8 hours ago, X Wing Nut said:The Tournament scoring works if your not a completive players and don't want to be completive. If it was Completive 3 players who win 3 games would not lose to a player who lost 1. But I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.
It seems fairer to me that a player who destroyed 2 opponents 10-1, then had a narrow loss 5-6, should win over anyone else who scraped 3 wins 6-5.
Just now, ManInTheBox said:It seems fairer to me that a player who destroyed 2 opponents 10-1, then had a narrow loss 5-6, should win over anyone else who scraped 3 wins 6-5.
Heartily agree. I came in third in a tournament a month or so ago. I not only went 3-0, but I beat the eventual winner head-to-head.
I have no problem with the outcome, because not only were my first two games only moderate victories while his were blowouts, but I beat him only narrowly by playing conservatively, kiting his ships and destroying his squadrons. I knew that if I played aggressively enough to have a chance at substantial MoV and winning the tournament, I would likely lose the game and thus lose overall ranking.
Which is really a pretty great illustration of how well the current ranking system works, IMO. It mitigates the random poor individual matchups, which everyone agrees is a thing, by weighting your score with the quality of your performance over every game.
1 hour ago, ManInTheBox said:It seems fairer to me that a player who destroyed 2 opponents 10-1, then had a narrow loss 5-6, should win over anyone else who scraped 3 wins 6-5.
Exactly. The scoring should match the game. The 6-5 effectively represents a draw. Scoring in Armada measures the sum of your decisions over the entirety of the tournament.
@Ardaedhel
and I thinking alike and cross-posting.
6 hours ago, ManInTheBox said:It seems fairer to me that a player who destroyed 2 opponents 10-1, then had a narrow loss 5-6, should win over anyone else who scraped 3 wins 6-5.
Its fair if all players are equal skill. Often tho a 10-1 comes about from a bad match up, weaker opponent or a big mistake being made
Equal skill and optimal play does not grant a 10-1 as often
26 minutes ago, X Wing Nut said:Its fair if all players are equal skill. Often tho a 10-1 comes about from a bad match up, weaker opponent or a big mistake being made
Equal skill and optimal play does not grant a 10-1 as often
Most of what you cite here are aspects of the game that the scoring system is trying to measure.
Bad Match-ups: These happen. The best players build better lists that have fewer bad match-ups. They fly them to deny points. So while they may exit with a 5-6 loss, they didn't get routed into a 10. And that should say something about the quality of their play.
Weaker Opponent: I don't get this at all. I've never been to a tournament where all of the players were at exactly the same skill level. Part of playing a tournament is acknowledging that we do have skill differentials, and those are going to show up in the scoring.
Big Mistake made: The best players make far fewer mistakes, and they make big ones infrequently.
We see lots of 10-1s, and it is generally our better players who are putting them up. They do so consistently from tournament to tournament. The win/loss records in casual games reflect this.
There's also the fact that the pairing system tends to shake out the players. Two 10-1s get paired and have to play each other in the second round.
This is not to say that there aren't scoring anomalies in the system. After all, no system is perfect. But it tends to be fairly small in the grand scheme of the tournament. But given the kind of game that Armada is, the emphasis should be on the accumulation of the hundreds of decisions that you made over the course of the tournament, and not upon the flat win/loss you've got.
47 minutes ago, Vergilius said:
Most of what you cite here are aspects of the game that the scoring system is trying to measure.
Bad Match-ups: These happen. The best players build better lists that have fewer bad match-ups. They fly them to deny points. So while they may exit with a 5-6 loss, they didn't get routed into a 10. And that should say something about the quality of their play.
Weaker Opponent: I don't get this at all. I've never been to a tournament where all of the players were at exactly the same skill level. Part of playing a tournament is acknowledging that we do have skill differentials, and those are going to show up in the scoring.
Big Mistake made: The best players make far fewer mistakes, and they make big ones infrequently.
We see lots of 10-1s, and it is generally our better players who are putting them up. They do so consistently from tournament to tournament. The win/loss records in casual games reflect this.
There's also the fact that the pairing system tends to shake out the players. Two 10-1s get paired and have to play each other in the second round.
This is not to say that there aren't scoring anomalies in the system. After all, no system is perfect. But it tends to be fairly small in the grand scheme of the tournament. But given the kind of game that Armada is, the emphasis should be on the accumulation of the hundreds of decisions that you made over the course of the tournament, and not upon the flat win/loss you've got.
I cant agree with you on that a win/loss + MOV would bring more blance then what we have now.
