Though I came in 2nd place, the fact that I was the only undefeated player at the local tournament and didn't win the tournament is complete BS! The rules should put an emphasis on winning the matches first, then if there is a tie, go to points... You know, just like every other tournament in the history of forever...

Someone's a slight bit salty. C'mon, you came in frigging second, mate! Be happy with it, the other player must have simply won 'big'. It lets people take some risks, it allows for a bad match up or bad die roll, and you can't just run as second player and win every match. Win big by taking some risks, and realize others are gonna do the same.

I like how it is, I've disliked 'every other tournament in the history of forever' (though that's a bit of a over dramatic hyperbole).

Why? Why should a 6-5 be rewarded? That is not much better than a draw.

First of all, I really hope this isn't the guy from the tournament that we just had where the only undefeated player DID come in second. Because it was an awesome tournament, and after 2 of 3 rounds the tournament points were 14, 13, 12, 11, 8, 8 if I remember right. So very very close.

The thing with a tournament being that close is you absolutely can have someone who you beat 5-6 in a previous round jump to the top if they manage to pull off a big win, either through luck or skill.

I don't have a better suggestion though, because most other options put us in a situation where we get a whole bunch of "play to win 6-5 fleets" which just wouldn't be much fun at all.

Why? Why should a 6-5 be rewarded? That is not much better than a draw.

Because winning should be the emphasis, not tabling the noob who is playing for the first time and then skyrocketing ahead on points to claim a dirty victory when you lost matches...

I like the idea of using points. It makes it more balanced. Yes winning is "most important" in a tournament; but I ask you, what is a win when all you can pull off are 6-5s? It allows a person who had a bad game still have a chance at 1st or second place.

Oh boy it's this thread again.

You knew the rules going in and you didn't win by those rules. What's the problem, exactly? You feel like you should have won despite the rules you agreed to abide by for the event?

Did the person in first win out as well? Not that it really matters. Unless the other person sat there and deliberately got like two 6-5's to purposefully sit lower in the tables (which i think gaming the system is cheating by FFG standards), and then went all out for their last game and got a 10-1 to shoot up to the top of the list, they probably deserved to be there just as much as you did.

Not that any of it really matters. Like I said, they probably deserved to be at the top just as much as you did.

I played a tournament today, and won 8-3, 8-3, 7-4 in some really good fun games. Came 2nd out of 15, tied with first place and lost out due to MOV.

Naturally I would have liked to come first, but I will take second! Especially as it meant getting some sweet engineering tokens...

The quarter tournament format rewards all top 4 players now, rather just loads of stuff for top 2. Which is not a bad thing IMO.

Yeah, the tournament system is dumb. You basically need to hope to get matched up against a new/bad player and crush them, then you have a shot at 1st.

Yeah, the tournament system is dumb. You basically need to hope to get matched up against a new/bad player and crush them, then you have a shot at 1st.

I could phrase it differently.

If you are only good enough to crush new players or scrape minor wins against decent players then you probably shouldn't win the event.

The Swiss system ensures good players float to the top tables and so beginner bashing hopefully won't play a huge part in the scores of those fighting for the top spot. Two players who each slam dunk a newbie in game one will most probably meet each other in game two and then we shall see which is good enough to see off the next challenger in game three.

I like the current system. It rewards decisive play and a little risk taking while punishing cautious minor technical wins or at least not rewarding it too greatly. You can still do them on occasion but a whole event strategy of going for small wins probably won't pay off. I have backed down from going for a big win where the risks were too high but only do it once per event or settle for a top 25% position.

Though I came in 2nd place, the fact that I was the only undefeated player at the local tournament and didn't win the tournament is complete BS! The rules should put an emphasis on winning the matches first, then if there is a tie, go to points... You know, just like every other tournament in the history of forever...

This comes up from time to time, and the answer is still 'no'.

The current scoring system is far superior to a win-loss system.

Or do you really want Motti RBD ISDs castling behind Rhymer? Or Assault 80s protected by angry bees? Or 2nd player seeking a 6-5 without anything dying?

My only 'quarrel' with the current Swiss is that it's even better if more games are played. It's good at 3 games, great at 4 and superb at 5.

But 3 is good enough, and doable time wise.

Win-loss with 6-5 for draws means people will bid for 2nd player and camp for their win. You have to offer something more than your desired change if you think winning should be the sole determination of standings in OP.

You could look at your success in conjunction with your faction if you need some lore-based reasons.

Sure, you won the fight over Talus but another <insert your faction here> fleet lost the battle of Corellia and, in effect, the system.

