Hm... cut scoring down to win/lose. No. Any system that

Now, if you had a separate score for a draw, then we could talk. Now players who sandbag get better than a player that lost, but are not treated mostly equally to those who won by playing the game. So maybe start with win/draw/loss being 1/0/-1. Naw. Easier to track if we all have a >0 score. So how about 2/1/0? Not quite. Let's up it by 1 for any multi-day/multi-month events just in case. So, 3/2/1. Now people who don't play at all are lower rank than those who lose.

For MOV, we record what you won by and record a 0 during losses. That way, a player who wins big and loses big (a 1 point, 0MOV and a 3/400MOV) isn't considered equal to a sandbagger (2 2 point, 7MOV games).

Now, In a 3 round tournament, you have a 6 point spread. Max score 9, minimum 3. Until we reach >8 players, this works awesome. As we set up for higher numbers of players, we may need more division to increase the spread size and reduce granularity. There is a game that FFG puts out has a great system with higher resolution in scoring results than XWMG does. I forget the name. Should be easy to find.

1) Nope. Part of the strategy is how can you force your opponent's hand or how can you avoid being forced to things you don't want to.

2) Ehh... it's allright I guess.

3) Then you're playing the game wrong. 6x3 gives plenty of room for maneuvers and if you don't use them that's your problem. In a 3x3 or evena 4x3 area I would feel totally cramped. A change like that would also hugely favor big ships as they could just sit in the corner, covering most of the board with their most fearsome arc and never bother that those small deadly ships go around them and hit their weak arcs.

4) Now THAT I love. Sometimes we play in family with all the obstacles on the board just for the fun of it. More obstacles needs fancier maneuvers and cockier pilots so it would definitely spice things up

Hmmmm.

I'm a supporter of the pass rule - this is a fairly minor and low impact change.

But not really the others.

28 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

No seriously.

Git gud.

Steel squadron and cant get your ship out both have articles on this I believe.

But I advocate this one

https://archiveofossus.wordpress.com/2017/04/22/parkdaddy-engagement-area-development/

There is SO MUCH you can do with three obstacles.

that was an interesting read but the article does make some assumptions that all forces will head towards the station. unless its part of an objective I stay as far away as I can from the station as I don't ant my opponent to regen as live or fall into a trap. If I get to pace the station I will place it as far away from the battle field as I can for the same reasons I don't want it to be a way for my opponent to be able to survive my attacks. I'm surprised more people don't think along the same lines. lining the obistcals up like he demonstrated does work for a lot of the right objectives but it can all be for nothing if your opponent does not set up where you want them to be

I did find it interesting that the tactics suggested would work very well on a 4x3 board. it looked like what was showed was played in a 3x4 area

48 minutes ago, Church14 said:

Hm... cut scoring down to win/lose. No. Any system that

Now, if you had a separate score for a draw, then we could talk. Now players who sandbag get better than a player that lost, but are not treated mostly equally to those who won by playing the game. So maybe start with win/draw/loss being 1/0/-1. Naw. Easier to track if we all have a >0 score. So how about 2/1/0? Not quite. Let's up it by 1 for any multi-day/multi-month events just in case. So, 3/2/1. Now people who don't play at all are lower rank than those who lose.

For MOV, we record what you won by and record a 0 during losses. That way, a player who wins big and loses big (a 1 point, 0MOV and a 3/400MOV) isn't considered equal to a sandbagger (2 2 point, 7MOV games).

Now, In a 3 round tournament, you have a 6 point spread. Max score 9, minimum 3. Until we reach >8 players, this works awesome. As we set up for higher numbers of players, we may need more division to increase the spread size and reduce granularity. There is a game that FFG puts out has a great system with higher resolution in scoring results than XWMG does. I forget the name. Should be easy to find.

I would like to here more about this idea but I think it might get a bit hard for store owners/staff/part time TO's to follow.

