I might argue that the ability to disengage effectively / prevent your opponent from doing so is one of the ways to separate good players from great players, and the impact on MoV is a feature, not a bug.

This is true in so far as good players should try to minimize their loss margin, but one of the "bugs" that I and the OP have noted is that it can warp the ability of a multi-round tourney to sift out the best players when less good players aren't doing that.

Imagine that Player A and Player B are of roughly equal skill and experience.

In Round 1, Player A plays against Smarty McGoodPlayer, who he outflies but Smarty has the wherewithal to minimize his losses during his defeat, so Player A gets a 7-3.

In Round 1, Player B plays against Newby McGoon, who flies right into the mouth of Player B and loses everything, granting Player B a 10-0.

So now, Player A, who has played the much tougher game and has a more "impressive" win is sitting on 7 points and a not-so-great MoV. Player B, who basically had a 'freebie' matchup and has proven nothing, sits with a big 3pt lead and has an almost insurmountable 350+ MoV already, meaning if he and Player A end up tied he'll almost certainly win based on his massive pile of MoV from tabling the Round 1 noob (unless Player A also tables someone 10-0, it is mathematically impossible for him to overtake Player B in MoV if they end up tied in tourney points).

Now, since we're in Swiss pairings, Player A has no chance of playing Newby McGoon and will have to outscore Player B by four points in the next two rounds to overtake him, all whilst playing much stiffer competition than Player B just faced.

So, the potential issue is that the tournament scoring system doesn't really account for quality of opponent (e.g. strength of schedule). It is always better to blow-out noobs in easy wins than it is to narrowly beat-up highly skilled opponents. This is a bit wonky, of course, as you'd think beating LeBron James by one point in a game of pick-up basketball ought to be worth a hell of a lot more than beating the kid down the street by twenty points. But in Armada, blowing out the kid down the street is always better than narrowly beating the pro.

Except now the person who has a 10-0 will have to go against someone else of that level of skill and can walk away with a loss in his/her next game.

Sure, but we've already assumed in this example that Player A and Player B are both "good" players of comparable skill level, whatever that means. Of course Player B might lose his next round, but so might Player A; they are both pairing up against winners next round. Heck, as rare as 10-0s are, it's not inconceivable that Player B will pair against an 8-2 if that's the next biggest win, and even if he pairs against another 10-0 winner odds are that person also got their 10pts by playing a less skilled or newer opponent than Player A faced. The point still remains, though, that you always want to be Player B in this situation, because you go into Round 2 with a gigantic advantage, even though by most every consideration your 10-0 win was far less impressive or meaningful than Player A's hard-fought 7-3 win. That is the "bug" in the Armada tournament scoring.

Not always. We had players in the store championship that I won that started at 9-1 or 10-0 while I got a 5-5. From there I got 2, 9-1's in a row against good players (Iskander4000 and Mikael) while the people who got the higher scores in the first round had to play each other and thus got weaker wins.

Of course it's "not always;" I'm not claiming that stomping a noob 10-0 necessarily guarantees that you win the tournament. That's not been the issue.

The issue is that getting to stomp a noob 10-0 is a huge advantage, and it makes it harder for other players to pull ahead.

Are you trying to say that it's not an advantage? Are you trying to say that you'd rather have a 7-3 instead of a 10-0 to open a tourney? Because if so, I simply don't understand your reasoning. Because I agree that a 10-0 against a noob doesn't ensure that said player will always go on to win the tournament... of course not. But no one has been defending that position (the strawman claim that "10-0'in a noob = Tournament Victory" which seems to be the only thing you're objecting to). Our claim is merely that a "bug" of the Armada system is that stomping a noob 10-0 is valued far more than narrowly beating a very skilled player, and as such imparts a significant advantage on those players who happen to, by sheer luck, get paired against a total rookie or a terrible list or someone who rage-quit concedes.

PS: I really do not understand your point that 10's having to play 10's is some sort of disadvantage for them. If they have a close game and end at 5-5, now they're both sitting on 15 points and are still probably right near the top of the pack going into Round 3. If one of them has a more significant loss, the other has a more significant win, which means the winner of that match is now almost certainly sitting in first at 17-20 points unless it's a big tournament. In either case, having that 10-0 from the previous round is still a very nice advantage they have.

If a 10 plays a 10 they are less likely to get continued high scores. They may just get a 6-4 in their next game and then a 7-3 in the following game.

