132 replies to this topic

[fliptheforce]

I don't normally do this sort of cross-promotion, but this is something we at Flip the Force sincerely believe in.

We have crafted a way to score SWLCG tournaments that could/should replace the current scoring. Our suggestion fixes match/game representation, byes, timed games, and Swiss-style pairings.

Please take a look and let us know your thoughts by clicking here!

[darthbs]

Great article and idea. It sounds great but we need the evidence so I'm interested how your tournament works out so please follow this up with how it went.

So would FFG respond to a petition do you think. If the community wanted to take this further?

[Boreas]

Nothing new.

[Scottie]

Has Poland been using this tournament system all along?!

[Budgernaut]

This does seem to make Dark Side control decks more viable without resorting to blast damage, but doesn't it still urge the Light Side player to win faster so the opponent's Death Star dial is lower?

[Boreas]

No, but some of us had this idea when we were waiting for ffg's tournament scoring system.

[ZackyMidnight]

this is basically like the old decipher way of scoring. Wins in one column with force remaining in the other.
Your system is very flawed however because you have no incentive as a DS to blow up objectives. Yes it gets the dial up quicker but that comes at a risk. Why not just build a very control deck that is defensive and can get the dial to 12? This was the same issue we had when core was released

with this system I will not think about having to blow up objectives at all in my control decks which is bad for the game

[CataractCowboy]

this is basically like the old decipher way of scoring. Wins in one column with force remaining in the other.
Your system is very flawed however because you have no incentive as a DS to blow up objectives. Yes it gets the dial up quicker but that comes at a risk. Why not just build a very control deck that is defensive and can get the dial to 12? This was the same issue we had when core was released

with this system I will not think about having to blow up objectives at all in my control decks which is bad for the game

Why is this bad for the game?
Dark side wins via death star dial, light side wins via objective kills. Why should a control deck be punished by default?

Edit: I agree with pretty much everything in the article. I'm not a mathematician so perhaps I'm overlooking something, but this seems like a fan-freaking-tastic idea

[ZackyMidnight]

Why is this bad for the game?
Dark side wins via death star dial, light side wins via objective kills. Why should a control deck be punished by default?

I think it makes navy (who is built around blowing objectives up) less desirable. I think it is similar to how the game was during core when players played these turtle DS decks which wasn't a good thing. Just my opinion.

If they want to do it this way they should make it even more convoluted and have LS subtract points from DS the quicker they win on the dial and DS would then get points with objectives destroyed. But that punishes controll LS Jedi decks so I don't think this system works.

[ScottENJ]

this is basically like the old decipher way of scoring. Wins in one column with force remaining in the other.
Your system is very flawed however because you have no incentive as a DS to blow up objectives. Yes it gets the dial up quicker but that comes at a risk. Why not just build a very control deck that is defensive and can get the dial to 12? This was the same issue we had when core was released

with this system I will not think about having to blow up objectives at all in my control decks which is bad for the game

Why is that bad for the game? Shouldn't destroying objectives be good enough on it's own merit? I don't agree that tournament format should mandate playstyle beyond reasonably paced.

[fliptheforce]

TGO and I will be streaming on Twitch this afternoon and will be discussing this suggestion. Please feel free to join us and converse!

(and please keep these comments coming, it gives us more to discuss!)

[ScottENJ]

To expand upon that playing full control should be equally as viable as full aggro.

Control allows you to play it safe but does mean the game will play out more rounds which is the risk you take. Will your opponent finally be able to break your lock before the clock expires.

Aggro should allow you to close out a game before your opponent gets set up, while also leaving you exposed.

If aggro builds need to be propped up by tournament scoring then card design is lacking.

[Dxopherj]

this is basically like the old decipher way of scoring. Wins in one column with force remaining in the other.
Your system is very flawed however because you have no incentive as a DS to blow up objectives. Yes it gets the dial up quicker but that comes at a risk. Why not just build a very control deck that is defensive and can get the dial to 12? This was the same issue we had when core was released

with this system I will not think about having to blow up objectives at all in my control decks which is bad for the game

Why don't you make a controlling LS that builds up for 7 turns and destroys all three with the dial at 8, 9, or 10.
On fliptheforce.com I posted my suggestions about flips suggestion, but the most improved aspect would be the ability to play any type of deck.

[ZackyMidnight]

To expand upon that playing full control should be equally as viable as full aggro.

