@WWHSD - I never argued for changing how MOV works. I'm arguing it should be abandoned. I get you don't like SoS. I'm arguing SoS is a much fairer system than MOV, which doesn't weigh the differences in matches at all. It actually rewards players for having an easier schedule and punishes players for having a harder schedule. I showed the absurdity of its use in other games where something can be used comparably, like life in MtG. I've been playing since wave III and I don't remember SoS ever sucking but I guess that's a difference of perspective and we'll have to agree to disagree.

It's true that MoV does not take the difficulty of your schedule into account, but I think that it's pretty clear players in X-wing prefer a tiebreaker that is within their control, the major weakness of SoS, even if you assume it does a good job of weighing the difficulty a player faced (reasons have been pointed out that it did not do this in X-wing). If a player is on the bubble going into the final round in X-Wing, they can take a strategy to improve their chances of making the cut rather than hoping the players that they played earlier do well.

If you preferred SoS for Xwing and don't remember it being awful, you were definitely in the minority. I think the fact that posts like these come up very rarely since MoV was made the primary tiebreaker and there wasn't a big outcry against MoV early on is telling enough.

@WWHSD - I never argued for changing how MOV works. I'm arguing it should be abandoned. I get you don't like SoS. I'm arguing SoS is a much fairer system than MOV, which doesn't weigh the differences in matches at all. It actually rewards players for having an easier schedule and punishes players for having a harder schedule. I showed the absurdity of its use in other games where something can be used comparably, like life in MtG. I've been playing since wave III and I don't remember SoS ever sucking but I guess that's a difference of perspective and we'll have to agree to disagree.

It's true that MoV does not take the difficulty of your schedule into account, but I think that it's pretty clear players in X-wing prefer a tiebreaker that is within their control, the major weakness of SoS, even if you assume it does a good job of weighing the difficulty a player faced (reasons have been pointed out that it did not do this in X-wing). If a player is on the bubble going into the final round in X-Wing, they can take a strategy to improve their chances of making the cut rather than hoping the players that they played earlier do well.

If you preferred SoS for Xwing and don't remember it being awful, you were definitely in the minority. I think the fact that posts like these come up very rarely since MoV was made the primary tiebreaker and there wasn't a big outcry against MoV early on is telling enough.

Fair enough.

SoS could work but the problem is simply sample size. Sorry but even if you're just looking at an 8 round tournament if that is all you're looking at, and which probably would include a lot of drops given how long it would go, your sample size is too small. When you can look at the strength of a player over the course of hundreds, or at least tens, of games then you may get a true measure to use for SoS but if you're only looking at six rounds of swiss you're not going to get that.

@WWHSD - I never argued for changing how MOV works. I'm arguing it should be abandoned. I get you don't like SoS. I'm arguing SoS is a much fairer system than MOV, which doesn't weigh the differences in matches at all. It actually rewards players for having an easier schedule and punishes players for having a harder schedule. I showed the absurdity of its use in other games where something can be used comparably, like life in MtG. I've been playing since wave III and I don't remember SoS ever sucking but I guess that's a difference of perspective and we'll have to agree to disagree.

It was clear that you want to abandon MoV in favor of SoS because you feel like it is a fairer system. I mentioned changes to how MoV works because I believe that past refinements to scoring and MoV have improved it and that further refinements could do the same.

I, and others, have repeatedly expressed our concern that SoS punishes players that won difficult early matchups when their opponents drop and reward players that lost to weaker opponents that drop early. If the sole reason to move to SoS is to fairly reward players that had tougher opponents it doesn't even really acheive that.

MoV isn't perfect but I feel like it applies some pressure for players in the lead to try to "win more" instead of trying to maintain a small lead until time expires. Encouraging engament in a dogfighting game seems like a good thing rather than a negative.

The other big issue that SOS has, that I haven't seen mentioned here yet (if I missed it I apologize), is that it matter greatly WHEN you win and lose.

