OK - Soap Box Time.

I do not like the idea of Modified Wins, as I think it penalizes a player who has played just as tough competition as any other player or has a list designed to take losses in order to win.

My example is simple:

If you have a player who goes 6-0, but all wins are modified, he gets 18 tournament points.

His opponents - may all go 5-1 with 19-25 tournament points or even 4-2 with 20 tournament points. They all qualify for a cut ahead of the 6-0 player.

With MOV - you already have a way of assessing level of destruction of opponents.

So - WHY - can you not just have Wins and Losses as your primary determination and then go to MOV to break any ties?

I would appreciate any insight.

Why do you need to designate wins period with MoV? You scored 100+ you won and less than 100 you lost.

When you're looking at your 6-0 filled with modified wins is he really playing much better than someone who goes 5-1 with five crushing victories and a loss by a single point?

I look at a modified win as actually penalizing the so called loser. If we play a tight game and one of use destroys 50 points of ships while the other destroys 49 points worth of ships did the one with 49 points really lose? Those of you who are color blind and can only see black and white say the answer is clearly YES, the 49 points lost BIG TIME!!!!!! when the truth is that battle was really a draw by any reasonable account that doesn't rely on a one bit a binary answer. The person who scored 50 may have had a slight edge but to call it a win in very narrow.

Why do you need to designate wins period with MoV? You scored 100+ you won and less than 100 you lost.

When you're looking at your 6-0 filled with modified wins is he really playing much better than someone who goes 5-1 with five crushing victories and a loss by a single point?

I look at a modified win as actually penalizing the so called loser. If we play a tight game and one of use destroys 50 points of ships while the other destroys 49 points worth of ships did the one with 49 points really lose? Those of you who are color blind and can only see black and white say the answer is clearly YES, the 49 points lost BIG TIME!!!!!! when the truth is that battle was really a draw by any reasonable account that doesn't rely on a one bit a binary answer. The person who scored 50 may have had a slight edge but to call it a win in very narrow.

Yeah, it really bugs me that there's a mod win and not a mod loss. It feels like if one person gets behind early, there's little reward for almost clawing it back, whereas if you're one turn from getting killed but you pull it off on time for the mod win, you score points. Doesn't seem right.

But they've announced they're making some changes to the draws anyway, so I'm hoping mod wins/losses will be included in that.

Why do you need to designate wins period with MoV? You scored 100+ you won and less than 100 you lost.

When you're looking at your 6-0 filled with modified wins is he really playing much better than someone who goes 5-1 with five crushing victories and a loss by a single point?

I look at a modified win as actually penalizing the so called loser. If we play a tight game and one of use destroys 50 points of ships while the other destroys 49 points worth of ships did the one with 49 points really lose? Those of you who are color blind and can only see black and white say the answer is clearly YES, the 49 points lost BIG TIME!!!!!! when the truth is that battle was really a draw by any reasonable account that doesn't rely on a one bit a binary answer. The person who scored 50 may have had a slight edge but to call it a win in very narrow.

...

When you're looking at your 6-0 filled with modified wins is he really playing much better than someone who goes 5-1 with five crushing victories and a loss by a single point?

I look at a modified win as actually penalizing the so called loser. If we play a tight game and one of use destroys 50 points of ships while the other destroys 49 points worth of ships did the one with 49 points really lose? Those of you who are color blind and can only see black and white say the answer is clearly YES, the 49 points lost BIG TIME!!!!!! when the truth is that battle was really a draw by any reasonable account that doesn't rely on a one bit a binary answer. The person who scored 50 may have had a slight edge but to call it a win in very narrow.

So I beat you with a Mod win and 5 other opponents the same way. You all go on to crush your opponents 200-0. Are you gonna say I am not deserving to be ranked ahead of all 6 of you?

Maybe not!

Your modified wins would put you at/towards the bottom of the ranks of "undefeateds" which should give you a better chance at getting paired down in swiss to face an opponent with a poorer record. In theory you should crush that opponent but instead you just squeak out another modified win.

