I have done a rundown of my thoughts on the changes and what their impact might be.

Link here

Over all I think the are for the benefit of the game.

what do you guys think?

Kris

I have done a rundown of my thoughts on the changes and what their impact might be.

Link here

Over all I think the are for the benefit of the game.

what do you guys think?

Kris

I think you might want to read the other threads already running rampant with Hate and Praise for the old exploits closing and the new exploits opening.

I think you might want to read the other threads already running rampant with Hate and Praise for the old exploits closing and the new exploits opening.

Like I have time to go to Page 2...

Interesting that you support the Dice-Off when your channel is DiceHate that is unless 'Hate' should be read as 果 (Results?). Then its quite appropriate I guess.

For me there are 3 points of concern.

1. I really have issue with players using 3rd party dice and Obstacles. This document directly says Obstacles are out whereas prior it was up to the Marshal to determine legitimacy.

2. The outside material should include open knowledge like dials as you said. This could probably be fixed by adding it to the FAQ. For me I used Squad builder on my phone, 2 sec and I could bring up any dial or ship data. Losing that resource will suck and just make games go longer.

3. The Binary Win system / Final Salvo. It feels rubbish. Draws should exist and a close game shouldn't be everything for one player and nothing for the other. There have been some discussions on exploits of the new system, the 4x Phantoms, Solo Whisper and Dengar/Gonk where the win objective is to deny some aspect of the engagement.

IMO they should drop all tournament points and use MOV only.

Cuts remove the lowest MOV's. Strength of schedule is the average of your opponents MOV score.

The Final, should it be a draw at time out just continues play until the next point is scored.

If that still doesn't happen then you go back to the seed scores.

MOV should matter. As a combat game a result shouldn't be so arbitrary as 1 point equals a win. The value of your wins over your opponents matters. Compare 2 players A and B in a 6 rounds event.

Player A wins all his games by 1 point and loses 1 wholesale. for 5/1 505 MOV

PLayer B wins 4 of his games in strong position and loses 2 by 1 point. for 4/2 998 MOV

Player B is clearly the better player across the sum of his games but he has been pushed out unfairly by the tournament points binary system of WIN being everything and a loss nothing.

Lets add Player C, with a slightly above average engagement result say 66% and only has 3 wins for 3/3 696 MOV. Even he has a better play result than Player A but has no chance at all of making the cut.

Variance is one of the reasons for having a Swiss environment. This scoring system for this game type promotes getting lucky rather than allowing players to balance out across the 6 rounds. Its an Immature mechanic and lucky players will deny skilled players a deserved spot.

I'm a big fan of the tournament changes. A modified win is worthless. There's practically no difference between a modified win and a loss. What it successfully does is correctly assign the player who is ahead a meaningful victory where his MOV will be low in the higher tables.

I disagree about using MOV solely to determine rank. That's not the game. The game is about destroying more points than your opponent. You could kill a Z-95 and run the rest of the game and that's perfectly legitimate. If you do wipe the board, you get better breakers. There's a benefit for aggressively going after your opponent but it shouldn't determine who wins.

I don't really care about the obstacle rule but it seems inconsistent with the permitting of outside templates and range rulers. Anything that requires a specific shape should be held to that standard or not. If the templates and range rulers are allowed as long as they're the same shape as official ones, why can't obstacles if they meet the same criteria?

*The game is about destroying more points than your opponent.*

Hmmmm, but you think 6/6 1point wins is ok to valued more than 5/6 full wins?

I don't really care about the obstacle rule but it seems inconsistent with the permitting of outside templates and range rulers. Anything that requires a specific shape should be held to that standard or not. If the templates and range rulers are allowed as long as they're the same shape as official ones, why can't obstacles if they meet the same criteria?

I don't have to use your movement templates but, as obstacles are part of the play field, I would be forced to be involved with your obstacles.

Personally; I dislike the Final Salvo rule and feel draws should be allowed to exist. ID's no but natural draws are just that.

I preferred the Modified Win existing as it encouraged getting into the fight a bit more.

And I agree about the outside reference material including dial info etc. Shouldn't be anything wrong with having access to manoeuvre charts/cards.

Glad there's now a time limit of cut elimination games after TO'ing 2 SC's earlier this year.

Other than that; not bothered really.

*The game is about destroying more points than your opponent.*

Hmmmm, but you think 6/6 1point wins is ok to valued more than 5/6 full wins?

Why should defeat EVER be worth more than victory. MoV or other things should only used to break ties, not to give people with losses more points than people with wins.

MOV is just bad (IMHO) and needs to go. It punishes players for using large base ships. The Dice Off solution is complicated for complication's sake. The new rule that I'm upset about though is the one that bans all note taking.

I have sent this via e-mail to FFG. I hope other players will consider their opponents in the near future and be compassionate to their needs. Let's insure that all who wish to play can and continue to Fly Casual.

I am contacting you today on behalf of the many X-wing players with learning disabilities that have been negatively affected by your recent tournament rule changes. Page 12 of Tournament Regulations V1.1.1 states that all note taking during game play is barred. This rule will cause many of your players with certain learning disabilities to be unable to play X-wing in a tournament setting. I have taught many young (and old) men and women to play this game by taking simple notes. They write their opponent's list down and then keep track of remaining shields, hull, and critical hit effects. This does not add extra time to the game and keeps the game accessible to them. (Otherwise they will become lost, stressed, and possibly confused.) Furthermore, these simple notes help them to play the game at the same speed as other players who do not require to take such notes (as they will not have to constantly stop and ask their opponent questions about their list).

