2 hours ago, Do I need a Username said:Thoughts?
I like alternative MoV. One TC open ranked by wins - if tie: points destroyed - if tie: points lost
It incentivized more aggressive play. Losing ships is not a problem if it helps you pull out a win, and that allows you to e.g. sacrifice a ship in a crucial moment.
16 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:I like alternative MoV. One TC open ranked by wins - if tie: points destroyed - if tie: points lost
It incentivized more aggressive play. Losing ships is not a problem if it helps you pull out a win, and that allows you to e.g. sacrifice a ship in a crucial moment.
This is interesting. I think as of right now, this is the intention, the problem is that a point is a point: Rather you destroy it or don't lose it doesn't matter.
10 hours ago, Do I need a Username said:So on the B-team we talked briefly about the tournament system encouraging a certain playstyle with the definition of fair and whatnot (And the tournament system was also talked about in one of the listener series, but I don't know which one. Probably 3.) As a part of this conversation, we talked about alternative scoring systems for games, and if any of those would affect play.
Option 1: Current system: Either counts as a win or not, with MOV providing a tiebreaker (But not superseding winning games). This means you have to have tie breakers, which opens a whole other can of worms (Which I'll get to later).
Option 2: All MOV, All day: The only scoring option is MOV. Win/lose doesn't matter. Just MOV. This would encourage a player that is losing to become super defensive, and encourage a winning player to win more and allow a lose later on, while allowing a X-1 player to place higher than a (X+1)-0 player in a swiss). This would get Players winning more, but can also screw a player out of the cut. Doesn't need a tie breaker, because winning doesn't matter, just how much you killed/lost. This may be my favorite system.
Option 3: System with more tournament points rewarding different levels of enemy elimination. The option mentioned on the cast was 5 for a win, 2-3 for a win on points, and 1 for a tie (0 if you lose). This option Punishes people for not killing the entire enemy force, but it also means that as soon as it becomes obvious I am losing, I just have to deny a very small number of points to my opponent, and can ruin their tournament score. It's interesting, but ultimately bad in competitive games.
Option 4: Win/lose with SoS as a tiebreaker. It's what legion is doing, and it may work but too many players drop from large events, so SoS can allow kingmaking and things entirely out of a players control (Random pairing going to be random after all). For that reason, I dislike it.
Option 5: Glicko. Basically a lot of math for the unacquainted. It's interesting, and it may be useful in the long run but at the smaller tournament I don't think its worth it.
Option 6: The old system, with W/L/D, MoV, and SoS. It's not super great, because of the one thing what which happened and it relies on player not doing that.
Next Conundrum: Tiebreakers. Several of the above systems need then, so what is the best system?
Option 1: final salvo: It encourages defensive play when you have a larger one, and it also encourages fortressing (To win on salvo). Probably not great, but not entirely awful.
Option 2: Coin flip: Entirely random, so good, but entirely random, so bad.
Option 3: Player with the Initiative choice loses. Makes biding super risky for some lists, and also adds an interesting dynamic, but hurts lists that can't reach max points. Maybe make so the bid mean you can choose who chooses? But that also has the potential for exploitation... Either way, I think this one may be the way to go.
Final Topic: The top cut problem.
This is more obvious in armada, but it happens in X-wing as well. Basically, you need to win big before the cut, in order to have the MOV to make it, but in the cut you only have to win. This means the super defensive lists have a better cut match than pre-cut match. This is most obvious in armada (again) and the world final is a good example of it happening (you would think the armada meta is tiny, but in fact it is anything but). Unfortunately this is a problem with very few easy options, so these are the ones I came across / thought up:
Option 1: Untimed. Logistical nightmare, and everything has some time limit. No.
Option 2: Swiss in cut. Also takes super long, but with earlier cuts, can be more manageable. My favorite option, but maybe not feasible.
Option 3: Keep the cut as is and change the swiss to eliminate those lists earlier. The most likely change, but then you go back up to section 1 and have to consider which does that best.
Option 4: The top cut isn't a problem. I disagree with this opinion, but understand it.
Thoughts?
Ok I finally had time to read your novel and I have to say there are a lot of great thoughts in here.
It's a disgusting amount of content, but I'll try to talk about it a bit.