Another thing to consider about the point difference between full wins and modified wins is how many games are you going to need to play before it makes a difference? At 5-0 with nothing but modified wins you'd only have 15 points while a 4-1 could have 20 and a 3-2 could have 15 as well but where is this cut going to be? This is also looking at you being the only one getting those modified win and if that is the case over 5 games or more I'm wondering if something is wrong that you can't pull out a decisive victory or two. If modified wins were so common that going 5-0 or 6-0 with nothing but modified wins seems reasonable then I'd say expecting all of the 4-1 types to get nothing but full wins means there is something wrong that doesn't involve how games are scored.

The answer is that modified wins are a holdover from the original X-wing tournament rules, and don't any real function when MOV is the first tiebreaker, rather than strength of schedule.

It will be interesting to see how FFG will redo the tourney structure such that "draws will not happen". I imagine that modified victory will similarly disappear.

...

When you're looking at your 6-0 filled with modified wins is he really playing much better than someone who goes 5-1 with five crushing victories and a loss by a single point?

I look at a modified win as actually penalizing the so called loser. If we play a tight game and one of use destroys 50 points of ships while the other destroys 49 points worth of ships did the one with 49 points really lose? Those of you who are color blind and can only see black and white say the answer is clearly YES, the 49 points lost BIG TIME!!!!!! when the truth is that battle was really a draw by any reasonable account that doesn't rely on a one bit a binary answer. The person who scored 50 may have had a slight edge but to call it a win in very narrow.

So I beat you with a Mod win and 5 other opponents the same way. You all go on to crush your opponents 200-0. Are you gonna say I am not deserving to be ranked ahead of all 6 of you?

Maybe not!

Your modified wins would put you at/towards the bottom of the ranks of "undefeateds" which should give you a better chance at getting paired down in swiss to face an opponent with a poorer record. In theory you should crush that opponent but instead you just squeak out another modified win.

Another thing to consider about the point difference between full wins and modified wins is how many games are you going to need to play before it makes a difference? At 5-0 with nothing but modified wins you'd only have 15 points while a 4-1 could have 20 and a 3-2 could have 15 as well but where is this cut going to be? This is also looking at you being the only one getting those modified win and if that is the case over 5 games or more I'm wondering if something is wrong that you can't pull out a decisive victory or two. If modified wins were so common that going 5-0 or 6-0 with nothing but modified wins seems reasonable then I'd say expecting all of the 4-1 types to get nothing but full wins means there is something wrong that doesn't involve how games are scored.

Currently, in 6 rounds of swiss, an undefeated player with nothing but modified wins comes in behind people with a 4-2 record. They tie with someone that won 3 matches and took draws for the other half of swiss rounds. That doesn't seem right.

There is much that is not fair because what one party may consider fair another would consider outlandish.

Perhaps if the full win was reduced to 4 points as some have suggested that would mean those 4-2 are likely to be behind you and even if we award points to the near loss they would be no better than tied with you. Those 3-0-3 players would also be well behind you and no more than tied if draws award 2 points apiece. I resist the 4/0 scoring because I want the player who can destroy his opponent, or at least dominate the matchup, to be rewarded for that with 5 points but I also want to see the requirement for that move up considerably from the pathetic 12 points it is now. While the original 33 points certainly is pointing out a likely winner I think it may be a little high and would go with needed a 25+ point lead to get the full win. If full wins weren't so common for anything other than complete games than those modified wins wouldn't be as big a deal.

Depending on number and quality of players in any given tournament, it is possible for one player to end up with more difficult players/lists that counter his list yet he still pulls off a win, and another to get good players who don't have the list that counters their own who also wins, but wins big because his opponents didn't have that counter. The strength of the players will be skewed in this instance, and it is possible and even likely in larger events. Tournaments should use a W/L/D format, then points for tie breakers when it comes down to two equal players.

Win=5

Modified win=3

Draw=2

Modified loss=1

Loss=0

A draw would be any game that was +/- 3(maybe a bit more) points between both players

A modified win/loss is still recorded as a win or loss for the win/lose/draw

If you define a Win as not exactly a win or a Loss as not exactly a loss in any fashion, you are taking away from the fact that a player beat his opponent. MOV defines exactly how much you won by and presents a way to determine Tie breakers in the end.

Win a battle but lose the war. This is why just looking at points killed and saying "looks like you killed a point more than me, I guess that mean you think you should be declared the clear and unquestionable victor," is so very wrong.

I wonder if Armada scoring would be good for X-Wing.