If you lose your first game, you almost cannot make the cut with the SOS tiebreaker. Let's look at two different players, each play in a 5 round tournament. Player 1 goes 4-1 and loses his first game, Player 2 goes 4-1 and loses his last game. Here are the opponents that each player plays

Player 1
0-0 vs 0-0
0-1 vs 0-1
1-1 vs 1-1
2-1 vs 2-1
3-1 vs 3-1

Player 2
0-0 vs 0-0
1-0 vs 1-0
2-0 vs 2-0
3-0 vs 3-0
4-0 vs 4-0

Both end 4-1, but Player 1 has an opponents combined record of 6-4 while his opponent has an opponents combined record of 10-0. Player 1 is just hosed, and it really just matters that he lost his first game, he could even have played Player 2 in round round. Even with Player 2's solid record Player 1 is totally behind the 8 ball and he can't do anything to recover after the first round loss. Yes, it also matter what the players each player plays in each round do in the other rounds, but we know that Player 1 is already starting 4 games behind Player 2 simply due to WHEN he lost his game.

Another MOV issue that I haven't seen mentioned so far is how poorly it works to establish the final rankings in small tournaments, when there aren't enough players for a cut.

Where I live we have a pretty small community so all our tournaments are 3 or 4 round events without a cut. What usually happens is: you win ypur first round and go on facing tougher opponents, therefore hurting your MOV, until you reach the 'final' (last round match where the two 2-0 ir 3-0 guys face off) and then it sucks for the loser. Because of less-than-great MOV, the guy who loses the last match usually drops down several places in the final ranking.

The most extreme example I've seen was a guy taking 2nd place in an 8 people tournament without having faced anyone in the top half of the table (1,3 or 4). He lost his first game, then 'farmed' MOV in an easier bracket.

Another MOV issue that I haven't seen mentioned so far is how poorly it works to establish the final rankings in small tournaments, when there aren't enough players for a cut.

Where I live we have a pretty small community so all our tournaments are 3 or 4 round events without a cut. What usually happens is: you win ypur first round and go on facing tougher opponents, therefore hurting your MOV, until you reach the 'final' (last round match where the two 2-0 ir 3-0 guys face off) and then it sucks for the loser. Because of less-than-great MOV, the guy who loses the last match usually drops down several places in the final ranking.

The most extreme example I've seen was a guy taking 2nd place in an 8 people tournament without having faced anyone in the top half of the table (1,3 or 4). He lost his first game, then 'farmed' MOV in an easier bracket.

And how exactly would switching to SoS help this? Just one post above Rinehart showed that the round you lost your game would completely determine your final rank in such a tournament. If you got paired with someone good in the first round and lost, there would be absolutely no way to recover. Not to mention the fact that beyond the winner, there will be lots of players with the same wins to losses ratios. Their final ranks would depend in no way on how well the played, only on how lucky or unlucky they were with their pairings.

Another MOV issue that I haven't seen mentioned so far is how poorly it works to establish the final rankings in small tournaments, when there aren't enough players for a cut.

Where I live we have a pretty small community so all our tournaments are 3 or 4 round events without a cut. What usually happens is: you win ypur first round and go on facing tougher opponents, therefore hurting your MOV, until you reach the 'final' (last round match where the two 2-0 ir 3-0 guys face off) and then it sucks for the loser. Because of less-than-great MOV, the guy who loses the last match usually drops down several places in the final ranking.

The most extreme example I've seen was a guy taking 2nd place in an 8 people tournament without having faced anyone in the top half of the table (1,3 or 4). He lost his first game, then 'farmed' MOV in an easier bracket.

And how exactly would switching to SoS help this?

Never said it would. Just that it's another issue with MOV

@Rinehart - That's not a problem. That's desirable. In your example, the player with better breakers is the player who played other player's with better records from round two throughout. He had a harder schedule and though the final record would be the same, using SoS would correctly assign the player with the harder schedule the better breakers. That's a good thing. When you lose determines how hard your schedule is. The player who played x-0s throughout should have breakers than the player who played x-1s throughout.