First topic. I agree with you on everything except the Glicko. WE'RE NOT CAVEMEN SPONGEBOB, WE HAVE TECHNOLOGY! I think that now that we're trusting computers to do our listbuilding instead of little pieces of plastic-coated paper, we can also trust them to give us numbers related to our tournament performance. It does create a problem of "oh, man, the computer screwed me out of the cut!" which existed with Destiny's Extended SoS system, but it's more scienc-ey so it probably ends up feeling a bit more fair.
Option 7: simple Glicko for cavemen. Give everyone 1500 units of poker chips (so use denominations to make it simple), every time you lose, give your opponent half your chips. TOs record winners and losers and pairings are solely determined by your W/L record.
I would rate the options 2 > 5 > 7 > 1> 3 > 4 > 6
Second topic. Coin flip and final salvo are both terrible, for different reasons. I think there's more options here, but I like the initiative one as a last resort (rather than final salvo). How I personally would do this is
* Who has more points left on the table?
* Who has more ships left on the table?
* Who has less points destroyed?
* Who has less ships destroyed?
* Who has less total damage on their ship(s)?
* Who has the ship furthest from any edge of the board? (measured in increments of range, to avoid too much controversy of measurement)
* Coin flip (for complete mirror match/identical board state)
(Priority to higher items)
Another option for tiebreakers is a set of Legion-like objectives, like "who has more ships next to these special asteroids?" or "who has more ships in enemy deployment zone" (which I used above).
Final topic: Swiss. Obviously. It makes it less fun for the viewers, because there's not a "final" match, but it's more balanced. I might also like just doing away with the cut entirely and doing ~1.7 times more rounds of swiss, especially if a Glicko system is in place.
Edited by KieransiMoV should influences winning a tournament as less as possible: if you give it even more power than now and it's a **** system that arbitrary favors a particular list building
SoS is even worse: ffg uses it for agot lcg and it sucks big time. It's an added layer of randomness which also put unneeded pressure on who might want to drop.
I think the system open had it with all x-1 being in the cut. It makes pairings in swiss even more important than usual, and they already matters more than dice variance, but it's the fairer system so far.
Double post because this is worth his own: ETC lists are out!
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/n2ihijkfuwi0618/AABJgwO6EX-nW-LRHx2I5kHVa?dl=0
This meta is awesome!
9 hours ago, Kieransi said:Ok I finally had time to read your novel and I have to say there are a lot of great thoughts in here.
It's a disgusting amount of content, but I'll try to talk about it a bit.
First topic. I agree with you on everything except the Glicko. WE'RE NOT CAVEMEN SPONGEBOB, WE HAVE TECHNOLOGY! I think that now that we're trusting computers to do our listbuilding instead of little pieces of plastic-coated paper, we can also trust them to give us numbers related to our tournament performance. It does create a problem of "oh, man, the computer screwed me out of the cut!" which existed with Destiny's Extended SoS system, but it's more scienc-ey so it probably ends up feeling a bit more fair.
Option 7: simple Glicko for cavemen. Give everyone 1500 units of poker chips (so use denominations to make it simple), every time you lose, give your opponent half your chips. TOs record winners and losers and pairings are solely determined by your W/L record.
I would rate the options 2 > 5 > 7 > 1> 3 > 4 > 6
Second topic. Coin flip and final salvo are both terrible, for different reasons. I think there's more options here, but I like the initiative one as a last resort (rather than final salvo). How I personally would do this is
* Who has more points left on the table?
* Who has more ships left on the table?
* Who has less points destroyed?
* Who has less ships destroyed?
* Who has less total damage on their ship(s)?
* Who has the ship furthest from any edge of the board? (measured in increments of range, to avoid too much controversy of measurement)
* Coin flip (for complete mirror match/identical board state)
(Priority to higher items)
Another option for tiebreakers is a set of Legion-like objectives, like "who has more ships next to these special asteroids?" or "who has more ships in enemy deployment zone" (which I used above).
Final topic: Swiss. Obviously. It makes it less fun for the viewers, because there's not a "final" match, but it's more balanced. I might also like just doing away with the cut entirely and doing ~1.7 times more rounds of swiss, especially if a Glicko system is in place.