There each game is worth 10 points, and each side gets an number of points decided by MoV. So the more you beat the other guy by, the more points you get.

To get 10 points you pretty much have to table them and lose nothing of yours. Most games end up with a 8-2 or 7-3.

In X-Wing it could be something like...

Winners MoV 188+ 10/0 points

Winners MoV 175-187 9/1 points

Winners MoV 160-174 8/2 points

and so on to...

Winners MoV 0-12 5/5

and so on. I'm not sure if that chart would work with those values but that's the basic idea. So in Armada a 'draw' gives both sides 5 points.

I wonder if Armada scoring would be good for X-Wing.

There each game is worth 10 points, and each side gets an number of points decided by MoV. So the more you beat the other guy by, the more points you get.

To get 10 points you pretty much have to table them and lose nothing of yours. Most games end up with a 8-2 or 7-3.

In X-Wing it could be something like...

Winners MoV 188+ 10/0 points

Winners MoV 175-187 9/1 points

Winners MoV 160-174 8/2 points

and so on to...

Winners MoV 0-12 5/5

and so on. I'm not sure if that chart would work with those values but that's the basic idea. So in Armada a 'draw' gives both sides 5 points.

Although there are more steps in there this is what the 4/0, 3/1, 2/2 scoring ideas would look at. An effective draw would be 2 points for both and doesn't require identical kill rates. The high end should be a good bit harder to achieve than it is now.

I think modified wins is not a punishment for winning close, it was a way to disincentivize super tanky lists. Modified wins was the first attempt at the "big-base-half-points" fix. You can play a list that is focused around not dying instead of a list based on killing the opponent, and those games are going to have a closer score margin.

It gets a little weirder, in that if you were up by 12 and they killed an Acadamy pilot or Bandit Squadron, you still wouldn't lose. But if killing the cheapest ship in the game changed who won, it is kind of a tie, and a little bit won by list building.

So these two ideas got stuck together, in an attempt to give a "draw" to disparate lists, but still slightly reward the player whose list was built for that situation better, or made better targeting decisions, or whatever.

Really, it is left over from when MoV wasn't the tiebreaker, I think. One of those rules that is still in the book, everyone accepts it, and it doesn't really make sense. Unlike the drop kick extra point in american Football, we regularly look at our rules to evaluate, and it is a new enough game that it isn't impossible to change the rules, and this discussion is the result.

Right now:

If I have a 100 point Tie Swarm versus a Ywing TLT list and destroy all of the ships - leaving m only 1 Academy with 1 hull on the board - I get a full 5 point win as the clear, and unquestionable victor.

If I win with the same list, but have 3 Academies left and my opponent has 1 Ywing with 1 hull - I only get a 3-point modified win and I am not considered to have won convincingly enough to merit a clear victory.

THIS is a big part of the issue I have. The issue is NOT that I'm only winning by only 1 point over my opponent in a 50-49 split decision, but the fact that I can run a list designed to sacrifice some low point ships to achieve a win - If I choose to do this - the win is treated as less than others.

ALSO - In the First round of a tournament- if I face somebody who placed top 8 at worlds and get a modified win - I would consider that a Good victory by anyone's standard. BUT because it is not good enough by a points standard - I only get partial credit.

I can work my way through the field, beating other good players along the way, but the measure of how well I do comes down to whether or not I destroy 12 points more than you.

Because there is no way to gauge the quality of your competition into your score, there is no factor in judging how worthy or not worthy your win actually may be.

Somebody suggested 25 points MOV as a better determination of Full versus Modified win, and I am inclined to agree.

Right now:

If I have a 100 point Tie Swarm versus a Ywing TLT list and destroy all of the ships - leaving m only 1 Academy with 1 hull on the board - I get a full 5 point win as the clear, and unquestionable victor.

If I win with the same list, but have 3 Academies left and my opponent has 1 Ywing with 1 hull - I only get a 3-point modified win and I am not considered to have won convincingly enough to merit a clear victory.

THIS is a big part of the issue I have. The issue is NOT that I'm only winning by only 1 point over my opponent in a 50-49 split decision, but the fact that I can run a list designed to sacrifice some low point ships to achieve a win - If I choose to do this - the win is treated as less than others.

