So, I've been contemplating the short comings of the swiss tourneys and their implications in truly weeding out the top players. For sake of debate, I'm going to focus on a 32 person tourney, and according to FFG's OP manual (http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/organized-play/support/op-flyer-booklet.pdf) you should run either 5 rounds of swiss, or a min of 3 rounds before cutting to top 4.

For the moment, lets focus on the 5 rounds of Swiss (since that is an option). That will work out such that you only have 1 5-0 player, but 5 4-0 players. This affects prize support for the top two (card box) and the top four (range ruler). If there was just a binary win/loss, and assuming the superior player always beats an inferior player, it works out nicely most of the time. The exceptions being when the best player gets matched up against the 2nd best in an earlier match. The one defeat will allow him the ability to get back into the top 4, but into 2nd. So this is why swiss tourneys are typically a good way to run a large tourney.

But it doesn't work for X wing due to the modified win. For example, the 1 5-0 player can actually not even make the top 4. If he ends up with 4 modified wins, his point total is only 19 points, which puts him below all 6 of the 4-1 players. Some may think this is okay... 4 complete wins should beat out a guy that just barely edged out his opponents.

But getting a modified win/loss is not that uncommon for/against swarms. While one could make the argument that if you can't fly a swarm fast enough to win out right, then that's a reason to not run that list at a tourney. But you can't help who you're matched up against, and how fast they can run the swarm.

And lets take the scenario where the one of the 4-0 teams going into the 5th round has suffered 2 modified wins thus far. He's still #2 with 16 points, just ahead of the guys at 3-1. But they're both **** good players, so neither one of them can completely annihilate the other in the potentially 60min time limit. The guy with 16 points wins the match, but it's another modified win. He ends up with 19 points. The guy he just beat has 20 points, and ends up winning the tourney over the other guys that went 4-1 because he has the SoS victory (it helps when your only loss comes against the guy that went 5-0). And you have the one guy that beat the "champion" sitting at 19 points, which puts him back in 6th place.

Furthermore - there are 5 guys at 20 points. FFG's tie breaker rules don't adequetely determine 1-5 of those people. The first tie breaker is ambigious (if they've played head to head, winner of head to head wins the TB) because it does not handle multi-way ties such as this one. If two of the guys had played each other, does the one that won that match up win the TB over all 4 people and the one that lost come in 5th? Or is it not used since not all of the players involved played each other? The second level of TB is SoS. But the way swiss tourneys work, this shouldn't be a large spread, and will not split up all 5 of these people. And there is no further TB to split them up (regardless of what some people think regarding points destroyed).

So here you have (given a rather specific) scenario where the strategy at the last table should be a very defensive one for the guy sitting in 1st, because as long as he doesn't lose all of his ships (or 33 points more than he kills) he walks away the champion. Does anyone else have a problem with that? I wish FFG would do something to address this deficiency in their scoring system.

I think it should run like this. Sort of what CCG's do:

4 points for outright win

3 points for modified win

2 points for a Draw

1 point for Modified loss

0 points for a loss

If you get a bye, then you should only be awarded 3 points max instead of the 4 points due to not playing someone.

I think if you did it this way, you could eliminate some of the problems modified wins cause.

It may be me but when it comes to Strength of Schedule I'd prefer if it looked more at who beat you instead of who you beat. Maybe pairing are always such that if you lose early you're pretty much done but a guy who is 3-2 losing to a pair with one loss is better than a guy who goes 4-1 when that 1 loss happens to be to someone who goes 1-4.

Are you factoring in Cuts to Top X and untimed rounds for them? It doesn't appear so.

Most TOs do not run purely Swiss tournaments for this very reason. 32 People usually means a 4 round swiss with cut to top 8, or a 5 round swiss with cut to top 4 as far as I understand it. Most TOs then prefer to play untimed games (within reason at least) so that you can't argue modified/unmodified past the cut. Now, that's not perfect either (the top X cut is where there can be issues), but I think its as good as you can realistically get.

The Cut tends to work really well for FFG games since they all use some sort of points system that makes it unlikely that you have many people at the same points. Even with only 4 rounds its very likely that between the top 2 players that are 'undefeated', one will have a modified win somewhere. And with the cut you can have someone that makes the cut at 8th win the whole thing, which makes up for some spots of bad luck during the swiss.

No system is perfect really. At least not any that can be played in a reasonable amount of time.

I think it should run like this. Sort of what CCG's do:

4 points for outright win

3 points for modified win

2 points for a Draw

1 point for Modified loss

0 points for a loss

If you get a bye, then you should only be awarded 3 points max instead of the 4 points due to not playing someone.

I think if you did it this way, you could eliminate some of the problems modified wins cause.

Sort of except CCGs which use that system typically have issues with people taking Draws late in the tournament since it can guarantee both players make the cut, which causes a lot of player on the cusp of the cut to be forced out. I typically prefer systems which encourage the players to come to some decision one way or the other. Again, no system is perfect.

Yes, I agree the standard process is to cut to top X. But it's not a requirement of FFG's organized play. And most of these issues can still come up after 3-4 rounds before the cut. Though it does fix the "I beat that guy and still lost overall" scenario. Though in this case, the guy that went 5-0 wouldn't make the cut to the top 4.