That is how Swiss works.

If a 10 plays a 10 they are less likely to get continued high scores. They may just get a 6-4 in their next game and then a 7-3 in the following game.

That is how Swiss works.

So, to be clear, you are saying you'd rather have a 7-3 instead of a 10-0 in Round 1? You're a troll. And I know how Swiss works.

EDIT (Elaboration): Of course the 10 might get a 6 next round. They might get a 7. They might get a 0 or a 10, too. The person who got a 7 might get a 10 or a 0 next round, also, for the record. And the sky is blue. And 2+2=4. You're point is either a trivially meaningless truism or else you are claiming that having 10 points necessarily reduces one's ability to score high in Round 2 so significantly that it is actually better to score 7 points in Round 1, which effectively puts you four points behind (four instead of three because the person with a 10 will win any MoV comparison since they snagged 350+ MoV just from Round 1). Because that's the only ground from which you can honestly try to claim that tabling a noob with a 10-0 doesn't confer an advantage.

C'mon man, we were having a nice discussion. Lyr is Lyr...he's gotta be that way, he can't help it.

So, to be clear, you are saying you'd rather have a 7-3 instead of a 10-0 in Round 1? You're a troll. And I know how Swiss works.EDIT (Elaboration): Of course the 10 might get a 6 next round. They might get a 7. They might get a 0 or a 10, too. The person who got a 7 might get a 10 or a 0 next round, also, for the record. And the sky is blue. And 2+2=4. You're point is either a trivially meaningless truism or else you are claiming that having 10 points necessarily reduces one's ability to score high in Round 2 so significantly that it is actually better to score 7 points in Round 1, which effectively puts you four points behind (four instead of three because the person with a 10 will win any MoV comparison since they snagged 350+ MoV just from Round 1). Because that's the only ground from which you can honestly try to claim that tabling a noob with a 10-0 doesn't confer an advantage.

In many ways this is a moot discussion, because unless you institute a worldwide handicap system as mikemcann has suggested, you're always going to have experienced players beating up on up on new players. And if you devalue the 10-0 win overall, then you're devaluing the hard-fought game against a similarly skilled opponent, where a complete drubbing should be worth a full 10 points.

There's really no perfect system...the game takes too long to run multiple rounds to truly sort out the standings unequivocally.

@AllWingsStandingBy: The tournament system is fine for the most part, what kills it is that you just don't play enough rounds to allow the system to correctly work. A tournament with 32 participants needs just a few more than 3-4 rounds to work out properly. As a result sometimes you just have to accept that today just wasn't your day.

I also wouldn't be suggesting that Lyraeus is trolling you, he is just making a rather general comment and you are arguing past him with specific examples.

@Maturin: Exactly so, if only the stores could house 2-3 day long tournament and the players play in them. The system we have is a whole bunch of compromises with the main goal of allowing players to have a competition that is fun to play in for the most part.

what events go to 4 rounds?

Also I like MoV it favors a certain play style and if you have done well in the first 2 rounds it puts a lot of pressure on your opponent which really lets you dictate the game.

You are the admiral in armada. you are screed/motti/ackbar/mothma. being able to assess a situation, respond in turn, and play the game you want to play while making sure your opponent doesnt play the game they want to play is the key to victory.

First turn is always navigate, if you see your opponent deploying at speed 1 through out his fleet, then deploy at max speed and he knows that you will have board control and and a lot of pressure coming in. if he delays the game and limits engagement to 3-4 turns of actual shooting, focus fire one target down, and push for that 7-3.

My main playing buddy often goes X-0 at all local events but doesn't play aggressively. he scores a lot of 5-5/6-4s instead of 8-2s or better. He simply isn't playing the game its designed to be. Sure he wins, but this isn't a game that rewards tournament points (wins), it rewards the margin of victory. Armada is a game of risk vs reward.

If I have 19pts going into the last round of regionals and i know everyone else is 15-16 pt range, you bet im gonna slow roll and delay that game and try to squeak out a 7-3. Why risk losing 1-9 when you can play defensively and dictate the pace of the game and how your opponent plays it. If you opponent doesn't adapt their strategy to you slow playing (speed 1 or 0, stalling engagement) then hes playing the game you want him to play which usually leads you to do everything you intend to do.

