So I was talking with my buddy tonight about competitive tournaments and how important MOV is vs strength of schedule. We are both frustrated that a lot of it depends on luck and who you match up against. With MOV the main decider for tie-breakers, there is no real reward for playing tough players. So we came up with this idea. Absolutely 100% untested (going to try to look at numbers in the future), but wanted to get some thoughts.

A player submits information as usual - winner and loser and points destroyed. Rank is now determined as a product of MOV and SOS. For example, if someone has an MOV of 1000 and an SOS of 0.5, they would have a final score of 500. This would take into consideration how well you play the actual match as well as how good your opponent was. Again, it has no statistical or real life data to support it. Just thought it could be an interesting way to incorporate by aspects. Let me know thoughts as well as the drawbacks to this type of system.

As the saying goes, you can only beat what's put in front of you.

Remember, not all things are equal in X-wing. You can play an inferior player, but if they luck out and bring a hard counter to your list, sometimes there's nothing you can do.

Also, Swiss will pair you with an opponent in your win bracket, so the player is generally equally as good as you.

The proposed system can also create problems...

Your standing would be dependent on the performance of the players you faced, which can also be a bad thing.

To have your position in the rankings dragged down because your first two opponents got trounced in their remaining matches is something nobody wants.

It kinda just replaces "my mov is low because I played lots of good players" with "I'd have better tiebreakers if I'd been given better opponents".

Strength of Schedule is an abstraction that people try to quantify. MoV is inherently numerical. Any attenpt to make Strength of Schedule more important than MoV would turn X-wing tournaments into something like the College Football standings.

I can't believe with all the x wing tourneys in existence there is not a comprehensive world ranking system for all players where all games get recorded and rankings updated. Then the field can be ranked before the die rolling begins. This can ensure everyone plays round one against roughly the same level of opponent. #1 vs 2, 3 vs 4, etc, or if you prefer 1 plays 33, 2 plays 34...31 vs 64, etc (assuming 64 players). Lots of ways to start, and then progress as normal. Still will have some match up issues, but these can never be avoided entirely.

I can't believe with all the x wing tourneys in existence there is not a comprehensive world ranking system for all players where all games get recorded and rankings updated. Then the field can be ranked before the die rolling begins. This can ensure everyone plays round one against roughly the same level of opponent. #1 vs 2, 3 vs 4, etc, or if you prefer 1 plays 33, 2 plays 34...31 vs 64, etc (assuming 64 players). Lots of ways to start, and then progress as normal. Still will have some match up issues, but these can never be avoided entirely.

Let's imagine the system existed, and examine the two suggested pairing methods.

If the highest ranked player pairs automatically wth the lowest ranked player, then you create a culture of "we're better than you, and we're going to keep it that way."

If the highest ranked players pair automatically, then the best players will inevitably acrue more first-round losses than they would have in other systems. This means their records do not reflect their actual skill level, and encourages the kind of hypercompetitiveness that spoils game communities as those players vie for supremacy.

In either case, middle ranked players will always play each other in the first round, and the law of averages will keep them there.

I can't believe with all the x wing tourneys in existence there is not a comprehensive world ranking system for all players where all games get recorded and rankings updated. Then the field can be ranked before the die rolling begins. This can ensure everyone plays round one against roughly the same level of opponent. #1 vs 2, 3 vs 4, etc, or if you prefer 1 plays 33, 2 plays 34...31 vs 64, etc (assuming 64 players). Lots of ways to start, and then progress as normal. Still will have some match up issues, but these can never be avoided entirely.

A global ranking database might be helpful for store championships and higher tier events. Incorporating those rankings into regular kit tournaments would be a mistake. Common kit tournaments draw the most new players and players who compete infrequently. Having a predetermined field before those players walk in the door would disrupt the friendly atmosphere that is only possible when every participant starts on even footing.

Let's imagine the system existed, and examine the two suggested pairing methods.

