As most players know, the current tournament system rewards high MOV victories at the tabling or near tabling level, with an alternative focus on high numbers of objective points (Superior Positions, Fire Lanes, Precision Strike etc).

It seems to me that this is currently causing an imbalance in the game towards certain lists and objectives based entirely around MOV as opposed to actual wins. Preserving or destroying a ship isn't seen as valuable unless it leads to a massive MOV imbalance. The actual act of winning a match is almost meaningless unless it is a blowout win.

I wonder if Armada would benefit from an X-Wing style system where MOV is used as a tie breaker, with destroyed ships and objective tokens earned actually determining victory as more of a yes/no binary response, with a current 6-4 or 5-5 counting s something like a modified win? Also, it would make ships and objectives that are a potential liability for MOV outcomes more appealing in tournaments.

Thoughts? Observations?

I dislike the concept of "Win at All Costs" that pure Win/Loss encourages...

I personally like the base storyline concept of having to Win, yes, but not burning my own house down to do it...

I dislike the concept of "Win at All Costs" that pure Win/Loss encourages...

I personally like the base storyline concept of having to Win, yes, but not burning my own house down to do it...

What it feels like to me is that there are a lot of objectives and fleet choices made entirely based on MOV.

I dislike the concept of "Win at All Costs" that pure Win/Loss encourages...

I personally like the base storyline concept of having to Win, yes, but not burning my own house down to do it...

What it feels like to me is that there are a lot of objectives and fleet choices made entirely based on MOV.

And I guess I don't see why that's a Bad thing?

I mean,

Clonisher will exist regardless of Win/Loss, or MOV...

Rhymerballs will exist regardless of Win/Loss, or MOV...

Corvette Swarms will exist regardless of Win/Loss, or MOV...

So yeah, I don't see what its going to do, other than disestablish objectives as anything useful at all...

And making bids for first player even more important...

I mean, I'm open to discussion, as I don't believe the current system is perfect at all....

But I need to understand where you are coming from.

What in Particular is the product of the current tournament system, right now, that you are seeing as "bad"... Not just a General "MOV based fleet"... Give us a couple of examples, so we can see that side of the view...

Why are they such a bad thing? We do need to realise that we'll almost never get Tournaments that run enough Swiss Rounds to actually get a truly undefeated champion at the end... The Game is too long to do that, unless we almost universally embrace Two-Day Tournaments (which would take a chunk of us out of the Tournament Scene, which would thusly make for smaller tournaments, neither of which is a great outcome) - So we can't rely on that as a Solution........

I mean, part and parcel of the way the objective system works is the fact that you need to Select Three Objectives, one from Each Category.... Quite a few of us (Myself Included) got into the Habit of building around 1-2 of those, and not considering the Third, or patently picking the Third as as a"bad choice" and ignoring it...... And never considering what to do on the other side of the Table...

I mean, the situation could certainly mutate further if we got other objective choices in the coming months, but that's not on us, that's on FFG...

I am all for running Alternate Tournament setups... I'm even postulating running a Round-Robin-Esque Take the Station Tournament with multiple games over the day with differing opponents to crown a Station Champion... (Once I complete the Resin Casting of the Unique Stations I'll be giving out as Prizes)...

So yeah, now I'm rambling a bunch...

TL; DR -

Situation isn't Perfect. I agree.

I need to be able to see things from your side to be able to provide discussion on the topic, and I'd like to do that, so help a guy out with examples

I think that MOV is mostly fine. One exception is that high MOVs can depend upon the opponent and their style. Now, if we had a rating system combined with a pairing system, it would take away some of the randomness of one player drawing a new player and destroying them while another player plays a tougher game but has a harder time coming out with a top score. I don't think we'll see a rating system, it sounds like that would be too much work and perhaps wildly inaccurate at best.

