Ok, so, I would echo many of the above reasons why the scoring system is fine and good.
But I want to say I empathize with you Crab, because it does suck to go undefeated and somehow not be the winner. I totally get how that doesn't sit right. Its not something that happens often though, so you know...way to beat the odds man! Still, second place is in the money as far as tournament kits go.
So you got a 6-5, 8-3 and a 10-1. So 24 points. You said the other guy got two 10-1 and lost to you 5-6. So 25 points?
He had two games he clearly won by a bigger margin and the game against you was close. That how it works.
I went one tourment with two 8-2 and a 2-8 lost. Tied with two guys that both went bye for 8-2 and draw their last two games for 5-5 so bye and two draws for 18 points vs two win and a lost for 18 pts. I won on mov though.
Its not a prefect system but it works
Coming from other tournament backgrounds I prefer tournament rankings on wins first then strength of opposition for tie breakers, and if really needed strength of opositions oposition if needed in larger events, that said I do also understand the current system and don't mind it it's just not my prefered method...
Something FFG wont do, but I hope the comunity might do at some point in the future if ffg ever drops tournament support... Is a compositional score as well which will adjust the match scores ala what I would see in my spint on the warhammer fantasy tournament scene...
Composition scores are what you resort to when you have a company that has zero interest in balancing their games, thus leaving the players to try and figure out ways to run events so that they don't just degenerate into broken interactions and lists. But then the issue become the fact that composition scoring is entirely subjective and when left up to the players is just a tool for trolling opponents that beat you.
GW makes broken games, they just don't care. The tournament systems those games use reflect that. FFG actually makes an effort to create games worth playing. There isn't a need to import tournament features of systems that are widely considered the worst for competitive play.
Doing a small 6 person tournament. I'm the only one with 3 wins. At the end of Round three, I'm told I have the same number of tournament points as two other folks whom each have a loss. One of them I actually beat 6-5. My other 2 wins were 10-1.
They are saying that only tournament points count anymore. So if you win every match 6-5 in theory, you might still lose.
If true, I think I'm done with armada permanently. If winning doesn't mean anything anymore then what is the point?
It's tourney points that determine the winner.
Has been from the start.
It's actually a good thing, or you'd see more Rhymer builds turtling in a corner.
Anyway, your 10+8+6=24 points should be enough to win many, if not all tourneys. It's actually a pretty good score.
The alternative is effectively knockout tournaments. We did this recently on vassal.
I won by running an indestructable mc80CC with Bwings and ships hiding behind it. I was unbeatable because nothing could get close. In all honesty the games werent tge best as the challenge was much reduced only needing a 6-5.
Additionally in the final weplayed superior positions. Reality is my opponent should never have engaged and instead taken second player victory.
Thats the game you want?
I've been thinking a lot about the Armada tournament scoring and IMO it is flawed
Player 1 won 2 games against Rieekan Corvette swam scoring 6 and 6 then 1 against (any other list) won scoring 8 total 20
Player 2 played against a new player scoring 10. got the right match up another 10 then lost really bad scoring 1 total 21
who is the real winner? who worked for it? and how would you be if your were player 1
The way to calculate the MOV is ok but with out a win loss as the first tie breaker the players who start with a week opponent will have a unfair advantage. Some will argue that most if not all tournaments will be 3 rounds only and players who lose there first round will have no reason to stick around. This is already the case for most players who loss the firs round anyway but they still stay and play as there other prizes to play for (other then a useless coin 
) and the game is enjoyable.
Getting a higher MOV in this game does not represent how well you have played compered to straight win loss.
When I build list and select objectives I am not looking to build a list to score a high MOV against some of the lists out there so when/if I loss a game I still have a chance of winning. I build lists to WIN every game. I don't want to think about MOV I want to think about winning. that is all we should have to think about. MOV should be used as a tie breaker between players on the same win loss level only. Even then I think there could be some changes that could be made to fix that as well but there is no use in thinking about that until we can get win loss as the first tie breaker
No game where a player who loses 1 game can beat a player who has won all of there games can be called competitive.
I've been thinking a lot about the Armada tournament scoring and IMO it is flawed
Player 1 won 2 games against Rieekan Corvette swam scoring 6 and 6 then 1 against (any other list) won scoring 8 total 20
Player 2 played against a new player scoring 10. got the right match up another 10 then lost really bad scoring 1 total 21
who is the real winner? who worked for it? and how would you be if your were player 1
The way to calculate the MOV is ok but with out a win loss as the first tie breaker the players who start with a week opponent will have a unfair advantage. Some will argue that most if not all tournaments will be 3 rounds only and players who lose there first round will have no reason to stick around. This is already the case for most players who loss the firs round anyway but they still stay and play as there other prizes to play for (other then a useless coin
Getting a higher MOV in this game does not represent how well you have played compered to straight win loss.