I have tried to get many gamers into this game and they all say how great the game is but they will never play it competitively or attend tournaments becouse of the tournament rules and scoring system
I know what you and others are saying how the scoring system is ment to reflect the best performance of the day but it to easy to manipulate the scoring and reward players who may not deserve such a high score.
The best way to run a tournament with that ideology in mind would be a CC style tournament or highlander tournament. We are about to start our first CC event so i could be wrong but it seams like this is what armada is all about
9 minutes ago, X Wing Nut said:I cant agree with you on that a win/loss + MOV would bring more blance then what we have now.
I have tried to get many gamers into this game and they all say how great the game is but they will never play it competitively or attend tournaments becouse of the tournament rules and scoring system
I know what you and others are saying how the scoring system is ment to reflect the best performance of the day but it to easy to manipulate the scoring and reward players who may not deserve such a high score.
The best way to run a tournament with that ideology in mind would be a CC style tournament or highlander tournament. We are about to start our first CC event so i could be wrong but it seams like this is what armada is all about
Sentence 1: Fair enough. We all are entitled to our opinions.
Sentence 2: I'm ok with this. Armada shouldn't be for everyone in the same way that baseball, football, soccer, or virtually everything else should not be for everyone. That's alright. I completely respect their decision not to play or only to play casually. Going to win/loss just incentivizes an entirely different set of gaming behaviors, which some people may find more fun, but a current group of people might find less fun. So no matter you slice it, this is going to be true. And its also perfectly ok.
Sentence 3: We hear these claims from time to time. And knowing human nature, I'm sure it happens, but my experience has been that this exceedingly rare. And it isn't easy. There's so much built into scoring from round to round and in turn pairings that it is pretty hard to manipulate the scoring beyond just a single round. Do you have specific examples?
Sentence 4: I'm not sure what this means. What do you mean by ideology here? I assume by CC you mean Correlian Conflict, which has its own problems. That's I think another competitive outlet that uses the same models and mechanical system. And again, many of us like it and play it, and if that's what someone only wants to play, more power to them. What exactly is a highlander tournament? Even a search didn't pull that one up for me.
2 minutes ago, Vergilius said:Do you have specific examples?
Sentence 4: I'm not sure what this means. What do you mean by ideology here? I assume by CC you mean Correlian Conflict, which has its own problems. That's I think another competitive outlet that uses the same models and mechanical system. And again, many of us like it and play it, and if that's what someone only wants to play, more power to them. What exactly is a highlander tournament? Even a search didn't pull that one up for me.
No one i want to call out on a public fourm but there was a regional where a group of payer conspired to have one of them win. It does hapen more then you would think either you dont see it or your lucky no one in your area does it
Highlander tournament is a X Wing format that we have played where if you lose a named pilot you dont get it back next round but you can replace it with a cheaper pilot in the same ship class anything unique you would also lose. Adapting that with rulse from CC like scared and veteran would be interesting. Im yet to play CC and I have heard there are problems but i have stayed away from thoes threads as i want to play it for my self first without bias. But the idea of a Highlander is only the best survive. A lot or work would have to go into it to make it blanced but im sure it could work.
1 hour ago, X Wing Nut said:No one i want to call out on a public fourm but there was a regional where a group of payer conspired to have one of them win. It does hapen more then you would think either you dont see it or your lucky no one in your area does it
I've played in a very large number of tournaments in numerous metas, mostly in various places in Texas but a few outside as well, and I have never seen any indication of collusion. Like, not even once.
Maybe you're just playing with unsportsmanlike dickholes in X-wing and need to find a new group of people to play with.
2 hours ago, X Wing Nut said:Highlander tournament is a X Wing format that we have played where if you lose a named pilot you dont get it back next round but you can replace it with a cheaper pilot in the same ship class anything unique you would also lose. Adapting that with rulse from CC like scared and veteran would be interesting. Im yet to play CC and I have heard there are problems but i have stayed away from thoes threads as i want to play it for my self first without bias. But the idea of a Highlander is only the best survive. A lot or work would have to go into it to make it blanced but im sure it could work.
CC isn't played competitively in the sense that an SC or a regional would be at all.
Highlander sounds like an x-wing specific model, and probably wouldn't translate well to Armada.
