1st- I will agree that large ships are suffering a bit now. But I don't agree that the pass rule is the solution to bring them back. Swarms should be able to outmaneuver non swarms. Activations SHOULD be one of a swarms advantages. Isn't this really just about flotillas being cheap activations anyway..maybe there's a better way to deal with just them?

2nd- A win is NOT a win. Each match of a tournament is like an inning of a sport. They aren't separate. You don't win an inning, you just score points. You can be behind in one inning and them get ahead the next. An end game score of 6:5 is not as good a win as 10:1. You can't call them both just a win cause they are not the same.

3rd- Space is an advantage that small ships SHOULD have. Objectives bring things together. The board space provides room for more plays than just "my ships were harder and gunnier than yours".

4th- The difference between 6 and 8 obstacles is not making or breaking the tournament scene, so I don't think this needs to change until its really a problem. The objectives need to be in control of the obstacles anyway. Don't some give you 8? Close Range Intel Scan. If you want 8, play that.

6 hours ago, homedrone said:

1st- I will agree that large ships are suffering a bit now. But I don't agree that the pass rule is the solution to bring them back. Swarms should be able to outmaneuver non swarms. Activations SHOULD be one of a swarms advantages. Isn't this really just about flotillas being cheap activations anyway..maybe there's a better way to deal with just them?

2nd- A win is NOT a win. Each match of a tournament is like an inning of a sport. They aren't separate. You don't win an inning, you just score points. You can be behind in one inning and them get ahead the next. An end game score of 6:5 is not as good a win as 10:1. You can't call them both just a win cause they are not the same.

3rd- Space is an advantage that small ships SHOULD have. Objectives bring things together. The board space provides room for more plays than just "my ships were harder and gunnier than yours".

4th- The difference between 6 and 8 obstacles is not making or breaking the tournament scene, so I don't think this needs to change until its really a problem. The objectives need to be in control of the obstacles anyway. Don't some give you 8? Close Range Intel Scan. If you want 8, play that.

My reasoning for a pass rule is not so much about Large ships are not playable its more that 2-3 ship lists are harder to play because of the out activation play I have a list of a MC80 and a bunch of GR75 I'm working on but I would love to take just a MC80, AF and Neb but its hard to think about a list like that because of the out activation. Swarms would still be strong they have a lot more going for them then just activations

A win/loss with MOV would still work as it does now like you say if you have a bad inning and 2 good it still works out the same. all it does is if someone loses a innings they are no longer on the same level as those that win all there innings. that's all I'm looking for. maybe if the scoring started at 6-4 not 6-5 that could fix it. remember how bad 5-5 was? 6-5 was meant to fix that but I don't know if it did

yeah I know a board size change wont happen I'm not to worried about it I mostly put it out there to see what others think about. most of the games I play and have seen played, aside from blockade run, all happen on a 3x4 area anyway. A few have said they use the whole board. I have never seen a game like that unless both opponents set up in opposite corners and only meet in the middle on round 5. I would like to see if any one has a link to a batrep where the hole board is being used. I would like to see how that plays out

I would like 8 to make them mean more to a game but the idea that each player could bring there own 3/4 to a game is what I would really like to see. it would add more strategy to the game I believe. I just get very disappointed that no matter how I set up the 3 I control it can be all for nothing when my opponent sets up no where near them or I'm just trying to block there run to the station adding 2 more I believe would reduce this out come

thanks for bring it back on topic I was just about to go and look up what those fridge spinners are

On 21.5.2017 at 7:18 AM, X Wing Nut said:

seams a few people didn't understand my idea for the new scoring by suggesting that all players will do is kill a Z95 and run and take the 7 point win. That wont work in the long run. as I said MOV will be the 2nd tie breaker if all you do is kill a Z95 for 3 games and another player on 3 wins went for the big wins then your not getting anywhere.

.....

I will cut it here and only reply to this (i did not read all 5 pages so far, but felt like i have to say something to this ).

You said that it is not fair that you won all your games and are not first (more or less). It didnt have to be someone with a loss, it could as well be that you won all your games 6-5 and are still only 5th or 6th. This is because winning high is part of the game, and part of the fleet you are building and how you need to play.