Yes, I agree the standard process is to cut to top X. But it's not a requirement of FFG's organized play. And most of these issues can still come up after 3-4 rounds before the cut. Though it does fix the "I beat that guy and still lost overall" scenario. Though in this case, the guy that went 5-0 wouldn't make the cut to the top 4.

Fair point, but I would bet that most TOs worth their salt (or at least those who take tournaments seriously to some degree) will include at least a minimal cut/elimination round on top of swiss whether FFG forces them to or not. It is a generally accepted standard. I can't name the last non-local tournament I played in which didn't have such.

Heck, FFG does the same thing at the bigger tournaments, which should say something.

The 2 point difference between the modified win and full win is supposed to be an incentive to go all out and try for that full win as a modified win can set you back. This stops people from alpha attacking and speeding off, chased around the board until time runs out and claiming the win.

Full wins are the deciding factor. If you solidly defeat your opponent and you had to put your squad at risk to do it will be worth more than not being able to kill off your opponent from them being really good with a good squad, or you have a mediocre squad or are a mediocre pilot. If you get into a spot where you just can't kill all of your opponent's ships and he can't waste you in time then that's reflected in your score.

I am of the opinion that the full win should be 5 points and the modified should be 3 points. What I don't agree with is someone getting a bye for the first round and getting a full win. That should be a modified win. The reason is SoS reflects well for a bye and won't help players who are good but can't control SoS results.

That's how I see it.

I think it should run like this. Sort of what CCG's do:

4 points for outright win

3 points for modified win

2 points for a Draw

1 point for Modified loss

0 points for a loss

If you get a bye, then you should only be awarded 3 points max instead of the 4 points due to not playing someone.

I think if you did it this way, you could eliminate some of the problems modified wins cause.

Sort of except CCGs which use that system typically have issues with people taking Draws late in the tournament since it can guarantee both players make the cut, which causes a lot of player on the cusp of the cut to be forced out. I typically prefer systems which encourage the players to come to some decision one way or the other. Again, no system is perfect.

As you said, no system is perfect. I think this could eliminate that of people taking draws due to the low points you get from draw and higher points given to Outright and modified wins being higher. Putting in SOS, OSOS, I think it could eliminate or come close to people skipping out the final round.

Once again though, no system is perfect. I have just heard of the bad experiences with players with modified wins and point systems for it and what it can cause. I would love to be able to kill those types of scenarios.

The 2 point difference between the modified win and full win is supposed to be an incentive to go all out and try for that full win as a modified win can set you back. This stops people from alpha attacking and speeding off, chased around the board until time runs out and claiming the win.

Full wins are the deciding factor. If you solidly defeat your opponent and you had to put your squad at risk to do it will be worth more than not being able to kill off your opponent from them being really good with a good squad, or you have a mediocre squad or are a mediocre pilot. If you get into a spot where you just can't kill all of your opponent's ships and he can't waste you in time then that's reflected in your score.

I am of the opinion that the full win should be 5 points and the modified should be 3 points. What I don't agree with is someone getting a bye for the first round and getting a full win. That should be a modified win. The reason is SoS reflects well for a bye and won't help players who are good but can't control SoS results.

That's how I see it.

Yea, I can see giving less points for a bye. Modified win points should be given instead of out outright win. This I can completely get behind.

The 2 point difference between the modified win and full win is supposed to be an incentive to go all out and try for that full win as a modified win can set you back. This stops people from alpha attacking and speeding off, chased around the board until time runs out and claiming the win.

Full wins are the deciding factor. If you solidly defeat your opponent and you had to put your squad at risk to do it will be worth more than not being able to kill off your opponent from them being really good with a good squad, or you have a mediocre squad or are a mediocre pilot. If you get into a spot where you just can't kill all of your opponent's ships and he can't waste you in time then that's reflected in your score.

I am of the opinion that the full win should be 5 points and the modified should be 3 points. What I don't agree with is someone getting a bye for the first round and getting a full win. That should be a modified win. The reason is SoS reflects well for a bye and won't help players who are good but can't control SoS results.

That's how I see it.

Yea, I can see giving less points for a bye. Modified win points should be given instead of out outright win. This I can completely get behind.

I don't know if I can get behind that, especially in the current point system. Seeing as you have to win your bye 9 times out of 10 (yeah, there's 1-2 people who could get it because they're the odd man at the tourney... only the first and possibly the second round people would be eligible and still be top tier) it shouldn't be considered as a sub-optimal victory. What if that was the guy in the above example that ended up with 3 modified wins and didn't make the top 4 cut even though he never lost?

1 modified win from the bye, 1 against a slow player playing a swarm, 1 due to two really good people fighting against each other, constantly outmaneuvering the other... That guy deserves to make it into the top 4, and the Bye hurt him by not allowing him to make it.

If "Full Wins" are 5 points and "Modified Wins" just 3 points perhaps a Bye value should be 4 points. It isn't quite as good as smashing an opponent in that round but is better than just eking out a win.