The one thing I liked about the first day was MOV didn't matter... even though I played better to get more MOV. At that point if it came down to a modified win for the other player I would just concede. No point in making that guy lose out for me still losing. That lucky didn't happen and I made day two.

So I will ask a dumb question. Why not just use a single elimination bracket with straight up, win you advance, no points necessary. You could put in a ranking system for players so the two best players don't play in round one (think NCAA basketball tourney).

Player travels several hours to get there.

Player books a hotel room to stay over night.

Player loses first match.

Player is out of the tournament.

Player is never coming back to the tournament again.

Player posts rant on forum about how terrible the system is.

So I will ask a dumb question. Why not just use a single elimination bracket with straight up, win you advance, no points necessary. You could put in a ranking system for players so the two best players don't play in round one (think NCAA basketball tourney).

This entire thread is about players traveling long distances and just barely missing the cut and how that sucks. By doing this, you now have players who've traveled long distances, and lose Round 1 and have to go home. How is that better?

I have previously proposed a double elimination system, which I feel could work for larger events as long as there were side events available (such as at the Open) for those who were eliminated early. However, it doesn't actually reduce the rounds required. All it does it require that everyone who's only lost 1 game is in the running for first place.

I agree that it is arguably crazy to send an "undefeated" player home just because someone else was lucky to face opponents with ships that have higher point values.

That is really what we're talking about ... the idea that two players have the same record of wins (let's say 6-0) but one player gets sent home because in his second match he killed 68 points worth of enemy ships and the other player with the 6-0 record gets to advance in the tournament because he killed 72 points worth of enemy ships in his second match.

I think most X-wing players -- if they are honest -- have to admit they would be VERY upset if they got knocked out of a tournament after winning every match they played.

Yes, you have to eliminate players as a tournament progresses but it's reasonable to say it should be harder to elimiate "undefeated" players.

As to sports, I have as yet to see a team that did not lose a single game, or lost fewer games than another, not progress to the playoffs.

oh.

6-0 with 4 modified wins is 22 points.

5-1 full wins is 25 points.

Who is more deserving to advance?

The 5-1, because he was aggressive enough to meet the conditions of a full win.

The 6-0 players wins his second game 200-0, and then wins the remaining 4 110-90 against other undefeated players.

Does that change your mind or explain how the idea of dismissing total wins and losses can be unfair?

I agree that it is arguably crazy to send an "undefeated" player home just because someone else was lucky to face opponents with ships that have higher point values.

That is really what we're talking about ... the idea that two players have the same record of wins (let's say 6-0) but one player gets sent home because in his second match he killed 68 points worth of enemy ships and the other player with the 6-0 record gets to advance in the tournament because he killed 72 points worth of enemy ships in his second match.

I think most X-wing players -- if they are honest -- have to admit they would be VERY upset if they got knocked out of a tournament after winning every match they played.

Yes, you have to eliminate players as a tournament progresses but it's reasonable to say it should be harder to elimiate "undefeated" players.

The thing is, I'm not sure a modified win is really a victory. This isn't a close win in a professional sport, this is a match that was halted at a semi-arbitrary point in time. If the two players were that close, it really could have gone either way, and who wins is almost arbitrary since it was determined more by an artifact of the incremental scoring system than a decisive lead.

Edit: For example: 3 Black Squadron Pilots with Crack Shot (spent) vs. 2 B-wings. Or an Academy and Obsidion vs. a Rookie Pilot. Or Classic Fat Han (Predator+3PO+Gunner+Title+EU) vs. Classic Fat Chirpy (Predator+Rebel Captive+Isard+Gunner+EU).

As to sports, I have as yet to see a team that did not lose a single game, or lost fewer games than another, not progress to the playoffs.

oh.

Which would be relevant if X-Wing had divisions whose champions advanced to the playoffs.

As to sports, I have as yet to see a team that did not lose a single game, or lost fewer games than another, not progress to the playoffs.

oh.