In conclusion, your recent “no notes ban” has not taken many of your special needs players into consideration. For many of these players, X-wing tournaments might be their primary source of public interaction. It is the one place where they feel like part of the crowd and they belong. Please reconsider this rule and do so quickly for the sake of these players.

Hmmmm, but you think 6/6 1point wins is ok to valued more than 5/6 full wins?

Yeah, of course! If you're ahead in points, the number of points you destroy are just a tie-breaker, not a win condition. It doesn't make you a better pilot if you lost, got paired against worse opponents and mopped the floor with them. If you destroy more points than your opponents every round, you're a better player.

I don't have to use your movement templates but, as obstacles are part of the play field, I would be forced to be involved with your obstacles.

I don't care either way but what does it matter as long as they're the same shape as the FFG obstacles?

MOV is just bad (IMHO) and needs to go.

At first, I disagreed with you but the more I think about it, you could easily make it work without MOV breakers. You would do away with cuts because you'd basically have extended Swiss rounds until there was a clear winner. I think you still have corner-cases where you need a form of tie breaker unless you weigh the results of a match. For example, if you lose a match, each of your wins from then on are worth a fraction of the full 1 pt. As you accrue more loses, your results would have to be increasingly weighted. So maybe if you lose a match, all your wins from then on are worth .999 points. If you lose again, all your wins would be worth .998 points and so on.

Not sure if it's any better than just using MOV as a tie breaker.

MOV is just bad (IMHO) and needs to go.

At first, I disagreed with you but the more I think about it, you could easily make it work without MOV breakers. You would do away with cuts because you'd basically have extended Swiss rounds until there was a clear winner. I think you still have corner-cases where you need a form of tie breaker unless you weigh the results of a match. For example, if you lose a match, each of your wins from then on are worth a fraction of the full 1 pt. As you accrue more loses, your results would have to be increasingly weighted. So maybe if you lose a match, all your wins from then on are worth .999 points. If you lose again, all your wins would be worth .998 points and so on.

Not sure if it's any better than just using MOV as a tie breaker.

MOV does more than just punish big ships (although that is where it is most felt) it also punishes a certain play style and list. Lists that are designed to outlast and endure losses suffer greatly under current MOV rules. If you win by killing all of your opponent's ships and have (as part of your list strategy) lost half of your list, this should not push you out of the top 8. By forcing 100 to 0 wins to be the only safe way to advance, this will cause more run-away type games where the action is avoided and the clock is worn down.

Just my two cents. As these tournaments grow, some kind of system needs to be in place. I'm just not sure this one is the most just for all play styles.

Strength of schedule is a better tiebreaker than MOV. As for playing for MOV or for Modified wins or Intentional Draws... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5-iJUuPWis

You play to win the game.

Edit: I'd like to get some stats to back up my premise that SoS is a better tiebreaker than MoV. Here is my hypothesis:

SoS is more predictive of success in the elimination round than MoV

Anyone know where I can find some tourney results (that include SoS and MoV - most LJ tournies do not list SoS) that I can do some analysis on?

So, took the results from a half dozen regionals last year and did some quick charts, and quickly figured out that most of the stats are useless because they are self selecting: Score correlates to MoV because Score is based on MoV. SoS is based on score, which is based on MoV. Swiss rank correlates to MoV because MoV is used as a tiebreak.

The interesting thing is that after the elimination rounds, neither MoV nor SoS seem correlated final standings. What is clear is that the tie break methods available are completely ineffective in identifying success after the cut, and even the initial seedings are ineffective at predicting success in the elimination rounds.

Conclusions:

• The players who make the cut are all very competitive
• A significant number of players are being cut where they would likely be competitive
• So mainly, the tournament tiebreakers are complete bunk

Strength of schedule is a better tiebreaker than MOV. As for playing for MOV or for Modified wins or Intentional Draws... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5-iJUuPWis

You play to win the game.

Edit: I'd like to get some stats to back up my premise that SoS is a better tiebreaker than MoV. Here is my hypothesis:

SoS is more predictive of success in the elimination round than MoV

Anyone know where I can find some tourney results (that include SoS and MoV - most LJ tournies do not list SoS) that I can do some analysis on?

From my (admitedly limited) experience, the drop-out rate in X-Wing tournaments is pretty high and it messes up Strength of Schedule.

SoS is completely out of your control where as MoV is not, for that reason MoV is superior to SoS. But MoV should not be the primary method of scoring as it further curtails what is and is not tournament viable.

For me a game based on engagement should be scored and weighted not just be a Binary win/lose result.

I've been playing games for decades. This games mechanical immaturity and resulting balance issues are killing my interest.

The fact that the player base seems to like the illogical concepts but then complain about balance later pushes me to the edge.

I give up.

/wrists quit

Then just quit and save us the melodrama.

Mocking and feigning suicide is classless.

For me a game based on engagement should be scored and weighted not just be a Binary win/lose result.I've been playing games for decades. This games mechanical immaturity and resulting balance issues are killing my interest.The fact that the player base seems to like the illogical concepts but then complain about balance later pushes me to the edge.I give up./wrists quit

Illogical concepts like meeting the conditions for victory being worth more than. . . not meeting the conditions for victory?