The new Intentional Draw (ID) rule has caused quite a stir in the community, from what it’s intended to do to how it should be used to not contradict the “Unsportsmanlike Conduct” section in the Tournament Regulations. This lead me to take a closer look at the current tournament structure (in particular the Advanced Structure that is used for Premiere events) to see what kind of changes can be done to remove the incentive for IDs to make a cut in a tournament.

When looking over the number of players vs. the top cut it can be seen that FFG would like any player that goes X-1 to make the cut in a tournament. This can be seen by the mins/max record-wise for each bracket (this is assuming paired down wins):

Players Rounds (X) Cut X-0 X-1

9-12 4 Top 4 1 3

13-24 4 Top 8 1 4

25-40 5 Top 8 1-2 5

41-76 6 Top 8 1-2 4-6

77-148 6 Top 16 2-3 7-13

149-288 6 Top 32 3-5 14-26

289-512 7 Top 32 3-4 16-28

So depending on the number of players, and some other outcomes (paired down doesn’t win), there are cases that some X-2 players make the cut, but for the most part, you go X-1 and you’re in.

So my proposal is to change the tournament structure to something similar they did for the Hoth Open, a minimum requirement of tournament points to make the cut. In the current point system, and keeping along with the X-1 incentive to make the cut, I propose that the tournament structure should be changed to the cut being 5*(X-1)-2, with X being the number of tournament rounds (essentially allowing 1 modified win). This would result in the quantity of players below (again, assuming paired down wins):

Players Rounds Points Cut Players Min Players Max “Bracket”

9-12 4 13 4 4 Top 4

13-24 4 13 5 5 Top 8

25-40 5 18 6 7 Top 8

41-76 6 23 5 8 Top 8

77-148 6 23 9 16 Top 16

149-288 6 23 17 31 Top 32

289-512 7 28 19 32 Top 32

Furthermore, the players would then be bracketed just like before, except when there isn’t enough players, the top players would end up earning a bye. For example:

Qualified Players “Bracket” Byes 1^st round match ups

5 Top 8 1^st-3^rd 4^th vs. 5^th

6 Top 8 1^st , 2^nd 3^rd vs. 6^th, 4^th vs. 5^th

7 Top 8 1^st 2^nd vs. 7^th, 3^rd vs. 6^th, 4^th vs. 5^th

9 Top 16 1^st-7^th 8^th vs. 9^th

etc.………………………………………………………..

31 Top 32 1^st 2^nd vs. 31^st, 3^rd vs. 30^th, etc.

TL;DR What does this new tournament structure do?

1. It promotes higher placement, so you can earn a first round bye and auto qualify for the following elimination round

2. It does not increase the length of the tournament even with the byes, as the brackets are the same. The players with byes are able to scope out the competition and/or take a mental/physical break

3. It eliminates the effect of IDs on other players’ chances to make the cut, but it still leaves some incentive to do so if it helps your placement

4. This also eliminates MoV as a qualifier for making the cut, and only lets it determine placement within the cut

I know this might leave out some opportunities for an underdog X-2 to make the cut and win the event, but someone will always be left out, and at least this way, everyone knows their chances of making the cut based on the number of tournament points they’ve earned so far, no matter their MoVs.

I would like everyone’s feedback on this idea. I’m not sure if someone has discussed an idea like this before, or if there’s a flaw that I don’t see, but just thought it would be interesting to discuss if this would work.

Might as well go all out and make tournaments double elimination.

Might as well go all out and make tournaments double elimination.

Why? What's complicated about his proposal? Surely we're all capable of adding together tournament points? And if we're not, they're added for us and posted, right?

All I'd change is that bigger tournaments (line of demarcation negotiable, the idea being "Is this tourney likely to draw players from thousands of miles away?") should cut to X-2. I would also either get rid of Modified Wins completely, or count an advantage of 11 points or less as a draw.

TBH I would go further. I think that if Mod wins are goign to be a thing, Mod losses should be too. so L=0 ML=1 T=2 MW=3 W=4

I feel strongly against intentional draw. Everyone has a different road to final swiss round. You may have narrowly beat your last opponent in the second last round. Prove that you deserve to make the top cut and beat the next best squad in the final round. Then the opponent you beat in the second last round may have a shot at that player that you couldn't beat (if your last opponent ends up with a similar record as well and had a better MOV than you)! I saw it at a recent tournament and thought it was completely lame. I can honestly say I lost respect for those two players.