No ones been in defensive positions as the enemy is coming at them and said "guys lets leave our trenches and make a real fair match of this" you have to play to your strengths, ALL YOUR STRENGTHS, and sometimes that's knowing a 5-5 still guarantees you first place, and making your opponent play more aggressively that they may be comfortable with.

Why do people assume I like to troll others. . . I am just trying to give people a general perspective.

This is a Swiss tournament. People can get high scores, people can get low scores, everyone has a chance to win. That is the important part.

So what if someone got a 10-0 their first game? They could fluff it on games 2 and 3 and end up in 4th (happened to me several times)

Someone can come from behind on points and take the whole thing. I have done it. Others have as well.

Yes the first round can change things but it won't be like that every tournament. Make sure to invite those new players to the FLGS later, or your club. Play more games with them. Make them better so you don't feel like you are clubbing baby seals.

I have also noticed that the more someone builds a list to get 10-0s the more vulnerable it is to a hard counter. Sure, you could get lucky and not face your nightmare list, but my philosophy is to build expecting any and all lists and to at least have some sort of game plan for anything you could see at a tournament.

I have also noticed that the more someone builds a list to get 10-0s the more vulnerable it is to a hard counter. Sure, you could get lucky and not face your nightmare list, but my philosophy is to build expecting any and all lists and to at least have some sort of game plan for anything you could see at a tournament.

And to this end, I think FFG has done a pretty good job of making that nudges you, but doesn't demand that you do this very thing.

I have also noticed that the more someone builds a list to get 10-0s the more vulnerable it is to a hard counter. Sure, you could get lucky and not face your nightmare list, but my philosophy is to build expecting any and all lists and to at least have some sort of game plan for anything you could see at a tournament.

This is true, and it's why running the flavor of the month at a major tournament is a dangerous proposition. The best players will have been working on that specific problem and will probably have found a counter to it, So sure, you might face a couple of easy kills in the first round or two, but you're going to get hard countered toward the end and shut out. It happened at Worlds last year; it'll happen to everybody running Clonisher at the top tables at Origins this year (assuming somebody shows up with a reliable way to beat it, which I'm completely sure exists).

what events go to 4 rounds?

Also I like MoV it favors a certain play style and if you have done well in the first 2 rounds it puts a lot of pressure on your opponent which really lets you dictate the game.

You are the admiral in armada. you are screed/motti/ackbar/mothma. being able to assess a situation, respond in turn, and play the game you want to play while making sure your opponent doesnt play the game they want to play is the key to victory.

First turn is always navigate, if you see your opponent deploying at speed 1 through out his fleet, then deploy at max speed and he knows that you will have board control and and a lot of pressure coming in. if he delays the game and limits engagement to 3-4 turns of actual shooting, focus fire one target down, and push for that 7-3.

My main playing buddy often goes X-0 at all local events but doesn't play aggressively. he scores a lot of 5-5/6-4s instead of 8-2s or better. He simply isn't playing the game its designed to be. Sure he wins, but this isn't a game that rewards tournament points (wins), it rewards the margin of victory. Armada is a game of risk vs reward.

If I have 19pts going into the last round of regionals and i know everyone else is 15-16 pt range, you bet im gonna slow roll and delay that game and try to squeak out a 7-3. Why risk losing 1-9 when you can play defensively and dictate the pace of the game and how your opponent plays it. If you opponent doesn't adapt their strategy to you slow playing (speed 1 or 0, stalling engagement) then hes playing the game you want him to play which usually leads you to do everything you intend to do.

No ones been in defensive positions as the enemy is coming at them and said "guys lets leave our trenches and make a real fair match of this" you have to play to your strengths, ALL YOUR STRENGTHS, and sometimes that's knowing a 5-5 still guarantees you first place, and making your opponent play more aggressively that they may be comfortable with.

Just to be sure, I agree with *all of this*. I guess my only "beef" is there exactly those lines are drawn, on the MOV chart, to define and determine the proper ratio of risk to reward. Have to blow up 350 pts (88%) of my opponents' ships to get a 10-0 seems crazy to me in a 6 round game, where, at most 5 of those rounds will involve actual shooting. A "9" I think, should be awarded at 201 pts. (essentially you beat your opponent by a 2:1 margin) Consider what a 9 means at 201 MOV pts: You blew up half your opponent's fleet and he got none of yours. (or you destroyed all of his and he got half of yours). I think Patton or McArthur or Napolean or Alexander would be pretty damned happy with that outcome.

