Early wins do tend to put you on a tougher track in Swiss. It's my primary argument against SoS as a tiebreaker since it penalizes early losses more than late ones.

It's true that they penalize early wins more than late ones, but I think this is a good thing and why SoS should be the main tiebreaker. I shouldn't be coming second in a swiss event by submarining round one and then tabling people all day while the guy at the top of the standings all day who loses the last round gets leapfrogged because he played tougher competition who he couldn't table each round.

Have you examined the SoS from Roanoake?

IDs reward those people that won early and often. Which more often then not means that they played tougher competition.

Especially in this style of play, where players begin each event unranked and initial pairings are random, early pairings have the least information about which should be matched together. That means the most consequential rounds in Swiss play are those that fall near the end of the the tournament--and those are exactly the matches that can now be determined by intentional draw, rather than by play.

That is, it's true that IDs reward players who win early, but ID is a method of avoiding tough competition, not a reward for those who have already faced it.

Every match that ends with an ID is a missed opportunity to compare two players. A system where IDs are used (by which I mean a system that includes any kind of match where the results are not determined by the legitimate outcome of play) is more random and less competitive than one where they aren't used.

I share these sentiments, as well as the other points made. Earlier matches (especially round1, maybe 2) are typically of lower competition than the later rounds.

Early wins do tend to put you on a tougher track in Swiss. It's my primary argument against SoS as a tiebreaker since it penalizes early losses more than late ones.

It's true that they penalize early wins more than late ones, but I think this is a good thing and why SoS should be the main tiebreaker. I shouldn't be coming second in a swiss event by submarining round one and then tabling people all day while the guy at the top of the standings all day who loses the last round gets leapfrogged because he played tougher competition who he couldn't table each round.

Have you examined the SoS from Roanoake?

Do you understand how SoS works? You can't compare the SoS of players at different records. Players who lose mid-tournament do so to players with stronger win records than those who don't lose, since they give each of their opponents a loss. Players who are undefeated will not have played against other undefeated players. Winning a match lowers your SoS.

Edit: Roanoke also had byes, the players with extremely high SoS almost certainly came off of byes and did not have to play against anyone who lost in round 1.

Early wins do tend to put you on a tougher track in Swiss. It's my primary argument against SoS as a tiebreaker since it penalizes early losses more than late ones.

It's true that they penalize early wins more than late ones, but I think this is a good thing and why SoS should be the main tiebreaker. I shouldn't be coming second in a swiss event by submarining round one and then tabling people all day while the guy at the top of the standings all day who loses the last round gets leapfrogged because he played tougher competition who he couldn't table each round.

Have you examined the SoS from Roanoake?

Drops have a very adverse effect on SoS. And with the 7 (or so I read somewhere) drops that means a fair number of the field (potentially, depending on how many of the drops played one another) had their SoS damaged by those drops. I don't know who, nor where they were in the standings, but some of the players certainly were affected.

IDs reward those people that won early and often. Which more often then not means that they played tougher competition.

Especially in this style of play, where players begin each event unranked and initial pairings are random, early pairings have the least information about which should be matched together. That means the most consequential rounds in Swiss play are those that fall near the end of the the tournament--and those are exactly the matches that can now be determined by intentional draw, rather than by play.

That is, it's true that IDs reward players who win early, but ID is a method of avoiding tough competition, not a reward for those who have already faced it.

Every match that ends with an ID is a missed opportunity to compare two players. A system where IDs are used (by which I mean a system that includes any kind of match where the results are not determined by the legitimate outcome of play) is more random and less competitive than one where they aren't used.

Well IDs make sure you face the top competition at a tournament after the cut in a Top 4/8/16

Early wins do tend to put you on a tougher track in Swiss. It's my primary argument against SoS as a tiebreaker since it penalizes early losses more than late ones.

It's true that they penalize early wins more than late ones, but I think this is a good thing and why SoS should be the main tiebreaker. I shouldn't be coming second in a swiss event by submarining round one and then tabling people all day while the guy at the top of the standings all day who loses the last round gets leapfrogged because he played tougher competition who he couldn't table each round.

Have you examined the SoS from Roanoake?

Do you understand how SoS works? You can't compare the SoS of players at different records. Players who lose mid-tournament do so to players with stronger win records than those who don't lose, since they give each of their opponents a loss. Players who are undefeated will not have played against other undefeated players. Winning a match lowers your SoS.

Edit: Roanoke also had byes, the players with extremely high SoS almost certainly came off of byes and did not have to play against anyone who lost in round 1.

I see your point, and yes, I understand that, but there are still problems with SoS like the fact that it is completely out of a players' control. Drops also artificially lower SoS (I know plenty of competitive players who drop the minute they know they are out of the cut), which was the main reason it was dropped as the primary tiebreaker.

