Getting 3 wins in a 3 round event means you are better than 3 people.

Getting more tournament points than everyone else did in a 3 round event means you did better than everyone else.

I know it's not that simple and the Swiss pairings effect it (in both ways or determining victory).

2 hours ago, Xindell said:

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.

I don't think anyone is being hypocritical in defending the current system saying you need to be aggressive to win big. We already have an established system. We all play by it. The game has defined how we are supposed to win. I think the hypocrites are the people who think they should deserve 1st place because they think wins should trump VP/MOV. Every player is supposed to have an understanding of the rules when they go into a tournament, so if you find out you went 3-0 by turtling into 6-5 games and you don't win, why should anyone sympathize with you? By definition of the rules, you are supposed to understand the consequences of your actions. Why bother playing a game when you can waste 2 hours just to kill a Tie Fighter and win with an MOV of 8 points? It's boring.

No one is advocating that aggressive play is how everyone should play. We say it because the rules are written to promote aggressive play. That's why there are objectives that instigate fights. Contested Outpost, Station Assault and Salvage Run are prime examples of this. Solar Corona and Superior Positions allow you to set up a better attack run on your opponent. Other objectives play towards fleet builds and styles people like. The game gives the win to second player if there is a tied MOV. Everything in this game promotes going at your opponent to try to win/earn points.

This why "defensive play" is frowned upon. Not because it is a bad play style, but it doesn't mean you can score the 8-10 points you need to win tournaments. Running a Rhymerball dual Vic fleet is great with Contested Outpost, because you can play very defensive, but the easiest counter to this is to bid more than your opponent, so that defensive Vic fleet is put on the offensive. Again, the bidding system promotes you to play aggressive. If you are at 400 points with a defensive fleet, your opponent can make you first player and then you HAVE to engage if you want to win. Or your opponent can let you be second player, but they still get to choose what objective works best with their fleet.

The MOV system forces people to actually play games. Not skirt around each other pretending to play. Defensive play just doesn't hold up very well with the system we have. It's not our fault people don't want to acknowledge this, and then get upset when they don't get the trophy.

I do agree that the system we have is not perfect. The length of the games is too long to do best out of 3 games like you can do in MTG. And going to a strict win/loss means second player can theoretically win every game by taking a single CR90 with ET and just run the entire game with a 320 point bid. I don't know what the best way is to run Armada tournaments. But what we have now works for the vast majority of players, and the more players you get at a tournament, means the system works better. And if you happen to lose a game, you can still come back to take first place, which is amazing. Why would someone stick around for their 3rd game when they already lost 2 of them, and has a 4 hour drive back home? You tell them to be a good sport and stay, but how do you think they would feel after getting crushed 1-10 both games? I doubt they would stay for another game when they know they can't place very high.

55 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

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

So we are to be a community whose members take this tone with each other, rather than even attempt to help a fellow player simply because they are frustrated? I always thought we were better than that. Is it so hard to say, "I'm sorry you think it's BS. Calm down and clear your head and we can help you understand why it is the way it is. Then, if you have any better ideas, by all means share them." Dras, you of all people should know that taking the above tone with people is counterproductive to say the least, because you have received it simply for trying to help. It's unfair to you, and, though he made the mistake of screaming 'BS!' right off the top, he is still a member of our community and I believe it's unfair to him too. Maybe that's just my opinion.

To be fair, as I reread the thread, it actually appears that MOST of it has been positive discussion, with only a few posts that took a snarky or rude tone. So, it looks like I am mostly just jumping at shadows at this point, so I digress.

Let's just remember that we are all part of a community who wants a healthy game, and try to treat each other as such.

... That's why it was in the TL;DR Section.

You know.

The section that people read when they dont actually care what I have to say.

- Because I had a lot to say.

I mean, quoting that line as my entire opinion is just as "unfair" as anything else.

But, 'ykniow, I should have expected it, right? My time in the Rules Forum has, as you said, enlightened me to just how people can be here...

I'm on Team Dras here.

If you want to discuss the merits or demerits of different systems in a calm and thoughtful manner, that's fine. But that's not what happens (and that didn't happen here, either). What happens is someone didn't win by the rules they agreed to participate by and then after the fact they come here crying about it and making accusations of unfairness. When their entitlement and sour grapes is met by snark and derision, that's just like attracting like.