I truly feel the Swiss-style model we have now works out wonderfully. No lie, I haven't played one yet, but I am very familiar with the concept from other games (Futbol, M:tG, etc.). I would be hard pressed to believe that an entire regional tournament could be colluded. My reasons are as follows:
1. Either everyone would have to be in on it (if so, why play) or all conspirators would have to start by either A) Taking a net 0 in round one to be paired up to give their friend a net 10 in round two. B) they are paired up from the start and the friend gets a net 10 win. Whoever they play against in the next two rounds will most likely not be a conspirator, and will thrash the friend's plan by beating him or forcing a draw.
2. When a group of 3-4 show up, and during their matches together they are conceding, the judges will suspect collusion and watch following rounds where they are matched up.
It is seriously probably better to just find someone's strong build on these forums and then practice with it. They would get much further.
3 hours ago, Ardaedhel said:I've played in a very large number of tournaments in numerous metas, mostly in various places in Texas but a few outside as well, and I have never seen any indication of collusion. Like, not even once.
Maybe you're just playing with unsportsmanlike dickholes in X-wing and need to find a new group of people to play with.
not seeing it does not mean its not there. its very easy to hide I listed on the other page the easy ways it could be done and no one would pick up on it.
Lucky for me no one I play or in our group is "dickhole". we all play fair and within the rules and have a lot of fun. No one from our group wants to let me win for some reason my scalp has great value in our area
. But the holes in the tournament format still exist and this game is still very young. the reason I compare it to X Wing a lot is its old now and has learnt a lot of hard lessons along the way. IDs, Mod wins, SOS not a good time for the game. do you know about Roanoke?
When there is a tournament format that players can take advantage of to get them ahead or there team they will take it. I would like to see the holes filled it will only improve the tournaments and draw more players
3 hours ago, Geodes said:CC isn't played competitively in the sense that an SC or a regional would be at all.
Highlander sounds like an x-wing specific model, and probably wouldn't translate well to Armada.
I think something could work I really like the idea of Scared ships moving into the next round. Its something I'll look into in a few months once we finish our CC and get a better idea of it. Ill post the format when do for everyone to help find the holes before we play it for the first time
On 7/29/2017 at 0:53 PM, Ardaedhel said:Heartily agree. I came in third in a tournament a month or so ago. I not only went 3-0, but I beat the eventual winner head-to-head.
I had this happen to me a week ago and it sucked but the other guy really did deserve to win the tournament. Yeah I beat him but just barely. He had already absolutely wrecked a guy in the first round for a 10-1 whereas my best was 8-4. He took a high risk high reward fleet and it paid off for him. I think it's an imperfect system but I can't come up with a better one.
On 7/29/2017 at 9:06 PM, X Wing Nut said:It does hapen more then you would think either you dont see it or your lucky no one in your area does it
How does it happen more than I think, but at the same time it doesn't happen?
I'm calling total BS on people cheating in Armada to let their friends win. Trying to get a match up against a friend would be **** hard to do unless you stack the tournament with at least 50% of the total population. Your first match is random, and then your next matches are based on similar scores you earn. Are you saying there are people who will play second and third matches together, one throws the game away, and vaults their friend up? And to accomplish this, they try to match their friends score in the first round so they can get matched?
I've yet to meet someone who plays Armada and would have that mind set. If we play in a tournament and I'm on the way to 10-1 you, I'm not gunna stop at an 8-3. I'm not going to stop being aggressive and I'm going to take my shots. Just like I expect my friends to do the same against me.
If someone were to cheat, it's going to be forgetting to change speed dials and changing commands. Those are the easiest to do because it's on your side of the board, typically where your opponent is not looking. But rigging an entire tournament? Unlikely. And your amigo still has to win big against their non-friend opponents because they guy with 3 10s is still gunna win.
19 hours ago, X Wing Nut said:not seeing it does not mean its not there. its very easy to hide I listed on the other page the easy ways it could be done and no one would pick up on it.
No, you listed a bunch of ways to lose one single game . In order to engineer a tourney win out of that, you first have to engineer your way to get matched up against the person who for some reason wants to toss you a win.
Which, as numerous people have pointed out, fudging the matchups is non-trivial and is a core strength of this system. So, you know--sure, it's hypothetically easy to game the system if you first disregard all of the controls in that system.
I could be wrong, but to my knowledge, there has never been any evidence of systemic cheating in a major Armada tournament. I'm pretty sure, if it were as trivially easy to make this happen as it is in Imaginationland, it would've happened. And, as we all know, if you're stupid enough to cheat at a plastic spaceships game, you're also usually stupid enough to eventually get caught.