The systems has faults (in some parts). But what you suggest would even be worse.

Lets say a Win is 1 point, a Loss is 0 point.
If you have a tournament with, lets say 28 players.
This would mean 3 rounds and no cut.
But with 28 players you will have 3.5 players (so 3 or 4) with all wins. You will never have a "clear" winner. So what you change is that only someone who won all matches can win a tournament, and not someone who played good.

The current system is allowing a player to fix a close match (5-6) by winning good in the others. You are only punishing these that lost really close, and give a bonus to these that won really close. As Ginkao said. A 6-5 is no win, it is basically a draw. Curently a 6-5 or 5-6 is a difference of 1 score point and a little MOV. With your system a 5-6 is the same as a 1-10.

If you want a Win/Loss point system, you need a CLEAR winner. And this means enough rounds to get a clear winner. With 28 it would mean 5 rounds, and after this a cut on top 4 or 8.
Good luck doing this on a 50+ player tournament (6 rounds and cut for top 8).

The current point system is not perfect, and sometimes not fair. I was second on a regional with 7-4, 8-3, 10-1. Was a bit frustrating. I just didnt play against the one that won, because the results were really strange.
On the other hand, i did won the EU Vassal Freshman with 5-6, 10-1, 10-1. It IS possible to catch up after a close match. And this is one of the big competive parts in Armada. Just winning is not everything. You need to learn to win high. And this means as well to risk something.

And just another word to the play field:
The main reason for the size might have been the double size of X-Wing. This way the player didnt have to buy a new Map with a new size. Just two X-Wing mats, and you are set.

The second part is as well the strategic part. You have only 6 turns. You need to win high. So the placement and movement is a tactical decission. If you reduce the play field, you remove as well a big part of the tactical decissions. If you will be always in range to the opponent in one turn, it will turn into a simple brawling. And some of the missions become needless with small map.

The missions and play style are affected by the size of the map. And most of the time the size is ok (imo).

In one match my opponent made the tactical decission that a draw (6-5) is enough for him. So he just dodged the fight and tried to avoid all losses. It was a tactical decission he could make because of the score system and the map. It didnt pay off, but it was possible. And this alone is reason enough for me to say: the current system is not perfect for competive games, but better than the ideas that were suggested in the first post.

5 hours ago, X Wing Nut said:

A win/loss with MOV would still work as it does now like you say if you have a bad inning and 2 good it still works out the same. all it does is if someone loses a innings they are no longer on the same level as those that win all there innings. that's all I'm looking for. maybe if the scoring started at 6-4 not 6-5 that could fix it. remember how bad 5-5 was? 6-5 was meant to fix that but I don't know if it did

How do you deal with a bye? A lucky player just gets an auto win every round?

Are people aware that buys are given to the player in last each round? Except first round.

10 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

Are people aware that buys are given to the player in last each round? Except first round.

Yes. But if a new system is strictly binary, that bye allows someone to shoot up through the rankings faster than playing a game. Right now, you can do better than a person with a bye by scoring more than 140 points.

This is the only game I have ever played that a win is not a win. In all major sports and other games I have played a win is a win and there are factors that help rank players/teams with the same record, like a MOV. Why is such a horrible idea to follow logic in this game? Give a point for a win and then use the scoring for MOV for everyone and 10-1 vs 6-5 is still relevant, but it does not punish someone that has won his games vs someone with a worse record passing him. Byes would be handled with a MOV that is average of wins like FFG's other games.

Sorry but everyone was a baby seal at one point and been clubbed to death by the more experience players (I still get clubbed). Its part of learning the game. Half the time the baby seals are flying their ships off the board anyways, you want to help them out and make it legal too?

9 hours ago, Tokra said:

Lets say a Win is 1 point, a Loss is 0 point.
If you have a tournament with, lets say 28 players.
This would mean 3 rounds and no cut.
But with 28 players you will have 3.5 players (so 3 or 4) with all wins. You will never have a "clear" winner. So what you change is that only someone who won all matches can win a tournament, and not someone who played good.

