I'm not sure where this "Sports Competition" vs. "Tournament" comes from, nor why you think it is relevant to this discussion. But using your own words, you state that the NFL Playoffs is a 'tournament' because it has a winners bracket that leads to a championship game. But you don't believe a Armada tournament should follow that structure. So it sounds to me like the disconnect here is that you believe it should be a "Armada Sports Competition" instead of a Tournament.

In the end, I simply believe differently that you do. I hear tournament and I believe that someone who never loses should place higher than someone who does lose. It is that simple. We are talking about a competitive environment here. I have repeatedly stated that, due to the nature of the game, I understand why they have chosen to do it the way that they have though.

Frankly, seeing this argument phrased through other competitions is a little goofy to me. This isn't American football, so why is it relevant what system American football uses to determine championship winners? This isn't an Olympic event, so why does Olympic event scoring matter?

This is a game, whose rules are determined (in the case official tournaments) by the designer of the game. The scoring system is one that was determined by the producers of the game to complement the other mechanics of the game. Everyone is free to prefer other systems of scoring if they'd like, but expecting Armada to hold to a different standard just because you want that is a bit goofy. Nothing is perfect for everyone. Armada tournament scoring is, at worst, good enough.

In the end, I simply believe differently that you do. I hear tournament and I believe that someone who never loses should place higher than someone who does lose. It is that simple. We are talking about a competitive environment here. I have repeatedly stated that, due to the nature of the game, I understand why they have chosen to do it the way that they have though.

Lets run with this.

Sure anyone could never lose. In fact in a 32 player tournament it is easily possible that 4 people never lose. How do you propose to say who is the winner? What about bigger tournaments where there are 6+ flawless victors?

In the end, I simply believe differently that you do. I hear tournament and I believe that someone who never loses should place higher than someone who does lose. It is that simple. We are talking about a competitive environment here. I have repeatedly stated that, due to the nature of the game, I understand why they have chosen to do it the way that they have though.

Lets run with this.

Sure anyone could never lose. In fact in a 32 player tournament it is easily possible that 4 people never lose. How do you propose to say who is the winner? What about bigger tournaments where there are 6+ flawless victors?

How else? C'mon, get with the program Lyr!

Incidentally, Armada just got much more hardcore.

In the end, I simply believe differently that you do. I hear tournament and I believe that someone who never loses should place higher than someone who does lose. It is that simple. We are talking about a competitive environment here. I have repeatedly stated that, due to the nature of the game, I understand why they have chosen to do it the way that they have though.

Lets run with this.

Sure anyone could never lose. In fact in a 32 player tournament it is easily possible that 4 people never lose. How do you propose to say who is the winner? What about bigger tournaments where there are 6+ flawless victors?

Seriously? Dude, reading is fundamental. You literally QUOTED my point on this. I will reiterate: "I understand why they have chosen to do it the way that they have." I get that with this kind of game, this is likely the easiest method of running a tournament. I am fairly certain I said as much in almost every one of my posts during this discussion.

That said, there is absolutely no reason that Win/Losses can't be the FIRST criteria, with additional tie breakers after that using things like points earned, MOV, etc. They chose not to do it this way. OK. So be it. I have the right to disagree with that decision. It doesn't take away from my joy at playing a fantastic game.

Listen man, it really is OK for people to have different opinions on things. I feel that we are going around in circles here. I have my opinion, you have yours. I respect your right to have yours. Let's move past it.

In the end, I simply believe differently that you do. I hear tournament and I believe that someone who never loses should place higher than someone who does lose. It is that simple. We are talking about a competitive environment here. I have repeatedly stated that, due to the nature of the game, I understand why they have chosen to do it the way that they have though.

Lets run with this.

Sure anyone could never lose. In fact in a 32 player tournament it is easily possible that 4 people never lose. How do you propose to say who is the winner? What about bigger tournaments where there are 6+ flawless victors?

Seriously? Dude, reading is fundamental. You literally QUOTED my point on this. I will reiterate: "I understand why they have chosen to do it the way that they have." I get that with this kind of game, this is likely the easiest method of running a tournament. I am fairly certain I said as much in almost every one of my posts during this discussion.