I guess the other option would be cutting sooner and having playoffs beyond the three rounds. The game is long enough that it is hard to do more than three rounds well. On the other hand, other games with 30 players are doing 4-5 rounds and really forcing the top players to play hard. It is too bad they can't run the bigger tournaments like they do big chess tournaments: a round Friday night, 3 rounds Saturday, and a round Sunday morning. That would get you much more accurate results among the top players.

I find MOV to be fine.

As an anecdote, I once won all three rounds in an event: 5-5; 6-4; and 5-5. I came middle/top, but those players that risked abd played more aggressively came out on top, and I feel that that makes sense.

I don't find points to be the problem, I find how standings use them to be the problem.

My thought would be tournaments should do the following to order players after each round:

1. W/L record
2. H2H matchups (only for direct matchups where all players have played all players)
3. Points Scored

Thus MoV itself is nothing more than a vehicle to score points. If you sorted this way, the swiss style tournament will eventually leave you with but a single undefeated player. It also means that playing for narrow wins is a valid strategy... as long as you keep winning and can beat the other people who are winning. Zero margin for error as you will never have tiebreakers other than H2H matchups in your favor... it's still better to win big than win small, but it's more important to win your games.

Or, put differently, 6-4, 6-4, 6-4 becomes better than 10-0, 0-10, 10-0, as winning > all, but 6-4, 6-4, 6-4 is not better than 7-3, 7-3, 7-3, as it should be.

Is it me? Do I have the wrong attitude?

I've always considered it more of a measure of my skill as a player to Win Big, and Lose Small...

I like the idea of being able to lose, keep it to a 5-5, and still have a chance of winning overall...

I just feel that, if you put things at a Win/Loss being the first point of call, you get people Dropping as soon as they lose one game, and that's never good for a Tournament Organiser.

I like the idea that, even if I screw up and get 9-1ed in game 1, I am still capable of at least shooting for a prize.

I mean, let's face it. I really enjoy the friendly competitive environment that official tournaments offer, with some sweet plastic prizes to shoot for, but in the end of the day, this is still all for fun. There is no Armada Pro Circuit where we win all the cash money we could ever use. So I kind of dig that the tournament structure lets you feel like all three games really mean something.

Here's my complaint: two 10-0 wins is more important than three 6-4 wins and extremely close to three 7-3 wins. Or abye, 6-4, 6-4.

The current scoring system gives disproportionate importance to blowouts. Consistent winners can lose out to a player with two blowout wins, even using MOV score.

I'm not suggesting that objective scoring shouldn't be important or count for less in determining if you won a round. I'm instead thinking that XWing has a point using a flat score for wins and modified wins, then using the MOV as a tie breaker score.

Here's a thought: your fighters get a dozen objective tokens taking rear shots at a group of Motti star destroyers but don't actually kill them. The Star Destroyers lose one for 120 points but table the enemy fleet.

The enemy fleet has been tabled but due to the current MOV system somehow has gotten over double the value of their one kill back out of the opponent.

Maybe that shouldn't be so easy to accomplish. Maybe the other player should have had to get another ship down to reduce the wins so severely. Heck, maybe they took down two in the same scenario, in which case why did the tabled opponent almost win the match with a fully untouched Imperial Star Destroyer on the table?

The enemy fleet has been tabled but due to the current MOV system somehow has gotten over double the value of their one kill back out of the opponent.

The Enemy Fleet still Loses. You win, with a 0 MOV.

That's a 5-5... You managed to eek out a technical win in a game you should have lost. Kudos for you. But Kudos for your opponent for giving you that conundrum.

5-5 as a Reward to the Both of you, I feel, is justified.

I'm not suggesting that objective scoring shouldn't be important or count for less in determining if you won a round. I'm instead thinking that XWing has a point using a flat score for wins and modified wins, then using the MOV as a tie breaker score.

In the same amount of time as we play 3 games and X-Wing group can get through 5 and have time for Lunch and Awards. We are almost at the point where the players are getting kicked out of the venue and having prizes in the car park.

I find MOV to be fine.