When I build list and select objectives I am not looking to build a list to score a high MOV against some of the lists out there so when/if I loss a game I still have a chance of winning. I build lists to WIN every game. I don't want to think about MOV I want to think about winning. that is all we should have to think about. MOV should be used as a tie breaker between players on the same win loss level only. Even then I think there could be some changes that could be made to fix that as well but there is no use in thinking about that until we can get win loss as the first tie breaker
No game where a player who loses 1 game can beat a player who has won all of there games can be called competitive.
I disagree.
Very much.
For the reasons gink listed.
Armada would be a horrible tourney game if win-loss was all that mattered.
And stop making it out like wins don't count. Wins do count.
You need wins. Big wins. Not just marginal ones.
I'd like to stress this a little more:
A 6-5 isn't a real win. It's pretty much a draw.
A 7-4 is a win, but not a very convincing one.
Anything from 8-3 and up is getting real (140+ MoV is convincing).
When I read the OP my original thought was that this was the lamest post ever.
Its since balanced out into some more reasonable discussion at least.
You need wins. Big wins. Not just marginal ones.
the trouble is the only time I see big wins is when a experienced player beats a weaker player. players on the same skill level don't get big wins unless one of them makes a mistake early on. Sometimes dice but I don't like to blame them (not all the time anyway).
I've been thinking a lot about the Armada tournament scoring and IMO it is flawed
Player 1 won 2 games against Rieekan Corvette swam scoring 6 and 6 then 1 against (any other list) won scoring 8 total 20
Player 2 played against a new player scoring 10. got the right match up another 10 then lost really bad scoring 1 total 21
who is the real winner? who worked for it? and how would you be if your were player 1
While the hypothetical situation you propose could certainly happen, I don't think there is a good way to prevent this short of a worldwide ranking system to weight your opponent's skill level (which we don't have the player base for). A win/loss system is just as liable to reflect poor matchups as a tourney system.
Getting a higher MOV in this game does not represent how well you have played compered to straight win loss.
I don't see how a straight win/loss actually differentiates a "good game" from a "poor game", or distinguishes an unequal matchup from a fair one. All you're doing is weighting the results in favor of win/loss....which to be fair may feel better in some situations, but does come with some downsides as others have pointed out. "How well you played" is a very subjective measure...and win/loss as a measure of game quality loses so much granularity in data, i find it hard to support. Should someone who won 6-5, 6-5, 6-5 by taking second player and refusing to engage win over someone who actually played some games?
When I build list and select objectives I am not looking to build a list to score a high MOV against some of the lists out there so when/if I loss a game I still have a chance of winning. I build lists to WIN every game. I don't want to think about MOV I want to think about winning. that is all we should have to think about. MOV should be used as a tie breaker between players on the same win loss level only. Even then I think there could be some changes that could be made to fix that as well but there is no use in thinking about that until we can get win loss as the first tie breaker
Of course - I would hope that everyone builds lists to win games! Well, on the tournament scene anyways. I don't think of MoV either. I just aim to play my best game possible.
No game where a player who loses 1 game can beat a player who has won all of there games can be called competitive.
Well it's true from a certain point of view... 
I would rather reward the player who fought hard and took risks, than the one who played it safe and avoided a fight.
Again win/loss is neither a sensitive screening tool of "game quality", nor a specific one.
Look, in our system, there is really going to be no perfect way to score tourneys - our game takes too long for high sample sizes, there are too few of us for a worldwide ranking system. Skewed scores will happen....unfortunately. To paraphrase an old saying, our current system really is the worst scoring system.....except for all the rest.
You need wins. Big wins. Not just marginal ones.
the trouble is the only time I see big wins is when a experienced player beats a weaker player. players on the same skill level don't get big wins unless one of them makes a mistake early on. Sometimes dice but I don't like to blame them (not all the time anyway).
That may be your experience. It is not mine.
Sometimes I have an off day. Sometimes the dice are hot at the moment I really need it. Sometimes I have a good matchup. Sometimes I have a great idea and execute it perfectly. Sometimes I have a great idea and execute it disastrously.
Sometimes I can't quite get that one last damage I needed to down the ISD flagship, letting him pop my MC30 for a tabling instead of a 6-5 split.
I'm not saying the scoring is perfect. It definitely has problems. The problem is, I don't have a better idea, and I haven't seen that anybody else has one either.
Yeah, ignore all of this, Maturin said it all better 30 seconds before I did. 