That said, there is absolutely no reason that Win/Losses can't be the FIRST criteria, with additional tie breakers after that using things like points earned, MOV, etc. They chose not to do it this way. OK. So be it. I have the right to disagree with that decision. It doesn't take away from my joy at playing a fantastic game.

Listen man, it really is OK for people to have different opinions on things. I feel that we are going around in circles here. I have my opinion, you have yours. I respect your right to have yours. Let's move past it.

You just don't seem to get it.

If you go by win loss records then why should anyone who has lost a match continue to play in the tournament? They likely no longer have a chance if in 32 people, 4 of them will likely be 3-0.

That is the issue with Magic the Gathering and other card game tournaments. People lose a game or 2 and they quit because they don't have a chance anymore. At least in Armada, someone can lose but still come out ahead and maybe even win.

As for reading, you ignored the entire thing of Swiss tournaments. Sure you understand why they do such a thing yet you blatantly ignore it and push for the whole concept of winning is the most important thing.

Once again, back to what the game is. It is a Wargame, war is about the individual battles that make up the war. You can lose a battle but still win the war.

In the end, I simply believe differently that you do. I hear tournament and I believe that someone who never loses should place higher than someone who does lose. It is that simple. We are talking about a competitive environment here. I have repeatedly stated that, due to the nature of the game, I understand why they have chosen to do it the way that they have though.

Lets run with this.

Sure anyone could never lose. In fact in a 32 player tournament it is easily possible that 4 people never lose. How do you propose to say who is the winner? What about bigger tournaments where there are 6+ flawless victors?

Russian Roulette, last man standing.

How else? C'mon, get with the program Lyr!

Incidentally, Armada just got much more hardcore.

Yea. . . lets not do RR. . .

Russian Roulette, last man standing.

How else? C'mon, get with the program Lyr!

Incidentally, Armada just got much more hardcore.

Yea.

(Yep, this is where I'm going.)

Russian Roulette, last man standing.

How else? C'mon, get with the program Lyr!

Incidentally, Armada just got much more hardcore.

Yea.

What?! You're sick! I was just kidding!

(Yep, this is where I'm going.)

Easy now, boys (and girls?).

Enough with the intentional missunderstandings and exagerating the others statements.

We're all gonna respect the tournament rules, be gentlemen/women and have a good time playing this great game - but we should also be able to discuss and have different opinions about the game without getting aggressive.

Ok!?

Thanks to all of you for you input on my question, most points seem valid and I could see it work either way, but now we have the rules that we have and I'm totally fine with that.

(pardon my english, but you know what I mean...)

[i think there is a special hell reserved for you

It's weird, Shepherd Book keeps saying the same thing. Weird.

#neverForget

[i think there is a special hell reserved for you

It's weird, Shepherd Book keeps saying the same thing. Weird.

#neverForget

#neverforget

Once again, back to what the game is. It is a Wargame, war is about the individual battles that make up the war. You can lose a battle but still win the war.

Erm... It's a tactical/strategy game. Very specifically it focuses on small-scale fleet engagements. No part of Armada tries to address any aspect of a wider conflict. That's what Rebellion will be for. The argument that, because it's got "War" in the title, competitive events of Star Wars: Armada should be run like full-blown military campaigns is just silly.

Unless I'm going to be allowed to form an alliance with two or three other players, mob each match with a 3:1 advantage, clean each board successively and then fight between ourselves at the end for top title. Because that's how real wars are waged. You don't take on an enemy nation by agreeing to only fight with equivalent-strength forces in each engagement.

I have to agree on the W/L part. I think the W/L record should be taken into account as the first tie breaker, then move on to MoV if still tied... and then Strength of Schedule and so forth. Tournament points would still be the forerunner for overall placement.

I have this opinion based off a tournament I attended where I went 2-0, made the final table and lost. In the final results, I was beaten on tie breakers by a player I had played earlier and beaten and who was 1-2 but had a better MoV than me (my 2 victories were relatively close).

As it stands, someone could have an amazing first game, going 10-0, scoring a metric butt ton of VPs and then bomb the rest of the tournament and still potentially places super high based off their MoV. That just doesn't feel right to me.