So with regards to Glicko, I said it isn't worth it at smaller tournaments because most of the other systems will yield the same result, but be more obvious doing it. Glicko is useful when you have a long spread of tournaments and very large poll of data. Not many X-wing tournaments will get there. In other words, too obtuse for the very minor benefit it gives.
With tie breakers, most of these already happen via the MOV system, but I think that the furthest from and edge of the bboard thing has a lot of problems as well, namely it can favor a certain archetype to a crazy degree and a certain opening engagement can break the game. The Less total damage thing has the problem of making the game state too obtuse, as well as punishing certain ships disproportionately.
Objectives are interesting, but some of them can again, punish certain ships (think without a K-turn) and encourage slow play. If you do this, you need a flat turn limit as well.
5 hours ago, Sunitsa said:MoV should influences winning a tournament as less as possible: if you give it even more power than now and it's a **** system that arbitrary favors a particular list building
SoS is even worse: ffg uses it for agot lcg and it sucks big time. It's an added layer of randomness which also put unneeded pressure on who might want to drop.
I think the system open had it with all x-1 being in the cut. It makes pairings in swiss even more important than usual, and they already matters more than dice variance, but it's the fairer system so far.
I agree that SoS is bad, for basically the reason you outline above.
MOV is useful for tiebreakers when you don't have a long time, such as a store champs.
The X-1 system is helpful, but Gin, you may need tiebreakers occasionally.
The other question is if you want to favor a certain archetype, and give them better odds through the tournament structure (In other words, make offense more important than defense)
5 hours ago, Sunitsa said:Double post because this is worth his own: ETC lists are out!
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/n2ihijkfuwi0618/AABJgwO6EX-nW-LRHx2I5kHVa?dl=0
This meta is awesome!
There's two real tournaments left for NA, I'm curious how far this meta evolves. I haven't talked to many people that have put much effort/care into gencon/NOVA, so I think we might end up with "lists that were good pre wave 14 with obvious slight tweaks made"
1 minute ago, Brunas said:There's two real tournaments left for NA, I'm curious how far this meta evolves. I haven't talked to many people that have put much effort/care into gencon/NOVA, so I think we might end up with "lists that were good pre wave 14 with obvious slight tweaks made"
Far fewer people in my local area (where nationals is located) are putting deep thought into it. More of small tweaks and a "meh" attitude.
7 minutes ago, Brunas said:There's two real tournaments left for NA, I'm curious how far this meta evolves. I haven't talked to many people that have put much effort/care into gencon/NOVA, so I think we might end up with "lists that were good pre wave 14 with obvious slight tweaks made"
You have to take into account that both me and my playgroup really loved pre wave 14 meta, now we just got new ships to toy with.
The fact we consider ETC the most prestigious xwing tournament not on the wrong side of ocean also helped keep our interest up.
I'm curious about reapers, they have the potential to be the last broken thing of 1.0
This list looks particularly mean
Empire 1 £ukasz Golonka (100)
Major Vermeil TIE Reaper (34) Adaptability (0), General Hux (5), Intelligence Agent (1), Lightweight Frame (2), Advanced Ailerons (0) Captain Feroph TIE Reaper (34) Trick Shot (0), Emperor Palpatine (8), Lightweight Frame (2), Advanced Ailerons (0), Scarif Base Pilot TIE Reaper (32) Kylo Ren (3), Director Krennic (5), Lightweight Frame (2),Advanced Ailerons (0) 100/100
5 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:Far fewer people in my local area (where nationals is located) are putting deep thought into it. More of small tweaks and a "meh" attitude.
We also received the annoucement we will have nationals on the 22nd of September but they will be played with 1.0 for reasons.
Even I, the last romantic and strenous defender of 1.0, am finding it hard to motivate myself.
Just now, Sunitsa said:We also received the annoucement we will have nationals on the 22nd of September but they will be played with 1.0 for reasons.
Even I, the last romantic and strenous defender of 1.0, am finding it hard to motivate myself.
Man, *that* sucks. 
20 hours ago, Do I need a Username said:Final Topic: The top cut problem.
This is more obvious in armada, but it happens in X-wing as well. Basically, you need to win big before the cut, in order to have the MOV to make it, but in the cut you only have to win. This means the super defensive lists have a better cut match than pre-cut match. This is most obvious in armada (again) and the world final is a good example of it happening (you would think the armada meta is tiny, but in fact it is anything but). Unfortunately this is a problem with very few easy options, so these are the ones I came across / thought up:
Option 1: Untimed. Logistical nightmare, and everything has some time limit. No.
