Single elimination already uses Initiative to break draws. Clean and simple.But there isn't really a way to get rid of draws... They happen sometimes and it is pretty much unavoidable.
So we're giving the win to someone because they brought a point less or won the Initiative roll? Seems a bit too up to chance if you ask me.
Single elimination already uses Initiative to break draws. Clean and simple.But there isn't really a way to get rid of draws... They happen sometimes and it is pretty much unavoidable.
So we're giving the win to someone because they brought a point less or won the Initiative roll? Seems a bit too up to chance if you ask me.
How often do draws happen though? They're not super common. I've only had I believe 2 happen to me. If it's good enough for elimination it's good enough for swiss.
Single elimination already uses Initiative to break draws. Clean and simple.But there isn't really a way to get rid of draws... They happen sometimes and it is pretty much unavoidable.
So we're giving the win to someone because they brought a point less or won the Initiative roll? Seems a bit too up to chance if you ask me.
why? if you built a list with less points, then you are giving an advantage to someone else. You are playing with a disadvantage, so you have initiative, giving you the win in the case of a draw.
Oh, you brought Soontir? You want to give initiative to your opponent so you move after their PS9? that advantage in the game is EXTEMELY in your favor. In the case of a draw, I'd argue that yes, you took an advantage to give your opponent one if it comes to a draw at the end.
Single elimination already uses Initiative to break draws. Clean and simple.But there isn't really a way to get rid of draws... They happen sometimes and it is pretty much unavoidable.
So we're giving the win to someone because they brought a point less or won the Initiative roll? Seems a bit too up to chance if you ask me.
The win is given to the person with Initiative, not the winner of the Initiative roll (which decides who has initiative).
When there's a pilot skill tie, having initiative puts you at a disadvantage as you move first, so giving the win to someone who managed to wrestle a draw from a position of disadvantage seems fair.
Pilot skill ties are not guaranteed however.
So we're giving the win to someone because they brought a point less or won the Initiative roll? Seems a bit too up to chance if you ask me.
No more draws means no more IDs and that's the best result for X-Wing.
Single elimination already uses Initiative to break draws. Clean and simple.But there isn't really a way to get rid of draws... They happen sometimes and it is pretty much unavoidable.
So we're giving the win to someone because they brought a point less or won the Initiative roll? Seems a bit too up to chance if you ask me.
We are rolling dice every turn...
Honestly I don't think IDs need to be such the big deal that they are right now. Coming from years of playing Magic, where IDs are an extremely common occurrence (in a game where drawing is just as unlikely as in X-Wing), it is just something I always assumed was a given for competitive play in any game.
People will game the system if it isn't acceptable to just ID, flying in circles as so many have pointed out. If the top 8 of Roanoke had all just flown in circles for the 75 minutes, it would have had the same effect, but no one would be talking about it. It just saves time if you can go up to a TO and say "we'd like to ID."
Here, take this as an example. In Magic there are certain combinations of cards that, when all are in play, will result in an infinite combo of some sort through interactions. Now, instead of sitting there and repeating the combo a million times (which is physically impractical), the player may demonstrate the combo once, and then state that he is repeating it X number of times.
IDs are just two players stating that they are flying in circles for 75 minutes.
If the ID rule wasn't in place, a TO would have a fairly ironclad basis to call those players up for "collusion to manipulate scoring". More simply, FFG could replace the current ID rule with a rule that says 0-0 draws are worth 0 tournament points.
That wouldn't fix the underlying problem, which is that the cut from Swiss to single-elimination creates weird situations and incentives in late Swiss rounds. What we need is for Organized Play to consider whether the current tournament structure actually fits their needs for Formal and Premier events, and make changes accordingly. But ID isn't a good solution: it's an unfair and anti-competitive patch for a loophole in the system.
Single elimination already uses Initiative to break draws. Clean and simple.But there isn't really a way to get rid of draws... They happen sometimes and it is pretty much unavoidable.
So we're giving the win to someone because they brought a point less or won the Initiative roll? Seems a bit too up to chance if you ask me.
The win is given to the person with Initiative, not the winner of the Initiative roll (which decides who has initiative).
When there's a pilot skill tie, having initiative puts you at a disadvantage as you move first, so giving the win to someone who managed to wrestle a draw from a position of disadvantage seems fair.
Pilot skill ties are not guaranteed however.
Fair enough. It still feels a bit too shallow of a determiner for me, but I could live with that. But the fact of the matter is, drawing still happens (even if it is settled outside of the game), and IDing is a different beast altogether anyways.