Edited by Ardaedhel
You need wins. Big wins. Not just marginal ones.
the trouble is the only time I see big wins is when a experienced player beats a weaker player. players on the same skill level don't get big wins unless one of them makes a mistake early on. Sometimes dice but I don't like to blame them (not all the time anyway).
That may be your experience. It is not mine.
Sometimes I have an off day. Sometimes the dice are hot at the moment I really need it. Sometimes I have a good matchup. Sometimes I have a great idea and execute it perfectly. Sometimes I have a great idea and execute it disastrously.
Sometimes I can't quite get that one last damage I needed to down the ISD flagship, letting him pop my MC30 for a tabling instead of a 6-5 split.
I'm not saying the scoring is perfect. It definitely has problems. The problem is, I don't have a better idea, and I haven't seen that anybody else has one either.
Yeah, ignore all of this, Maturin said it all better 30 seconds before I did.
I think 5 game tourneys are a lot better at evening this sort of thing out. Don't get me wrong, I love the 3 game tourneys because they are a lot more achievable with family and work commitments, but there is a huge element of luck in who you get drawn against and what their fleet and ability is compared to yours.
I think 5 game tourneys are a lot better at evening this sort of thing out. Don't get me wrong, I love the 3 game tourneys because they are a lot more achievable with family and work commitments, but there is a huge element of luck in who you get drawn against and what their fleet and ability is compared to yours.
Why stop at 5? Go for 6 and make it the whole weekend! I think that'd be GREAT! 
Yes, it'd have to be a once a year thing for me, but would be much more definitive on who "won".
3 round tournaments are doable.
4+ rounds is just too much for regular tourneys.
Maybe for worlds and stuff.
I've been thinking a lot about the Armada tournament scoring and IMO it is flawed
Player 1 won 2 games against Rieekan Corvette swam scoring 6 and 6 then 1 against (any other list) won scoring 8 total 20
Player 2 played against a new player scoring 10. got the right match up another 10 then lost really bad scoring 1 total 21
who is the real winner? who worked for it? and how would you be if your were player 1
While the hypothetical situation you propose could certainly happen, I don't think there is a good way to prevent this short of a worldwide ranking system to weight your opponent's skill level (which we don't have the player base for). A win/loss system is just as liable to reflect poor matchups as a tourney system.
Getting a higher MOV in this game does not represent how well you have played compered to straight win loss.
I don't see how a straight win/loss actually differentiates a "good game" from a "poor game", or distinguishes an unequal matchup from a fair one. All you're doing is weighting the results in favor of win/loss....which to be fair may feel better in some situations, but does come with some downsides as others have pointed out. "How well you played" is a very subjective measure...and win/loss as a measure of game quality loses so much granularity in data, i find it hard to support. Should someone who won 6-5, 6-5, 6-5 by taking second player and refusing to engage win over someone who actually played some games?
When I build list and select objectives I am not looking to build a list to score a high MOV against some of the lists out there so when/if I loss a game I still have a chance of winning. I build lists to WIN every game. I don't want to think about MOV I want to think about winning. that is all we should have to think about. MOV should be used as a tie breaker between players on the same win loss level only. Even then I think there could be some changes that could be made to fix that as well but there is no use in thinking about that until we can get win loss as the first tie breaker
Of course - I would hope that everyone builds lists to win games! Well, on the tournament scene anyways. I don't think of MoV either. I just aim to play my best game possible.
No game where a player who loses 1 game can beat a player who has won all of there games can be called competitive.
Well it's true from a certain point of view...
Again win/loss is neither a sensitive screening tool of "game quality", nor a specific one.
Look, in our system, there is really going to be no perfect way to score tourneys - our game takes too long for high sample sizes, there are too few of us for a worldwide ranking system. Skewed scores will happen....unfortunately. To paraphrase an old saying, our current system really is the worst scoring system.....except for all the rest.
the trouble I think people are having with the win loss is this idea people will go 6-5 6-5 6-5 and win the day.
If we have win loss there would be no need for the 1-10 scoring system at the end of a match you would have your win + MOV scored. No ships destroyed no points scored no MOV. so if some one wanted to be second player and take the auto win with no MOV they have to run the risk that no one else win all 3 games. This is only a problem with tournaments of 4 to 6 players.
But an easy fix would be no MOV no win for anyone? will you still just sit in the corner? and besides if sitting in the corner is a big problem in this game FFG can fix it anytime with new objectives
I'm a big fan of the tournament scoring. I'm really *not* a brilliant player and can never finish in the top half but that's part of why I like it. This is the first competitive wargame I've ever played. I never intended to play competitively but found its a great way of getting in a load of games and really stress-testing my builds and playing.