Berger, we went 4 rounds at Ohio and 5 for the top 2.

And I agree that you're silly (count me amongst them) if you charge into someone playing defensively, but that's why I'd still like scores to be secret so there's some risk to that defensive strategy.

Oh, and no I don't think players deserve a "reward" for rolling their first two (or however many before the final round) opponents. A lot of that is luck of the draw.

And I agree that you're silly (count me amongst them) if you charge into someone playing defensively, but that's why I'd still like scores to be secret so there's some risk to that defensive strategy.

...

I don't know that I agree with that. I love selecting Conty Outpost or Fire Lanes from my opponent's objectives, let them camp it at speed 0 or 1, and then zerging them with speed 4 ships before they have a chance to respond. That being said, there is a right way (and many wrong ways) to accomplish that.

I think the casual tournament TO's know enough to not pair up absolute rookies with the soul crushing experts. But once you get past that first round, it's all based on numbers.

I like the system as is. Assuming you have an overall hominigized group of players, it's possible to have 3 round tournaments with people upsetting top tables in the last round and overall tight scoring. Would it be better with more rounds? Absolutely, but that starts to be a really long day. Especially when you don't have a store less than an hour away that holds events.

I think the casual tournament TO's know enough to not pair up absolute rookies with the soul crushing experts.

I don't know, I feel like giving TO's the leverage to fudge initial pairing based on their personal judgement of player skill is kind of setting yourself up for criticism, hurt feelings, and infighting.

Sure, the more mature communities would be just fine with this, but for every one that has no problems, you'll get some clown out there who makes a scene. And it only takes one rotten player to spoil it for everyone (we had to deal with one in our area a while back, it sucks).

When I TO i do it 100% random behind my back. The only time i adjust pairings is if people who travelled together get drawn as a pair and then I ask the entire group if its ok if i redo pairings. Round 1 you are playing your wife...... in a small store event, id rather re-wrack if everyone agrees with that.

Ive lost an ISD and still went 10-0.... the scenarios are often overlooked by people. maybe years of competitive warmachine and hordes gives me an advantage to keeping the objective game alive and at the forefront of my mind each turn.

Fleets dictate play styles. I run double ISD, i love double ISD, i have to play the game a certain way or i lose. If i make Clones raider fleet or a cr90 spam you would think I am the worst player in the world because i have not unlocked how to play that fleet yet. Ive spent many games and many months working my double ISD list to what it is. if you play a list and its just working out, you have to either adjust your play style or change your list.

I find their are distinct groups of players in armada. I have faced people who had better fleets than mine except they didn't put any effort in to picking objectives. They took superior positions (back arc nets 15pts) with no fighters and they let me go first. turns out my 8 squadrons will give me 8+ tokens that game. I hate to say it but that person lost that game as soon as they let me go first. people often don't reflect on that type of stuff. Did you lose because demolisher is OP or rhymer is broken or TRC salvation is god-mode-50cal or did you lose because you should have gone first? or your objective selection is ****? or you kept issuing concentrated fire when you needed engineering? this is where i see most opponents lose games. this is where i lose my games. I issue the wrong command anticipating 1 thing to happen and it doesn't and now im screwed.

MoV rewards players who fully pay attention to all aspects of the game if you can make the right choices, and play for the scenario you are in good shape. This is often why if i pick the objectives i never go for the red ones. Typically they don't help me, but also i usually can find something that will give me an opportunity to score objective tokens. Red objectives are fine in casual games but if you really want that 9-1 10-0 you need to be picking an objective that can net you 100pts or so to counter any ship/squadron loses you suffer.

it doesn't really pertain to the topic, just some ranting with hopefully nuggets of wisdom in there for people to think about.

Should MoV be hidden, yes, should TOs be allowed to play at that point, NO, they will have an unfair advantage, and this is probably why MoV isn't hidden.

The first round is really the only round you can get a really skewed draw, if it wasnt true, then topics like to bye or not to bye wouldn't pop up. The MoV means that if you 10-0 you should play another 10-0 if not then you should play a 9-1. it stops the I won 10-0 I won 6-4 and we got paired together because its all based on wins/loses. this system may be worse and at that point would need to reward the undefeated player with MoV as a tie breaker. I don't know how much data has been collected but it typically seems in my experience that the tournament winner is in the mid 20s and then the rest of the pack is the mid to high teens. the spread isn't all that large between people who go 2-1 and 3-0. at least in my neck of the woods.

