First off, I just wanted to thank everyone I came across this weekend at Worlds for being an awesome bunch of guys. I'm an incredibly loud, swear prone, Australian lad, and aside from inadvertently creeping on someone I thought was BiggsIRL, you all managed to keep me out of trouble and thoroughly entertained. It was such an awesome experience, and really my only major problem is now I have to win Australian Nationals again so that I can come back.

I think however there was one issue with the tournament that really warped the whole event: the fact that we were limited to a cut to Top 2 each day.

We had the narrowest cut of any game played at Worlds (most systems having a cut to Top 16) and while I understand the argument that it was limited in this way due to the hectic nature of the current Worlds system, I would point to the fact that National Events were Top 2 Cuts suggests this is a wider trend.

Essentially such a limited cut is problematic for a number of reasons.

Firstly, it makes taking a bye actually detrimental to your chances. To explain, currently you need to be scoring 8.5pts a round (usually) to make a cut. JJ, Skyshuffler, and Nathan all scored 34pts after 4 rounds (an average of 8.5), while Justin scored 32 (8). Anecdotally, from keeping tabs on other large events this current average rule holds true.

In effect, currently taking a bye puts you behind what you need to be scoring to win a tournament or to make a cut. Further when one considers that the best round for player disparity (a high level player against a mid or low level player) is the first, and that by taking a bye you're likely to pair against another Regional or National champion it is currently a better option to take your chances and not take an earned bye (which seems incredibly counterintuitive to what they are intended for, that is as a reward for good play).

Secondly, this current winning average (8.5 points) has a highly distorting effect on the meta. If you look at general chat on the subject you can see that others have asked if they can win a tournament with a balanced but not necessarily high scoring list (i.e. lists that will generally win but normally not by a lot). Currently, the answer is basically no. Your list needs to be able to trend towards 9-2s. It needs to be able to pull big victories. Personal opinion but I think this in turn contributed to the fact that none of this year's Top 4 had a large base ship. As it stands if you lose a large base ship, even if you win you generally won't be able to win big enough to make the cut.

Third, it's just kind of a bummer to know after two rounds that you're unlikely to make the cut, either through one loss or even two narrow wins.

There's other thoughts on this, but basically I think as a community we should make a strong push for a different cut scheme (Top 4 at National Level Events and Top 4 Each Day for Worlds).

If it was Top 4 from each day this year, the required round average drops to between 7.75 & 7.25. This makes taking a bye at least a non-detrimental choice (disregarding the chances of pulling another national champion). Similarly, it also brings consistent but average scoring lists strongly back into the frame. I think this will help with our cut variety long term.

Anyway, let us know what you think!

I say, everyone plays a four round day in one day (need a big space). The top 6-8 get their own 3-round Swiss mini-tourney next day, playing with standard tourney MoV instead of win-loss. Keeps people hungry for points.

I agree. A top 4 at National tourneys and a Top 8 at worlds would be more exciting. I think we have a better shot at getting it in May since it should free up a considerable amount of space.

The GenCon system is close to your suggestion.

2 Days of Pre-lims - 3 Rounds. Top 8 (including ties) taken from each day.

2 more rounds of Swiss and then cut to 2 for a final.

I thought it worked pretty well and gave a satisfying conclusion.

I dare say, as they have the North American Championships (at GenCon) as a template for that, they may well be looking at it...

I'm sure half the issue was the fact that Worlds was spread over EVERY game system...

By Dropping that to 4 Games in May, opens up a lot more opportunity, by simply having to pour less resourcees into things...

Agreed, after having two meh games and only reaching 11 points, I felt like the odds of making it were slim and that I would need two 10-1's to have a chance... so third game after it became apparent I was going to lose, I chucked everything at my opponent so he could get as many points as possible... it actually seemed unsportsmanlike at that point to save some of my ships to get a4-7 or a 3-8 seeing how at that point there was no chance for myself and my opponent would need all the points he could get to have a shot at top two.... if there was a top four it would have completely changed things

Agreed, after having two meh games and only reaching 11 points, I felt like the odds of making it were slim and that I would need two 10-1's to have a chance... so third game after it became apparent I was going to lose, I chucked everything at my opponent so he could get as many points as possible... it actually seemed unsportsmanlike at that point to save some of my ships to get a4-7 or a 3-8 seeing how at that point there was no chance for myself and my opponent would need all the points he could get to have a shot at top two.... if there was a top four it would have completely changed things

Your poor showing made me feel better about my equally poor showing. And I mean that as a compliment because I consider you one of the top Vassal players.