The current system is allowing a player to fix a close match (5-6) by winning good in the others. You are only punishing these that lost really close, and give a bonus to these that won really close. As Ginkao said. A 6-5 is no win, it is basically a draw. Curently a 6-5 or 5-6 is a difference of 1 score point and a little MOV. With your system a 5-6 is the same as a 1-10.

If you want a Win/Loss point system, you need a CLEAR winner. And this means enough rounds to get a clear winner. With 28 it would mean 5 rounds, and after this a cut on top 4 or 8.
Good luck doing this on a 50+ player tournament (6 rounds and cut for top 8).

The current point system is not perfect, and sometimes not fair. I was second on a regional with 7-4, 8-3, 10-1. Was a bit frustrating. I just didnt play against the one that won, because the results were really strange.
On the other hand, i did won the EU Vassal Freshman with 5-6, 10-1, 10-1. It IS possible to catch up after a close match. And this is one of the big competive parts in Armada. Just winning is not everything. You need to learn to win high. And this means as well to risk something.

In one match my opponent made the tactical decission that a draw (6-5) is enough for him. So he just dodged the fight and tried to avoid all losses. It was a tactical decission he could make because of the score system and the map. It didnt pay off, but it was possible. And this alone is reason enough for me to say: the current system is not perfect for competive games, but better than the ideas that were suggested in the first post.

For your example of 3 winners, this is where MOV and the points scored in games would give you a clear winner. The player going 3-0 with 7-4, 8-3 and 10-1 would win over the player going 10-1, 6-5, 8-3 and he would be over the 7-4, 6-5, 6-5 player. And the player that went 2-1 with 5-6, 10-1, 10-1 would be fourth with 2 points versus the others 3 points. If there are ties with this system, then you would have a strength of schedule that is built in and based on your opponents record. So that one baby seal that is 0-3 with all 1-10 losses, he lowers the SoS for those that beat him. FFG uses this system in their other tournaments it is just odd that they do not do it here.

Keeping it the same you can have a so-so player kill 3 baby seals and win over top level players that get paired against each other all day and have slug fest. As an adolescent seal I want to face three baby seals and not see Dras, GK or most of you guys at a tournament, I might have a chance to place.

5 minutes ago, Cusm said:

For your example of 3 winners, this is where MOV and the points scored in games would give you a clear winner. The player going 3-0 with 7-4, 8-3 and 10-1 would win over the player going 10-1, 6-5, 8-3 and he would be over the 7-4, 6-5, 6-5 player. And the player that went 2-1 with 5-6, 10-1, 10-1 would be fourth with 2 points versus the others 3 points. If there are ties with this system, then you would have a strength of schedule that is built in and based on your opponents record. So that one baby seal that is 0-3 with all 1-10 losses, he lowers the SoS for those that beat him. FFG uses this system in their other tournaments it is just odd that they do not do it here.

Keeping it the same you can have a so-so player kill 3 baby seals and win over top level players that get paired against each other all day and have slug fest. As an adolescent seal I want to face three baby seals and not see Dras, GK or most of you guys at a tournament, I might have a chance to place.

Trust me. You always want to be faced off against me... Statistically Abysmal and all that...

Do it now before my luck corrects

5 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Trust me. You always want to be faced off against me... Statistically Abysmal and all that...

Do it now before my luck corrects

Get your Dras'! Get your Drasnighta's here! Get 'em while they're hot! Get 'em while they're buttery!

32 minutes ago, Cusm said:

Keeping it the same you can have a so-so player kill 3 baby seals and win over top level players that get paired against each other all day and have slug fest.

Only if the last two of those baby seals also went 10-1 and 10-1/10-1 in their first game and first two games, respectively. You know your matchup is based on your previous performance in the tournament, right? That prevents this thing you claim happens but nobody has ever seen.

This is claimed every time this suggestion comes up, and it's as wrong now as it always was.

3 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

Only if the last two of those baby seals also went 10-1 and 10-1/10-1 in their first game and first two games, respectively. You know your matchup is based on your previous performance in the tournament, right? That prevents this thing you claim happens but nobody has ever seen.

This is claimed every time this suggestion comes up, and it's as wrong now as it always was.

But they want it to be different, so doesn't that count? No, it doesnt? Oh, carry on then.

