Surely the ID rule is neither here nor there. If two players want a draw they can just both start with their ships facing the wrong way...

The simple fact that the rules allow for 8 people to end a 40+ person event an entire round early is insanity.

The extreme example of the ID rule happened in the first regional. FFG has to change this and get better at math.

Surely the ID rule is neither here nor there. If two players want a draw they can just both start with their ships facing the wrong way...

Which the judge could thrn rule as collusion.

Just because you can do something does not mean you should do something, 8 players basically screwed over 11 players if I am reading the standings after round 5 correctly

EDIT: naaaah I'm retracting this. I want no part in this conversation anymore.

You're assuming this is a **** up. There is no reason to make that assumption just because some people dislike it specifically for illogical reasons.

No, I wasn't making that assumption. "Even if it appears as an intentional f up". Was what I said.

I just don't see how this wasn't obvious that this was going to happen in every meaningful tournament the moment the document came out. This is literally the worst move FFG has made thus far for this game. Forget about meta directions, etc. It is critical to understand that the x-wing crowd is by and large not the same demographic as hardcore magic players (of course a former DCI big wig who is now head of FFG OP isn't going to get that). If any FFG is close to the same crowd, it would be netrunner. As a whole the x-wing community embraces the fly casual approach, but at any given event, even some of the more "casual" players will be in the hunt for top 8. The worst thing FFG can do is to $%^& all over that crowd, as they are 90% of the player base. Nobody seriously calls themselves a professional x-wing player. This game is crazy popular now, but it's not invincible. A whole season leaving this bad taste in the mouth of the HUNDREDS of new players that are attending large events for the first time(s) can kill this game faster than using micro machines for new figures. Even players that may not be directly affected by this will witness the impact it has and consider just staying at home next regional season. Couple that with the fact that in 2017, there (at least it appears) will be no store championships and the decline in attendance across the board from 2016 to 2018 store championship/regional seasons can be significant. Get rid of this trash.

/end rant

Personally I find it hard to get a draw instead of a modified win, Unless everyone is using the same list.

But yeah if 75 minuets goes buy and not 1 ship is destroyed or a large ship down to half health they should both be penalized 1 point.

I've never played a tournament, so could someone tell me what he's talking about?

Essentially, in a tournament, a bunch of games are played to build a record. The ones with the fewest losses move to the final, with ties broken by margin of victory points. So if all the people in the top 8 have one loss, and all the rest have two or more, a draw in the last round before the final will keep them from accumulating another loss and secure their place. By playing "for keeps" they risk a loss and the potential of getting cut from the final. FFG made a rule change codifying the Intentional Draw, rather than the circus of ships carving holes in space waiting for the time limit to elapse. The OP is angry that the top 8 used the ID to do just that. The discussion revolves around the fairness and the morality of doing so, and how rules could be tweaked to fix it.

There is a clear order of operations error going here. All 4 pairs did not (could not) make an independent judgements because what other people do affects them (and others). This appears to be a domino effect, once it started happening everyone decided to the same. If you think about it, the Top 8 formed a Cartel for the express purpose of preventing others getting into the top 8 at the expense of themselves.

There is no way for two players to agree to not play and "not" affect the standings in some way which contravenes the floor rules. Just because FFG allowed it at the Hoth Open doesn't really matter other than setting the (incorrect) precedent that and ID is not collusion. It doesn't avoid the fact that in this tournament some players are "making the decision" after it has become apparent that everyone else is doing the same. Thus some players are making decisions based on knowing the outcome of some of the games in a round yet to played. The players should not have this information beforehand to factor into their judgement. Looking at the last rounds scores is fine, but not the result of future game not yet played (or not played as the case may be).

This is the clear error on FFGs part by disbarring collusion yet allowing Intentional Draws which by their own definition are collusion. They legalised a contradiction. I don't give FFG the benefit of the doubt that they know what they are doing, they aren't omnipotent. I'm sure they meant well, but clearly got it wrong. They just plain screwed up.

The clear and easy way to fix it to allow players to take a game off is change intentional draws to double losses. Then the result of your game is completely independent of the outcome of every other game. You do not advance any further (points or MoV wise), but if you have enough points to advance already (both players) then it doesn't matter. Most importantly a double loss does not alter anyone else's chances of making the cut and are thus "independent". Because the outcome of a double loss is tourney point neutral there is no collusion and it does not result in changing the probability of some else making cut, ergo, then it does not count as manipulating scoring. If you don't quite have enough points/MoV to take a loss but the odds are in your favour then go ahead and do it if you want (I wouldn't).

The real culprit is the introduction of the misguided rule, but the players who formed a Cartel are not blameless, and should have been excluded for colluding, or the TO should have said no to any of the ID, which they are well entitled to despite FFG's stance at the Hoth Open, as the context is quite different.

http://stayontheleader.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/you-cant-win-but-there-are-alternatives.html

(Not by me, I just found it on Reddit.)

I wouldn't mind seeing draws eliminated entirely. Give the winner to the initiative player in that case.

Would simply not posting last round stats solve this problem?