Interesting idea. I've touched on the idea of using byes for the first round of a cut, and changing the system such that all X-1 or X-2 players make it, and setting up a single elimination bracket with byes. But my main concern with that (and your example of 13-24 players is a perfect example) is that you end up restricting the number of players that make the cut.

Why have 3 empty chairs when those could have been 3 extra players that made the cut? You're still left with "you need to go X-1 to make the cut" but now you have a bonus of letting a few X-2 players slip in. I know I've been to a lot of tourneys where you play one of the top players early in the day, lose, and then you're sitting at 4-1 before the final round. Sure, win and you're in, but the other guy is also pretty darn good to get to 4-1... The fact that you both could make it at 4-2 if it's a **** close game means it's worth fighting for every point.

I've also discussed double elimination tourneys. The problem with that is that to do it properly extends the length by at least 1 round, potentially several depending on how you treat the final remaining 0 loss player. But if done in conjunction with side events (think like Hoth, where you have 8 player pods, and the top player from those walks away with a prize), it might be worth the extra round.

However, at the end of the day, I'm a FIRM believer in the fact that the 5 point Win, 3 point Modified system does not work. My main complaint with it is that a Mod loss does nothing for the player, while a mod win drastically hurts the winner of the match. My secondary issue with it is that two points can sway you from 5 points to 3, or from 3 to 0 (and 3 for your opponent).

IMO, a win should be 4 points. A Modified win should be anything within 33 points of your opponent, and grants you 3 points and your opponent 1 point. A Draw is anything within 12 points giving each player 2. The other alternative is to get rid of victory points completely, and go strictly by MOV. Which more often than not ends up being the case anyways, and I can understand the idea behind wanting the guy that won 6 close matches to be ranked ahead of the guy that dominated 4 matches and got dominated twice.

Edit: Double post.

Might as well go all out and make tournaments double elimination.

Why? What's complicated about his proposal? Surely we're all capable of adding together tournament points? And if we're not, they're added for us and posted, right?

All I'd change is that bigger tournaments (line of demarcation negotiable, the idea being "Is this tourney likely to draw players from thousands of miles away?") should cut to X-2. I would also either get rid of Modified Wins completely, or count an advantage of 11 points or less as a draw.

I think that's an idea. This might increase the top cut bracket, but at larger tournaments you can expect multiple days, so this shouldn't be too much of an issue.

I feel strongly against intentional draw. Everyone has a different road to final swiss round. You may have narrowly beat your last opponent in the second last round. Prove that you deserve to make the top cut and beat the next best squad in the final round. Then the opponent you beat in the second last round may have a shot at that player that you couldn't beat (if your last opponent ends up with a similar record as well and had a better MOV than you)! I saw it at a recent tournament and thought it was completely lame. I can honestly say I lost respect for those two players.

Glad you read the first sentence. My proposal eliminates incentives to intentionally draw and it's effects on other players making the cut because of it. But you would know that if you continued reading

Why have 3 empty chairs when those could have been 3 extra players that made the cut? You're still left with "you need to go X-1 to make the cut" but now you have a bonus of letting a few X-2 players slip in. I know I've been to a lot of tourneys where you play one of the top players early in the day, lose, and then you're sitting at 4-1 before the final round. Sure, win and you're in, but the other guy is also pretty darn good to get to 4-1... The fact that you both could make it at 4-2 if it's a **** close game means it's worth fighting for every point.

You're right, for that specific bracket you're likely left with 3 empty seats. The goal though is to eliminate MoV as a qualifier and ID's affecting the cut.

If we open it for all X-2, the cut becomes much larger and the elimination bracket would have to be increased.

So it's simpler to keep it at X-1 as the qualifier, or look at restructuring the point system, which would be more complicated.

This keeps the format almost identical to before, with the only difference being how the cut is determined. Any non-cut tournament would run exactly the same as it already does.

I feel strongly against intentional draw. Everyone has a different road to final swiss round. You may have narrowly beat your last opponent in the second last round. Prove that you deserve to make the top cut and beat the next best squad in the final round. Then the opponent you beat in the second last round may have a shot at that player that you couldn't beat (if your last opponent ends up with a similar record as well and had a better MOV than you)! I saw it at a recent tournament and thought it was completely lame. I can honestly say I lost respect for those two players.

I'm sorry you've lost all respect for Paul Heaver. Because you know that he's done that before. There's nothing wrong with taking a draw, and as far as the game is concern, it's technically always been an option - just line up your ships facing the edge. Both players do it, and then at the end of turn 1, all 100pts for both teams are destroyed and you draw. However, that always carries the risk that player A sets up facing the edge first, and player B says "hahah, I have you now!" and renegs on the deal.