I remembered once finishing forth on MOV while the only other person who didn't loose a match was on first place (I had won over the second player 7-3 on the first round).

By the time I found it kinda odd but hey that the rules! They have played for me on other occasion!

However I can find why people find it odd and want to temper a bit the gamble on pairing with noob.

I don't say that winner take all doesn't have it's flaw but in small tournament with 12 - 18 peoples with 1/3 being noob (That's a bit of the norm where I leave) you often find something like this:

- One experimented player got paired with a noob on first round then on a other noob on round 2 (who append to have crushed an other noob he was paired with). And then could loose 4/7 it's last match against someone who get unlucky in previous pairing but still manage to win (7 and 8). And despite being won in last round the first guy still win the tournament ending in the odd situation where someone is second after the guy he just won by a comfortable margin.

That the rules for everyone and you get to have you're lucky day too but the system still have it's flaw when you look at it.

Now for the people who say if you reward victory more you'll get people opting for second and go for small MOV by denying point:

- First of all that's also a strategy

- Some people like this king of game-play of low risk reward strategy and there is no reason for lower them by tournament rules a chance of victory (as long as they don't win over a guy who opt for a high risk reward that manage to win all it's bet).

- Doing so also require skills and may be rewarded.

- You can say the exact same argument over the current system that you mostly see high bet black dice / admonition fleets, because either you opt for the high risk reward path or you lower you chance to make 1rs place (because with the number of player doing so one will be lucky enough and win most of it's bet)

- Finding a better equilibrium between the two type of strategy in term of rewarded tournament point will see more variety in the fleets.

From my point of view a guy who manage to win 7/7/8 (or something like that) should win the tournament if he is the only one to win all it's round. But right now a high bet guy who make 10/10/3 (for example by losing badly to the previous guy in last round) is still is on top. Even a guy with 10/10/2 will have good chance to take over with the MOV difference.

So maybe just adding one VP to the winner making the new scores table : 7/5 - 8/4 - 9/3 - 10/2 - 11/1 might change it a bit without breaking the current risk/reward bet and the fact that you can take a minor loose and still bounce back to top.

Or on big tournament having final round of direct elimination after a cut could also solve it (but that's not practical for timing reason).

Anyway that just thought. I'm fine with the current rules and It's not like I have any voice to the chapter anyway.

12 hours ago, Guest weena said:

So maybe just adding one VP to the winner making the new scores table : 7/5 - 8/4 - 9/3 - 10/2 - 11/1 might change it a bit without breaking the current risk/reward bet and the fact that you can take a minor loose and still bounce back to top.

They sort of already did that when they revamped the scores for the Tournament rules update. There used to be 5-5s instead of 5-6s.

12 hours ago, Guest weena said:

From my point of view a guy who manage to win 7/7/8 (or something like that) should win the tournament if he is the only one to win all it's round. But right now a high bet guy who make 10/10/3 (for example by losing badly to the previous guy in last round) is still is on top.

I gave the tournament structure and the dilemma you're describing some thought during Wave2 and believe that your scenario is much less likely than you think for the following reason: you cannot describe only the scores of two player without thinking about the rest of the pack and ignoring the fact that these two players did end up on the top table in round 3.

Lets assume that you hypothetical scenario is true and someone wins with 10-10-3 record by playing two new players and losing against better player in round 3 (who ends up with 7-7-8 record and second place). This scenario means the following:

1. At the end of round 2 everyone except winner had 14 tournament points or less

2. The game at the second table 3rd round ended up in 8-3 or less

For me these assumptions mean that the winner most likely was one of the top players (I'm not saying top player as there is always an element of luck in any tournament) as otherwise he wouldn't be able to get 20 points with no one else getting more than 14 (and no one being able to get a decisive victory (9-1 or more) in round 3 - there should be multiple people with 14 points by the end of round 2) so the tournament system worked.

Quote

For me these assumptions mean that the winner most likely was one of the top players (I'm not saying top player as there is always an element of luck in any tournament) as otherwise he wouldn't be able to get 20 points with no one else getting more than 14 (and no one being able to get a decisive victory (9-1 or more) in round 3 - there should be multiple people with 14 points by the end of round 2) so the tournament system worked.

There is an assumption for sure but that because I took extreme case of two 10/1 in a raw... But that was just an example of a theoretical example. But even though it can be possible to find this situation or something alike. With more realistic examples:

Player one 8 / 8 / 7 - Player two 10 / 10 / 4

Player one 8 / 8 / 7 - Player two 10 / 9 / 4 => victory on MOV diference

Player one 10 / 7 / 7 - Player two 10 / 10/ 4 => victory on MOV diference

Repeating myself, I can totally play with no problem under the current rules.

