Agreeing with sir Gawain's nemesis, I disagree with the Zappy's premise because I don't think builds don't play nearly as much of a deciding factor in Armada as has been suggested. And, despite how anecdotal it is, I don't see those stilted 'all or nothing' fighter or bomber etc, lists doing all that well. It's artificially weighting the lists and they tend to get frustrated by even token resistance offered by a adept opponent who's likely practiced against the archetypes. It doesn't have to be some rocks vs. paper fighter list, a well rounded fighter group with a few bombers, few fighters, an ace or maaaaybe two, tends to be able to handle almost everything. They may not win, but in general, they can hold up a specialty list fairly well. And if you need a boost, hey, use some ships to influence the fighters. It's worth it to see the surprise someone shows when your CR90 hoses his fighters after spitting out an unexpected fighter command instead of just being a TRC battery.

More over, I don't think there's a 'rock-paper-scissors' format at play (yet), and how well you know your ships and how experienced you are tend to dictate matches more than some preconceived exercise in theoretical power gaming. Get to the table more often and you'll see better results with whatever it is that you're bringing. And as such, I think the tournament system as is, rewards that experience even if the occasional blow outs still occur.

2 hours ago, Green Knight said:

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.

That's fair because everyone's "experience" is different.

What I would like to know is why people who advocate for the current system put such a premium on winning big.

Because, generally speaking, the idea is "Winning Big" means you've outplayed your opponent in every way possible.

Additionally, it penalises those who aim to "just squeak by"... Wins/Losses rewards the Pyrrhic Victory... The "Win at all Costs", which is oft a sign of desperation, rather than a valid goal.

9 hours ago, Warlord Zepnick said:

What I would like to know is why people who advocate for the current system put such a premium on winning big.

Imagine General Eisenhower launching the D-Day landings in Normandy. On the first day 952 Germans are killed and 940 Allied soldiers. During the night the Allies then get back on their landing craft and return to England claiming a 6-5 win. Would he have been sacked?

Wars are not won by technically winning on points in each battle. Royal Navy admirals have faced firing squads on their own flagships for such. Objectives need to be reached and victories enforced. In the Franco Prussian war the French had superior rifles and inflicted more casualties on the Germans in every battle. They also lost every battle, and lost the war.

Anyhow as long as the tournament rules are declared before the event and stuck to, people know what they are getting into and what they have to try and do to win.

There is nothing to stop anyone organising an event using a FFG kit where win/loss has a more important element in overall victory than margin. As long as they make it clear in the rules pack.

I find generally speaking this issue only ever comes up when people are talking about small local tournaments where the player count more than anything drastically impacts the outcome of the tournament - especially as like or not you often have one or two really good players and one or two completely new players.

Having watched the system in action at bigger tournaments, especially those that go beyond 3 rounds, it really does shine honestly.

Also, how is win/loss better re. presumed "easy wins" against "noobz"?

Get lucky with your pairing round 1. Easy win.

Another lucky pairing. Easy win.

3rd game, tough one, but you castle in the corner an manage a win.

You've now won 3 times, twice against weaker players, once (barely) against an equally skilled opponent.

All hail the Champ!

Not saying this is WORSE than getting lucky with early pairings under the points system...but it's certainly NO BETTER.

So win/loss gains nothing IMO over the current solution (which isn't perfect, but far superior to anything yet proposed).

Also, like I wrote earlier, the current system gets **** good once you get to 4 rounds, especially if you do a top 2-4 cut.

Top cut essentially combines the best of both worlds, ensuring that the most skilled players have the best chance of making the cut, and thus proceeding to elimination rounds.

It also rewards to mindsets and list building schemes: win big to make the cut, just win to proceed during elimination rounds.

7 minutes ago, Captain Weather said:

I find generally speaking this issue only ever comes up when people are talking about small local tournaments where the player count more than anything drastically impacts the outcome of the tournament - especially as like or not you often have one or two really good players and one or two completely new players.