Good, good.

Let the hate flow through you.

Made me laugh.

Kris

Well IDs make sure you face the top competition at a tournament after the cut in a Top 4/8/16

Not really.

They offer some players the opportunity to ensure that they make the Top 4/8/16 even though a defeat would have seen you fall out at the hands of a potentially better player.

I don't understand those who argue the "just win often and early" crowd... You're literally arguing for people to avoid HAVING to win.

I might win 3 games on the bounce because I got lucky in round one and played the worst player in the competition(the guy who goes 0-5), got the 3rd worst player (1-4)in round two and got super lucky in round 3 (lets say all my greens came good when I needed them).

Then let's say I lose bravely to a really good player in round 4, putting me on 3-1 but with a decent MoV... Why should I get to take round 5 off?

Because I won early? Bully for me.

The final rounds of Swiss are when people are most likely to be playing people of equal(ish) skill to them - that's when it becomes a true test. Those are the important games.

There's a reason your SC win gets you a first round bye at regionals, and not a 5th round bye.

Dear FFG-OP team,

we accept your decission to hold on the actual intentional draw rule.

Because of this we need a little fix on the price support for the upcoming regional.

We need the following for an 80 player event.

80x Hera-Syndulla-Promo card

80x Cluster mine-Token

80x Promo dice set

80x Challange coin

80x Regional Championship trophy and bye card

Because an ID is now legal, and doing IDs is the logical best choice for the player to secure a win, we might have a tournament with only IDs.

Resulting in first place for everyone. For this case we will need the prices to reward all the players who did choose the ID as a legal way.

Thank you,

your community.

I love the blatant foolishness to this post. Especially considering you can not ID during elimination rounds.

Early wins do tend to put you on a tougher track in Swiss. It's my primary argument against SoS as a tiebreaker since it penalizes early losses more than late ones.

It's true that they penalize early wins more than late ones, but I think this is a good thing and why SoS should be the main tiebreaker. I shouldn't be coming second in a swiss event by submarining round one and then tabling people all day while the guy at the top of the standings all day who loses the last round gets leapfrogged because he played tougher competition who he couldn't table each round.

Have you examined the SoS from Roanoake?

Do you understand how SoS works? You can't compare the SoS of players at different records. Players who lose mid-tournament do so to players with stronger win records than those who don't lose, since they give each of their opponents a loss. Players who are undefeated will not have played against other undefeated players. Winning a match lowers your SoS.

Edit: Roanoke also had byes, the players with extremely high SoS almost certainly came off of byes and did not have to play against anyone who lost in round 1.

I see your point, and yes, I understand that, but there are still problems with SoS like the fact that it is completely out of a players' control. Drops also artificially lower SoS (I know plenty of competitive players who drop the minute they know they are out of the cut), which was the main reason it was dropped as the primary tiebreaker.

Yeah, it has problems as a mathematical tiebreaker. IDs get around that problem by rewarding early wins (which means a tougher day) without relying on the mathematical problems of SoS.

Early wins do tend to put you on a tougher track in Swiss. It's my primary argument against SoS as a tiebreaker since it penalizes early losses more than late ones.

It's true that they penalize early wins more than late ones, but I think this is a good thing and why SoS should be the main tiebreaker. I shouldn't be coming second in a swiss event by submarining round one and then tabling people all day while the guy at the top of the standings all day who loses the last round gets leapfrogged because he played tougher competition who he couldn't table each round.

Have you examined the SoS from Roanoake?

Drops have a very adverse effect on SoS. And with the 7 (or so I read somewhere) drops that means a fair number of the field (potentially, depending on how many of the drops played one another) had their SoS damaged by those drops. I don't know who, nor where they were in the standings, but some of the players certainly were affected.

Drops only affect SoS if the person dropping would have won their remaining games, driving up the averages used.

[...] Which more often then not means that they played tougher competition [...]

I'm calling bull**** on that

IDs reward those people that won early and often. Which more often then not means that they played tougher competition.

Fairly sure that's backwards mate.

1) Do ID ALWAYS punish those below? I can understand the frustration of people getting the shaft because those ranked above them ID, but if it's not going to affect them then why care?

2) Why not make it to where IDs are only acceptable when it doesn't affect those below?

Because if it has no impact you don't need Intentional Draws. If the game is inconsequential then one player can just concede.

The only purpose of Intentional Draws is to mutually secure your positions, which is why their addition in a game where drawing is so rare and very hard to do deliberately without being blindingly obvious is so baffling.

Amazing really.