While I don't agree with ID, I'm pretty sure you and your opponent could fly extra casual for 75 minutes and "hey looks like draw, weird". ID just makes it so if you were going to do this you don't have to pretend to play for 75 minutes.

Would simply not posting last round stats solve this problem?

While I don't agree with ID, I'm pretty sure you and your opponent could fly extra casual for 75 minutes and "hey looks like draw, weird". ID just makes it so if you were going to do this you don't have to pretend to play for 75 minutes.

Easy enough to solve. If at the end of your last Swiss round there's no mov difference player with initiative wins and the other loses. Obviously that's not particularly refined, but we know how x-wing plays and we know what a normal end state looks like. Penalize anything that isn't that.

I've never played a tournament, so could someone tell me what he's talking about?

Essentially, in a tournament, a bunch of games are played to build a record. The ones with the fewest losses move to the final, with ties broken by margin of victory points. So if all the people in the top 8 have one loss, and all the rest have two or more, a draw in the last round before the final will keep them from accumulating another loss and secure their place. By playing "for keeps" they risk a loss and the potential of getting cut from the final. FFG made a rule change codifying the Intentional Draw, rather than the circus of ships carving holes in space waiting for the time limit to elapse. The OP is angry that the top 8 used the ID to do just that. The discussion revolves around the fairness and the morality of doing so, and how rules could be tweaked to fix it.

To sum it up, the players at the top of the cut simply moved their ships around and did not attack each other.

However I can see FFG fixing this with a simple rule that the MOV counts towards a win so say if someone underbid (99 points) to gain initiative and they played a 0 point game against a 100 point list since the list is 99 to 100 points the mov should go to the 100 points thus changing a truce into a modified win. That way it is harder to find those equal point draws.

Would simply not posting last round stats solve this problem?

While I don't agree with ID, I'm pretty sure you and your opponent could fly extra casual for 75 minutes and "hey looks like draw, weird". ID just makes it so if you were going to do this you don't have to pretend to play for 75 minutes.

Flying to a draw is implicitly collusion, thus not allowed.

Not posting standings would help, but at the expense of the more important "getting the results right".

I agree they need a system to handle these types of things. The one they implemented simply doesn't work. We are two tournaments in and both have been controversial.

It boils down to an important aspect of gaming/sports, you should not be rewarded for not playing.

Stop being jerks and blaming the players.

"The Players", also known as "The 8 individuals to worked together to ensure they all made the cutoff by ensuring no other players who were in with a shot didn't even have a chance." If we can't criticise the people who actively made the decision and the resulting action, who can we criticise?

There is a clear order of operations error going here. All 4 pairs did not (could not) make an independent judgements because what other people do affects them (and others).

Every single one of those players could have looked at the standings going into that round, and provided that they can do addition, concluded that a Draw would get them into the Top Cut. Not a single one of them needed to know what any other player planned on doing, all they had to do was look at the stands and it's readily apparent.

1. 25pts

2. 25pts

3. 20pts

4. 20pts

5. 20pts

6. 20pts

7. 20pts

8. 20pts

9. 15pts

Are you telling me that spots 1-8 couldn't just look at those standings and instantly know that a Draw, independent of what any other pairing within the Top 8 decided to do, would lock up a spot on the Top 8? Any person could instantly look at those standings and realize 9th place and beyond can at best move up to 20pts, meaning that if you were already at 20pts any amount of pts secures your spot. Even if other players in spots 1-8 decided to play their games out, it would make absolutely no difference as 4-1-1 would still earn enough points to gaureentee the Top 8.

Whether you like the ID rule or not, please stop making things up to try and bolster your point of view. It's disingenuous debating at best.

After playing for over 7 hours I'm thinking that if you could ID into the cut that would be a great idea allowing people to enter the elimination rounds refreshed and ready to go for another 4 hours.

Perhaps this tournament effectively did have one too many rounds of swiss. Maybe FFG should do more to mix up tournament points instead of seeing so much scoring as essentially a binary operation; throw out some more modified wins and maybe give a point for a modified loss at being in that "top 8" going into a final round may no longer be such a safe place to be.

For everyone who thinks that the ID is going to drive people away from tournament I think it's topics such as this one that may keep some people from ever wanting to go to a tournament in the first place.

There is a clear order of operations error going here. All 4 pairs did not (could not) make an independent judgements because what other people do affects them (and others). This appears to be a domino effect, once it started happening everyone decided to the same. If you think about it, the Top 8 formed a Cartel for the express purpose of preventing others getting into the top 8 at the expense of themselves.

There is no way for two players to agree to not play and "not" affect the standings in some way which contravenes the floor rules. Just because FFG allowed it at the Hoth Open doesn't really matter other than setting the (incorrect) precedent that and ID is not collusion. It doesn't avoid the fact that in this tournament some players are "making the decision" after it has become apparent that everyone else is doing the same. Thus some players are making decisions based on knowing the outcome of some of the games in a round yet to played. The players should not have this information beforehand to factor into their judgement. Looking at the last rounds scores is fine, but not the result of future game not yet played (or not played as the case may be).