If the highest ranked player pairs automatically wth the lowest ranked player, then you create a culture of "we're better than you, and we're going to keep it that way."

If the highest ranked players pair automatically, then the best players will inevitably acrue more first-round losses than they would have in other systems. This means their records do not reflect their actual skill level, and encourages the kind of hypercompetitiveness that spoils game communities as those players vie for supremacy.

In either case, middle ranked players will always play each other in the first round, and the law of averages will keep them there.

Not to mention that "better over the course of one's career" does not equal "better on the day".

Seeded pairings are fine... After the top 16/ top 8 cut. Since that (usually) avoids the rather anticlimactic occurence of the actual final occurring in the semis or the quarters.

But seeding in the Swiss, right from the get-go?... That's not something I'm a fan of.

MOV is less important than winning out right.

My 6-0 with a 606 MOV is better than your 4-2 will ever be.

FFG doesn't have a DCI to keep track of all of those numbers to determine how good someone supposedly is. Even if they did such a system is not perfect as a new player coming into tournaments may be extensively versed in the game or they may blow chunks. Then you also get a lot of these ranking systems where people may get to a certain point and then do something to tank their own rating for potential benefit in the future.

SoS is a very fickle thing as you have no control over who you play and if someone loses you there's nothing that stops them from spiralling down and taking your SoS with you. When X-Wing started SoS was an important factor in tournament but it cause so many issues that I'm not sure anyone who experienced it wants to go back to that.

To me the only SoS that really should matter is "who did you lose to?" Lose the first round of Swiss to someone who then can't win another game doesn't seem as impressive as someone who only loses on the last table but who had his first two round opponents lost out proving to be weak opponents. Even this isn't perfect but if we judge people on their win-loss record I'm more interested in the win-loss of who has beaten you in a situation where matchups are always between equals.

MOV is less important than winning out right.

My 6-0 with a 606 MOV is better than your 4-2 will ever be.

Absolutely agree. I do not think anyone is arguing that MOV is more important than winning the game. The original idea I suggested was a tie-breaker that would incorporate both mov AND sos. Some have disagreed, but I do think it is important to take into consideration what type of players someone faced.

As the saying goes, you can only beat what's put in front of you.

Remember, not all things are equal in X-wing. You can play an inferior player, but if they luck out and bring a hard counter to your list, sometimes there's nothing you can do.

Also, Swiss will pair you with an opponent in your win bracket, so the player is generally equally as good as you.

Absolutely there is some luck involed with X-wing. It includes dice . However, especially in the earlier rounds of a tournament, just because someone has the same record, does not mean the players are on equal level. Also, a newer player with a hard counter to a list could easier lose due to inexperience or simply outplayed. The whole idea behind it was to take into consideration both tie-breakers

The proposed system can also create problems...

Your standing would be dependent on the performance of the players you faced, which can also be a bad thing.

To have your position in the rankings dragged down because your first two opponents got trounced in their remaining matches is something nobody wants.

It kinda just replaces "my mov is low because I played lots of good players" with "I'd have better tiebreakers if I'd been given better opponents".

No system is perfect, I will fully agree with that. The ultimate issue I see with the current system is it doesn't take into consideration a player who might go 4-2, but those two losses were to a person who went 6-0 and the other one was 5-1. I do see your point at the end of people will always find something to complain about, lol. At the end of the day I guess the best answer to any ranking system is to just win every game and not have to worry about tie-breakers!

...

No system is perfect, I will fully agree with that. The ultimate issue I see with the current system is it doesn't take into consideration a player who might go 4-2, but those two losses were to a person who went 6-0 and the other one was 5-1. I do see your point at the end of people will always find something to complain about, lol. At the end of the day I guess the best answer to any ranking system is to just win every game and not have to worry about tie-breakers!

Just love that example. A player loses the first two games for six round but then manages to clean up in the loser's bracket probably isn't the same as the guy who loses to a person who goes 6-0 and another person who's 5-1 because they also happened to play a 6-0.