@LordBlades - Exactly. MOV punishes players with harder schedules and rewards players with easier schedules.

I think the question here is how do you define a 'fair' way to say who deserves tie breaker spots. The argument for SoS is that the person with the highest SoS deserves the tie breaker because they had the most difficult road to get to where they are. The argument for MoV is that they were the most successful in their games (destroying ships is the only win condition thus MoV is a measure of success).

I disagree with the notion that having a 'harder' schedule should qualify you for tie breaker at a base level. With SoS you could in win every game without shooting via final salvo and assuming your opponents do well throughout the tournament you are carried to victory through their achievements. If you dust every opponent without losing any points 200-0 that's much more noteworthy in my mind.

@Rinehart - That's not a problem. That's desirable. In your example, the player with better breakers is the player who played other player's with better records from round two throughout. He had a harder schedule and though the final record would be the same, using SoS would correctly assign the player with the harder schedule the better breakers. That's a good thing. When you lose determines how hard your schedule is. The player who played x-0s throughout should have breakers than the player who played x-1s throughout.

@LordBlades - Exactly. MOV punishes players with harder schedules and rewards players with easier schedules.

Acewing, you are missing the point. Yes, Player B will have played a harder schedule and will by definition have a better SOS. But due to WHEN Player A lost, the track he's been put on will never give him a schedule hard enough to have a strong enough SOS to make the cut. Even though Player A and Player B are of relative equal skill and finished with the same overall record. And the fact that Player A knows that he can't make the cut due to the track he's been put on, he's been given no serious incentive to play out his schedule. Player A is more likely to drop and penalize Player B's overall SOS. The early games mean far too much in terms of your overall slate of opponents. If you lose your first game, you won't play an opponent with a winning record until the 4th round, while those that won their first game won't ever play an opponent with a losing record, assuming they keep on winning.

I think the question here is how do you define a 'fair' way to say who deserves tie breaker spots. The argument for SoS is that the person with the highest SoS deserves the tie breaker because they had the most difficult road to get to where they are. The argument for MoV is that they were the most successful in their games (destroying ships is the only win condition thus MoV is a measure of success).

I disagree with the notion that having a 'harder' schedule should qualify you for tie breaker at a base level. With SoS you could in win every game without shooting via final salvo and assuming your opponents do well throughout the tournament you are carried to victory through their achievements. If you dust every opponent without losing any points 200-0 that's much more noteworthy in my mind.

The biggest issue with MOV is that it punishes some lists more than others. Some lists are designed to win while losing ships and hull. But other lists, Palp aces can far more easily win without losing ships and hull. So, the lists capable of winning 100-0 have a much stronger edge than lists that really aren't as capable of winning 100-0 (Z missile swarm for example).

That being said, MOV is superior to SOS, but some revision should be made to the current MOV rules. I think the half points rule for large ships should be dropped. Frankly, X7 defenders are as hard to kill as a Fat Falcon and they now protect their points far better. So, there is little reason to punish large turrets in the MOV tie breaker and have many small based point vaults running around.

@Rinehart - That's a fair point. You're right. I misunderstood your point. Using SoS would make the first round too important.

I don't think taking away half points is the right call. I think adding half points for all ships is a better idea. It would have to be something along the lines of the first time a ship goes below half its life you get half points its points. That way regen doesn't get an advantage.

"MoV is the worst form of tie-breaking, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time" - Winston Churchill

I don't think taking away half points is the right call. I think adding half points for all ships is a better idea. It would have to be something along the lines of the first time a ship goes below half its life you get half points its points. That way regen doesn't get an advantage.

I like this rule, as it's such a big pain in the butt in my local meta.

Another MOV issue that I haven't seen mentioned so far is how poorly it works to establish the final rankings in small tournaments, when there aren't enough players for a cut.