This is the clear error on FFGs part by disbarring collusion yet allowing Intentional Draws which by their own definition are collusion. They legalised a contradiction. I don't give FFG the benefit of the doubt that they know what they are doing, they aren't omnipotent. I'm sure they meant well, but clearly got it wrong. They just plain screwed up.

The clear and easy way to fix it to allow players to take a game off is change intentional draws to double losses. Then the result of your game is completely independent of the outcome of every other game. You do not advance any further (points or MoV wise), but if you have enough points to advance already (both players) then it doesn't matter. Most importantly a double loss does not alter anyone else's chances of making the cut and are thus "independent". Because the outcome of a double loss is tourney point neutral there is no collusion and it does not result in changing the probability of some else making cut, ergo, then it does not count as manipulating scoring. If you don't quite have enough points/MoV to take a loss but the odds are in your favour then go ahead and do it if you want (I wouldn't).

The real culprit is the introduction of the misguided rule, but the players who formed a Cartel are not blameless, and should have been excluded for colluding, or the TO should have said no to any of the ID, which they are well entitled to despite FFG's stance at the Hoth Open, as the context is quite different.

Ninja'd.

Would simply not posting last round stats solve this problem?

While I don't agree with ID, I'm pretty sure you and your opponent could fly extra casual for 75 minutes and "hey looks like draw, weird". ID just makes it so if you were going to do this you don't have to pretend to play for 75 minutes.

Plenty of people will take the ID that would play the game out for real if ID wasnt an option (case and point no regionalcto my knowledge has ever had the top 8 all draw befoe today)

Just seeing this:

...

Every single one of those players could have looked at the standings going into that round, and provided that they can do addition, concluded that a Draw would get them into the Top Cut. Not a single one of them needed to know what any other player planned on doing, all they had to do was look at the stands and it's readily apparent.

1. 25pts
2. 25pts
3. 20pts
4. 20pts
5. 20pts
6. 20pts
7. 20pts
8. 20pts
9. 15pts

Are you telling me that spots 1-8 couldn't just look at those standings and instantly know that a Draw, independent of what any other pairing within the Top 8 decided to do, would lock up a spot on the Top 8? Any person could instantly look at those standings and realize 9th place and beyond can at best move up to 20pts, meaning that if you were already at 20pts any amount of pts secures your spot. Even if other players in spots 1-8 decided to play their games out, it would make absolutely no difference as 4-1-1 would still earn enough points to gaureentee the Top 8.

Whether you like the ID rule or not, please stop making things up to try and bolster your point of view. It's disingenuous debating at best.

And here we see the problem. You've got two at 5-0 and six at 4-1 with the next in line at 3-2. Wow, even if any of those top 8 lost now you're back to looking at those also argued about tie breakers which can mean that even if #9 won there's no guarantee he would have made the cut.

Now cut out a tournament points out of the top end with some modified wins and maybe boost some of the rest with a "good fight but just short" reward for causing those modified wins and now you could be looking at points where the breaks aren't so clear and possibly not nearly as insurmountable.

Maybe a person will know how many tournament points they've acquired but posting a listing like that just takes out so much of the risk factor in taking an ID in the last round that it would be stupid not to take it and the break it grants.

There is a clear order of operations error going here. All 4 pairs did not (could not) make an independent judgements because what other people do affects them (and others).

This is not at all accurate.

Every single one of those players could have looked at the standings going into that round, and provided that they can do addition, concluded that a Draw would get them into the Top Cut. Not a single one of them needed to know what any other player planned on doing, all they had to do was look at the stands and it's readily apparent.

1. 25pts

2. 25pts

3. 20pts

4. 20pts

5. 20pts

6. 20pts

7. 20pts

8. 20pts

9. 15pts

Are you telling me that spots 1-8 couldn't just look at those standings and instantly know that a Draw, independent of what any other pairing within the Top 8 decided to do, would lock up a spot on the Top 8? Any person could instantly look at those standings and realize 9th place and beyond can at best move up to 20pts, meaning that if you were already at 20pts any amount of pts secures your spot. Even if other players in spots 1-8 decided to play their games out, it would make absolutely no difference as 4-1-1 would still earn enough points to gaureentee the Top 8.

Whether you like the ID rule or not, please stop making things up to try and bolster your point of view. It's disingenuous debating at best.

I never said they actually did that, nor did I make anything up, I implied it was possible. I merely posited that they were not making independent decisions, whether that possibility affected their choice or not is completely irrelevant and to elaborate there is still an independence assumption being violated, because if everyone takes a draw in this case then the standings are not affected and thus you know who your opponent will be in the final eight. The players are immediately privy to more information than they should be.

Take for example a situation where 3 pairs take take intentional draws and 1 pair decides to play out the game because they don't like the player/list they (would be) matched up with, the players can calculate potentially who they would play under conditions of a loss or a win. That scenario is made possible because their choices are not independent.

If you don't post standings you are going to absolutely have events in which scores are misrecorded and players are incorrectly paired as a result.

Furthermore it is fairly easy at the beginning of an event to do the math to know exactly where the cut off would be based on attendance and the cut size. So while the listed standings make it idiot proof, any player could walk into the event knowing that 21+ points will gaureentee you the Top 8 with that level of attendance.