Without the top line describing what each column means this is a useless chart for me. But just as a guess, the three letter codes are divisions of play, so the ACS is the lowest top team in the southern division, so progressed to the playoffs in its division, while the others were the lowest top teams in their respective divisions. Then this is the seeded locations for their playoff ranking in starting the system, or their table that they will be playing at.

But then, In this, I would say that they shouldn't push lower tier teams through just because of their division.

As to sports, I have as yet to see a team that did not lose a single game, or lost fewer games than another, not progress to the playoffs.

oh.

Without the top line describing what each column means this is a useless chart for me..

If that chart is useless to you, perhaps you should not cite your vast sports knowledge.

I agree, they should have just done the cut at 8-1 and made it clean. Top 6 would have been a bit weird tho.

If they're going to go this route then might as well forgo MOV

Oh, I thought the answer to the question "IMO, Tournaments should not.."

was "..generate click bait threads!"

If they're going to go this route then might as well forgo MOV

Well, if Modified Wins exist, you'd still have to calculate Points Destroyed. (But Modified Wins need to go away, so yeah.)

Otherwise, yes: for large tournaments, the cut needs to be based on tournament points. Determine who makes the cut and who goes home on Win-Loss, not on tie-breakers.

A modified win is basically a tie, and frankly I love it because it stops people running when they have a tiny lead.

I have played different miniature games at 1200 point totals that people turtle up when wining by a single point because they have the win so why should they commit to playing the game.

I would be fine if they just removed modified wins and made any game within 11 points or less a tie. Problem solved.

I would be fine if they just removed modified wins and made any game within 11 points or less a tie. Problem solved.

That seems reasonable to me. It wouldn't work in elimination rounds -- you need a winner -- but otherwise, sure.

Let's get rid of modified wins already. Like, entirely. A win is a win.

If there are people who have the same number of wins when we're done, we'll let the MOV sort it out. That's MOV's job.

I'm perfectly comfortable in a world where winning by 1pt is the same as winning.

Let's get rid of modified wins already. Like, entirely. A win is a win.

If there are people who have the same number of wins when we're done, we'll let the MOV sort it out. That's MOV's job.

I'm perfectly comfortable in a world where winning by 1pt is the same as winning.

And I'm fine with that, too.

Except in huge tournaments. People should not make the cut or be sent home on the basis on a tie-breaker, when they've potentially traveled so far to attend.

The thing is, I'm not sure a modified win is really a victory. This isn't a close win in a professional sport, this is a match that was halted at a semi-arbitrary point in time. If the two players were that close, it really could have gone either way, and who wins is almost arbitrary since it was determined more by an artifact of the incremental scoring system than a decisive lead.

EXCEPT in the 1 superb case where someone with the Nashtah pup (that literally no one uses competitively) killed off all of his opponent's ships but only has the pup on the board and gets his 1 point modified win!

As to sports, I have as yet to see a team that did not lose a single game, or lost fewer games than another, not progress to the playoffs.

oh.

Without the top line describing what each column means this is a useless chart for me..

If that chart is useless to you, perhaps you should not cite your vast sports knowledge.

So what is the format? Is it L W D? Are the Decimals points per hour? Are the other number columns yards ran? Total points for the season? Fouls? Where is the chart from? The chart is useless without the title row. I can create a chart and post it up here with a random order, and numbers on it, and it will mean the same thing.....nothing. You didn't even provide a comment stating which website the chart came from so I could go and look at the chosen format. Different sites use different orders, and some even add additional stats based on what it is they want to follow. Completions, 1st downs, tackles, interceptions.......You get the drift, format is everything for a chart.

And as I said before, it looks like that one team is just one of the best in its division(day 1) and the others were as well (day 2 and beyond if applicable) just in the lower end of their respective divisions.

How that ACS team faired against other ACS teams is what would matter.