I don't like the suggestion of using TP to determine if one makes the cut or not. Who would want to go 4-0 and then miss the cut because they only happened to get modified wins?

If intentional draws are so upsetting perhaps just making tournament scoring more varies so the results aren't always so clear would make that less appealing. Keeping a full win at 5/0 I'd fully support making modified game 3/1 and draws 2/2 while also messing around a little with the breaks for those distinctions.

I'm afraid that no matter what you do you're never going to make everyone happy when it comes to tournament scoring in a large tournament with limited time. Maybe a true double elimination would be best but that is also long and not always fair. Perhaps tournament ranks should be determined only based on MoV totals.

It's a good idea. A lot of shops will struggle with the idea of making X-wing tournaments longer. That's the real drawback. More 2-day regionals. More 3am finishes.

I don't like the suggestion of using TP to determine if one makes the cut or not. Who would want to go 4-0 and then miss the cut because they only happened to get modified wins?

In the current tournament point system, 4-0 with all modified wins will net you 12 points, meaning all 3-1 players with full wins will rank ahead of you, likely forcing you to miss the cut anyways.

The point in restructuring the cut to what I'm proposing is so:

A) The tournament structure as a whole is unchanged

B) MoV is eliminated as a factor in making the cut

C) Intentional Draws do not affect other players' chances of making the cut

Not saying the current tournament structure is perfect, but limiting the changes in the structure is always good, to limit mistakes by both the TOs and players that are used to the current structure.

I don't like the suggestion of using TP to determine if one makes the cut or not. Who would want to go 4-0 and then miss the cut because they only happened to get modified wins?

At HO, it was entirely possible for a player to go 9-0 and not make the cut, under the system in place. Just FYI.

Modified Win definitely needs to go.

Why have 3 empty chairs when those could have been 3 extra players that made the cut? You're still left with "you need to go X-1 to make the cut" but now you have a bonus of letting a few X-2 players slip in. I know I've been to a lot of tourneys where you play one of the top players early in the day, lose, and then you're sitting at 4-1 before the final round. Sure, win and you're in, but the other guy is also pretty darn good to get to 4-1... The fact that you both could make it at 4-2 if it's a **** close game means it's worth fighting for every point.

You're right, for that specific bracket you're likely left with 3 empty seats. The goal though is to eliminate MoV as a qualifier and ID's affecting the cut.

If we open it for all X-2, the cut becomes much larger and the elimination bracket would have to be increased.

So it's simpler to keep it at X-1 as the qualifier, or look at restructuring the point system, which would be more complicated.

This keeps the format almost identical to before, with the only difference being how the cut is determined. Any non-cut tournament would run exactly the same as it already does.

So you want to get rid of tiebreakers, which always screws someone. What you are describing is a double elimination tournament. You cannot run Swiss tournaments and not have tiebreakers screw you.

I don't like the suggestion of using TP to determine if one makes the cut or not. Who would want to go 4-0 and then miss the cut because they only happened to get modified wins?

At HO, it was entirely possible for a player to go 9-0 and not make the cut, under the system in place. Just FYI.

Modified Win definitely needs to go.

Sounds more reasonable than figuring out why you are getting so many modified wins.

Maybe just delete modified wins and draws. A win but 1 point is a win. If both players lose an equal number of points at the end of the game or time, initiative breaks the tie -- no draws.

wont this type of system encourage turtleing? I think this would make a lot of ships list unplayable.

I'm fine with ditching modified wins. Make them Ties. Without the context of how much damage is on each ship, a difference of 11 points or less is meaningless.

We could have ID mean intentional drop in this case , everyone looks at the 5th player and asks him if he really wants to play another round of x-wing or not.

So you want to get rid of tiebreakers, which always screws someone. What you are describing is a double elimination tournament. You cannot run Swiss tournaments and not have tiebreakers screw you.

Duh, I see it now. Thanks!

Can someone explain to me why intentional draws are bad? Isn't it a reward for doing so well? Playing out the game would just screw one player

Might as well go all out and make tournaments double elimination.

Why? What's complicated about his proposal? Surely we're all capable of adding together tournament points? And if we're not, they're added for us and posted, right?

All I'd change is that bigger tournaments (line of demarcation negotiable, the idea being "Is this tourney likely to draw players from thousands of miles away?") should cut to X-2. I would also either get rid of Modified Wins completely, or count an advantage of 11 points or less as a draw.