I have never liked the idea of draws. after you and your opponent play a hard game and manage to draw. its a big let down when there is no result and in a tournament a Draw is no better then a loss that's why they got rid of them long ago in both Armada and X Wing

thanks for posting an alternative. I like to read these post as appose to NO

You know Church just described the current armada scoring system right?

All those sayin no to changing the scoring system are regular regionals/nationals players. It works fantastic once you get 4+ rounds.

It is a bit skewy at store champs. But they are store champs, your fighting over an alt art card most of the time. Changing the scoring so store champs are more competitive at the expensive of higher toirnaments is a bit perverse.

The trouble is most tournaments are only 3 rounds and there is the problem telling new players that if you win all your rounds you still could lose to someone who lost 1 round is a hard sell and not very competitive. like I said in my original post the game is fine the way it is. It just cant be taken seriously as a competitive game with such a poor scoring system.

I stoped caring about what was in the tournament kits once FFG got rid of the medals but that's another topic for another day. when I'm at a tournament I'm not stressed about what the prizes are I just want the win. at our LFGS the TO does not give the winner a prize instead he puts the prizes into pools and each player picks which pool they want starting with the highest rank. Often I have taken one of the lesser pools as I like others who may not have gotten a chance to get some of the higher prize pool. I tell you this so you know prizes are not what is motivating me its about making a rule that winners are winners not almost winners are not winners

3 hours ago, BrobaFett said:

100% agree. This all seems utterly unfounded.

Not fanboying and saying there arent flaws, but this is just too much.

I'm in 100% agreement as those changes would ripe apart a fab game... (I am a fanboy)

PS If people want to propose changes go out and test them first and look at the results then bring back supporting evidence.. think you can change the format of the point system then run a casual tournament in your area and feedback about it... and maybe less of the back seat driving

2 hours ago, X Wing Nut said:

The trouble is most tournaments are only 3 rounds and there is the problem telling new players that if you win all your rounds you still could lose to someone who lost 1 round is a hard sell and not very competitive.

Then tell them the true.

If they poorly won all their rounds they still could lose to someone who just lose one but decimate everyone else.

The score system depend deeply on the game.

Winning in armada is not hard (you could do as second player doing anything). Winning big is hard.

If I table two opponents and lose by 1 MoV the last match. Do you think that winning three matches by 1 MoV make a better player?

It's a good thing players don't get to write or change the rules. No to everything. Leave the game as it is. FFG will fix it if they think it is a problem.

This is the only thing that can save Armada:

One of these suckers attached to every command dial will bring in the under 20 crowd. We might even get RuneWars style attention.

11 minutes ago, CaribbeanNinja said:

This is the only thing that can save Armada:

One of these suckers attached to every command dial will bring in the under 20 crowd. We might even get RuneWars style attention.

Was ist das?

14 minutes ago, PartyPotato said:

Was ist das?

Where you live?

Srsly what is that

The new kid's best toy.

It whirls and...well, that is all.

Its a Fidget Spinner. You can search based on that.

Snl fidget spinner last night, i was almost crying (used to work in collegiate non profits)

13 hours ago, X Wing Nut said:

I would be happy to keep the scoring system we have now if we get rid or random pairings and put players of the same skill together.

This is also a terrible idea, and I wish people would stop advocating it without putting any thought into it, or at least trying it first. We had a TO talk about arbitrarily doing pairings this way at a Store Championship once, and we were fortunately able to talk him out of it (tourney regs aside).

Think through what happens at an open tournament when you do this. You have two world champs, two good players, two bad players, and two newbies. Everybody splits with their equally-ranked opponent.

Now guess what the second round matchup looks like? Effectively random.

All you've done is moved your random pairing round later in the tourney, giving everyone roughly equal points for round 1 and reducing the opportunity to differentiate skill even more, because it's effectively a 2-round tournament now (barring major upsets of course).

This is why pairings are random.

19 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

This is also a terrible idea, and I wish people would stop advocating it without putting any thought into it, or at least trying it first. We had a TO talk about arbitrarily doing pairings this way at a Store Championship once, and we were fortunately able to talk him out of it (tourney regs aside).