Having watched the system in action at bigger tournaments, especially those that go beyond 3 rounds, it really does shine honestly.

Agreed.

But even when playing in smaller tournaments of say 6-8 players (I even played one with FOUR players), this doesn't really come up as a problem. There may be 1 person with a very strong score, who is then clearly the winner, or 2-3 people with more average scores wear the top. The only caveat here is that the "top table" of the 3rd round in a smaller (say around 10 persons) tourney often sees the loser plummet down the ranking to like 3-5th place. But even here a win/loss system would not help.

I'm with OP: If you win every match, you won the tournament. If that doesn't work then there's fundamental problems with how Armada tournaments are run.

28 minutes ago, FourDogsInaHorseSuit said:

I'm with OP: If you win every match, you won the tournament. If that doesn't work then there's fundamental problems with how Armada tournaments are run.

Maybe elaborate a bit?

6 hours ago, FourDogsInaHorseSuit said:

I'm with OP: If you win every match, you won the tournament. If that doesn't work then there's fundamental problems with how Armada tournaments are run.

Two points:

1. in 3 rounds tournament with more than 8 (EDIT:16) players there will be 2 persons that won every match.

2. At some point FFG tournament scoring tried to reward winning over your opponent with head-to-head tiebreaker, but it was removed later, so I assume that it either was too complex to account for (more likely) or created more problems that it solved (less likely)

I believe that the current 3 round scoring system while not being ideal is a good compromise between being good in scoring players and being practical (3 round tournament is much easier to run in 1 day than 4 rounds or 4 rounds + cut).

On 1/22/2017 at 2:33 PM, Woobyluv said:

Because winning should be the emphasis...

If it went to being undefeated wins and MoV is just a tiebreaker, the tournament games would be incredibly boring as players would avoid engagement and try to just win with whatever points from maybe an objective they could muster. The MoV thing makes it so you HAVE to engage to get enough points to win. I'd rather have a flawed MoV system that rewards engaging ships than one that rewards players who try not to fight to get that win.

6 hours ago, pt106 said:

Two points:

1. in 3 rounds tournament with more than 8 players there will be 2 persons that won every match.

2. At some point FFG tournament scoring tried to reward winning over your opponent with head-to-head tiebreaker, but it was removed later, so I assume that it either was too complex to account for (more likely) or created more problems that it solved (less likely)

I believe that the current 3 round scoring system while not being ideal is a good compromise between being good in scoring players and being practical (3 round tournament is much easier to run in 1 day than 4 rounds or 4 rounds + cut).

1 sounds like a reason for more rounds. Which is hard to do, and covered under a "fundamental problem" where the game doesn't allow for tournaments.

20 hours ago, pt106 said:

Two points:

1. in 3 rounds tournament with more than 8 (EDIT:16) players there will be 2 persons that won every match.

2. At some point FFG tournament scoring tried to reward winning over your opponent with head-to-head tiebreaker, but it was removed later, so I assume that it either was too complex to account for (more likely) or created more problems that it solved (less likely)

I believe that the current 3 round scoring system while not being ideal is a good compromise between being good in scoring players and being practical (3 round tournament is much easier to run in 1 day than 4 rounds or 4 rounds + cut).

While most likely correct in reality, point 1 is actually theoretically incorrect. It doesn't matter how many players there are. You can always wind up with no undefeated players, wether it's 4 or 40. The larger the size, the less likely it becomes, but it is possible.

I would prefer they track kill points rather than MOV....there needs to be some sort of reward for winning 6-5 but mutually killing almost everything vs a boring no one shot at anything 6-5 win. That way even losers would carry forward their kill points for the 1st tie breaker. (MOV would only be used for the tournament points determination) It isn't much of a bonus but it is already input into the scoring system. This would also promote aggressive play.