The reason I like the tournament system in Armada vs. other game systems is simply because it measures a player's skill the best in regards of strategy.
I like to use Sun-tzu in a lot of my comparisons to Armada. That is why this game appeals to me so much because you can apply the art of war so easily in games of Armada.
As Sun-tzu states
"What the ancients called a clever fighter is one who not only wins, but excels in winning with ease."
this is essentially what armada tournaments seek to find out is the player that is able to best win with the most ease. Thus he is likely the best skilled. It is that simple. And simple wins/losses just does not show that. The so the Armada tournament score is more substantive.
6 hours ago, Ardaedhel said:No, you listed a bunch of ways to lose one single game . In order to engineer a tourney win out of that, you first have to engineer your way to get matched up against the person who for some reason wants to toss you a win.
Which, as numerous people have pointed out, fudging the matchups is non-trivial and is a core strength of this system. So, you know--sure, it's hypothetically easy to game the system if you first disregard all of the controls in that system.
I could be wrong, but to my knowledge, there has never been any evidence of systemic cheating in a major Armada tournament. I'm pretty sure, if it were as trivially easy to make this happen as it is in Imaginationland, it would've happened. And, as we all know, if you're stupid enough to cheat at a plastic spaceships game, you're also usually stupid enough to eventually get caught.
Teams can engineer results with little effort. when they know one of them has the best chance of winning the tournament all the other players have to do is run away from there opponents and not give them a big win and give a big win to there mate its really not that hard if you have a good imagination and some pre planning. The size of the team and the size of the tournament does play a big part but I can see a team of 4 having no problems effecting a 10 player tournament. "team play" can affect any tournament format but when a format is only 3 rounds its harder for "team play" to be evened out when you have 4 or more rounds
6 hours ago, Ardaedhel said:
good thing Armada doesn't dials that can be changed by a shifty player
6 hours ago, Brikhause said:The reason I like the tournament system in Armada vs. other game systems is simply because it measures a player's skill the best in regards of strategy.
I like to use Sun-tzu in a lot of my comparisons to Armada. That is why this game appeals to me so much because you can apply the art of war so easily in games of Armada.
As Sun-tzu states
"What the ancients called a clever fighter is one who not only wins, but excels in winning with ease."
this is essentially what armada tournaments seek to find out is the player that is able to best win with the most ease. Thus he is likely the best skilled. It is that simple. And simple wins/losses just does not show that. The so the Armada tournament score is more substantive.
I do believe this is the intent of the scoring system. when I first started to play I believe this was the best way to score a tournament. However time and experience has shown me otherwise. seeing the results of baby seal clubbing, Players throwing a game because very poor play (as in a complete brain fart moment), and the complete destruction of an opponents fleet due to very poor match up, but this will always happen. win a tournament with 2 wins because there opponents were one of the above and only one of the 3 rounds (as this can happen in any combination) was a real challenge is not a good way to represent that players skill
I have a little trouble with Sun-Tzu being translated into gaming as a lot of he talks about is resource management. In real world war there is a cost to war the lose of soldier's and equipment makes the army weaker for the next engagement and drains the resources and finances of your country. so "What the ancients called a clever fighter is one who not only wins, but excels in winning with ease." is about limiting the cost of war and a fast easy win is what is needed so as to not bankrupt a country and destroy the lives of the people living in it. In Armada there is no such cost. Yes you want a fast high scoring win. But there is no cost to your list when you lose a ship. You get it back brand new the next round with no effects form your last engagement. No resources need to be spent to get it back up to fighting form. I'm sure MOV can be argued as the recourse of the game. I can come up with a few of these argument myself. I almost convinced myself that it does work but the trouble is you get no MOV/Recourse for a loss (but tournament points?) how do you replace that key piece you lost in your list for the next round to get that 10 to get you back on top? The other trouble is you can have your Sun-Tzu game on and be doing everything right but dice happen. now I'm starting to go down a rabbit hole best to get out of.
The trouble is its human nature to try to gain the system no matter what that system may be and there is a lot that can be gained in this system and it not very hard. Maybe its the fact I have grown up and live in a former penal colony I see what others do not. I don't know. I just feel what we have now does not always represent who was the best on the day.
10 hours ago, X Wing Nut said:Maybe its the fact I have grown up and live in a former penal colony I see what others do not.
Can't be that.
I did too.