Option 2: Swiss in cut. Also takes super long, but with earlier cuts, can be more manageable. My favorite option, but maybe not feasible.
Option 3: Keep the cut as is and change the swiss to eliminate those lists earlier. The most likely change, but then you go back up to section 1 and have to consider which does that best.
Option 4: The top cut isn't a problem. I disagree with this opinion, but understand it.
I’m not reading everything, and actually don’t really listen to the podcast anymore (sorry not sorry), but was the possibility of no cut discussed?
I mean, we all seem to (or Americans at least) have this obsession with creating a playoff scenario at every opportunity for competitive endeavors. Would just having Swiss played right on through to the end and awarding the winningest player (+whatever aligned tie breaker) at the end of the day be bad? The main issue I can see is for big events wanting to have that “final table” stream, only to realize the player that ends up winning was on table 3 or something.
17 hours ago, Do I need a Username said:This is interesting. I think as of right now, this is the intention, the problem is that a point is a point: Rather you destroy it or don't lose it doesn't matter.
THEORIST in the TC open actually ignored points lost unless there was an equal amount of points destroyed. So a 100-X win is always better than a 25-X win, no matter how many points you lost. Maybe I misunderstand you though.
Points are relevant for two different moments: First to determine the winner, and there a point destroyed is basically as much worth as a point not lost. Second to determine the MoV, and here the point not lost is entirely irrelevant.
Personally I think a 100-75 win is better than a 25-0 win. Currently winner gets 100 + (W-L), loser gets 100 - (W-L). In the given examples, the MoVs are 125-75.
So what about weighting?
The points destroyed could be multiplid by a certain factor, and this would skew the game in favor of people destroying as many points as possible.
Example with same numbers and a factor of 5:
The chosen factor was entirely arbitrary and might need more than 10 seconds of thinking. E.g. a factor 2 has the MoVs at 200:75, 150:100, 50:0 and 0:25. If the difference between destroyed and lost is in any form relevant, then the winner of game 2 and the loser of game 1 are now equal wrt MoV.
26 minutes ago, Sunitsa said:we will have nationals on the 22nd of September but they will be played with 1.0 for reasons.
Wait really?? Wow.
18 minutes ago, Kdubb said:I’m not reading everything, and actually don’t really listen to the podcast anymore (sorry not sorry), but was the possibility of no cut discussed?
I mean, we all seem to (or Americans at least) have this obsession with creating a playoff scenario at every opportunity for competitive endeavors. Would just having Swiss played right on through to the end and awarding the winningest player (+whatever aligned tie breaker) at the end of the day be bad? The main issue I can see is for big events wanting to have that “final table” stream, only to realize the player that ends up winning was on table 3 or something.
Random probably bad idea but would it be better just make the cut smaller.
Go straight to Top 4 and than have those players fight each other twice ( possible 3 times for the tie breaker, no MOV just wins/losses ).
19 minutes ago, Kdubb said:I’m not reading everything, and actually don’t really listen to the podcast anymore (sorry not sorry), but was the possibility of no cut discussed?
I mean, we all seem to (or Americans at least) have this obsession with creating a playoff scenario at every opportunity for competitive endeavors. Would just having Swiss played right on through to the end and awarding the winningest player (+whatever aligned tie breaker) at the end of the day be bad? The main issue I can see is for big events wanting to have that “final table” stream, only to realize the player that ends up winning was on table 3 or something.
Just now, Boom Owl said:Random probably bad idea but would it be better just make the cut smaller.
Go straight to Top 4 and than have those players fight each other twice ( possible 3 times for the tie breaker, no MOV just wins/losses ).
I'm not sure people want that, though.
All of us would be less interested in sports if there was no playoffs. It's not even inherently American (see: World Cup).
2 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:I'm not sure people want that, though.
All of us would be less interested in sports if there was no playoffs. It's not even inherently American (see: World Cup).
One and done playoffs are more exciting thats for sure.
29 minutes ago, Kdubb said:I’m not reading everything, and actually don’t really listen to the podcast anymore (sorry not sorry), but was the possibility of no cut discussed?