But because constructive criticism is still a think I underline the fact that no system is perfect and that the current one represent some flaw in that it encourage player to play "all in" type list in order to have a tournament wining chance. And can create a some odd situations.

And like I say I found normal that High risk/reward strategy win over less betting strategy if everything go right. The question that I ask is at witch point the ability to bounce back on top is to much efficient than when someone loose one of it's bet badly he can still manage to get the win over someone more consistent in his ability to win is match.

That's all just a question of equilibrium between the rewards on different play-style.

An other solution could be to change the win/loose table to:

6/4 -> 7/3 -> 8/2 -> 9/1

Making High success a bit less valuable and defeat more handicapping.

Could also play on the MOV for each win score to make the 10 more difficult and the 7 easier with the current table.

Fortunately big tournaments are four round minimum, and often with a top 2 cut.

Both reduce the impact massively

I still believe that tournament play should be decided on a Win/Loss basis, rather than the current point system.

The reason I believe that this is the proper system is that it rewards players who are able to secure more points than the opponent in games where there is an obvious list disadvantage.

There is no "rock, paper, scissors" aspect to the game, per se , but certain fleets are guaranteed to excel over others. This is especially true with the squadron "mini-game," as some have referred to it as.

A pure imperial fighter ball is going to shred through slow bombers. On the other hand, those imperial squadrons, which take up a substantial chunk of points in your list, are not going to be quite effective against an all ship-list. Your opponent simply has more ship firepower. However, your ability to minimize ship casualties and score points may not be rewarded in the long run because most of your points have been invested in fighters because that was your choice, and rightfully so.

This is of one, but many examples.

The current system works well, but there is an inherent flaw that penalizes skilled players whose lists are under matched.

The flaw stems from the fact that your fly your lists blind, meaning that you cannot predict what your opponent is going to bring to the fight (this of course can be minimized by analyzing regional data).

tl;dr: A straight Win/Loss system is better because it rewards skilled players who can pull out tough wins with an under matched list, while the current system unfavorably rewards players who are able to score big points due to highly favorable match ups that are assigned randomly.

I know there are many who disagree with me, and I don't mind being in the minority.

On 1/22/2017 at 5:01 PM, Snipafist said:

Oh boy it's this thread again.

You knew the rules going in and you didn't win by those rules. What's the problem, exactly? You feel like you should have won despite the rules you agreed to abide by for the event?

The fact that he knew the rules going in is irrelevant because he has no power to change them on his own. He has to play under those tournament rules because it is an FFG sanctioned event.

He has a reasonable gripe with a good, albeit imperfect system.

How do you dereward players who score 6-5 in a favourable match up?

To give some perspective the Ideal number of rounds to determine a swiss champions is log base 2 of the number of players (rounded up). So in a 16 player tournament that is 4 rounds. Since most Armada tournaments only go three rounds you could have a non optimal champion or a tie when one player would clearly win. To prevent this FFG came up with a scoring system that emphasizes how much you've one by.

Personally, unless they vastly expand tournaments, I like the current format. It encourages a lot of risk-reward play and encourages aggression rather than turtling.

27 minutes ago, Warlord Zepnick said:

I still believe that tournament play should be decided on a Win/Loss basis, rather than the current point system.

The reason I believe that this is the proper system is that it rewards players who are able to secure more points than the opponent in games where there is an obvious list disadvantage.

There is no "rock, paper, scissors" aspect to the game, per se , but certain fleets are guaranteed to excel over others. This is especially true with the squadron "mini-game," as some have referred to it as.

A pure imperial fighter ball is going to shred through slow bombers. On the other hand, those imperial squadrons, which take up a substantial chunk of points in your list, are not going to be quite effective against an all ship-list. Your opponent simply has more ship firepower. However, your ability to minimize ship casualties and score points may not be rewarded in the long run because most of your points have been invested in fighters because that was your choice, and rightfully so.

This is of one, but many examples.

The current system works well, but there is an inherent flaw that penalizes skilled players whose lists are under matched.

The flaw stems from the fact that your fly your lists blind, meaning that you cannot predict what your opponent is going to bring to the fight (this of course can be minimized by analyzing regional data).

tl;dr: A straight Win/Loss system is better because it rewards skilled players who can pull out tough wins with an under matched list, while the current system unfavorably rewards players who are able to score big points due to highly favorable match ups that are assigned randomly.

I know there are many who disagree with me, and I don't mind being in the minority.

This argument is only valid if you accept that results are heavily influenced by build matchups.

My own experience tells me that influence is far smaller than you believe.