Really, the scoring system of X-Wing is what needs to change and not the ID thing. The fact that a loser of a round gets zero points regardless of how he did is what breaks it. In Magic it is possible for a loser to still get a point if he/she wins one of the three games you play in a round. While having three games of X-Wing in a round is not feasible, there does need to be a way for the loser of a round to accumulate a point somehow. It would help solve the problem, because then drawing a game wouldn't necessarily put you just one point ahead of someone that lost one extra time than you.
If the ID rule wasn't in place, a TO would have a fairly ironclad basis to call those players up for "collusion to manipulate scoring". More simply, FFG could replace the current ID rule with a rule that says 0-0 draws are worth 0 tournament points.That wouldn't fix the underlying problem, which is that the cut from Swiss to single-elimination creates weird situations and incentives in late Swiss rounds. What we need is for Organized Play to consider whether the current tournament structure actually fits their needs for Formal and Premier events, and make changes accordingly. But ID isn't a good solution: it's an unfair and anti-competitive patch for a loophole in the system.Honestly I don't think IDs need to be such the big deal that they are right now. Coming from years of playing Magic, where IDs are an extremely common occurrence (in a game where drawing is just as unlikely as in X-Wing), it is just something I always assumed was a given for competitive play in any game.People will game the system if it isn't acceptable to just ID, flying in circles as so many have pointed out. If the top 8 of Roanoke had all just flown in circles for the 75 minutes, it would have had the same effect, but no one would be talking about it. It just saves time if you can go up to a TO and say "we'd like to ID."Here, take this as an example. In Magic there are certain combinations of cards that, when all are in play, will result in an infinite combo of some sort through interactions. Now, instead of sitting there and repeating the combo a million times (which is physically impractical), the player may demonstrate the combo once, and then state that he is repeating it X number of times.IDs are just two players stating that they are flying in circles for 75 minutes.
I agree with everything you are saying, but I still think IDing isn't really the problem. You are correct, they do need to reevaluate their tournament set up. Their scoring is what allows for people to game the system.
I think there needs to be a more in-depth approach to how points are awarded in between rounds. If there was some way for losers to pick up a point then IDing wouldn't be such a big issue. It is basically the same as saying an ID is worth 0-0 points, just kinda the opposite. More points given out overall is better than less points though. It means there is more information to go off of.
I watched Paul Heaver offer the simplest, easiest solution on Twitch TV, earlier today: No draws, no modified wins, no IDs. You win or you lose.
Imagine a scoring system where a win is worth 1 point and a loss is worth 0 points. Let tiebreakers sort out the pecking order.
Too simple? No way. Very logical and it makes perfect sense.
I try to abide by the KISS principle where possible.
If the ID rule wasn't in place, a TO would have a fairly ironclad basis to call those players up for "collusion to manipulate scoring".Honestly I don't think IDs need to be such the big deal that they are right now. Coming from years of playing Magic, where IDs are an extremely common occurrence (in a game where drawing is just as unlikely as in X-Wing), it is just something I always assumed was a given for competitive play in any game.People will game the system if it isn't acceptable to just ID, flying in circles as so many have pointed out. If the top 8 of Roanoke had all just flown in circles for the 75 minutes, it would have had the same effect, but no one would be talking about it. It just saves time if you can go up to a TO and say "we'd like to ID."Here, take this as an example. In Magic there are certain combinations of cards that, when all are in play, will result in an infinite combo of some sort through interactions. Now, instead of sitting there and repeating the combo a million times (which is physically impractical), the player may demonstrate the combo once, and then state that he is repeating it X number of times.IDs are just two players stating that they are flying in circles for 75 minutes.
Drawing like that would be dumb. Easy way for two smart people to draw (assuming both play some kind of Imp Aces as this is by far the most common list at the top nowadays): They largely play a normal game making sure they are both down to one ship of equal PS, drag these last ships as needed through asteroids to get them down to 1 hp, then have a face to face showdown at range 1, killing both and drawing. How do you police that?
I try to abide by the KISS principle where possible.
KISS doesn't allow for any leniency and rewards WAAC more than IDing does. If a win is a win and a loss is a loss, it rewards robots who play the most standard of lists because they are the best. It punishes you even more when the dice screw you over in a game, or if the stress of a long day throws you off in one game. The more opportunities to get points there are, the easier it is to buffer RNG and promote actually playing your round.