Think through what happens at an open tournament when you do this. You have two world champs, two good players, two bad players, and two newbies. Everybody splits with their equally-ranked opponent.

Now guess what the second round matchup looks like? Effectively random.

All you've done is moved your random pairing round later in the tourney, giving everyone roughly equal points for round 1 and reducing the opportunity to differentiate skill even more, because it's effectively a 2-round tournament now (barring major upsets of course).

This is why pairings are random.

Not to mention it is also a pain in the **** to determine criteria of who is newb, who is intermediate, etc.

There is just so many ways to classify these sorts of categories that it is impossible to get any real sort of balance in the first place.

And @Ardaedhel was in the right for getting at the TO and making him change his mind. I think that TO had lack of sleep coming up with that idea. Thank goodness he listened to him!?

@X Wing Nut May I suggest having newbie tournaments though in your area. Offer a tournament that is strictly for the newer/casual/less skilled players in your area. We been doing this in San Antonio and it is really helping bringing in new players and also less intimidating for them. It provides a more casual atmosphere and the players find out a lot about Armada in those three games. So it encourages them later to start showing up to the more regular events. Just to give you an idea San Antonio has a solid player base of 30-40 players that regularly show up to some event during the course of the week. We have 3 casual meetups a week and usually 2-3 tournament like Armada events in the month. Almost everyone of our events we end up consistently having 8-14 people showing up to play. Sometime people just come to hang out.

Our stores are embracing us more and more as a thing. Because if you build people come! You show readiness and willingness to create activity and people see a return on their investment and they buy into it.

so far I have had little complaints both in the casual play and competitive scene on the game Armada. Both new players and veteran alike are enjoying the game and the community!

16 hours ago, ovinomanc3r said:

If I table two opponents and lose by 1 MoV the last match. Do you think that winning three matches by 1 MoV make a better player?

Without knowing any other information yes. what if all 3 games were almost to the death 1 ship and 1 Squadron left on each side from a hard mentally taxing games you then find out that some one who got a 10 from clubbing a baby seal and an 8 from a easy match up then lost when he found a real hard match up wins the day. I know you can have some won win 3 games just by killing 1 squadron and running away but if you have a tournament of more then 6 players it wont get you the tournament win

10 hours ago, Ardaedhel said:

This is also a terrible idea, and I wish people would stop advocating it without putting any thought into it, or at least trying it first. We had a TO talk about arbitrarily doing pairings this way at a Store Championship once, and we were fortunately able to talk him out of it (tourney regs aside).

Think through what happens at an open tournament when you do this. You have two world champs, two good players, two bad players, and two newbies. Everybody splits with their equally-ranked opponent.

Now guess what the second round matchup looks like? Effectively random.

All you've done is moved your random pairing round later in the tourney, giving everyone roughly equal points for round 1 and reducing the opportunity to differentiate skill even more, because it's effectively a 2-round tournament now (barring major upsets of course).

This is why pairings are random.

I know its a terrible idea but how do we stop Baby Seal Clubbing in that first round giving good players such a commanding lead. while other good players are scoring low. A OK win and not a bad loss will still win them the tournament.

I haven't even gotten into the cheating side of the scoring system between player who know each other. say 2 friends go to the same tournament some how the day has played out to them meeting each other in the 3rd round and they know that if one of them throws the match one of them will win but if the play the game out as they would normally would both of them could lose. what if they had already arranged to give the match to the other as they know they would not win because they are not as skilled as the other. You know this happens I have heard it happening and I have seen it happen. Now I'm not saying a win/loss system would fix that but it could stop team play where players would not give a strong win to a strong players to keep there score down and it would give the wining player an equal footing against the other opponent the team helped win there games. as I said it might not but at least there is a chance of a good player getting past the team and winning the tournament. there are so many other ways to cheat in this game we don't need a scoring system that helps to promote it.