Edited by Drasnighta14 hours ago, X Wing Nut said:Teams can engineer results with little effort. when they know one of them has the best chance of winning the tournament all the other players have to do is run away from there opponents and not give them a big win and give a big win to there mate its really not that hard if you have a good imagination and some pre planning. The size of the team and the size of the tournament does play a big part but I can see a team of 4 having no problems effecting a 10 player tournament. "team play" can affect any tournament format but when a format is only 3 rounds its harder for "team play" to be evened out when you have 4 or more rounds
You are talking about almost half the players conspiring to let one person win. Sure they can get him a win, but why? In an SC, if this happens and they aren't caught, that sucks but okay. The winner gets a bye in the regionals. He will go to regionals and thoroughly get his *** handed to him. Suddenly he is facing triple+ the number of contenders who are NOT going to let him just win.
You know what has happened by this point? His friends paid
The Store
10-20 dollars each for one of them to get a regionals bye. Then the friend paid
Even More, Gas, time, food, and other resources
just to get stomped because he wasn't a quality player.
You know what's funny? I had never even contemplated that someone might shift the dials during a game. I have larped for about a decade and a half and never had to worry about cheating because trust is just automatically assumed since why would you cheat at a game you can't win? This must have transferred over well, or maybe it is the quality of the character of the company I keep? If you have a bunch of folks around you who would do this, then I am sorry friend. Is this something you have been a part of? You speak about it with certainty and authority.
Just now, Geodes said:You are talking about almost half the players conspiring to let one person win.
This. If 40% of the NFL were trying to game the system for them, I bet the Browns* could get to the Super Bowl.
*I definitely didn't just Google "worst NFL team"
5 minutes ago, Geodes said:You are talking about almost half the players conspiring to let one person win. Sure they can get him a win, but why? In an SC, if this happens and they aren't caught, that sucks but okay. The winner gets a bye in the regionals. He will go to regionals and thoroughly get his *** handed to him. Suddenly he is facing triple+ the number of contenders who are NOT going to let him just win.
You know what has happened by this point? His friends paid The Store 10-20 dollars each for one of them to get a regionals bye. Then the friend paid Even More, Gas, time, food, and other resources just to get stomped because he wasn't a quality player.You know what's funny? I had never even contemplated that someone might shift the dials during a game. I have larped for about a decade and a half and never had to worry about cheating because trust is just automatically assumed since why would you cheat at a game you can't win? This must have transferred over well, or maybe it is the quality of the character of the company I keep? If you have a bunch of folks around you who would do this, then I am sorry friend. Is this something you have been a part of? You speak about it with certainty and authority.
Why would people cheat at a board game. I dont know people are just strange. Who knows why we do anything. My old man cant understand why i waist my time playing with plastic junk when i should just focus on my business. He doesn't get it. Not understanding someone's motivation does not mean they wont do it.
Luckily for me i dont play with anyone with this kinda atatuide. Despite living in a hive of scum and villainy in the outer rim. I dont speak as someone with authority. Just someone with open eyes who can see a small problem before it becomes a big problem
1 minute ago, X Wing Nut said:Why would people cheat at a board game. I dont know people are just strange. Who knows why we do anything. My old man cant understand why i waist my time playing with plastic junk when i should just focus on my business. He doesn't get it. Not understanding someone's motivation does not mean they wont do it.
Luckily for me i dont play with anyone with this kinda atatuide. Despite living in a hive of scum and villainy in the outer rim. I dont speak as someone with authority. Just someone with open eyes who can see a small problem before it becomes a big problem
Fair enough, but we are two years deep into the game (three?) and it hasn't become an issue. We just believe that it won't because of both the quality of person the game attracts and effort/reward payout is in the red. There is no benefit to it.
5 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:This. If 40% of the NFL were trying to game the system for them, I bet the Browns* could get to the Super Bowl.
*I definitely didn't just Google "worst NFL team"
I dont know about NFL but i do know about salary caps being broken in Australia sports teams that won mutable championship
Just now, X Wing Nut said:I dont know about NFL but i do know about salary caps being broken in Australia sports teams that won mutable championship
That's great, but doesn't involve self-detrimental collusion from 40% of the competitors, which is the point of the illustration.
3 hours ago, Ardaedhel said:That's great, but doesn't involve self-detrimental collusion from 40% of the competitors, which is the point of the illustration.
but it can show how a small number can collude to get a desired outcome.
but I think if we continue with this conversation this merry go round is not going to stop. Thanks for taking the time to read my comments on the matter. I'm sure FFG have read what both sides of the conversation and will come to there own conclusion as to which direction to take to make improvements to the game in the coming years.