If the ID rule wasn't in place, a TO would have a fairly ironclad basis to call those players up for "collusion to manipulate scoring".Honestly I don't think IDs need to be such the big deal that they are right now. Coming from years of playing Magic, where IDs are an extremely common occurrence (in a game where drawing is just as unlikely as in X-Wing), it is just something I always assumed was a given for competitive play in any game.People will game the system if it isn't acceptable to just ID, flying in circles as so many have pointed out. If the top 8 of Roanoke had all just flown in circles for the 75 minutes, it would have had the same effect, but no one would be talking about it. It just saves time if you can go up to a TO and say "we'd like to ID."Here, take this as an example. In Magic there are certain combinations of cards that, when all are in play, will result in an infinite combo of some sort through interactions. Now, instead of sitting there and repeating the combo a million times (which is physically impractical), the player may demonstrate the combo once, and then state that he is repeating it X number of times.IDs are just two players stating that they are flying in circles for 75 minutes.
Drawing like that would be dumb. Easy way for two smart people to draw (assuming both play some kind of Imp Aces as this is by far the most common list at the top nowadays): They largely play a normal game making sure they are both down to one ship of equal PS, drag these last ships as needed through asteroids to get them down to 1 hp, then have a face to face showdown at range 1, killing both and drawing. How do you police that?
You don't police it. You watch as one of the idiots rakes an asteroid with two hull on his last ship, rolls a crit, and flips a direct hit.
Or, you could police it like any other kind of collusion. Someone sees it, points it out, and the TO DQs the offending players.
Single elimination already uses Initiative to break draws. Clean and simple.But there isn't really a way to get rid of draws... They happen sometimes and it is pretty much unavoidable.
So we're giving the win to someone because they brought a point less or won the Initiative roll? Seems a bit too up to chance if you ask me.
You seem fine with giving the win to someone who got lucky on the seeding just fine. ;-)
It up to the guy who has not the initiative to make the best out of his position.
Honestly I don't think IDs need to be such the big deal that they are right now. Coming from years of playing Magic, where IDs are an extremely common occurrence (in a game where drawing is just as unlikely as in X-Wing), it is just something I always assumed was a given for competitive play in any game.
People will game the system if it isn't acceptable to just ID, flying in circles as so many have pointed out. If the top 8 of Roanoke had all just flown in circles for the 75 minutes, it would have had the same effect, but no one would be talking about it. It just saves time if you can go up to a TO and say "we'd like to ID."
Here, take this as an example. In Magic there are certain combinations of cards that, when all are in play, will result in an infinite combo of some sort through interactions. Now, instead of sitting there and repeating the combo a million times (which is physically impractical), the player may demonstrate the combo once, and then state that he is repeating it X number of times.
IDs are just two players stating that they are flying in circles for 75 minutes.
If the ID rule wasn't in place, a TO would have a fairly ironclad basis to call those players up for "collusion to manipulate scoring". More simply, FFG could replace the current ID rule with a rule that says 0-0 draws are worth 0 tournament points.
And, in fact, they have ruled this at the Spanish National tournament last year. The Top 4 players simply flew around to secure their place in elimination. While I don't think the TO took action at the time, the winner was stripped of his bye.
I watched Paul Heaver offer the simplest, easiest solution on Twitch TV, earlier today: No draws, no modified wins, no IDs. You win or you lose.
Imagine a scoring system where a win is worth 1 point and a loss is worth 0 points. Let tiebreakers sort out the pecking order.
Too simple? No way. Very logical and it makes perfect sense.
I try to abide by the KISS principle where possible.
I'd certainly be happy to see 0pt draws but I wonder, would getting rid of modified wins be step too far?
I try to abide by the KISS principle where possible.
KISS doesn't allow for any leniency and rewards WAAC more than IDing does. If a win is a win and a loss is a loss, it rewards robots who play the most standard of lists because they are the best. It punishes you even more when the dice screw you over in a game, or if the stress of a long day throws you off in one game. The more opportunities to get points there are, the easier it is to buffer RNG and promote actually playing your round.
I don't see the problem. Playing constantly, under stress, under pressure and while exhausted is part of any competitive sport environment. There is literally zero point to have draws in x-wing and it seems like any competitive player agrees with that. On top of that your "buffering" RNG does not work, you screw up 2 times and you will not make the cut anyway. ;-)
I watched Paul Heaver offer the simplest, easiest solution on Twitch TV, earlier today: No draws, no modified wins, no IDs. You win or you lose.
Imagine a scoring system where a win is worth 1 point and a loss is worth 0 points. Let tiebreakers sort out the pecking order.
Too simple? No way. Very logical and it makes perfect sense.
I try to abide by the KISS principle where possible.
I'd certainly be happy to see 0pt draws but I wonder, would getting rid of modified wins be step too far?