I know everyone fears the "take the easy win" and win the day but again that's only a problem with 6 players 7 players or more there will be more then 1 on 3 wins. Good luck taking out the day with that as your only strategy. maybe the game needs different scoring for different number of players but I don't like that idea. the trouble is as I have said before the scoring system does not reflect game play and being rewarded with a 6 after a hard played game just feels wrong and makes me want to sit back save my brain power and just send in my squadrons and get the same result. maybe if we got rid of the 6-5 and start with 7-4 maybe that is an easer fix but maybe that wont change anything.

Adding a Pass Rule, Win/loss and more Obstacles I really believe will only make the game better. As I keep saying the game is great I love playing it its just as a competitive player I would like it if the game was more competitive

The reason for the ultra-granular tournament scoring system is because tournaments aren't expected to go the appropriate length of rounds to score a proper win-tie-loss record like they do in X-Wing (where a full 5 round tournament can take place in as few as eight hours). And that is entirely due to the length of each individual Armada game. If it could, there would likely be a narrower score range (1-5) and you'd see far more MOV tiebreakers at lower attendance games.

1 hour ago, X Wing Nut said:

Without knowing any other information yes. what if all 3 games were almost to the death 1 ship and 1 Squadron left on each side from a hard mentally taxing games you then find out that some one who got a 10 from clubbing a baby seal and an 8 from a easy match up then lost when he found a real hard match up wins the day. I know you can have some won win 3 games just by killing 1 squadron and running away but if you have a tournament of more then 6 players it wont get you the tournament win

I table my opponents (two of them). I killed him everything. Then I face a "counter" fleet so I choose to play my objectives and try to save the day or I fight hardly but I find I lose by one single point of MoV.

You fight too, but you are just able to trade ship by ship. At then end of your matches you win by just 1 point of MoV.

I say you are not a better player than me in those case.

With you system is more sure to play poorly and win by the minimum. Not a big MoV but I will be higher than anyone else who lose a match, no matter if he risked himself and won 400-0 two games and lose 320-330. Of course whoever who won three martches with a better MoV will win me but at least I will be top and all i did was just avoiding battles.

I played a small tournament where I won 2/3 games. But my victories were small. I ended 5/6. Only the winner had more victories than me. I don't think this was unfair. I know you think it is.

It is the same when I found people playing Diplomacy with a points per supply centre instead of a wta system. They pervert the spirit of the game.

As I said. Armada is a game where winning is really easy. You can turn a game completely with a lucky roll in the last turn. This could mean a change of 150 points. But it doesn't help you to win big unless you had a big difference already. To win big is not as easy.

It occurs to me (well maybe the forum name has something to do with it) that you seem to just want X-wing with bigger ships.

If you lose your first match, what's the point in staying when you know you can't take first? Chances are you had to carve out time to play at least 3 rounds, so you can bail after your 6-5 loss first round and go do other things. The current system allows players who lose early to bounce back. Caldias lost his first round at Worlds and ended in 5th place because we don't have a pure win/loss system.

Plus, the largest tournaments already have both systems installed. You need to make top 4 cut on the MOV system, and then you need to win 2 games based off win/loss. This separates the best from everyone else. You need to be able to win high, and then you need to be able to win against an equal skilled opponent.

I'm pretty sure if it was a win/loss system, the tournaments would be garbage. You will get a guy who tabled his opponent paired against someone who just barely won his match and is still learning the game. The pro will crush the new guy. In the MOV style, those 2 players will not face each other unless they are scoring the same, which means they skill is almost equal.

What's all this rubbish over baby seal clubbing, at the end of the day everyone was new to the game at one point and everyone is still learning new things all the time and because of how random the first round is skill levels are going to be all over the place but that soon sorts it's self out as the rounds move on and people spread out and get into smashing each other. Play to enjoy the experience and take something for every game you play win or lose. If you get salty over not winning because someone else beat you using the same scoring system that you have access to grow up and get some perspective in life as it's a game of plastic space ships (very cool ones), there is no conspiracy to stop people winning.