A person that starts 4-0 has had a much tougher road(more often than not) then someone with an early loss. The 4-0 person has done nothing but face other undefeated people. Sounds tougher to me.

IDs reward those people that won early and often. Which more often then not means that they played tougher competition.

Especially in this style of play, where players begin each event unranked and initial pairings are random, early pairings have the least information about which should be matched together. That means the most consequential rounds in Swiss play are those that fall near the end of the the tournament--and those are exactly the matches that can now be determined by intentional draw, rather than by play.

That is, it's true that IDs reward players who win early, but ID is a method of avoiding tough competition, not a reward for those who have already faced it.

Every match that ends with an ID is a missed opportunity to compare two players. A system where IDs are used (by which I mean a system that includes any kind of match where the results are not determined by the legitimate outcome of play) is more random and less competitive than one where they aren't used.

Well IDs make sure you face the top competition at a tournament after the cut in a Top 4/8/16

IDs are used to make sure you face the other players in the cut. How well the tournament cut corresponds to the "top competition" is really a question of how good the tournament structure is. Since IDs make the tournament results more random and less competitive, a tournament where IDs occur is less likely to place the "top competition" in the cut than one that doesn't.

Encourage winning as opposed to not losing and ID doesn't happen.

Recalculate round count requirements with ID in mind.

Make cuts non-exponential: 10, 12, 18, 20. And you create a situation where you are rewarded for winning your last round but aren't severely punished for losing.

Reward players with byes in elimination rounds, not draws in swiss.

Reward players by not making them play a game that could result in their elimination by making them play a game that results in their elimination. That's what you're saying.

If you do not like IDs you need to talk about the Swiss system. I am no fan of IDs but have learned to live with them after 20 or so years of MtG.

Draws in Magic are very unlikly as well and for the most part are because of time. So this game is compareable to Magic in that manner.

I would prefer a double elimination system over the Swiss system but that would not grant every player the same rounds. But this system would focus only on winning or losing. No more draws.

Im so tired of people referencing MTG

MTG is a pay to win game where draws are extremely common and impossible to enforce.

In XWing actual draws are extremely rare.

(Yes I know MTG takes skill, however the difference between a CCG and a miniature collection game is completely completely different)

Dear FFG-OP team,

we accept your decission to hold on the actual intentional draw rule.

Because of this we need a little fix on the price support for the upcoming regional.

We need the following for an 80 player event.

80x Hera-Syndulla-Promo card

80x Cluster mine-Token

80x Promo dice set

80x Challange coin

80x Regional Championship trophy and bye card

Because an ID is now legal, and doing IDs is the logical best choice for the player to secure a win, we might have a tournament with only IDs.

Resulting in first place for everyone. For this case we will need the prices to reward all the players who did choose the ID as a legal way.

Thank you,

your community.

I love the blatant foolishness to this post. Especially considering you can not ID during elimination rounds.

Think before you talk.

If everyone finished swiss with the same points, MoV, and SoS, then there would be no elimination rounds as everyone would be tied for first.

Well IDs make sure you face the top competition at a tournament after the cut in a Top 4/8/16

Not really.

They offer some players the opportunity to ensure that they make the Top 4/8/16 even though a defeat would have seen you fall out at the hands of a potentially better player.

I don't understand those who argue the "just win often and early" crowd... You're literally arguing for people to avoid HAVING to win.

I might win 3 games on the bounce because I got lucky in round one and played the worst player in the competition(the guy who goes 0-5), got the 3rd worst player (1-4)in round two and got super lucky in round 3 (lets say all my greens came good when I needed them).

Then let's say I lose bravely to a really good player in round 4, putting me on 3-1 but with a decent MoV... Why should I get to take round 5 off?

Because I won early? Bully for me.

The final rounds of Swiss are when people are most likely to be playing people of equal(ish) skill to them - that's when it becomes a true test. Those are the important games.

There's a reason your SC win gets you a first round bye at regionals, and not a 5th round bye.

You can't look at with luck as a factor. A large sample size is needed to see that.

Dear FFG-OP team,

we accept your decission to hold on the actual intentional draw rule.

Because of this we need a little fix on the price support for the upcoming regional.

We need the following for an 80 player event.

80x Hera-Syndulla-Promo card

80x Cluster mine-Token

80x Promo dice set

80x Challange coin

80x Regional Championship trophy and bye card

Because an ID is now legal, and doing IDs is the logical best choice for the player to secure a win, we might have a tournament with only IDs.

Resulting in first place for everyone. For this case we will need the prices to reward all the players who did choose the ID as a legal way.

Thank you,

your community.

I love the blatant foolishness to this post. Especially considering you can not ID during elimination rounds.

Think before you talk.