5 hours ago, Mogrok said:

I would prefer they track kill points rather than MOV....there needs to be some sort of reward for winning 6-5 but mutually killing almost everything vs a boring no one shot at anything 6-5 win. That way even losers would carry forward their kill points for the 1st tie breaker. (MOV would only be used for the tournament points determination) It isn't much of a bonus but it is already input into the scoring system. This would also promote aggressive play.

I have played in a 40K tournament where out of 1850 point lists per side - if less than 400 points died in total then the tournament points awarded for that game were halved. It encouraged players to get stuck in without penalising 2 evenly matched players who got involved in a very close run blood bath.

I love how people cite example of real life completely out of context to justify an opinion on a game.

- First of all even though I understand that some people like immersive gameplay I don't believe that comparison with D-Day and Pyrrhus got nothing of use for gameplay purpose.

- Second point the Pyrrhus victory had nothing to deal with people avoiding a battle for a minimum victory once the 6th turn end (Of course if someone can show me an historical example where people on battlefield wait for there turns and all end up after the six where general account casualty and objective...)

- And for the case of Pyrrhus this one is famous not because it was tied and result in a win that was contestable but because it was the realisation from Pyrrhus that despite wining battles over the Roman he was loosing the attrition war to the far more resourceful republic and the understanding by the Greek general that he will loose in the long run due to sheer number of the Romans (despite having casualty and captive ratio of 1/2 and 1/3.5 in favour of the Greeks in the two battle witch is no close to a tie from my point of view). All of this got no meaning to be representative of anything in a tournament round that is completely out of context of a global war (in star wars universe only the rebellion will be able to score a Pyrrhic victory during the galactic civil war anyway, and I remind you that you can have Darth Vader vs Darth Vader... So we will pass on immersive and global context argument)

All of that explanations to say I don't believe immersive and historical argument have any kind of value when it come to gameplay and tournament rules.

So I like the current system but I found it a bit to much rewarding on the win big gameplay. I understand that being Insensitive on engaging your opponent make round more fun and that there is no magic system in a 3 round tournament.

Surely the cut followed by direct elimination is good for big tournament and make the all thing a bit less odd in the outcome that it does on small tournament.

However I got this personal point of view that current system favour to much wining big over wining consistently. And that some objectives and fleet type are not often see just because of the way tournament rules reward the result (I don't even remember when is the last time I saw opening salvo).

So not changing everything but maybe adjust a bit the mov and reduce the wining point earned and making 6/5 to 6/4... May keep the current flavor and simplicity while tempering a bit the current incentive to make ultra aggressive take it all or go home list.

And for those who say that this will end up in people going away from the battlefield and avoiding fight I will say that if one of the two player don't want to it wont happen (or if it append it will mean that he has been overplayed and in that case I'll say well done to the guy managing to push is plan over the other one)

On 1/22/2017 at 3:33 PM, Woobyluv said:

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...

Because only noobs get tabled, clearly. Winning 6-5 is more attributable to luck of the draw/dice than it is to 'skill' I'd say. There's a reason we call it a 'draw' when it happens here.

I have to say that I find it interesting that the folks advocating the current system seem to have a bit of a hypocritical mindset here, likely without even realizing it. I don't mean any offense, and I'll explain why I say that. Posts throughout this, and previous topics of this kind, claim that using a win-loss method first will encourage people to turtle and try to win some sort of cheapy 6-5 every round, and seem to believe that playing a defensive style like that is somehow an unacceptable tactic that shouldn't be encouraged by the tournament system. However, when it is pointed out that the current system encourages high risk high reward strategies that have to play a go for the throat style of Armada, well, that's an acceptable strategy so the tourny system encouraging that is OK. No offense guys, but why are you the only ones who get to decide which way of playing Armada is acceptable? Both of these situations are tactics to be employed, and it is not right for any of us to say that one is any more valid than another. Now, I agree that if you are completely avoiding contact, then why play. But playing a defensive style and being happy with losing none of your ships while taking 1 or 2 of the opponent's away is a valid tactic. However, if you have desires to win a tournament, this is generally not going to cut it.