1 hour ago, Ardaedhel said:

Only if the last two of those baby seals also went 10-1 and 10-1/10-1 in their first game and first two games, respectively. You know your matchup is based on your previous performance in the tournament, right? That prevents this thing you claim happens but nobody has ever seen.

This is claimed every time this suggestion comes up, and it's as wrong now as it always was.

I won't weigh in on an Armada tournament, but this match up, even with MOV and SOS measured in, happens a lot in X-Wing tournaments. REGARDLESS - it is beyond stupid that someone with 2-1 goes ahead of someone that went 3-0, even more so if the baby seals are weeded out before the third round as you state.

Now, this is something near and dear to my heart...

Quite probably, because I'm a stay-at-home father of a young kid.

"Winning isn't Everything..."

This is a lesson that we teach Kids about Fair Play and Having Fun... Winning isn't everything. No-one likes a Sore Winner or Loser... Go and play and do your best , win or lose.

So now, we have a situation where that reflects - where the intention is the better played game nets more points. The more points netted, the better the player... The player who managed to lose small (minimising losses) and win big (maximising victory), well, that is potentially better than someone who barely scrapes through on all of his games...

Its not "beyond stupid."

Its a continuation of the life lessons we are taught from a young age, and it is also reflective of the real world maxim of a Pyrrhic Victory not being a Victory at all.

And there are plenty of current, real-world examples where that follows through - as Armada's semi-simulation of a greater-war style game (rather than the cut and thrust of immediate survival and death, such as X-Wing), its a lesson that should be at least acknowledged as we go forward.

And I totally agree, the feel of X-Wing is about immediate survival and victory. For that game, the cut-and-thrust of "Victory Or Death!" certainly suits it. Absolutely suits it.

But this is Armada, and Armada is playing up different things - the simple inclusion of Objectives being the driving portion of a game changes everything in comparison .

I wouldn't play Armada if winning was everything .

What's the point of half the things in the game at that point?

Its not a good lesson to teach or maintain.

But I won.

1 hour ago, Drasnighta said:

Now, this is something near and dear to my heart...

Quite probably, because I'm a stay-at-home father of a young kid.

"Winning isn't Everything..."

This is a lesson that we teach Kids about Fair Play and Having Fun... Winning isn't everything. No-one likes a Sore Winner or Loser... Go and play and do your best , win or lose.

So now, we have a situation where that reflects - where the intention is the better played game nets more points. The more points netted, the better the player... The player who managed to lose small (minimising losses) and win big (maximising victory), well, that is potentially better than someone who barely scrapes through on all of his games...

Its not "beyond stupid."

Its a continuation of the life lessons we are taught from a young age, and it is also reflective of the real world maxim of a Pyrrhic Victory not being a Victory at all.

And there are plenty of current, real-world examples where that follows through - as Armada's semi-simulation of a greater-war style game (rather than the cut and thrust of immediate survival and death, such as X-Wing), its a lesson that should be at least acknowledged as we go forward.

And I totally agree, the feel of X-Wing is about immediate survival and victory. For that game, the cut-and-thrust of "Victory Or Death!" certainly suits it. Absolutely suits it.

But this is Armada, and Armada is playing up different things - the simple inclusion of Objectives being the driving portion of a game changes everything in comparison .

I wouldn't play Armada if winning was everything .

What's the point of half the things in the game at that point?

Its not a good lesson to teach or maintain.

I would agree with you, I am new and don't expect to win, but we are talking about a competative tournament, the whole purpose is to crown a winner, if someone enters just to have fun (me) great, but the point is to be the big winner. This does make it stupid that a win is not a win.

Just now, Cusm said:

I would agree with you, I am new and don't expect to win, but we are talking about a competative tournament, the whole purpose is to crown a winner, if someone enters just to have fun (me) great, but the point is to be the big winner. This does make it stupid that a win is not a win.

A win is a Win, though.

Winning's just not everything.

Also, its part of the Rules. Has been for quite some time... I know you havn't made the argument, but there were people in the past who were upset because they were surprised by it... That's on their heads.

2 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

there were people in the past who were upset because they were surprised by it... That's on their heads.