I say, everyone plays a four round day in one day (need a big space). The top 6-8 get their own 3-round Swiss mini-tourney next day, playing with standard tourney MoV instead of win-loss. Keeps people hungry for points.

I love the idea the idea of the Cut playing a mini-tourney. We got lucky that the Final Four fought for real. Dang... I thought Canadians were a warlike people... LOL

Since so much is on the line, it makes sense that it's possible for a player to kill one squadron and then avoid combat. That would be super lame!

---------------------------------

As written in my other thread, Capt Weather was given his bye because Tokra and I took ours and we had an uneven field.

For me, I was playing extra aggressively and didn't make the optimal plays in my matches because I was chasing the leaders since we all agree that the Cut was brutal. Again, Tokra's build is awesome because it's very hard for him to lose big.

I say, everyone plays a four round day in one day (need a big space). The top 6-8 get their own 3-round Swiss mini-tourney next day, playing with standard tourney MoV instead of win-loss. Keeps people hungry for points.

Given the way Armada is scored, this makes far more sense than a single elimination bracket. Heck, even if you just take top 4, in three rounds each player plays each other player, so you really get a feel for how the top four stack up against one another.

I'm all in favor of a change to he system that was used this year, though to exactly what I'm not sure. I've heard a number of good ideas thrown out and I'm sure the devs will find one that is appropriate.

I couldn't agree more with the original posters suggestions. This is something I've been very vocal about over the last few months and even sent ffg an email about World's structure, which was forwarded around to various folks and eventually ignored without any real reply. I know they read these forums so I'm sure they will make a change.

After having played many other competitive games at other events I have to admit Armada's tourney structure is quite poor, and even though having a higher cut would help, there isnt much else they can do about playing odd matchups or vs non-engaging opponents knocking you out just by being their opponent. It's not easy to make the perfect structure when your games takes 2.5 hours a match and about 7 feet of space.

I love Armada but I'm at a point where I may only play campaigns once Conflict comes out, assuming it's good. I hope builds aren't limited in Conflict like they are for tourneys. Like others said, Worlds builds needed to be aggressive and certain builds just couldn't pull off consistent 9-2s or more, and playing fleets that are hard to score big against could knock you out of the tourney no matter what you did. Not good when the opponents you play against had a very large impact on your success.

I think part of the problem was space. With the new rotation of games I suspect the format will change to something similar to what people have suggested.

So I think we are all for a bigger cut and all for having our event on the same day or at the very least schedul finals later enough so that all competitors can get a decent amount of rest.

I do want to point out though that it is not nessecarily an average of an 8 that you need but rather the timing of getting big margins. My first game was a 6-5, but my next two were 10-1's. This propelled me at the top table with 3 points higher than the next player. So I had a nice cushion to go into the finals. As it was I still think I scored 2 points ahead of the next player. Looking at Thursday's competition after the 34 points the next two players had 29 with the top two with 34. So bottom line it is not about averaging 8-9 points a game, but instead it is about earning enough points on your key matchups to propel you to the top two tables in the last round, preferably the top table. Because at that point most of the time even a 6-5 will get you there as the bottom tables would destroy each other.

Now to play devils advocate if they decided to take the top 4 players that means that if you make it to the top two tables both players are going to end up playing conservatively to not blow a big lead. Or in the case of thursday's matchups the top 4 tables would have played conservatively.

I would like to throw in a "wild idea"... what if it was compulsory to have at least one large ship in your list? it was very "sad" not seeing any one in the top finals. Besides it would made for a little bit faster games.

I'd like to support this as well.

The 2 ideas I see laid out is the following just for clarity.

1) there should be a top 4/8 at national and top 8 at world level tournaments.

2) the top cut should be a points based cut starting fresh to encourage competitive engagement and not resulting in marginal results and lacklustre games.

I would like to throw in a "wild idea"... what if it was compulsory to have at least one large ship in your list? it was very "sad" not seeing any one in the top finals. Besides it would made for a little bit faster games.