Not at all, sometimes being unlucky is part of any sport, why try so hard to avoid it, when it does add a lot of complexity with very little gain and even benefits certain list more than others.
It is important to note that what happened in VA is not going to be the standard. It will normally be just the top table, who will get in no matter what.
And what exactly prevents it from becoming the norm?
Math.
Edit sorry if it was already posted, the thread is long and I have to go to work, I was just annoyed by a snarky "math" comment, when really math is what makes it so awful. They should make an ID an equivalent to a loss.
Second edit like I said in the other thread, draws are kissing your cousin. They are the worst, there should be a winner and a loser and if it comes down to something at the end like a dice roll, so be it, if I wanted a cooperative game experience I'd play one of those excellent games on the market.
Edited by SomnicideIf the ID rule wasn't in place, a TO would have a fairly ironclad basis to call those players up for "collusion to manipulate scoring".Honestly I don't think IDs need to be such the big deal that they are right now. Coming from years of playing Magic, where IDs are an extremely common occurrence (in a game where drawing is just as unlikely as in X-Wing), it is just something I always assumed was a given for competitive play in any game.People will game the system if it isn't acceptable to just ID, flying in circles as so many have pointed out. If the top 8 of Roanoke had all just flown in circles for the 75 minutes, it would have had the same effect, but no one would be talking about it. It just saves time if you can go up to a TO and say "we'd like to ID."Here, take this as an example. In Magic there are certain combinations of cards that, when all are in play, will result in an infinite combo of some sort through interactions. Now, instead of sitting there and repeating the combo a million times (which is physically impractical), the player may demonstrate the combo once, and then state that he is repeating it X number of times.IDs are just two players stating that they are flying in circles for 75 minutes.
Drawing like that would be dumb. Easy way for two smart people to draw (assuming both play some kind of Imp Aces as this is by far the most common list at the top nowadays): They largely play a normal game making sure they are both down to one ship of equal PS, drag these last ships as needed through asteroids to get them down to 1 hp, then have a face to face showdown at range 1, killing both and drawing. How do you police that?
You don't police it. You watch as one of the idiots rakes an asteroid with two hull on his last ship, rolls a crit, and flips a direct hit.
Or, you could police it like any other kind of collusion. Someone sees it, points it out, and the TO DQs the offending players.
What reason, and more important what proof of collusion would you have? These guys are flying aggressively, shooting each other and blowing up their ships. They just happen to draw at the end.
Paul Heaver on Page 16 of the other thread:
I like the suggestion one of the blogs put forward to remove draws entirely from X-Wing. In the case of a draw, the player with the initiative gets the win, same as in elimination rounds. It's clean and makes people play.
I think it says a lot that he's happy with draws being decided by initiative.
Edited by slowreflexPaul Heaver on Page 16:
I like the suggestion one of the blogs put forward to remove draws entirely from X-Wing. In the case of a draw, the player with the initiative gets the win, same as in elimination rounds. It's clean and makes people play.
I think it says a lot that he's happy with draws being decided by initiative.
Technical it is not a draw anymore, but the guy without initiative did not do enough in the game to win.
I'd certainly be happy to see 0pt draws but I wonder, would getting rid of modified wins be step too far?
Paul Heaver on Page 16:
I like the suggestion one of the blogs put forward to remove draws entirely from X-Wing. In the case of a draw, the player with the initiative gets the win, same as in elimination rounds. It's clean and makes people play.
I think it says a lot that he's happy with draws being decided by initiative.
Technical it is not a draw anymore, but the guy without initiative did not do enough in the game to win.
That's the point. No need for draws.
I watched Paul Heaver offer the simplest, easiest solution on Twitch TV, earlier today: No draws, no modified wins, no IDs. You win or you lose.
Imagine a scoring system where a win is worth 1 point and a loss is worth 0 points. Let tiebreakers sort out the pecking order.
Too simple? No way. Very logical and it makes perfect sense.
I try to abide by the KISS principle where possible.
It removes the problem posed by IDs, but it doesn't address the motive for ID: late in the Swiss rounds, the current tournament structure generates games where players don't need to win, but can't afford to lose. (It also generates games where the outcome doesn't matter at all, both for very successful players and very unsuccessful players. That creates a different kind of problem.)
So I think ID needs to go as a first step, either immediately or as soon as 2016 Regionals are over (so that, however bad the rule is, players at each Regional have the same experience). You can apply 0-point draws as a temporary fix. But in the long term, they still need to overhaul the tournament structure to eliminate matches where players have incentives to do things other than simply try to win.