A

it seems that option b was the closest to what A lot of us were saying but altered to take out draws. So, none of the above I guess.

Ties are not the devil, especially in a better structured points system.

Also would like to see 20-0

The issue most people had with leaving in draws and removing ID is that players would just fly in circles to get a draw, essentially creating an ID in a different way.

They could do that before, when did you ever see it happen?

As long as there is a match result where both players score points the problem of players being able to manipulate the results remains. That was the problem that led to the introduction of IDs (which did not solve it, only made it worse).

I don't know where I stand on modified wins (if they are needed or not), but under no circumstances can there be a match result that gives points to both players.

This poll is not going to work. You have a number of posts made before you made changes to the options, a number of people who choose an option but note the option with changes, and then a number that pick "none of the above."

I wish this forum would allow you to create a real poll where you click to vote.

A

ID should work as normal provided the "leader" has final say on approval. If a draw will affect final standing in a cut out (i.e. prevent a lower seed player the chance to place in the top cut) then play must continue or modified draw/win will change to = 0

I would go with A, with change to give 0 points and 0 MoV in case of ID.

Neither of these are A. A is the rules as they currently are. If you prefer them as they currently are, then please confirm and I'll include the vote. The three options presented are the most popular three options being discussed. It's a preference amongst those three. If every option was included the poll would be massive and inconclusive.

Than A.

Leave the initiative as it is - part of the tactic. The fact that you have won a roll in the beginning should not determine the winner of any game imo. Plus, what now seems to be a tactical give away of initiative would cost you a risk of lose in B & C... bad ideas.

I see no "20 of sum" system.

with points distributed to both players according to MoV

That's because I've only see it mentioned a few times. These are the three most popular options being discussed.

their "popularity" is overestimated.

lack of possibilities isn't an excuse.

20-0 15-5 12-8 and so on is a much MUCh better system.

I agree with Warpman that a 20-0 system merits, at the least, consideration.

Overall, I think that a poll is pre-mature. The best way to do this would be to run a set of tournaments using these different scoring systems and see what happens. Put up TO reports and create a data set for people to make a properly informed decision on all of these different options. I am running one next weekend and would be glad to experiment with it.

But hey, thats just science.

B

C

You win or you lose. Full stop.

Alright... A

B

I agree with Warpman that a 20-0 system merits, at the least, consideration.

Overall, I think that a poll is pre-mature. The best way to do this would be to run a set of tournaments using these different scoring systems and see what happens. Put up TO reports and create a data set for people to make a properly informed decision on all of these different options. I am running one next weekend and would be glad to experiment with it.

But hey, thats just science.

The 20-0 system sounds interesting to me personally, just not seen it discussed much. It's hard to say if the poll is pre-mature or not. My hopes are that FFG notices it and gets an indication of what they want. What if the decide to change the rules tomorrow? Then the poll won't be pre-mature if it's done later, it will be too late. Another poll could always be done later on.

I'm all for science and testing. Please do experiment and feedback the results. That would be great. All constructive inputs are useful as far as I'm concerned.

This poll is not going to work. You have a number of posts made before you made changes to the options, a number of people who choose an option but note the option with changes, and then a number that pick "none of the above."

I wish this forum would allow you to create a real poll where you click to vote.

Seems to be working well so far. It is a bit of a pain to keep updating the OP, but not unbearable. The problem with "None of the Above" or "Other" is that in this instance almost everyone has a slightly different stance on what they want to happen, so what you end up with is like 50% Other. Sometimes you have to get off the fence and just state a preference of what the choices presented are. Of the 3, everyone would prefer one over the others, even if it's not their perfect solution.

B

Short of Byes earned through prior competitive play, I see no reason to give victory points to anyone for a game they didn't play.

C

I like B's idea of rewarding the loser for a very close match, but I think the 'modified' condition would need to be variable based on the lists played to accurately represent a close match, which leads to the potential of point fortresses again.

I agree with Warpman that a 20-0 system merits, at the least, consideration.

Overall, I think that a poll is pre-mature. The best way to do this would be to run a set of tournaments using these different scoring systems and see what happens. Put up TO reports and create a data set for people to make a properly informed decision on all of these different options. I am running one next weekend and would be glad to experiment with it.

But hey, thats just science.

The 20-0 system sounds interesting to me personally, just not seen it discussed much. It's hard to say if the poll is pre-mature or not. My hopes are that FFG notices it and gets an indication of what they want. What if the decide to change the rules tomorrow? Then the poll won't be pre-mature if it's done later, it will be too late. Another poll could always be done later on.

I'm all for science and testing. Please do experiment and feedback the results. That would be great. All constructive inputs are useful as far as I'm concerned.

This poll is not going to work. You have a number of posts made before you made changes to the options, a number of people who choose an option but note the option with changes, and then a number that pick "none of the above."

I wish this forum would allow you to create a real poll where you click to vote.

Seems to be working well so far. It is a bit of a pain to keep updating the OP, but not unbearable. The problem with "None of the Above" or "Other" is that in this instance almost everyone has a slightly different stance on what they want to happen, so what you end up with is like 50% Other. Sometimes you have to get off the fence and just state a preference of what the choices presented are. Of the 3, everyone would prefer one over the others, even if it's not their perfect solution.

If FFG is going to cave to public pressure (which I doubt) I'd actually like them to institute a tested and proven solution than this lesser of three evils poll.

Another thread against the draw.

D. NONE OF THE ABOVE. Failing that I'd say A.

Option C.

I've never seen the point of modified wins and disliked the arbitrary nature of the cut-off. The concept of choosing to draw rather than play the game and try to win is ridiculous. Any scoring system that could incentivise players to not play is broken. If these elements were removed I might actually understand the tournament rules.