Making anything, beyond an admiral, is a great way to ruin this game's list building.

You'd kill off certain admirals too- I'm not taking Mon Mothma if she is wasted on over a quarter of my points.

I would like to throw in a "wild idea"... what if it was compulsory to have at least one large ship in your list? it was very "sad" not seeing any one in the top finals. Besides it would made for a little bit faster games.

Making anything, beyond an admiral, is a great way to ruin this game's list building.

You'd kill off certain admirals too- I'm not taking Mon Mothma if she is wasted on over a quarter of my points.

How many rebel lists used Mon Mothma in Worlds? One, two...?

The final match of X-Wing Miniatures was very bad. Someone told me that this is what happens when the players gets exhausted after playing more than 10 hours. I think Fantasy Flight Games needs to change some stuff and not make those tourneys so much tiresome mentally and physically. Gotta have few matches per day and the finals should each be played in a different day. Then all players would be at their 100% and we would watch better quality matches.

I do want to point out though that it is not nessecarily an average of an 8 that you need but rather the timing of getting big margins. My first game was a 6-5, but my next two were 10-1's. This propelled me at the top table with 3 points higher than the next player. So I had a nice cushion to go into the finals. As it was I still think I scored 2 points ahead of the next player. Looking at Thursday's competition after the 34 points the next two players had 29 with the top two with 34. So bottom line it is not about averaging 8-9 points a game, but instead it is about earning enough points on your key matchups to propel you to the top two tables in the last round, preferably the top table. Because at that point most of the time even a 6-5 will get you there as the bottom tables would destroy each other.

You do realize in your example of 26 points over 3 games is an 8.6 average right? Also the top 2 were 34 points so you would've had to have scored at least 8 points to make the cut hence the 8.5 average stated by the OP.

Normally after 3 games the points are still very close amongst the top 3 tables. Even if you score 6-5 on the top table chances are you will get leap frogged by big winners on Tables 2 and 3.

i.e Table 1 26/25

Table 2 24/23

Table 3 23/22

If the leading players on Tables 2 and 3 score 10 each it puts them in the top 2 if the leader on table 1 takes a 6-5.

I guess I did not make myself clear, it is the score you get the first three rounds that usually matters the most. This usually gets you to the top table with a nice lead, from their a 6-5 would usually do it (yes I understand this is not always the case, so play conservative at your own peril) . Looking at the top two taken from Thursday and Friday the third place finishers for Thursday were at 29 and the third place finishers for Friday was 30. So really the magic number you need is a 30 (factor in on getting a higher MoV) that is a 7.5 average.

I might be a bit biased making top 4 on Day 1, but I totally agree and it seems that maybe FFG knows this too. I talked to a couple FFG guys and it seems that unless Destiny just totally blows up huge Armada will have more time (and probably a larger cut) next worlds.

I guess I did not make myself clear, it is the score you get the first three rounds that usually matters the most. This usually gets you to the top table with a nice lead, from their a 6-5 would usually do it (yes I understand this is not always the case, so play conservative at your own peril) . Looking at the top two taken from Thursday and Friday the third place finishers for Thursday were at 29 and the third place finishers for Friday was 30. So really the magic number you need is a 30 (factor in on getting a higher MoV) that is a 7.5 average.

Not quite, I was third day 2 with 31 and no losses. I needed the top table final game on day 2 to have a decisive result to make the top 4.

Bigger cut = more games = more awesome.

I guess I did not make myself clear, it is the score you get the first three rounds that usually matters the most. This usually gets you to the top table with a nice lead, from their a 6-5 would usually do it (yes I understand this is not always the case, so play conservative at your own peril) . Looking at the top two taken from Thursday and Friday the third place finishers for Thursday were at 29 and the third place finishers for Friday was 30. So really the magic number you need is a 30 (factor in on getting a higher MoV) that is a 7.5 average.

Not quite, I was third day 2 with 31 and no losses. I needed the top table final game on day 2 to have a decisive result to make the top 4.

Yeah sorry to disappoint! It wasn't for lack of trying, but my opponent didn't really give me any targets to get a decisive win, and I certainly was not going to give him any.

I'm hoping the World Championship in May will see a Top 8 cut at least!

It's just so low right now compared to the other systems.