Playing against friends, I was only ever trying to get a win, however marginal. I could run some pretty ineffective fleets and plays and just win over one game due to a lot of luck factors. That's not really teaching me to be a better player.
After playing tournaments it's made me question what I can *really* do to be effective. To look at every point spent on the fleet, every objective and my strategy to work how to not just win, but to win big. It's forcing me away from safe builds to more aggressive ones with more aggressive play. This is less forgiving and send to lend itself to more dramatic settings as I either win big or lose big. This makes the game more fun for me to play.
By contrast, I'm salivating over the prospect of the Corellian Conflict because that will offer a *totally* different approach and will yield different outcomes.
Lastly, I'll add that in my (limited) experience, 4 round tournaments are pretty doable in a day (London Masters independent tournament). It's exhausting and relies on not having to travel too far but it was certainly easier than I expected (laying off the beer until there last game helped a lot!).
No offence, akenatum, but I hope comp scores never see the light of day in Armada. Comp scores exist in other game systems because of the perceived imbalances in the game system, while I feel that Armada is so well balanced that comp scores are unnecessary. Their need would indicate that there has been a great disturbance in the Force...Something FFG wont do, but I hope the comunity might do at some point in the future if ffg ever drops tournament support... Is a compositional score as well which will adjust the match scores ala what I would see in my spint on the warhammer fantasy tournament scene...
Comp scores are also the subject of unending debate....after all, who gets to decide the composition criteria? Should the "ideal" fleet be a large base, a med base, and 2 small base ships? Or is it 1 large/med and 3 smalls? With many fewer units available to us any comp restrictions would end up stifling fleet innovation and unnecessarily penalize creative lists.
It's also not very fluffy as Rebels (and Imperials to a lesser extent) made do with whatever they had. There's no Codex Astartes in Star Wars!
No offence taken, we can have different viewpoints without getting offended, but we can all agree that there are a few sub optimal builds in this game... It's the nature of a points system unless we all play chess somethings wont work as well in combination and people new to tournament gaming generally bring things like this, which Is where I find composition can be a benefit.... Deciding what that is well that's another kettle of fish but personally it's something I like, and you can build a list with that in mind.
Edit: As a side note with composition scoring I am refering to things like the "Swiss Comp" that we used at a few tournaments in Australia for fantasy which is a full knowledge system, that can give you a wide range of composition scores. Clearly not perfect, but there have been many discussions about upgrades in this forum that are considered too strong compared to it's counter parts too weak etc.
Seems like most people don't like composition scoring and that's fine too, Frankly FFG are one of the better companies with regards to how they point things, as well at least with x-wing are willing to bring out things to soft/hard fix things that no longer work or under/over perform through faqs or new cards.
Edited by akenatumI think everyone has pretty much covered why the current system works well.
I played a game on Saturday against my cousin. I usually come out better than him in tournaments, but he crushed me. Over 400 MoV (in the teens I think, no need to count since 400 is the max anyway.)
This wasn't a close game. Maybe it could've been, had I made better decisions (they were there to make, and hopefully I've learned something in the meantime.)
The point is that we've also played very close games with a dozen or so MoV on the table. This was not a close game by the end, not even at all. He deserves more than a simple (W) next to his name. To say that it should be given equal weight to a 6-5 is simply goofy.
The more I think about it the more this gets my goat.
This is a piss-poor complaint after the fact. Everybody has the scoring rules available up front. The rules tell you the things you have to do to win. Didn't do those things? Then you didn't deserve to win. Better luck next time.
Look, There have been several really well worded explanations for WHY Armada tournaments are scored the way they are in this thread and I understand that - but believe it or not, I did NOT know that wins weren't a part of the equation. I always thought that wins were first, and tournament points simply existed to break ties. Maybe that makes me foolish, but it's the truth.
So yeah I was pretty surprised to find out that it was otherwise. I'm now understanding it better, but I just really wish I'd known that all along. There have been plenty of tournament fights that I've purposely gone easy on my opponent, because I didn't want to hurt their feelings - when apparently I should have.
Example - My final match of the tournament - I destroyed an Interdictor with some really well placed crits from Luke Skywalker and B-Wings (Yavaris was doin some work) - and my opponent got so mad, he started picking up his stuff and said "Screw it I quit - " and began to pack up and leave. I pleaded with him to stay, because maybe he could blow up some of my ships and still get some points out of it... so he did and I managed an 8-3 win - which caused me to only take 2nd place. Had I known the actual rules, I would have just taken the 10-1 win, and that would have put me over the top.
I'm just frustrated for being so ignorant to the rules, in a tournament scene I've been playing in for a long time... It's really awkward.
