I'm pretty sure I understand where FFG were coming from when they instituted the Intentional Draw rule, and I do believe they had the best intentions. However, the decision seems to have back fired and done something quite different.

I assume that the intentional draw was designed to give players at very top a reward for for going undefeated. If two players remain undefeated with one game remaining in Swiss, playing the game is relatively meaningless (and in some cases undesirable for a player with a list they don't their potential future opponent to practice against). Seeding in Swiss is probably correlated with overall wins, but taking a draw instead of a win might change your opponent but not your chance of actually winning an event. I.e. The probability of you winning versus player A or B won't change as a function of your record even if you play against a relatively higher ranked player. This is a long-winded way of saying all games in elimination are tough games.

The incentive for taking a draw is a game off, heading into the cut, a fairly significant bonus, and works pretty well when both players are guaranteed entry to the cut. In a case such as this no other players are affected apart from seeding changes.

The situation at the Hoth Open was different (you can follow the thread on reddit for an overview), a lack of foresight meant that FFG incentivised taking a draw by awarding points and MoV, which does affect other players. This is because X-wing scoring is relative, a change in scoring for some players will change the shape and order for other players. By doing the maths players were able to determine that they could seal their place in the top cut at the expense of other players. This is a situation where intentional draws do not work. Taking a point changed the dynamics for players who "could have" not made the cut if they lost. Though by FFGs standards this is not collusion, it really is, but as Brad discusses on Reddit he (and his opponent) were being pragmatic. For them it was a win/win situation, it didn't matter that other players were affected by it. In self interest it was the prudent course of action.

I don't fault the players for this at all, but lay fault at rule for incentivising taking a draw for the wrong subset of players, I.e. Players on the bubble, versus guaranteed cut players.

If indeed I am correct about the "intention" of FFG then the rule they should have implemented (and hopefully) do is the for players to be allowed to legally collude in front of a Judge/Marshall and take a double loss instead. Both players get 0 tournament points, and no MoV. This allows those players to take a game off if they both agree and does not adversely affect the standings for any other players (Swiss rankings notwithstanding). But you can only afford to do it if you are unable to finish lower than the last 2 positions of the cut (unless you like to gamble that is). For what it is worth flying around for 75 minutes to get an actual draw would be considered collusion, but also highly unlikely to happen.

I believe this preserves the intention of the rule, and provides a disincentive for players "on the bubble" to take a draw (since in this case it would be a loss) like what happened at the Hoth Open.

You're being naive if you think FFG wasn't completely aware of how allowing IDs would play out. IDs are not a novel concept in gaming, this isn't a new thing that FFG created. FFG'S new head of OP is a former MTG Judge, IDs like X-wing has now occur in MTG all of the time. There is no way that FFG did not know situations would occur as they did with the Hoth Open when adding the ID rule.

The ID is there for players that don't need a win but can not afford to lose.

Former magic player here. If you're mad because you didn't make a cut at 4-2 because a player ended up 4-1-1. That's on you to not lose two games.

Look at it this way. A player that loses round one and wins out usually ends up with a better MOV then someone that wins until the final round. Mostly because the player that starts undefeated is probably playing tougher competition. Because that person is playing other undefeated players. So they're MOV will possibly be lower. They've actually had a tougher road. Giving them a chance to ID rewards them for good play.

WOW! And here I'm under the impression that taking a draw is just barely better than taking a loss and as a whole bad for the pair as only two tournament points are awarded instead of 5 if there is a full win and 3 if there happens to be a modified win.

Making an Intentional Draw an option is a great thing FFG did for the players. To go back to things there is NOTHING in the rules that says either player must play to win although some like to bring in all kinds of claims of unsportsmanlike conduct for doing so. Players could easily make a "mistake" and fly all of their ships off the board the first round which would result in a tie. Players could also fortress or fly around in circles for an entire game and also end in a draw although it is a waste of an hour plus sitting there and playing it out.

Or they could just sit their and fumble with their dials for an hour, then do a 1 move, then make a bathroom call, get a soda, eat a snickers, then come back and set their next set of 1 moves as time is called.

WOW! And here I'm under the impression that taking a draw is just barely better than taking a loss and as a whole bad for the pair as only two tournament points are awarded instead of 5 if there is a full win and 3 if there happens to be a modified win.

1 is a small number, yes, but 1 tournament point is all you need to stay ahead of someone who is exactly one full win behind you when there's only one round left. (People aren't IDing on round 2 or 3 out of 5. They're doing it on the last Swiss round.)