I just think folks need to open their mind to the fact that everyone has their own idea of what makes for a fun, or a fair, tournament experience and the current tournament system doesn't cover all of those player's needs. Would a straight win-loss system? No, it likely wouldn't either. The fact is that neither of them are perfect. If someone could come up with some hybrid of the two, that might be interesting. Mad Cat mentioned a 40K variant where the value of the 'win' was significantly hampered if the opponents avoided contact. Something like that may work, or maybe not. Perhaps tournaments should add some kind of extra value to wins, so that a single 5-6 or 4-7 won't knock you out of the running, but 3 6-5's will have some addition benefit to help overcome a close score, but likely won't be enough to run the tournament alone. Personally, I am no expert, and I don't even play tournaments, so ultimately this doesn't affect me at all. I just think it's not fair to disregard (and even belittle a bit) the very real complaints of players who worked hard and pulled off all wins, ending as the only undefeated player in a tournament, and now feel cheated. We are all part of the same community here, shouldn't all of our concerns be valid?

I will say, personally, I didn't like the fact that win-loss wasn't the most important thing at first. Over time, I have come around to the deficiencies in that scoring method, so I get it. The part that I find the most disappointing right now is that the current system essentially invalidates several of the Objectives out there. Generally speaking, you have to build to, and use the objectives that can score you the biggest MOV possible. If you don't, you are hamstringing yourself right from the get go. Again, as a non tournament player it doesn't really affect me anyway, but I still find it unfortunate.

Quick side note: Saying you knew the rules going in, so essentially get over it is unfair and a bit belittling to the player involved. Knowing the rules or not isn't relevant when it's the only game in town, so to speak. If there were different tournaments that use different scoring systems, then people could pick and choose the ones they play in. If this is the only option, then they have every right to feel upset if the rules work against how they like to play. No one is rage-quiting here, just venting frustrations.

Anyway, the system is in place for a reason. Could it be better? Yes. Has anyone figured out how to make it better? If so, speak up! Let's all just remember that 'your way' or 'my way' isn't the only valid way.

On 2017-01-27 at 2:33 PM, FourDogsInaHorseSuit said:

1 sounds like a reason for more rounds. Which is hard to do, and covered under a "fundamental problem" where the game doesn't allow for tournaments.

It's been pointed out before (and I will point out again) that other games with a similar play time (lookin' at you, 40k) have had a longstanding tradition of 2-day tournaments. I know I've enjoyed immensely my time in several of those tourneys.

I think we should encourage this format, because playing 5-6 Swiss rounds will sort out the rankings in a more emphatic way.

Yes they're harder for folks coming from out of town to attend - but on the other hand they're a great reason to socialize with folks you don't usually get to hang with!

Interdictor Suppression Refit - Interdictor (90) - Grand Moff Tarkin (38) - Minister Tua (2) - Engine Techs (8) - Quad Laser Turrets (5) - Redundant Shields (8) - Targeting Scrambler (5) - G-8 Experimental Projector (8) - Ion Cannon Batteries (5) - Interdictor (3) = 172 points
Gozanti-class Cruisers - Gozanti (23) - Repair Crews (4) = 27 points
Gozanti-class Cruisers - Gozanti (23) - Repair Crews (4) = 27 points
Objectives - Objectives - Advanced Gunnery - Hyperspace Assault - Navigational Hazards

226 total points = 174 point bid for second player. I'm not sure the Gozantis are necessary, maybe just one would do it so there's fewer targets. Tarkin might not be the best choice since Motti would give 2 more hull to prevent a single turn kill. Advanced Gunnery is probably the only option to take as 1st player. Spend the whole game running away.

Or, we could also look at the rules of the game. In the Learn to Play book, this is the stated Object of the Game.

Quote

Star Wars: Armada is a competitive game in which each player controls a fleet of ships and squadrons. By commanding, attacking, and maneuvering with their ships and squadrons, they damage and destroy each other’s fleet. The goal is to destroy as much of the opposing fleet’s force as possible by the end of the sixth round. The game ends immediately if all of one player’s ships are destroyed.