MoV rewards players who fully pay attention to all aspects of the game if you can make the right choices, and play for the scenario you are in good shape. This is often why if i pick the objectives i never go for the red ones. Typically they don't help me, but also i usually can find something that will give me an opportunity to score objective tokens. Red objectives are fine in casual games but if you really want that 9-1 10-0 you need to be picking an objective that can net you 100pts or so to counter any ship/squadron loses you suffer.

You can get 100 points with Precision Strike I do it almost all the time!

When I TO i do it 100% random behind my back. The only time i adjust pairings is if people who travelled together get drawn as a pair and then I ask the entire group if its ok if i redo pairings. Round 1 you are playing your wife...... in a small store event, id rather re-wrack if everyone agrees with that.

Yup, that I agree with. We had this happen at an event here recently, in fact. Had three major cities represented, with player groups that all played within their group regularly but had never played each other. Random luck of the draw paired City 1 against all City 1 players; City 2 against City 2; and City 3 against City 3. Everybody agreed to a reshuffle on that.

Maybe I'm too much like the NFL/NBA/ect where they use the draft to try and set some parity between teams. I'd rather see tough opponents not prey upon the weaker players until they've earned that match-up.

To me, keeping everyone in the hunt through the tournament means you're less likely to see people just give up after getting blown away the first round. I also am a fan of matching the absolute noobs with players who are patient enough to guide them through their first experience.

Granted, I've never been a TO, but I've seen it done at the casual events, and it helps retain those dipping their toes in. If you have a real negative experience the first time out against straingers, you're not likely to give it another chance.

This is a most interesting conversation. * takes some notes*

This is a most interesting conversation. * takes some notes*

100 points with precision strike is pretty average! Its a little mini puzzle on how many cards you can flip.

Every time a reikaan player chooses this objective i giggle inside. Final table last tournament I 10-0 the opponent, his MC80 (great ship by the way lulz) had like 14 damage cards on it with 5 crits plus the 2 he flipped over. Thats 105 extra points just from that 1 ship. I accidentally pulverized the rest of them too quickly or it would have been a lot more...

Anyways, back to the OP, I prevent runaways by delaying contact. People just don't have the turns to run away (most of the time)

I also would like to say that a couple of tournaments ago I started with a 10-0 and finished 6th lol, that was a terrible terrible day.

On a final note I would like to add that professionally I work at a large company and I manage incentive programs. MOV table is basically a type of incentive program, it is trying to encourage certain behaviours and discourage others. I can tell you from professional experience that messing with incentivization without considering things very carefully will ALWAYS have unintended consequences. Therefore the Idea of scoring a 9 with 200 points would require much more careful deliberation. Think about it. If i can kill 200 points and then refuse engagement, how is it any different from the problem you think you are fixing?? If 9 is at 200 points then you can now score a decent amount by running away and sending rogues to kill a medium base ship and a couple fighters. It would mess things up in a big big way and create more problems than it solves.

If you are going to pay people per rat tail, you don't always incent the killing of wild vermin, sometimes you are helping people open rat farms.

On a final note I would like to add that professionally I work at a large company and I manage incentive programs. MOV table is basically a type of incentive program, it is trying to encourage certain behaviours and discourage others. I can tell you from professional experience that messing with incentivization without considering things very carefully will ALWAYS have unintended consequences. Therefore the Idea of scoring a 9 with 200 points would require much more careful deliberation. Think about it. If i can kill 200 points and then refuse engagement, how is it any different from the problem you think you are fixing?? If 9 is at 200 points then you can now score a decent amount by running away and sending rogues to kill a medium base ship and a couple fighters. It would mess things up in a big big way and create more problems than it solves.

Boom! Exactly. I mentioned this a few pages back, and I think it is critical.

One key question is what ~SHOULD~ Armada be incentivizing. With almost any game, there is going to be a push/pull effect between realism and gamerism. So by realism, I mean that our closest historical comparison would be naval warfare, and when you've got expensive ships that represent a huge investment, you don't throw them away without some really big benefit in compensation, one that could really only be represented through a campaign of games in sequence. On the other hand, in games, we really want to fight and table the opponent.