Your option B is essentially what armada does for point scoring. However, as many have pointed out, that doesn't worked in a purely timed format (it works well in Armada because of the 6 fixed rounds).

There's an interesting trend that somehow people want to treat intentional draws differently than natural draws: if you truly want a self-consistent format they can't be treated differently since you can't enforce the difference.

The simplest, and best solution is to just make all draws 0 points (essentially double losses).

Poll results have been updated.

Your option B is essentially what armada does for point scoring. However, as many have pointed out, that doesn't worked in a purely timed format (it works well in Armada because of the 6 fixed rounds).

There's an interesting trend that somehow people want to treat intentional draws differently than natural draws: if you truly want a self-consistent format they can't be treated differently since you can't enforce the difference.

The simplest, and best solution is to just make all draws 0 points (essentially double losses).

In Chess, it's 1 pt for a win, 0.5 for a draw, and 0 for a loss. I think that's a pretty good system as it keeps the point diff from the result low, which means less desire to manipulate things.

B

I'm not sure how many of you caught on to my not so secretive plan of digging into the minds of everyone here on different aspects of the tournament rules. What has resulted, is what I believe are two very good options that are improvements on the current rules. This is how I've pieced together what I'm hearing...

Option A - Current

Win = 5 Points

Modified Win = 3 Points

Draw = 1 Points

Loss = 0 Points

Players can agree to both take an Intentional Draw for 1 Points and 100 MOV

Option B - Proposed Solution 1

Win = 3 Point

Modified Win = 2 Point

Modified Loss = 1 Point

Loss = 0 Points

Mutual Concession = 0 Points and 0 MOV for both players

No concept of Draws, intentional or not. In the case of players tying on score on a finished game, the player with initiative gets a Modified Win, other player gets a Modified Loss.

Option C - Proposed Solution 2

Win = 1 Point

Loss = 0 Points

Mutual Concession = 0 Points and 0 MOV for both players

No concept of Draws, intentional or not. In the case of players tying on score on a finished game, the player with initiative gets a Win, other player gets a Loss.

No concept of Modified Wins

--

Yes, there have been a vast array of opinions, but these seem like the optimum fits for what I've heard (read) people saying.

Of these three options, which would be your preference and why (optional)? I think it would be great if the community had a united proposal on improving the tournament rules situation. If you really don't like one of these, feel free to state that, but I'm not hearing much consensus around any other options.

Poll Results through Post #67

A: 5 votes [16%]

B: 17 votes [53%]

C: 10 votes [31%]

One of the other TOs in my area and I have been toying with this:

Win 4 pts.

Modified Win 3 pts

Modified loss 1 pt.

Tie 2 pts each.

This way points become a zero sum equation. It also makes each game count more since if you lose once you can still come back. I think it nullifies the ID draw rule as well since you won't be able to game Swiss points as easily.

B

Seems to be the most equitable choice.

I'm not sure how many of you caught on to my not so secretive plan of digging into the minds of everyone here on different aspects of the tournament rules. What has resulted, is what I believe are two very good options that are improvements on the current rules. This is how I've pieced together what I'm hearing...

Option A - Current

Win = 5 Points

Modified Win = 3 Points

Draw = 1 Points

Loss = 0 Points

Players can agree to both take an Intentional Draw for 1 Points and 100 MOV

Option B - Proposed Solution 1

Win = 3 Point

Modified Win = 2 Point

Modified Loss = 1 Point

Loss = 0 Points

Mutual Concession = 0 Points and 0 MOV for both players

No concept of Draws, intentional or not. In the case of players tying on score on a finished game, the player with initiative gets a Modified Win, other player gets a Modified Loss.

Option C - Proposed Solution 2

Win = 1 Point

Loss = 0 Points

Mutual Concession = 0 Points and 0 MOV for both players

No concept of Draws, intentional or not. In the case of players tying on score on a finished game, the player with initiative gets a Win, other player gets a Loss.

No concept of Modified Wins

--

Yes, there have been a vast array of opinions, but these seem like the optimum fits for what I've heard (read) people saying.

Of these three options, which would be your preference and why (optional)? I think it would be great if the community had a united proposal on improving the tournament rules situation. If you really don't like one of these, feel free to state that, but I'm not hearing much consensus around any other options.

Poll Results through Post #67

A: 5 votes [16%]

B: 17 votes [53%]

C: 10 votes [31%]

One of the other TOs in my area and I have been toying with this:

Win 4 pts.

Modified Win 3 pts

Modified loss 1 pt.

Tie 2 pts each.

This way points become a zero sum equation. It also makes each game count more since if you lose once you can still come back. I think it nullifies the ID draw rule as well since you won't be able to game Swiss points as easily.

While that sounds alright to me, there is something nice about having the same system through the whole tournament. There are no draws in the single elimination phase of the tournament, so it is more elegant to have no draws in the swiss portion either.

B.

The issue most people had with leaving in draws and removing ID is that players would just fly in circles to get a draw, essentially creating an ID in a different way.

Which would be blatantly obvious collusion to any wandering TO.

B.

The issue most people had with leaving in draws and removing ID is that players would just fly in circles to get a draw, essentially creating an ID in a different way.

Which would be blatantly obvious collusion to any wandering TO.

Collusion implies that both players are just mutually ignoring something they're doing illegally (for a supposed mutual benefit). You misunderstand what it really means. The only avenue TOs have is unsportsmanlike conduct, but that's a far twist and requires a pretty shaky judgement call from the TO.

That's the fundamental problem: you're using tournament rules to punish legal game play in an arbitrary matter. You might as well be playing "Who's line is it anyway..." because, you know, tag line.