The designers told us that just playing defense to avoid losing anything is not a valid tactic.

The only two viable solutions are to require a cut to top 2 in all regionals or to increase the number of rounds. Having more rounds lessens the impact of bad rolls swinging the game or bad matchups making a player look weaker than they really are against most of the field.

5 minutes ago, comatose said:

Interdictor Suppression Refit - Interdictor (90) - Grand Moff Tarkin (38) - Minister Tua (2) - Engine Techs (8) - Quad Laser Turrets (5) - Redundant Shields (8) - Targeting Scrambler (5) - G-8 Experimental Projector (8) - Ion Cannon Batteries (5) - Interdictor (3) = 172 points
Gozanti-class Cruisers - Gozanti (23) - Repair Crews (4) = 27 points
Gozanti-class Cruisers - Gozanti (23) - Repair Crews (4) = 27 points
Objectives - Objectives - Advanced Gunnery - Hyperspace Assault - Navigational Hazards

226 total points = 174 point bid for second player. I'm not sure the Gozantis are necessary, maybe just one would do it so there's fewer targets. Tarkin might not be the best choice since Motti would give 2 more hull to prevent a single turn kill. Advanced Gunnery is probably the only option to take as 1st player. Spend the whole game running away.

Or, we could also look at the rules of the game. In the Learn to Play book, this is the stated Object of the Game.

The designers told us that just playing defense to avoid losing anything is not a valid tactic.

The only two viable solutions are to require a cut to top 2 in all regionals or to increase the number of rounds. Having more rounds lessens the impact of bad rolls swinging the game or bad matchups making a player look weaker than they really are against most of the field.

This.

This is precisely the problem with alot of competitive 40k. Do you get a 2+ save against everything and have a reroll? Then just dont bother. Followed shortly by OMG Its so hard to kill these things. We better just have insta-death options. The cycle of ever growing defensive shenanigans and offensive rules creep should be saved for wildlife.

There are two other options though:

3. Being Chill- remembering that you came to play, and that means sometimes, no matter how good you are, you lose; and that is okay.

4. Making winning worth X points and then have the points killed be a bonus on top of that.

10 minutes ago, Grey Mage said:

4. Making winning worth X points and then have the points killed be a bonus on top of that.

Depending on how much winning is worth, that doesn't solve it, either.

I mean, I know the amount of games where I "Completely outplayed my opponent", in their words... I lost most of my ships and all of my squadrons... But I won because I Collected 19 Superior Positions Tokens...

Then being told I performed worse than my opponent by playing to the Objective of the game is... Definitely Worse.

1 hour ago, comatose said:

Interdictor Suppression Refit - Interdictor (90) - Grand Moff Tarkin (38) - Minister Tua (2) - Engine Techs (8) - Quad Laser Turrets (5) - Redundant Shields (8) - Targeting Scrambler (5) - G-8 Experimental Projector (8) - Ion Cannon Batteries (5) - Interdictor (3) = 172 points
Gozanti-class Cruisers - Gozanti (23) - Repair Crews (4) = 27 points
Gozanti-class Cruisers - Gozanti (23) - Repair Crews (4) = 27 points
Objectives - Objectives - Advanced Gunnery - Hyperspace Assault - Navigational Hazards

226 total points = 174 point bid for second player. I'm not sure the Gozantis are necessary, maybe just one would do it so there's fewer targets. Tarkin might not be the best choice since Motti would give 2 more hull to prevent a single turn kill. Advanced Gunnery is probably the only option to take as 1st player. Spend the whole game running away.

Or, we could also look at the rules of the game. In the Learn to Play book, this is the stated Object of the Game.

The designers told us that just playing defense to avoid losing anything is not a valid tactic.

The only two viable solutions are to require a cut to top 2 in all regionals or to increase the number of rounds. Having more rounds lessens the impact of bad rolls swinging the game or bad matchups making a player look weaker than they really are against most of the field.

