1. Pass, well there still has to be a move, this is a space combat game and although not in 3d space the idea is everything is in motion until it says stop. Now if the 0 stop could pass maybe but that is the only way I could see a pass implemented in Armada without breaking theme. It is already closer to say an inverse warhammer 40k set up with squadrons and ships.
2. Agreed, however that could undermine the need to play the objectives and just go to an all out kill heavy X-wing style Armada lists. Ask any Warmachine players of the age of Warcaster kill lists. All you had to do to win is take your Jack and smash warcaster.
3. Well I'm not sure about the play area but the game length does need to be shortened down. The whole game ends already ends after the 6th turn shows that this doesn't have the refined game-play mechanics as it was boasted to have. The fact that it could take longer than 90 minuets to play 6 turns is a strike against it.
4. Keep in mind that you do need it to be open like space. Having too many obstacles makes it more like a ground combat game.

Well I'll throw in my two cents but to be honest I think it also needs more factions, Now I am not talking about scum. That has already been nullified by the way Armada splits the squadrons up between the two factions. But I am talking about 1st Order, Resistance, Old Republic, and even the CIS. Rune Bound as of now has only 2 factions but there is a 3rd and perhaps more already planed and coming up and that is already looking like it is going to be taking the pinnacle of ground combat table top strategy.

39 minutes ago, DarkHorse said:

Jyn Erso and Cassian Andor would disagree.

Alright, we're going to have to debunk this, because this is dead wrong. The Battle of Scarif was a shattering defeat for the Rebellion tactically, and led to a series of strategic setbacks. In terms of per capita loss, the Rebellion's losses at Scarif far outstripped the Imperials. Irreplaceable X-wings, U-wings, and tactically capable soldiers were all lost. The loss of the two Star Destroyers in an Imperial Navy of thousands of such ships and the research archive is comparatively minimal. On top of other capital ship losses, the Profundity, one of only a handful of Alliance capital ships, was disabled and presumably destroyed by the Devastator, which proceeded to chase the Tantive IV into hyperspace, preventing Princess Leia, whose diplomatic immunity was so blown an EF5 tornado couldn't have thrown it farther, from actually completing her mission to get Obi-Wan and bring him to Alderaan. The battle also led to the chain of events shown in Episode IV directly, where the Death Star destroyed Alderaan, the most politically powerful world in the Alliance's corner, and billions of lives to boot. Yes, R2-D2 managed to find Obi-Wan and lucked the ever-loving **** out of also finding Luke Skywalker, but because Scarif allowed Vader to catch Leia and led to Tarkin's increasing impatience, by the time they arrived to what was left of Alderaan, they were almost recaptured to no loss to the Empire. Even when they did escape as part of Vader's gambit to finally track down the Rebel outpost, the only reason Yavin 4 wasn't destroyed wasn't that Luke made a shot using the Force, but that Vader annihilated the rest of Gold and Red Squadrons so quickly Luke also made a run before the Death Star fired. In other words, the only reason that the Battle of Scarif caused a strategic victory for the Rebels at the Battle of Yavin was because of plot armor. Jyn and Cassian's sacrifice was fifteen seconds from being worthless. Information is completely worthless without the tactical wherewithal to take advantage of it, something the losses at Scarif almost precluded the Rebels from doing. The only reason the destruction of the Death Star swung it back was the huge investment by the Empire that it was, and the huge number of Imperial personnel killed when it was destroyed.

I struggle to come up with an equivalent IRL action where the tactical balance was so ridiculously lopsided but ended in such a complete strategic upset. Even the actions around Guadalcanal throughout World War II don't compare. This is like saying the loss of Force Z led to the Midway victory, but with Prince of Wales' and Repulse's seaplanes as the attackers there.

TL;DR: Just because plot demanded that the Battle of Scarif eventually become the strategic victory at Yavin IV, do not underestimate how cataclysmic that defeat was. You don't get to be tabled like that and turn around and table the next guy because you got one CRIS token.

7 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.

Even if you dont want to hear the compare to X-Wing, it is exactly the same. Someone with 1 loss (during the swiss rounds) can still win the tournament in X-Wing. Sometime even with 2 loss.

Every game with a best of one match has a one loss protection. You just play one more round in a best of one compared to a best of 3. And i really don't want a best of 3 in Aramda .

In Armada is it not possible to do it this way, because of the extreme long rounds. If you want a win/loss point system, you will need enough round for a clear winner and a cut after this.
Like i earlier said. A 40 player tournament would need at least 5 rounds and a cut on top 8. Good luck to try this on Aramada. And on top, a win/loss game would make the games even more boring. Because some would just kill enough to get the win, and not care anymore how high the win is.

Because in the end, all with max wins have to be in the cut. And in the cut it is the same again. Only winning is important, now how high.
If you don't want the cut, and only the swiss rounds, you will have exact the same again that you criticises. Someone with all wins is not first in the end. And this is bad. You need a CLEAR winner. And this means at least one loss, or the score system from Aramada.

The Score system is a trade-off between the long rounds and still finding the best fit for the best player.

TL;DR The current scoring system used for Armada tournaments is FAR SUPERIOR to any alternative I've seen proposed.

It's not perfect, but it's still very, very good.

It would be even better with 4 or 5 rounds, but that's just not practical in most cases.

So what we have is the best compromise available.

1) play more

2) play better

3) make yourself more competitive (in the good way)

4) teach others to accomplish points 1-4

Then, you will make Armada a better competitive game.

How many rounds happened at worlds? 4 or 5? It seemed to allow the OP list rise to the top so I would agree that 4 or 5 rounds is ideal.

17 hours ago, ovinomanc3r said:

But I won.