I think that's an idea. This might increase the top cut bracket, but at larger tournaments you can expect multiple days, so this shouldn't be too much of an issue.

I feel strongly against intentional draw. Everyone has a different road to final swiss round. You may have narrowly beat your last opponent in the second last round. Prove that you deserve to make the top cut and beat the next best squad in the final round. Then the opponent you beat in the second last round may have a shot at that player that you couldn't beat (if your last opponent ends up with a similar record as well and had a better MOV than you)! I saw it at a recent tournament and thought it was completely lame. I can honestly say I lost respect for those two players.

Glad you read the first sentence. My proposal eliminates incentives to intentionally draw and it's effects on other players making the cut because of it. But you would know that if you continued reading

Actually yes. It was my attempt to agree with you! (insert passive aggressive happy face emoticon here).

I feel strongly against intentional draw. Everyone has a different road to final swiss round. You may have narrowly beat your last opponent in the second last round. Prove that you deserve to make the top cut and beat the next best squad in the final round. Then the opponent you beat in the second last round may have a shot at that player that you couldn't beat (if your last opponent ends up with a similar record as well and had a better MOV than you)! I saw it at a recent tournament and thought it was completely lame. I can honestly say I lost respect for those two players.

I'm sorry you've lost all respect for Paul Heaver. Because you know that he's done that before. There's nothing wrong with taking a draw, and as far as the game is concern, it's technically always been an option - just line up your ships facing the edge. Both players do it, and then at the end of turn 1, all 100pts for both teams are destroyed and you draw. However, that always carries the risk that player A sets up facing the edge first, and player B says "hahah, I have you now!" and renegs on the deal.

Well I didn't say all respect! I like Paul. He's a good guy. He's done a lot for the game and his matches are fun to WATCH. The end.

I feel strongly against intentional draw. Everyone has a different road to final swiss round. You may have narrowly beat your last opponent in the second last round. Prove that you deserve to make the top cut and beat the next best squad in the final round. Then the opponent you beat in the second last round may have a shot at that player that you couldn't beat (if your last opponent ends up with a similar record as well and had a better MOV than you)! I saw it at a recent tournament and thought it was completely lame. I can honestly say I lost respect for those two players.

I'm sorry you've lost all respect for Paul Heaver. Because you know that he's done that before. There's nothing wrong with taking a draw, and as far as the game is concern, it's technically always been an option - just line up your ships facing the edge. Both players do it, and then at the end of turn 1, all 100pts for both teams are destroyed and you draw. However, that always carries the risk that player A sets up facing the edge first, and player B says "hahah, I have you now!" and renegs on the deal.

Well I didn't say all respect! I like Paul. He's a good guy. He's done a lot for the game and his matches are fun to WATCH. The end.

I think it's a bit silly to lose respect for someone for following the rules and understanding the tournament system.

The right response is not for the community to start unofficially sanctioning players, but to start pushing for Organized Play to move to a tournament system that doesn't reward highly successful players for not playing. Personally I'd like to see everything from Regionals up simply move to double-elimination.

Might as well go all out and make tournaments double elimination.

Why? What's complicated about his proposal? Surely we're all capable of adding together tournament points? And if we're not, they're added for us and posted, right?

All I'd change is that bigger tournaments (line of demarcation negotiable, the idea being "Is this tourney likely to draw players from thousands of miles away?") should cut to X-2. I would also either get rid of Modified Wins completely, or count an advantage of 11 points or less as a draw.

I think that's an idea. This might increase the top cut bracket, but at larger tournaments you can expect multiple days, so this shouldn't be too much of an issue.

I feel strongly against intentional draw. Everyone has a different road to final swiss round. You may have narrowly beat your last opponent in the second last round. Prove that you deserve to make the top cut and beat the next best squad in the final round. Then the opponent you beat in the second last round may have a shot at that player that you couldn't beat (if your last opponent ends up with a similar record as well and had a better MOV than you)! I saw it at a recent tournament and thought it was completely lame. I can honestly say I lost respect for those two players.

Glad you read the first sentence. My proposal eliminates incentives to intentionally draw and it's effects on other players making the cut because of it. But you would know that if you continued reading

Actually yes. It was my attempt to agree with you! (insert passive aggressive happy face emoticon here).

I never said I disagreed with the Intentional Draw rule. Again, if you read it, you would know that.

What I was trying to do is present a solution in which an Intentional Draw would not affect other players chances on making the cut. There's still incentive to do so (if you are the only two remaining undefeated players, and both 1st and 2nd can earn a first round bye, then a draw is a good play).