (which is kind of mov anyhow...), they're not separate which is the issue.

It is like a kick in the shins. To the guy who "won" all because your squadrons survived.

OK, but the existing rules are no better they give the guy with squadrons a great kick in the groin for just bringing them. In exactly the example you give the player with the squadrons gets a loss, no MoV, terrible Tournaments points and yet he killed more things of his opponents fleet and scored more points.

There has to be a better, more playable, agreable and fairer system. Why can't we get there?

Win/loss is totally wrapped into the tournament points (which is kind of mov anyhow...), they're not separate which is the issue.

Obviously they're related, but they're still determined differently and have different impacts on the rankings. Also, if by "totally wrapped up" you mean 'causes' or 'is caused by', that's not technically true. It's just 'mostly' true.

As a player that doesn't really matter. Just play your best.

As a TO not having Cryodex and having to do it on a scratch pad, it's necessary to know the difference.

X-Wing seems to be going away from MoV too (writing is on the wall in the tournament rules and the hints about the new software). It's skewed the metagame to the extreme where now folks are too afraid to lose a ship.

I think a win-loss system is a good thing - right now that's effectively what you have, except you're marginalizing anything but a list designed to totally decimate your opponent.

You must be playing at an entirely different level of X-Wing than I am. Also, 'skewing the metagame to the extreme' sounds like an exaggeration.

I'd say that people are afraid to lose a ship because so many people are flying 2-ship builds and any single ship represents a large chunk of their points. But I've not heard any chatter about the fear of MoV from the people who are contenders for store/regional championships where I hang out.

Also, total win/loss is expected in X-Wing, because the game is designed to be a death match, rather than a points match. So, people should expect to lose ships, because it's the rare game that goes to time.

But maybe you're a highly competitive player who understands X-Wing much more thoroughly than I do. It's certainly possible.

It is like a kick in the shins. To the guy who "won" all because your squadrons survived.

OK, but the existing rules are no better they give the guy with squadrons a great kick in the groin for just bringing them. In exactly the example you give the player with the squadrons gets a loss, no MoV, terrible Tournaments points and yet he killed more things of his opponents fleet and scored more points.

There has to be a better, more playable, agreable and fairer system. Why can't we get there?

I don't agree.

If you destroy all of the ships of a list with lots of squadrons, but none of those squadrons, the game is over and you've won it, but you don't get the MoV for the squadrons; just the ships. You'll only get the MoV from the ships you've destroyed.

If you want to want to get the full boat of points, you need to kill the squadrons first. Here's the line in the rules from the Tournament Rules, page 2 under Margin of Victory:

If a player destroys all of his or her opponent’s ships and squadrons,

the destroyed fleet is worth 180 300 points, even if the opponent’s fleet is

comprised of components worth fewer than 180 300 points. (updates and emph. added)

Conversely, if you're the guy who had all your ships, but none of your squadrons killed, and you killed all but one of your opponents' ships, you are probably still going to get 5 TPs, which - considering that you lost - is not that bad. You're only slightly below your opponent in the rankings, because the rankings are mostly determined by TPs.

Oops, I was working off the wrong version of the tournament rules.

This wasn't the commentary you were looking for.

Try that rule with 13 Y Wings Mikael.

I like the tournament scoring system. It rewards you for the totality of your victory, not just for winning. I've seen 5-5 wins with 8pt MoV. I've seen 10-0 wins with 385 MoV. Should these two victories be treated as equal? I don't think so.

And the reasons are as follows.

1. Otherwise you create a format in which a player can go undefeated, and yet finish behind multiple opponents that she has beaten in that very event. The ability to win a game is the simplest and purest determination of prowess on any given day, and that the above situation will occur is farcical.

2. The random first round pairing is incredibly overvalued in the current system. Getting paired against a new player compared to a savy experienced opponent within the first round is so advantageous as to be problematic. Events shouldn't be decided based on who gets to stomp the new guy round 1.

3. It arbitrarily limits what is a viable fleet. It is not enough to win, you have to win big. A fleet that can not win by large margins consistently is not a viable fleet, even if it is the fleet that will actually win the most games. This will limit what is viable beyond the simple determination of whether or not you can win with something.