MAD does not count as a win.

16 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

MAD does not count as a win.

It did for NATO for a while. Russian doctrine is still pretty close.

10 minutes ago, GiledPallaeon said:

It did for NATO for a while. Russian doctrine is still pretty close.

I enjoyed playing Fallout 3 and 4. I'd much rather not live it. Else I'll have to put my ships into a garbage gun and kill my enemies with grey triangles.

2 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

I enjoyed playing Fallout 3 and 4. I'd much rather not live it. Else I'll have to put my ships into a garbage gun and kill my enemies with grey triangles.

Thats more things than they kill in game! OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH nah I have no idea how you do I just wanted to insult the Empire.

Also, man that Fallout 4 ending (where you side with the CIT) was anti-climactic. At least the Railroad had an ENDING.

16 minutes ago, geek19 said:

Thats more things than they kill in game! OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH nah I have no idea how you do I just wanted to insult the Empire.

Also, man that Fallout 4 ending (where you side with the CIT) was anti-climactic. At least the Railroad had an ENDING.

I only did 1 play through and I sided with the scientists n robots. I enjoyed destroying the knights and taking their power armor.

I still think Skyrim is a better game. Need a Star Wars game on that grand RPG scale that is single player.

DEFCON Everybody dies.

Great game!

18 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

I only did 1 play through and I sided with the scientists n robots. I enjoyed destroying the knights and taking their power armor.

I still think Skyrim is a better game. Need a Star Wars game on that grand RPG scale that is single player.

So, KOTOR? Not really KOTOR2, i didnt think it was that good. Im intrigued by this new Battlefront game (no, there's another one) i hear rumors of.

2 minutes ago, geek19 said:

So, KOTOR? Not really KOTOR2, i didnt think it was that good. Im intrigued by this new Battlefront game (no, there's another one) i hear rumors of.

Like that but better.

I don't plan on getting Battle Front 2. I played the first one and it was alright. I never had much faith in EA to begin with, and I'm not a fan of multiplayer FPS games.

Here is a change. Make Top4 at worlds a three round thing where all 4 play each other most points wins.

14 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

No they wouldn't.

They're Dead.

Savage.

1 hour ago, geek19 said:

So, KOTOR? Not really KOTOR2, i didnt think it was that good. Im intrigued by this new Battlefront game (no, there's another one) i hear rumors of.

1 hour ago, Undeadguy said:

Like that but better.

I don't plan on getting Battle Front 2. I played the first one and it was alright. I never had much faith in EA to begin with, and I'm not a fan of multiplayer FPS games.

It is long past time for a new Xwing vs TIE fighter. Somebody make this game happen. I refuse to believe there isnt s huge market waiting for it.

Also one of those privateer type games set in a star wars universe would get my nethers tingling.

2 minutes ago, Madaghmire said:

Savage.

Opress? He's dead too. Back in the Clone Wars.

2 hours ago, Irishmadcat said:

Here is a change. Make Top4 at worlds a three round thing where all 4 play each other most points wins.

Oooooh thats good. Hate the cuts at the moment.

It would actually be a great idea. I know that world championships supposed to end in a final climactic battle but still...

So in a tournament that goes to a cut, the top 4/8 only advance the final day if they win, and the whole structure of tournament scoring is tossed?

9 minutes ago, Cusm said:

So in a tournament that goes to a cut, the top 4/8 only advance the final day if they win, and the whole structure of tournament scoring is tossed?

In Armada, its the Top 2 or 4, depending on the size of the tournament. Top 2 Cut for any tournament using the advanced structure that's 29 players or above ... And then Top 4 for 91 players and up.

Some tournaments mandate cuts regardless (Worlds was always a Top 4 cut, despite the 70 or 80 player limit) - some tournaments forgo a cut with the Basic Structure (which never has a cut) irrespective of size of tournament.

When cutting, the final positions are respected - Highest Player plays Lowest player... And the middle 2 players play.

So its always 1st vs 4th, and 2nd vs 3rd, in a 4 player cut for Armada.

40 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

Bit of background.

They played each other very early in the swiss. Ben won that one by about 20pts. Tokra says his plan there was to avoid a big loss so took superior positions and deployed far away.

This will be a very different game.

Quoted from here

I kind of feel this proves the scoring system really needs a overhaul where the strategy of if I don't lose badly ill be ok as appose to I must win is a thing. this is not directed at the individual player directly, as the rules stand I would do the same, its the fact that this strategy is a stratify to play to is why I am looking for discussion on making the game more competitive

2 minutes ago, X Wing Nut said:

Quoted from here

I kind of feel this proves the scoring system really needs a overhaul where the strategy of if I don't lose badly ill be ok as appose to I must win is a thing. this is not directed at the individual player directly, as the rules stand I would do the same, its the fact that this strategy is a stratify to play to is why I am looking for discussion on making the game more competitive

Don't agree.

When you're playing 7 rounds, it must be considered perfectly reasonable to go for a 5-6 loss or maybe a 6-5 win against a strong opponent or bad matchup. It's your overall score that's the key, and that barring elimination rounds, you can't be matched vs that list again.

23 minutes ago, X Wing Nut said:

Quoted from here

I kind of feel this proves the scoring system really needs a overhaul where the strategy of if I don't lose badly ill be ok as appose to I must win is a thing. this is not directed at the individual player directly, as the rules stand I would do the same, its the fact that this strategy is a stratify to play to is why I am looking for discussion on making the game more competitive

Thing is, any scoring system calls 6-5 or equivalent a draw. He went for the draw and got it. Then went big over the rest of his games.

A 6 win 1 loss player makes the cut no matter how you score it. More swiss rounds the fairer the result regardless of scoring system.