As an anecdote, I once won all three rounds in an event: 5-5; 6-4; and 5-5. I came middle/top, but those players that risked abd played more aggressively came out on top, and I feel that that makes sense.

Why should a game that requires risks shift to a win/loss system? What's the point of that? You are encouraging people to build semi invincible big ships which is nice but ultimately an issue that X-Wing had. Then FFG would have to fix the system AGAIN by making big ships worth half points to balance that out.

As it stands, I already hear X-Wing players complain at Armada tournaments enough that they are getting nothing out of an ISD that they dropped to 1 hull left at the end of the game. That they just lost 120+ mov and cost them the game.

Want to know my response to them? I ask them is there anything that they could of done to be a bit more aggressive to take it out. The answer is always yes.

I don't think the MoV and scoring is necessarily the issue, the round limitations are.

Drop the rounds to two hours, start an hour earlier, and do a top four cut after round three. If you start at ten and do a thirty minute lunch, you can get three rounds done by 4:30. Start the final round by five, and all is said and done by seven. There's absolutely no reason that a Regional or higher should have a 2:15 round. At the Cambridge regional, I finished round one in about an hour and went to lunch. I came back with about thirty minutes left in round one, and the last table was just finishing. Round two, one table went to time. Round three, I don't think anyone went to time. Regionals are a higher play level. Newer players are absolutely more than welcome to play, but you should and can expect a higher skill level, and that includes playing in a timely manner.

And as I mentioned in the other thread, I think a strength of schedule modifier might help, too. If I table someone who goes on to get tabled the remaining two rounds, that 10-0 shouldn't hold as much weight as tabling someone who comes back to win both of their last games. The issue there is the math and creating a balanced system. Obviously tournament software will help with that first part, but the second part might be tricky. I think maybe Warmachine/Hordes have something similar. Do any other games?

Oh, and that second paragraph doesn't apply to Store Champs and lower. There are so many of those and they should be open and inviting to new players, so fly casual. Chances are if you don't win one, there's another within driving distance.

There is no perfect system. One of the "problems" with Armada tournaments is indeed that is that clubbing a seal 10-0 is strictly better than edging out a close, hard-fought 6-4 against an very skilled opponent.


But a flat Win-Loss comparison metric would have problems of its own. For one, you'd typically need a lot more than three rounds. At a twenty person tournament, after three rounds you'd still have 2-3 people undefeated, so you'd have to rely on MoV anyways at that point to pick a clear winner (or add more rounds, which is something Armada cannot practically do with it's 135 minute time limit). You also have a situation then where after a single loss players might as well drop. Furthermore, you'd be prefacing "mere" wins so players could fortress more often if they simply need to "not lose" (e.g. having Star Destroyers and a Rhymer Ball sitting in their corner with engines off for 3-4 rounds).

There is no perfect system. One of the "problems" with Armada tournaments is indeed that is that clubbing a seal 10-0 is strictly better than edging out a close, hard-fought 6-4 against an very skilled opponent.

But a flat Win-Loss comparison metric would have problems of its own. For one, you'd typically need a lot more than three rounds. At a twenty person tournament, after three rounds you'd still have 2-3 people undefeated, so you'd have to rely on MoV anyways at that point to pick a clear winner (or add more rounds, which is something Armada cannot practically do with it's 135 minute time limit). You also have a situation then where after a single loss players might as well drop. Furthermore, you'd be prefacing "mere" wins so players could fortress more often if they simply need to "not lose" (e.g. having Star Destroyers and a Rhymer Ball sitting in their corner with engines off for 3-4 rounds).

Not to mention you could kill a single enemy squadron and bug out. Boom. Win.

A combination of the scoring system and objective play is what drew me to this game from X-Wing in the first place.

We get to see big wins rewarded, and more importantly, if you do get a Seal Cub matchup for your first round, you get matched up with somone else who had an equally amazing game.