I went 3-0 at the Milwaukee Regionals and came in 5th. The guy who took 1st went 2-1. I'm not upset about that - I knew how the tournament rules worked and with the exception of getting slow-played the first round (which unfairly tilted the margin of victory), everyone else was abiding by the rules and we accepted the outcome.

I agree. There is a big difference between discussing how a new tournament format can be implemented, and how someone is "cheated" from earning first place because they didn't read the tournament regs before hand. And this thread, and the one a few months ago, are the latter.

1 hour ago, Drasnighta said:

... That's why it was in the TL;DR Section.

You know.

The section that people read when they dont actually care what I have to say.

- Because I had a lot to say.

I mean, quoting that line as my entire opinion is just as "unfair" as anything else.

But, 'ykniow, I should have expected it, right? My time in the Rules Forum has, as you said, enlightened me to just how people can be here...

I read every word you wrote. I only quoted that line because that encapsulated the point I wanted to respond to (and lets be honest, it was a LONG post). It was not my intention to imply that was all you said, and if it came across that way, then you have my apologies. I truly wish for the community to treat each other fairly, and that includes me, you and everyone else on here. By the same token, I made it clear that I DID know how you've been treated, and I think it was pretty obvious that I did NOT approve of it, so please don't act like I am somehow actively trying to do the same here, now.

1 hour ago, Snipafist said:

If you want to discuss the merits or demerits of different systems in a calm and thoughtful manner, that's fine. But that's not what happens (and that didn't happen here, either). What happens is someone didn't win by the rules they agreed to participate by and then after the fact they come here crying about it and making accusations of unfairness. When their entitlement and sour grapes is met by snark and derision, that's just like attracting like.

This is very much a fair point. However, isn't there something to be said for not lowering to someone else's standards, but at least ATTEMPTING to bring them up to yours? At least attempt to speak rationally to someone who is upset and venting, rather than immediately assuming the worst and kinda being jerky back at them. If it doesn't work, so be it. But we might find that a thoughtful discussion will actually help the other person see that their 'sour grapes' was just that. Again, much of this thread did just that, so I fully realize that I am debating something mostly unnecessarily. However, a few of the responses just came off as exasperated, flippant or even a little condescending. C'mon man, we are a better community than that. We are actually one of the best gaming communities that I personally have ever been involved with (so maybe I am holding us to too high a standard? )

Xindell, I can dodge you with engine teching corvettes for an entire game if you want. If wins were everything this would be entirely sensible.

I find the title of this thread amusing.

If you win all your games, you dont "lose" the tournament. You just might not come first. Its not losing to come second.

5 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

Xindell, I can dodge you with engine teching corvettes for an entire game if you want. If wins were everything this would be entirely sensible.

I find the title of this thread amusing.

If you win all your games, you dont "lose" the tournament. You just might not come first. Its not losing to come second.

I'm not exactly sure why you put my name in this post, Gink. I was never really the one arguing wins should be everything. In fact, I stated in a previous post that I used to feel that way, but have come around a bit to an understanding of why it works the way it does, even though that isn't perfect either. I am just arguing that other people have a right to their opinions, often have a reason for them, and we as a community shouldn't belittle them without at least trying to have a reasonable conversation first (even if they were a bit schmucky about how they started the conversation).

FWIW, a long time ago I used to play with a guy who only cared about Win/Loss, and had no interest in tournament scoring. His strategy was to go for full squadron points, all anti-squad (X-wings and A-wings, Flight Controllers), to make sure he won the squadron game early... and then he'd spend the rest of the game actively avoiding conflict (note that this was back when the only tool the Empire had to deal with this was Demolisher, but even Demo isn't going to reliably chase down ET'd CR90s). Sure, it's a valid strategy, and the guy did some really skilled flying. But the games were awfully, awfully dull and frustrating - even when I won.

Playing against enemies who want to close the range and engage decisively is so much more satisfying regardless of outcome. And that's what the MoV system actively promotes.

What about force selection (hello cheesy powergamers ) and sportsmanship?