I would say take the top 8 overall players (so 4 from each day) and then have them do another 3-round tournament.

Don't have points carry over from day 1 directly, but use them to seed the initial placements for the 2nd day tourney.

Now you've got incentive to go for big wins on the last day!

22 minutes ago, duck_bird said:

I would say take the top 8 overall players (so 4 from each day) and then have them do another 3-round tournament.

Don't have points carry over from day 1 directly, but use them to seed the initial placements for the 2nd day tourney.

Now you've got incentive to go for big wins on the last day!

This sounds like a good idea to me!

4 hours ago, scipio83 said:

The difference is I'm not implicitly calling for changes to the game. There have been, at this point, *2* rounds of Rieekan / Squadron nerfs (more if you count "soft-nerfs" like the Wave 7 anti-squadron upgrades). Some of the changes I liked, and others I didn't. In general, I feel that the response has been a bit heavy-handed, and I am not eager to see *more* happen. Continued bellyaching about Rieekan/squadrons/whatever may actually *change the game I play*, so yes, it *does* effect the hobby I participate in.

It would be one thing if OP's lament was "I went to a regionals post-faq and I *still* kept getting crushed by Rieekan aceholes." I can sympathize with getting bored with sameness in a local meta, especially if it interferes with one's ability to progress on the competitive scene. But this was just whining about seeing the same matchups at a tournament that OP didn't even attend, with the implied call for *more* changes.

Right. He dislikes reeikan squadballs in the same way you think the nerfs heavy handed. Still as valid an opinions as yours. Just saying that you don't have to like his opinion. You can ignore it or say why you think reeikenballs is funballs...but you didn't. You suggested he had no right to have an opinion.

****Edit****

I have nothing against your opinion. In fact, I think more data is needed to draw conclusions. I would support a straightforward meta discussion. Nevertheless, your post was, instead, a dismissal of someone's opinion based on your inference of their message.

1 hour ago, duck_bird said:

I would say take the top 8 overall players (so 4 from each day) and then have them do another 3-round tournament.

Don't have points carry over from day 1 directly, but use them to seed the initial placements for the 2nd day tourney.

Now you've got incentive to go for big wins on the last day!

Gonna go and second this.

The issue is absolutely that knock out Armada is dull. The game has so many opportunities to screw up that in win/lose games conservative play is the only way to play. There is an active disincentive to trying to win big in that if you try you massively increase your risk of losing by at least a small amount.

In Swiss pairs the incentive is to take risks and try to win big in case someone else does on a different table. It makes so much more sense for a game like Armada with a wide range of outcomes and rewards decisive play.

I cant see the point in a cut at all myself, but if you have to have one for some reason, then it needs to cut to a mini-Swiss tournament, that will give exciting games. Top 4 knock out Armada is something the world can live without, and I say that having done it.

addendum - it’s also not fun to play, the disincentive to trying to win big is a real bummer

I agree with the above - the problem being that if it had been Swiss yesterday, Nathan would have gone into that last match on 10(?) points, and Yik on 7(?)ish.

second table on 3 and 1.

Fourth cannot possibly win, third cannot possibly win. The leader just needs a 4 with mov or 5 to guarantee it.

You could end up with the world champ losing the final battle.

Is that any better than the current system?

4 minutes ago, LTD said:

I agree with the above - the problem being that if it had been Swiss yesterday, Nathan would have gone into that last match on 10(?) points, and Yik on 7(?)ish.

second table on 3 and 1.

Fourth cannot possibly win, third cannot possibly win. The leader just needs a 4 with mov or 5 to guarantee it.

You could end up with the world champ losing the final battle.

Is that any better than the current system?

I think the intent would be to cut to top 4 each day, giving a final top 8 tournament with points reset

Then why not just have everyone play 8 rounds over two days and call top points the winner?

Why have a cut at all?

Everyone is complaining about watching the game, well If I am not playing the game than it is very hard for me to watch the game, it is not a spectator game and whatever they do I don't think it will be ( unless Harrison Ford is playing against Mark Hamill while James Earl Jones is the commentator)

If I want to watch a game, I always try to find timelapse videos, they are very good at showing the game in a decrnt pace and timely manner.

Look, it takes a special kind of ultra-addicted nerd to sit around, watch and actually enjoy seeing some other nerds push around little spaceships for 2.5 hours.

(I am one of those special kind of ultra-addicted nerds)

16 minutes ago, LTD said:

Then why not just have everyone play 8 rounds over two days and call top points the winner?

Why have a cut at all?

No idea how it works at all but I guess tables and room would be a problem.

4 tables vs 15 (?) make a difference on the world's schedule.

It would be also more easy to follow 8 players tournament (the best amongst the best) than three more rounds with everyone.

And also, regarding the announcers...

They were great at keeping conversation going and actually talking and sounding involved the entire time. But it was very clear they weren't really armada players.

There were lots of moments when they said straight up silly things, and also a lot of tiny intricacies of the matches that they were completely oblivious to.

Casters who know the game would be a HUGE improvement on the viewing experience!

Soooooooooo playing in cut games sucks.

Say what you will when you are watching, when you are playing with a championship on the line, you play for a 6/5 10pt mov. If you get a big win, you get it. But you play as safe as possible.

It's the format more than it is the fleets and players in my stupid opinion. End result is a grindy close game with out a ton of big action, but lots of micro action.

It's like watching a pitcher's dual in baseball. I think that is the closest comparison I can draw. Is it a bad game watching two of the best pitcher's in the world pitch a no hitter into the 8th inning against each other? That will 100% depend on your opinion of a good game. It certainly can be like watching paint dry though.