ALSO - In the First round of a tournament- if I face somebody who placed top 8 at worlds and get a modified win - I would consider that a Good victory by anyone's standard. BUT because it is not good enough by a points standard - I only get partial credit.

I can work my way through the field, beating other good players along the way, but the measure of how well I do comes down to whether or not I destroy 12 points more than you.

Because there is no way to gauge the quality of your competition into your score, there is no factor in judging how worthy or not worthy your win actually may be.

Somebody suggested 25 points MOV as a better determination of Full versus Modified win, and I am inclined to agree.

I don't understand why your first paragraph would be a problem, your ships are worth less than the Y-Wing. If you only won with 3 points you almost lost, so by the current rules you did not convincingly win (which is why I guess the limit is 12 points i..e. one TIE Fighter or Z-95 in case two identical swarms met each other).

Maybe to note, I do dislike Modified Wins myself and would also rather see them gone.

Archie

Right now:

If I have a 100 point Tie Swarm versus a Ywing TLT list and destroy all of the ships - leaving m only 1 Academy with 1 hull on the board - I get a full 5 point win as the clear, and unquestionable victor.

If I win with the same list, but have 3 Academies left and my opponent has 1 Ywing with 1 hull - I only get a 3-point modified win and I am not considered to have won convincingly enough to merit a clear victory.

THIS is a big part of the issue I have. The issue is NOT that I'm only winning by only 1 point over my opponent in a 50-49 split decision, but the fact that I can run a list designed to sacrifice some low point ships to achieve a win - If I choose to do this - the win is treated as less than others.

ALSO - In the First round of a tournament- if I face somebody who placed top 8 at worlds and get a modified win - I would consider that a Good victory by anyone's standard. BUT because it is not good enough by a points standard - I only get partial credit.

I can work my way through the field, beating other good players along the way, but the measure of how well I do comes down to whether or not I destroy 12 points more than you.

Because there is no way to gauge the quality of your competition into your score, there is no factor in judging how worthy or not worthy your win actually may be.

Somebody suggested 25 points MOV as a better determination of Full versus Modified win, and I am inclined to agree.

I don't understand why your first paragraph would be a problem, your ships are worth less than the Y-Wing. If you only won with 3 points you almost lost, so by the current rules you did not convincingly win (which is why I guess the limit is 12 points i..e. one TIE Fighter or Z-95 in case two identical swarms met each other).

Maybe to note, I do dislike Modified Wins myself and would also rather see them gone.

Archie

I think the issue in the example is that he's got 3 ships (I'm assuming undamaged or lightly damaged) against a single low agility ship with a single hull point. It his highly unlikely that if the game was allowed to run to conclusion that it wouldn't be a win for the TIE fighters.

I've walked away with full wins on more than one occasion that I was outplayed and would have almost surely lost if the game had been played to conclusion.

Right now:

If I have a 100 point Tie Swarm versus a Ywing TLT list and destroy all of the ships - leaving m only 1 Academy with 1 hull on the board - I get a full 5 point win as the clear, and unquestionable victor.

If I win with the same list, but have 3 Academies left and my opponent has 1 Ywing with 1 hull - I only get a 3-point modified win and I am not considered to have won convincingly enough to merit a clear victory.

THIS is a big part of the issue I have. The issue is NOT that I'm only winning by only 1 point over my opponent in a 50-49 split decision, but the fact that I can run a list designed to sacrifice some low point ships to achieve a win - If I choose to do this - the win is treated as less than others.

ALSO - In the First round of a tournament- if I face somebody who placed top 8 at worlds and get a modified win - I would consider that a Good victory by anyone's standard. BUT because it is not good enough by a points standard - I only get partial credit.

I can work my way through the field, beating other good players along the way, but the measure of how well I do comes down to whether or not I destroy 12 points more than you.

Because there is no way to gauge the quality of your competition into your score, there is no factor in judging how worthy or not worthy your win actually may be.

Somebody suggested 25 points MOV as a better determination of Full versus Modified win, and I am inclined to agree.

I don't understand why your first paragraph would be a problem, your ships are worth less than the Y-Wing. If you only won with 3 points you almost lost, so by the current rules you did not convincingly win (which is why I guess the limit is 12 points i..e. one TIE Fighter or Z-95 in case two identical swarms met each other).