Let's be serious though, a 6 point win may be hard fought and satisfying, but it is not indicative of "good play", much less three of them over 3 rounds. After your first win, you are up against another player who barely managed to win. In the third round, you are up against someone else with only 12 points (or around there) which is roughly a "good" win and a draw. Unless you got "lucky" with the first matchup, you aren't going to be playing a particularly strong opponent, ever.

Just out of curiosity what tournament have you seen a player get 10-0, 0-10, 10-0? At our 29 player 4 round regional event I don't think there was a single player that came close to that sort of trend. If you get a 10-0 against a player you get paired against a theoretical equal player. If he 10-0's you then you get smacked down to a player that also has 10 tournament points in the third round. So in theory by the that time you should be paired to your relative equal. Very rarely at this point does someone score a 10-0. If they do pull that off than shouldn't an argument be made that you earned it then? Quite honestly if you get 0-10 at any round of tournament you are not making first. In a large enough tournament of 20 or more people you are probably not even making top 4.

Now you can argue that a player that barely won all their games with a 6-4, 6-4, 6-4 should be ranked higher but what that tells me is that they did mediocre against whatever skill level player the first round. Then moved on to the second round to play another mediocre player and beat them mediocrely, and likewise the third round same thing. So should mediocre play throughout all three games be more rewarded than someone who displayed dominance in 2/3 of their games, and maybe had one bad fluke game?

Win/loss encourages either tanking or msu builds that kill something then run away. Fun times...

There's no perfect answer. I would much rather have someone win 8-2, 9-1 and lose 4-6(or 3-7) win the tournament over someone who had all 5-5 or 6-4 wins.

As a point of reference, 8 have watched games between players (and played games) where it was a close game up till the last turn or so where a key piece dies and gives a 9-1 to one of the players.

The question is, is that a close game or not?

Just out of curiosity what tournament have you seen a player get 10-0, 0-10, 10-0? At our 29 player 4 round regional event I don't think there was a single player that came close to that sort of trend. If you get a 10-0 against a player you get paired against a theoretical equal player. If he 10-0's you then you get smacked down to a player that also has 10 tournament points in the third round. So in theory by the that time you should be paired to your relative equal. Very rarely at this point does someone score a 10-0. If they do pull that off than shouldn't an argument be made that you earned it then? Quite honestly if you get 0-10 at any round of tournament you are not making first. In a large enough tournament of 20 or more people you are probably not even making top 4?

Well, some fleet designs do well against others, and some completely fold. It could happen that a bomber fleet goes against an almost completely AS design, and then do very well against the other 2 match ups. Granted, 10/0 0/10 10/0 is hard to conceive, but it's not impossible. I've heard the Clonisher described as an 80/20 list, being that it decimates 80% of the lists it encounters and folds against the other 20%. So even if you are paired with your equal in skill, fleet design (and objective selection) can negate your ability to compensate. In which case it would be the player's fault for developing a lopsided fleet, and that could happen in a tournament.

I like the idea that, even if I screw up and get 9-1ed in game 1, I am still capable of at least shooting for a prize.

I mean, let's face it. I really enjoy the friendly competitive environment that official tournaments offer, with some sweet plastic prizes to shoot for, but in the end of the day, this is still all for fun. There is no Armada Pro Circuit where we win all the cash money we could ever use. So I kind of dig that the tournament structure lets you feel like all three games really mean something.

This just happened to me on Saturday. First game, I wrecked.

Then I got a 10-0, and a 9-1. I crushed those games. Should I be placed worse than anyone who could scrape together a few 5-5, or 6-4 wins? Especially considering that the MoV differences between points increases significantly at every step.

It's a disincentive to encourage only really conservative play to eke out the most meagre possible win.

As a point of reference, 8 have watched games between players (and played games) where it was a close game up till the last turn or so where a key piece dies and gives a 9-1 to one of the players.

The question is, is that a close game or not?

I've both won and lost that game a few times, lol.

It's a close game with a not-close result. If I barely end the game with my 175 point ISD alive, it will have been closer than the scores reflect.