@AlexW - I would have less of a problem with MOV if they used it consistently, as in pairing similar MOV scores among players with the same record. At least they'd be using it like a tiebreaker throughout, instead of at the end only.

In addition to the problem WWHSD mentions of similar lists getting paired, I also earlier explained the problem with that is that it made things like store championship/regional byes worth skipping because players that received byes all would get paired together round 2 so you were certainly facing a very tough R2 matchup.

@AlexW - Even in a large tournament, just apply the same reasoning to x-2s. Should they make the cut based on MOV or SoS? One indicates a better performing schedule than the other. If they have the same points, shouldn't the player with the better performing schedule make the cut?

The fact of the matter is, the metagame is no longer a swarm/fat turret binary. We don't have to consider that.

Regarding byes, they still get a free win. I also think byes should not exist. They hurt the integrity of the tournament since some number of people got free wins.

In any case, I can see most players prefer the MOV system. It was a good discussion. I always appreciate a good discussion.

@AlexW - Even in a large tournament, just apply the same reasoning to x-2s. Should they make the cut based on MOV or SoS? One indicates a better performing schedule than the other. If they have the same points, shouldn't the player with the better performing schedule make the cut?

Since we're now going in circles, I will say that it would be more acceptable to me if SoS was a reliable way to actually identify the better performing schedule, but it does not. In fact, as Rinehart pointed out, it's own implementation as a primary tiebreaker makes it less reliable since it makes it more likely players with early losses to drop and therefore negatively impact another players' strength of schedule. As such, I much prefer a method where players are aware of -- and in control of -- the stakes as they play in each game.

The fact of the matter is, the metagame is no longer a swarm/fat turret binary. We don't have to consider that.

It should be considered though because the meta is a constantly changing thing. The example of TIE Swarm vs. Fat Turrets can be generalized into "lists that give up MoV when they win" and "lists that can protect MoV when they win". Matching based on MoV within the same record tends to create a situation where certain lists end up hitting each other a lot and rarely see certain others. I think that's something that should be avoided.

Choosing a list that can protect its points makes it more likely that you'll have a strong MoV if it comes down to tie-breakers. While that's gaming the system a bit, its not really broken at all.

If there are 8 people in the tournament the results should be fairly clear. That's just 3 rounds if things were single elimination to crown a winner. Now you cry that the guy who loses the last round to the remaining undefeated may get penalized for a low MoV and down graded because of it; well what about the two other players who also lost to that undefeated by what ever margin but may have then cleaned up in the "losers" bracket? MoV maybe the best tie breaker here, besides head-to-head, as eeking out wins only to lose the last round doesn't make you any better than the person who barely lost the first round but then destroyed the competition the rest of the way through.

I'm not talking about how "good" a player is. I'm talking about well a player performed and a player who won all his matches until the final round faced increasingly better performers than someone who lost in the first round, at least by some margin.

I agree that SoS is punishing in the first round, but it's not incorrect. MOV incorrectly weighs in favor of worse performing schedules. I'm not saying if you lose the first round, you're a bad player and you should be punished throughout the tournament for that. I'm saying a player who wins all his matches until the final round has performed better throughout the tournament, evidenced by his better performing schedule. Someone with an early loss can have a better performing schedule but not to the same degree as someone who hasn't lost yet. As harsh as it is, it does matter WHEN you lose a match.

As LordBlades points out, the player who loses in the finals is penalized for doing so well in that he has had to play against increasingly better performing schedules throughout the tournament, making it harder for him to acquire the MOV necessary to rank higher, though he's won all his matches until the finals. The player who loses early under the MOV system has the opportunity to gain MOV in a worse performing schedule. The player who hasn't lost a match until playing the champion is not afforded any such luxury. He simply drops in rank with no other recourse. That's not a fair system.

It's possible for a player who lost their first round and a different player who lost their last round to play the *exact same opponents* over the course of the tournament. Having lots early is by no means a guarantee of an easier schedule. Especially when player skill isn't the ONLY determining factor. You could win all but your last game and play against nothing but lists your list is explicitly designed to beat, while a player that lost his first game and wins the rest could spend the entire tournament playing against - and defeating - lists that it's weak against.

To keep things short, SoS is terrible. I hate every second of it. It feels like you don't have control over your destiny.

MoV is much better, but still crap. I honestly wish you got half points for all ships or even a % of points based on remaining health.

Furthermore, I consider that x7 and Zuckuss must be destroyed.

#mediumbases