Where I live we have a pretty small community so all our tournaments are 3 or 4 round events without a cut. What usually happens is: you win ypur first round and go on facing tougher opponents, therefore hurting your MOV, until you reach the 'final' (last round match where the two 2-0 ir 3-0 guys face off) and then it sucks for the loser. Because of less-than-great MOV, the guy who loses the last match usually drops down several places in the final ranking.

The most extreme example I've seen was a guy taking 2nd place in an 8 people tournament without having faced anyone in the top half of the table (1,3 or 4). He lost his first game, then 'farmed' MOV in an easier bracket.

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.

@StevenO - more developed games (tournament structure-wise) do use opponent match win percentage as the first tiebreaker because it is the best indicator of your strength of schedule, as you intuited. Both Chess and Magic use it, for example.

Magic has no alternative. You could try to go by remaining life, but a lot of decks pay life as a key part of winning. Or they do little to no damage before obliterating the opponent in one or two turns. There's no reliable way to determine something comparable to MoV in Magic because good plays don't necessarily translate to anything that can be measured objectively. In X-Wing, damage can be measured. They should probably add a variant of the half points rule for small based ships but overall MoV is a more reliable means of determining how well I'm doing. Sure, maybe I lucked out and played two bad players in a row but as the weaker players are beaten it's inevitable that I'll have to play someone at or above my level. Especially if it's big enough to merit a cut to the top eight, since those are settled by the old "winner moves on" system. Or so I believe, I haven't gone to a large enough tournament to see for myself.

Another MOV issue that I haven't seen mentioned so far is how poorly it works to establish the final rankings in small tournaments, when there aren't enough players for a cut.

Where I live we have a pretty small community so all our tournaments are 3 or 4 round events without a cut. What usually happens is: you win ypur first round and go on facing tougher opponents, therefore hurting your MOV, until you reach the 'final' (last round match where the two 2-0 ir 3-0 guys face off) and then it sucks for the loser. Because of less-than-great MOV, the guy who loses the last match usually drops down several places in the final ranking.

The most extreme example I've seen was a guy taking 2nd place in an 8 people tournament without having faced anyone in the top half of the table (1,3 or 4). He lost his first game, then 'farmed' MOV in an easier bracket.

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.

If the future tournament winner destroys you 100-0 in the first round, you will fight some other guy who lost 100-0 or close in the first round, an easier match that could allow you to gain back a hefty amount of MOV. If the future tournament winner destroys you 100-0 in the last round, you gain no such advantage.

"MoV is the worst form of tie-breaking, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time" - Winston Churchill

Amazing that he foresaw this! Was wave 1 even out when he lived?

But I read it on the internet, so it must be true!

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.

If the future tournament winner destroys you 100-0 in the first round, you will fight some other guy who lost 100-0 or close in the first round, an easier match that could allow you to gain back a hefty amount of MOV. If the future tournament winner destroys you 100-0 in the last round, you gain no such advantage.

No, pairings are random amongst the same win/loss record.

@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.

As it stands, if MOV really is a good indicator of performance, why would you roll a die and pair disparate records (based on MOV). If MOV is what you want to use as a tiebreaker, fine, but use it to pair similar MOV performances.

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.

Are we talking about small tournaments with no cut? If so, I think it's fair to say they probably fall apart on a lot of levels outside of determining a winning player.

If we are talking about tournaments with a cut of any decent size, a player that has gone unbeaten until the last round and loses to the "champion" (and by champion I assume you mean the top seed in swiss?) has literally nothing to worry about in terms of MoV tiebreaker. The way the tournament structure is set up accounts for all X-1 to make the cut outside of some odd corner cases. It's only at X-2 that they start to matter.

@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.

That's how it used to work but it ended up generating too many mirror matches. Lists that were vulnerable to TIE swarms never had to face them until after the cut if they were good at hoarding MoV.