First of all, I would have a field day playing against that fleet. 3 deployments pretty much guarantees that I will get my heavy hitters in a place where they will have ample opportunity to bring down the 'dictor. Being smarmy with an obviously ridiculous list doesn't contribute to the discussion.

As for your quote from the book, a simple blurb explaining the basic objective of the game to a new player is by no means a manifesto of what tactics are 'required' to be played by. Stating otherwise is rather absurd. (Besides, no one said anything about 'just playing defense')

The only 2 viable solutions that you are aware of are what you stated. Both of those are good solutions, they simply add to the tournament length. Many would like to avoid that. Others wouldn't. Are their views any less significant or important than yours? Perhaps there are other solutions out there that haven't been hammered out yet. Perhaps not. As I've repeatedly stated, I don't play tournaments and could care less. But I empathize with people's frustration and don't like them being shouted down simply for venting a bit.

Just now, Xindell said:

But I empathize with people's frustration and don't like them being shouted down simply for venting a bit.

I'm glad one of us does.

Because I don't.

I really struggle to find sympathy for someone who is "Venting" over, what appears to be the fact they didn't read what they were getting into.

(Note, that a lot of what I said above is based on my opinion of how I read what is presented, not what is presented itself - Opinon vs Fact, people...)

The tournament rules, regulations and such are freely available, and indeed, you're expected to have at least a passing familiarity with them at OP events... The more formal, of course, the more you should know. But in no place in the OP system for Armada, is all it takes is to "Win".

No.

It explains in clear detail, that first of all, is tournament points - which are generated from, effectively, relative margins of destruction/loss and other scoring.

Then it goes to Margin of Victory to break any Ties.

Then it goes to Strength of Schedule.

Then on the statistically off-chance that it is still tied, then it is distributed randomly and you at least have the satisfaction of effectively forcing the "impossible".

There used to be a tiebreaker for Head-To-Head wins as well - if you tied MOV with someone, but you'd beaten them in a Head to Head matchup, you were ahead - but that was a copy-paste from another game, and has been removed from the Armada Tournament Regulations.

If you want to have a constructive discussion about Tournament Wins vs Tournament Points. I'm all For That.

But 0 Sympathy for someone who presents said argument as "I WON ALL MY GAMES WHY DID I NOT WIN?! THAT'S NOT FAIR!"

No, what's not fair is you thinking it appropriate to whine about something after-the-fact, when it should have been clear to you beforehand. And understanding the Rules, and going in forewarned and foreknowledged with said rules is a cornerstore of respect for your opponent(s), as far as I am concerned.

Could just be my Statistically Abysmal Jealous streak striking, too. I wish this was a problem for me. But its not. Not like I win, anyway.

I totally agree that, in the view of some people, the Armada Tournaments do not go through enough Rounds to establish, clearly, "Who is the Best".

But the other side of that is "Best" is never seemingly defined by either side of the argument. Its the best the person who simply wins, or is the best the person who maximises their wins while minimising their losses?

Now, I don't care which way it is, so much - I'll play either way - I just want it to be Defined.

And it is.

It is defined as the Player who is best able to Maximise his Victory Points (through Destruction of the Enemy and Obtaining Objective based Points), while at the same time, Minimising his Losses (through Preservation of his own forces and Obtaining Objective based Points).

I Feel this is somewhat "realistic" (although that word is Anathema to a game) in the fact that expending everything you have for "Victory" is not always the best. No-one truly appreciates Pyrrhic victories. Even when its do or die ... At the end, that cost is counted.

Luck of the Draw will always play a Part. Even if there's 30 rounds ... There's always the chance that you'll hit every counter and your friend will get every easy ride.

TL;DR

Having the Discussion on wether its best to Win/Loss is Fine and all, and I encourage it.

But don't ***** about "Losing" when you should have known beforehand that Winning isn't everything .