Agreed with this last part in particular. We'd get these very aggrieved posts from people who went to the tournament to win big and then they didn't get first despite winning three games (by smaller margins) and were surprised to find the overall winner had a 2-1 record (usually two blowout wins and one very minor loss) and couldn't believe the injustice of it .

And I'm like "dude we can discuss the pros and cons of the tournament system if you like, but I've got zero sympathy for someone who wants to win big at a tournament and didn't even take the time to read about how the tournament gets won ."

2 hours ago, Cusm said:

this... happens a lot in X-Wing tournaments

Man, did somebody hand you The Field Guide for Pushing Ardaedhel's Buttons ?

I could not possibly care less what happens in X-Wing tournaments. This isn't X-Wing, I don't play X-Wing, and this doesn't happen in Armada tournaments. Maybe if X-Wing used an MoV system instead of a W-L system, this wouldn't happen in X-Wing tournaments.

I thought we were past the "well, but in X-Wing..." phase by now...

2 hours ago, Cusm said:

it is beyond stupid that someone with 2-1 goes ahead of someone that went 3-0

Or would it be beyond stupid that someone with 18 points goes ahead of someone with 21?

Armada simply isn't about W's and L's. It's about quality of play.

Here's a way to look at it. Player one goes 10-1 and 10-1 in his first two games. Player two goes 7-4 and 7-4. Player one and player two play each other in the last round and player two wins 6-5 with a MoV of 1. Who should win that tournament? Keep in mind, a few waves ago, that would have been a 5-5 instead of a 6-5. The game is effectively a tie. Player one is the clear winner to me.

The obvious solution to me, though, is all tournaments should be 4 rounds and a cut. Those are always awesome . The MoV and swiss pairings really shine through in that format. The final swiss round's drama is always fantastic.

OK, just to see how the two systems, Wins & Points, do in theory, I mocked up a tournament. I assigned 3 skill levels, New, Average, and Veteran. I had 6 players from each skill level, and made the following assumptions:

1) first round matches were random

2) a difference of 1 skill level was worth 2 points. So a Veteran player running against a New player would earn a 10-1 or 9-2, while an average player would earn either a 7-4 or 8-3 against that same new player.

3) only 3 rounds. (yes, 18 people should have been 4 rounds...)

The Points method had results that were much more sorted by skill level than the Wins method. Only 2 contestants ended up outside their skill band at the end. A veteran ended up at spot #7, while an average player ended up in spot 6.

None of this explains away the bad feelings that someone who has "lost" a tournament with 3 pyrrhic victories, but I believe that the system works, and works well, given the time limitations of Armada.

3 hours ago, Ardaedhel said:

Man, did somebody hand you The Field Guide for Pushing Ardaedhel's Buttons ?

I could not possibly care less what happens in X-Wing tournaments. This isn't X-Wing, I don't play X-Wing, and this doesn't happen in Armada tournaments. Maybe if X-Wing used an MoV system instead of a W-L system, this wouldn't happen in X-Wing tournaments.

I thought we were past the "well, but in X-Wing..." phase by now...

Or would it be beyond stupid that someone with 18 points goes ahead of someone with 21?

Armada simply isn't about W's and L's. It's about quality of play.

Well I see you like to push buttons back . I know you don't care, but X-Wing DOES USE MOV, but as a tie breaker after W-L, but bad pairings still occur.

I am not outraged or calling for a system change, as a new player it just defies all competitive play I have experienced before. This is something I like in theory and I like to hear that pairings are more leveled (after the first round). I wish my local community was larger/more active so I could play more, besides our CC we have had 2 tournaments since last September and I started playing after the second one.

5 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

Its a continuation of the life lessons we are taught from a young age, and it is also reflective of the real world maxim of a Pyrrhic Victory not being a Victory at all.

And there are plenty of current, real-world examples where that follows through - as Armada's semi-simulation of a greater-war style game (rather than the cut and thrust of immediate survival and death, such as X-Wing), its a lesson that should be at least acknowledged as we go forward.

Jyn Erso and Cassian Andor would disagree.

1 minute ago, DarkHorse said:

Jyn Erso and Cassian Andor would disagree.

No they wouldn't.

They're Dead.