If everyone finished swiss with the same points, MoV, and SoS, then there would be no elimination rounds as everyone would be tied for first.

Actually there is a random tiebreaker after MOV, SOS, ExSOS...

Kris

Dear FFG-OP team,

we accept your decission to hold on the actual intentional draw rule.

Because of this we need a little fix on the price support for the upcoming regional.

We need the following for an 80 player event.

80x Hera-Syndulla-Promo card

80x Cluster mine-Token

80x Promo dice set

80x Challange coin

80x Regional Championship trophy and bye card

Because an ID is now legal, and doing IDs is the logical best choice for the player to secure a win, we might have a tournament with only IDs.

Resulting in first place for everyone. For this case we will need the prices to reward all the players who did choose the ID as a legal way.

Thank you,

your community.

I love the blatant foolishness to this post. Especially considering you can not ID during elimination rounds.

Think before you talk.

If everyone finished swiss with the same points, MoV, and SoS, then there would be no elimination rounds as everyone would be tied for first.

Dear FFG-OP team,

we accept your decission to hold on the actual intentional draw rule.

Because of this we need a little fix on the price support for the upcoming regional.

We need the following for an 80 player event.

80x Hera-Syndulla-Promo card

80x Cluster mine-Token

80x Promo dice set

80x Challange coin

80x Regional Championship trophy and bye card

Because an ID is now legal, and doing IDs is the logical best choice for the player to secure a win, we might have a tournament with only IDs.

Resulting in first place for everyone. For this case we will need the prices to reward all the players who did choose the ID as a legal way.

Thank you,

your community.

I love the blatant foolishness to this post. Especially considering you can not ID during elimination rounds.

Think before you talk.

If everyone finished swiss with the same points, MoV, and SoS, then there would be no elimination rounds as everyone would be tied for first.

I would have to look at tiebreakers for the cut. I would imagine it might come down to random draw.

But I would have a major issue with any PRO team intentionally deciding to draw a game with their opponent. Secretly or not. In front of a neutral governing party or not.

Not sure how stuff works on the other side of the Pond, but in European football, intentional draws are quite common. They don't involve any negotiation with the opposing team (match fixing is illegal), both teams are aware that draw is the most beneficial result so they don't really try to win. I watch football regularly and IMO there is nothing more boring to watch than the last game of a group stage where both teams involved qualify on a draw, but not on a loss.

Of course, it's much harder to avoid and police in football (where unintentional draws occur often) than x-wing (where they don't)

Early wins do tend to put you on a tougher track in Swiss. It's my primary argument against SoS as a tiebreaker since it penalizes early losses more than late ones.

It's true that they penalize early wins more than late ones, but I think this is a good thing and why SoS should be the main tiebreaker. I shouldn't be coming second in a swiss event by submarining round one and then tabling people all day while the guy at the top of the standings all day who loses the last round gets leapfrogged because he played tougher competition who he couldn't table each round.

Have you examined the SoS from Roanoake?

Drops have a very adverse effect on SoS. And with the 7 (or so I read somewhere) drops that means a fair number of the field (potentially, depending on how many of the drops played one another) had their SoS damaged by those drops. I don't know who, nor where they were in the standings, but some of the players certainly were affected.

Drops only affect SoS if the person dropping would have won their remaining games, driving up the averages used.

Well, as I understand how it works, or used to, players that drop are given losses for all remaining games, so even if they'd have won just one game, it can matter, especially considering each loss makes it more likely a player will face someone they can beat.

Dropping typically only tells us a player is eliminated and isn't a reliable predictor of their final record.

When SoS was a thing, there were a ton of complaints from people that lost out because an opponent dropped. It's an especially bad predictor the longer the tournament is. I know a player who had three opponents drop at a particularly long regional and it tanked his SoS.

Dear FFG-OP team,

we accept your decission to hold on the actual intentional draw rule.

Because of this we need a little fix on the price support for the upcoming regional.

We need the following for an 80 player event.

80x Hera-Syndulla-Promo card

80x Cluster mine-Token

80x Promo dice set

80x Challange coin

80x Regional Championship trophy and bye card

Because an ID is now legal, and doing IDs is the logical best choice for the player to secure a win, we might have a tournament with only IDs.

Resulting in first place for everyone. For this case we will need the prices to reward all the players who did choose the ID as a legal way.

Thank you,

your community.

I love the blatant foolishness to this post. Especially considering you can not ID during elimination rounds.

Think before you talk.

If everyone finished swiss with the same points, MoV, and SoS, then there would be no elimination rounds as everyone would be tied for first.

There will not be any elimination rounds if all did a ID. Because you will have no Top 8. Only all at first place.