The fireworks really got going here. Let me go grab my bag of popcorn.

34 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

That's so dumb.

No u

51 minutes ago, BrobaFett said:

It's like watching a pitcher's dual in baseball. I think that is the closest comparison I can draw. Is it a bad game watching two of the best pitcher's in the world pitch a no hitter into the 8th inning against each other? That will 100% depend on your opinion of a good game. It certainly can be like watching paint dry though.

Which pitchers? As a giant baseball nerd this matters intensely to me.

Unrelatedly, I know someone who left the Kerry Wood 20 strikeout game because it was boring to watch for them. But I'd be ecstatic to see it....

I feel we are missing some important points from yesterdays final.

A lot of people were saying that small ship dominated fleets were done. Sqn were no longer king an duel large ISD's were here to rule.

I ask the question is that what people are more disappontes about that there production turnedout not ro be?

The comatory was not great and that never helped. But what would have been just as boring (but quicker) is two ISD rolling a dozen or so dice each at round 2 removing key ships and a tableing at round 5. Would that have been anymore exciting

1 minute ago, Radaeon said:

Would that have been anymore exciting?

Yes

37 minutes ago, scipio83 said:

No u

All he said is the final was boring (completely subjective but definitely not a dumb observation). And under your request added that what he complained about was the final seems copied from the previous we had (what is not even an opinion). Then you say: dumb!

That's dumb.

20 hours ago, MandalorianMoose said:

So how do you all feel about that finals match huh? Rieekan aces vs aces again, so exciting right? Nothing like watching ships slow roll around each other while a squad blob trades attacks in the middle of the field... I know nothing gets me on my feet and into a game like seeing 2 and 3 dice at a time being rolled amongst tiny fighters. Who would ever want to see big ship batteries trading fire and positioning of ships relative to each other??? Much better to just watch people move squadrons around and measure like 30 times on each move for three hours...

This is supposed to be a capital ships game right?

20 hours ago, scipio83 said:

Just to make sure I understand you:

You're complaining that a livestream of two grown men pushing around plastic spaceships for 3 hours wasn't exciting enough?

Well ****. I guess the only more exciting thing to do would be... any other thing in the world.

20 hours ago, MandalorianMoose said:

More complaining that for the 3rd year in a row now it’s just been squads vs squads, with Rieekan being 5 of 6 commanders...

20 hours ago, scipio83 said:

Did you play in the finals? No? So it actually... didn't have any effect on how you participate in the hobby at all? You're just upset about how *other completely different people* played a game that you had no involvement in?

Yeah ok.

?

6 hours ago, duck_bird said:

I would say take the top 8 overall players (so 4 from each day) and then have them do another 3-round tournament.

Don't have points carry over from day 1 directly, but use them to seed the initial placements for the 2nd day tourney.

Now you've got incentive to go for big wins on the last day!

This has been proposed before. Our retired Jedi Master @IceQube MkII proposed a "4+4" format after a similar paint drying exercise last year. The idea being you have a four round day one, a cut to about the top 16 or 25%, and then do another 4 rounds of swiss. As a result, they did 5+3 at last year's NOVA and by all accounts it was a lot more fun. So much so, they're doing it again this year. Two five-round day ones, a cut to the top 8, and then three more rounds of swiss. I finally get to go this year, so I'm super pumped. Hope you can make it duck!

Im really enjoying watching the replays. Lots to learn about how the top players build and play their lists.

Take Yiks list - on my first glance at that i couldnt see how it could possibly compete - no serious ship power, the biggest gun battery is 3 red dice! So how could a large ship not just fly through the middle of it?

But obviously it works!

Im only 2/3 of the way through but its great. Armada at a different level compared to the slug fests you see at home or in the games shops - not that theres anything at all wrong with that style of armada - of course in some waus its more dramatic. But this is the worlds final. Its something special. Technical play at its best by the best players out there.

Im really enjoying it.

11 hours ago, FoaS said:

Arq?

That's priced like a nebulon, and a restrictive movement profile means it doesn't have the range of ability that rebel lights have.

Imperisl small ships are straight up tricky to use. Gladiators are the only exception because there are tools to make them more flexible. And gozantis work only if you use them as something other than cheap fighter activations it s carrier for the fleet support slot ?

So you like to see easy to use ISD's (large ships) easy to use carries and small ships?

2 minutes ago, Norsehound said:

That's priced like a nebulon, and a restrictive movement profile means it doesn't have the range of ability that rebel lights have.

Imperisl small ships are straight up tricky to use. Gladiators are the only exception because there are tools to make them more flexible. And gozantis work only if you use them as something other than cheap fighter activations it s carrier for the fleet support slot ?

I mean...the Neb is just as maligned. And the Hammerhead. You don't see Nebs outside of titles for a good reason. Snip found success with Hammerheads only because of Rieekan. Ask geek how his life with Hammerheads has been going.

I rather enjoy the range of Imperial smalls. They all work very differently, which is awesome. I much prefer the Raider to the Hammerhead. The Raider I is perfect with ER and OEs, and those double black flak are wonderful. That extra gear of speed makes all the difference. The Raider II with HIE hits insanely high above its weigh class. I rarely take an Imperial fleet without one. I'll openly admit the Arq is a more challenging ship to use effectively, but unlike the Neb, you have a tool in Jerjerrod to cover its most glaring weakness.

Now hold my beer while I go break out a Cymoon, triple Arq Jerjerrod fleet.