Maybe to note, I do dislike Modified Wins myself and would also rather see them gone.

Archie

I think the issue in the example is that he's got 3 ships (I'm assuming undamaged or lightly damaged) against a single low agility ship with a single hull point. It his highly unlikely that if the game was allowed to run to conclusion that it wouldn't be a win for the TIE fighters.

I've walked away with full wins on more than one occasion that I was outplayed and would have almost surely lost if the game had been played to conclusion.

Thing is, this is often the case in a timed format.

For instance, Soontir alone against a team of four rookie pilots and a z.

Soontir wins if it goes until everything's dead, assuming his player is good.

But until he's kills four out of the five ships, he doesn't, and that probably happens in a timed game.

(This is one reason I often run glass cannon lists in timed tournaments - one way or another very few of my games go to time...)

I've walked away with full wins on more than one occasion that I was outplayed and would have almost surely lost if the game had been played to conclusion.

That's an issue with timed games. It can be odd when you look at it and say 'if you had 10 more minutes you'd of won'

But at the same time, the clock is part of the game, and managing it is as much part of the skill set you need in a tournament as is picking the correct maneuver or building a list.

Assuming no one is stalling for time, the point of most tournament games is to kill as many of the other guys ship in the allotted time as you can. So I've always felt that if you need another 10, 20, 30 minutes to win... Then you really didn't deserve the win based on the rules we're playing under.

Right now:

If I have a 100 point Tie Swarm versus a Ywing TLT list and destroy all of the ships - leaving m only 1 Academy with 1 hull on the board - I get a full 5 point win as the clear, and unquestionable victor.

If I win with the same list, but have 3 Academies left and my opponent has 1 Ywing with 1 hull - I only get a 3-point modified win and I am not considered to have won convincingly enough to merit a clear victory.

THIS is a big part of the issue I have. The issue is NOT that I'm only winning by only 1 point over my opponent in a 50-49 split decision, but the fact that I can run a list designed to sacrifice some low point ships to achieve a win - If I choose to do this - the win is treated as less than others.

ALSO - In the First round of a tournament- if I face somebody who placed top 8 at worlds and get a modified win - I would consider that a Good victory by anyone's standard. BUT because it is not good enough by a points standard - I only get partial credit.

I can work my way through the field, beating other good players along the way, but the measure of how well I do comes down to whether or not I destroy 12 points more than you.

Because there is no way to gauge the quality of your competition into your score, there is no factor in judging how worthy or not worthy your win actually may be.

Somebody suggested 25 points MOV as a better determination of Full versus Modified win, and I am inclined to agree.

I don't understand why your first paragraph would be a problem, your ships are worth less than the Y-Wing. If you only won with 3 points you almost lost, so by the current rules you did not convincingly win (which is why I guess the limit is 12 points i..e. one TIE Fighter or Z-95 in case two identical swarms met each other).

Maybe to note, I do dislike Modified Wins myself and would also rather see them gone.

Archie

In the first example, I barely survive, have only 1 hull left on a 12 point ship - but get 5 tournament points because my ship is worth 12 points.

In the second case, I still have 3 ships flying, have my opponent 1 hull from being destroyed - clearly demonstrate control of the match, but win by 11 points,so only get 3 tournament points.

The situation is hypothetical, but my intent was to show what could happen and that there is a fine line between what is considered a Modified and Full win.

If you're that close you should have destroyed the ship. If you couldn't then perhaps you don't really deserve a full win as the opposing force appears to have lasted "long enough" to accomplish something of its objectives.

In the real world fights to the bitter end aren't too common place especially if it isn't a "last stand" type situation. Battles often will have some kind of time constraints and/or expectation on them and dealing with those is part of the challenge. If an army was ordered to take a city the least costly course of action could just be to lay siege and wait them out but if time is an issue then they may be forced to go in which is a dramatic change in what could be expected.

There may be a fine line between what is a full win and what it a modified win but that is just a product of the game. In many ways that modified win represents the WIDE line between victory and defeat except that the opponent who only ends up giving up what the game considers a modified win gets nothing in return for the effort. SoS may not be the tie breaker anymore but when it was there was little point in fighting hard at the end (or running scared to save points) when you were penalized more by losing by 1 point than you were losing by 35 points.