I mean, we all seem to (or Americans at least) have this obsession with creating a playoff scenario at every opportunity for competitive endeavors. Would just having Swiss played right on through to the end and awarding the winningest player (+whatever aligned tie breaker) at the end of the day be bad? The main issue I can see is for big events wanting to have that “final table” stream, only to realize the player that ends up winning was on table 3 or something.
This is what armada does right now (For smaller events, and tiny cut for large events), and it works okayish? The biggest problem is that better players are more likely to do a lot of damage to each other while a mediocore player can table a bad player, leading to a massive MOV jump into the lead, which feels really bad for a lot of people.
10 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:I'm not sure people want that, though.
All of us would be less interested in sports if there was no playoffs. It's not even inherently American (see: World Cup).
And this is a part of why I like the swiss/cut(swiss)/cut(swiss)/. . . /Finals
It has the exciting player off structure because predicting top 4 is easier, and also mitigates the top cut problem.
I'm used to sport without playoff and I love xwing cut (assuming the tournament has enough numbers to justify it)
No cut in an environment where tiebreaker is done with MoV or SoS sucks big time.
I'm not following entirly the topic, what's the problem with the current system (in particular the one used for the open series)?
1 minute ago, Sunitsa said:I'm used to sport without playoff and I love xwing cut (assuming the tournament has enough numbers to justify it)
No cut in an environment where tiebreaker is done with MoV or SoS sucks big time.
I'm not following entirly the topic, what's the problem with the current system (in particular the one used for the open series)?
Double/Triple Elimination?
Also, PSA for anyone here. Here's a Krayt-esque podcast, that has appearances by the Krayts.
Frankly, I think I'll reserve any judgement on points and MOV until we get through a competitive season of 2.0. Half points on small bases may end up really tilting things. Regen is cut back a decent amount on Rebel lists and now if you can squeak damage into Poe/Miranda/Kylo/ect they aren't the 50 point MOV locker they were previously. I think we're still basing some of our MOV angst on 1.0 outcomes.
Edited by viedit8 minutes ago, Sunitsa said:I'm not following entirly the topic, what's the problem with the current system (in particular the one used for the open series)?
Not necessarily anything to blatantly wrong with existing structures. Just having a general discussion about possible tournament structures and which ones are best at rewarding good play.
20 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:Wait really?? Wow.
and it's not even the worse thing happened to the italian xwing players!
Back in 2015, wave 7 got delayed for months and was released the same week of our System Open, most of the competitive players at that point had bought it from UK but since it wasn't officially released, it meant it wasn't legal for tournament play. And there's a huge difference between testing for the SoS in a store championship rather than on the kitchen table.
It's also probably the cause of my sheer hatred for Palpatine and for the whole narrative of "imperial aces are hard to play": I had to play against them for far longer than anyone else
Another funny one is the last national: traditionally our nationals are hold at the end of august/early september, but since publisher changed and wanted to hold national after "their" stores/regionals season, we had the 2017 national on february, 2018...
13 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:Not necessarily anything to blatantly wrong with existing structures. Just having a general discussion about possible tournament structures and which ones are best at rewarding good play.
Yeah, basically, this. the only thing I really have a problem with is salvo, but mostly its just boredom.
Just now, Do I need a Username said:Yeah, basically, this. the only thing I really have a problem with is salvo, but mostly its just boredom.
Salvo was hilarious the first time, but kinda lost its lustre fast.
Kinda feels like any sport finished in a shootout... except this weights it to whoever brought the biggest, hairiest players.
7 minutes ago, Do I need a Username said:I really have a problem with is salvo
Not to devolve into a topic about an unsolvable problem or a problem that doesnt need to be solved...but....
What if bumps against your own ships within your range 1 deployment area did damage to your ships?
Would have to work out the rule logic for if you end up back there later in the game and bump etc. but I wonder if there is a way to word that right.
I guess it makes some of those new Teleporting big bases we have in 2.0 a bit of a concern.
Would also just mean you could set up the fortress just outside of the deployment zone ( allows some amount of room to flank I guess?)
Would it be enough to prevent fortresses without causing other serious issues?
Also to be clear I don't 100% think fortresses are a problem that absolutely needs to be solved ( objectives are basically the way to do it ) but lets say there was an attempt to do it via rules rather than win conditions. What would it be?