I think a lot of good points have been raised by both sides.
I personally am a fan of the tournament system, I don't think it's perfect but I like large aspects of it.
As others have noted, in small three round tournaments the system is in a lot of ways very luck dependent (one player pulling a defenceless baby seal, while another pulls a seasoned veteran) but I think that these are issues that aren't really solved by reducing it to a W/L + MoV system.
I also think that the larger the event, and the more rounds that are played (often even just that one extra round from a fourth round), the severity of that issue tends to be reduced. This is not to say matchups at big tournaments aren't important, but I think with bigger, lengthier tournaments you are far less likely to avoid playing a good player with a good list.
If you're scoring a 6-5 or even a 7-4 it means you have either failed to complete your objective or in doing so have lost an almost pyrrhic amount of your fleet (or destroyed a negligible amount of your opponent's). Say someone goes 6-5, 6-5, 7-4. From a narrative point of view these engagements were largely indecisive; the objectives were not met, the damage upon the enemy was inconsequential, or the losses sustained were too high for the advantage gained. If another player goes 9-2, 9-2, 2-9 we see a different narrative. The first engagements were extremely decisive, crushing victories in terms of objectives and materiel damages. Likewise, the final game was a singular defeat; but perhaps in an overall sense the fleet (before its destruction) achieved goals that were highly important at a wider strategic level. In this way I find it flavourful that big wins can be more important, indeed as a student of history it's fantastic to see a system that sort of emulates the fact that a few key wins can counter one heavy defeat, or in the long run be more important than a series of indecisive battles.
I've been thinking a lot about the Armada tournament scoring and IMO it is flawed
Player 1 won 2 games against Rieekan Corvette swam scoring 6 and 6 then 1 against (any other list) won scoring 8 total 20
Player 2 played against a new player scoring 10. got the right match up another 10 then lost really bad scoring 1 total 21
who is the real winner? who worked for it? and how would you be if your were player 1
While the hypothetical situation you propose could certainly happen,
It actually cant, the winner is the guy who beat player 2 10-1 in the final round.
Doing a small 6 person tournament. I'm the only one with 3 wins. At the end of Round three, I'm told I have the same number of tournament points as two other folks whom each have a loss. One of them I actually beat 6-5. My other 2 wins were 10-1.
They are saying that only tournament points count anymore. So if you win every match 6-5 in theory, you might still lose.
If true, I think I'm done with armada permanently. If winning doesn't mean anything anymore then what is the point?
absolutly with you, its so silly, but oc it has ardent defenders also. I also won with three wins, including beating the eventual tournament winner in a head to head game. But lost on MOV.
It is what it is, unfortunately, but just because it is from FFG it does not have to be the best rule ever. There might be scientific basis, I dunno, and I certainly understand that people think the eventual winners two stronger wins compared to mine also have to count, and count more than me beating him, but it didnt feel right, and still doesnt.
Look, There have been several really well worded explanations for WHY Armada tournaments are scored the way they are in this thread and I understand that - but believe it or not, I did NOT know that wins weren't a part of the equation. I always thought that wins were first, and tournament points simply existed to break ties. Maybe that makes me foolish, but it's the truth.The more I think about it the more this gets my goat.
This is a piss-poor complaint after the fact. Everybody has the scoring rules available up front. The rules tell you the things you have to do to win. Didn't do those things? Then you didn't deserve to win. Better luck next time.
So yeah I was pretty surprised to find out that it was otherwise. I'm now understanding it better, but I just really wish I'd known that all along. There have been plenty of tournament fights that I've purposely gone easy on my opponent, because I didn't want to hurt their feelings - when apparently I should have.
Example - My final match of the tournament - I destroyed an Interdictor with some really well placed crits from Luke Skywalker and B-Wings (Yavaris was doin some work) - and my opponent got so mad, he started picking up his stuff and said "Screw it I quit - " and began to pack up and leave. I pleaded with him to stay, because maybe he could blow up some of my ships and still get some points out of it... so he did and I managed an 8-3 win - which caused me to only take 2nd place. Had I known the actual rules, I would have just taken the 10-1 win, and that would have put me over the top.
I'm just frustrated for being so ignorant to the rules, in a tournament scene I've been playing in for a long time... It's really awkward.
Dont worry, ive been playing since day one and just realized vaders crits work vs squads.
I've updated the original post since I get it...
It's my own fault for not knowing... but at the same time, it's hard to learn something when you THINK you already know the answer. Like, I was SURE that it was wins first, tournament points second... so I felt there was no NEED to go look. I certainly would have allowed my final opponent to concede otherwise!