Control allows you to play it safe but does mean the game will play out more rounds which is the risk you take. Will your opponent finally be able to break your lock before the clock expires.

Aggro should allow you to close out a game before your opponent gets set up, while also leaving you exposed.

If aggro builds need to be propped up by tournament scoring then card design is lacking.

All I'm saying is I would be less inclined to blow objectives up or even consider putting objectives in my deck to do so if I could piece together a really consistent turtle deck without having to worry about objectives destroyed.

Also Sith control has consistently been the number one darkside deck for a reason and this point system could exacerbate that problem

[ScottENJ]

All I'm saying is I would be less inclined to blow objectives up or even consider putting objectives in my deck to do so if I could piece together a really consistent turtle deck without having to worry about objectives destroyed.

That should be your prerogative. And carries it own risk. If Wookiee Life Debt is ruining your day and you have no reasonable ability to destroy it well then you could be in trouble.

Additionally common successful Sith Control builds all have the ability to take objectives. I would not say removing those options to add in more pure control would make those decks better in a pure ability to win games standpoint.

[KennedyHawk]

All I'm saying is I would be less inclined to blow objectives up or even consider putting objectives in my deck to do so if I could piece together a really consistent turtle deck without having to worry about objectives destroyed.

I agree with Zachy.

The whole point of the Death Star system for the DS seems to be to support both styles of play. You can get points via control by holding the force and locking your opponent down, or via offense by blowing up opposing objectives. With the new proposed system the incentive to blowing up objectives is limited to giving your opponent a shorter time limit. I can see an argument on both sides, the agro deck in the new system is wracking up points by destroying an objective, but it gives considerable less risk to control the board.

This new system would encourage the DS to sit back on defense, the game was not styled as a Offense versus Defense game (like Netrunner). I think switching to it would only further increase the control style of play that is already popular on the DS.

[ScottENJ]

I agree with Zachy.

The whole point of the Death Star system for the DS seems to be to support both styles of play. You can get points via control by holding the force and locking your opponent down, or via offense by blowing up opposing objectives. With the new proposed system the incentive to blowing up objectives is limited to giving your opponent a shorter time limit. I can see an argument on both sides, the agro deck in the new system is wracking up points by destroying an objective, but it gives considerable less risk to control the board.

This new system would encourage the DS to sit back on defense, the game was not styled as a Offense versus Defense game (like Netrunner). I think switching to it would only further increase the control style of play that is already popular on the DS.

As I said if tournament scoring needs to prop up a deck style then you have a deep underlying card design issue to contend with.

One of the common complaints with Scum is that it can't take objectives. Players have said at times while they feel comfortable with a certain Scum deck they've come up with aa far as winning the game goes, they can't rely on it competitively because you have to be able to kill objectives in tournament play.

Playing aggressively should be worth it on it's own merit not just in the ability to close out games in less rounds but also for the added benefits of being aggressive such as Targeted Strike or other offensive oriented abilities, in addition to helping turn off or remove problematic objectives.

If playing aggressively isn't worth it on it's own merit the FFG needs to change their card design philosophy and not use a tournament system to prop up issues.

[ZackyMidnight]

Summary of my thoughts on this matter

pro:
-I like that it is similar to Decipher old way. Winning is most important and then how well you did during your wins is second most important

Con:
- I think as I stated it makes DS objective damage less desirable and that could be a big problem

Solutions if this system were to be used:
- maybe have subtractions to the points like I said above. Destroying objectives for DS subtracts game points from LS. Conversely winning quickly with LS subtracts game points from DS. DS control and DS aggro would have distinct advantages in this system. Also a Jedi control deck probably wouldn't lose objectives as much as a aggro deck, but it also doesnt win as quickly

[ZackyMidnight]

If playing aggressively isn't worth it on it's own merit the FFG needs to change their card design philosophy and not use a tournament system to prop up issues.

and i do agree with this, however it boils down to win conditions and therefore core game mechanic design not necessarily card design. The tournament rules currently mitigate that somewhat whether we like it or not. The tournament rules (The naboo) and the cards and game mechaincs (the gungans) are a symbiotic relationship. What happens to one will surely affect the other, you must see this?

[KennedyHawk]

If playing aggressively isn't worth it on it's own merit the FFG needs to change their card design philosophy and not use a tournament system to prop up issues.

Why should FFG change their card design strategy over their scoring system strategy? A core set, two deluxe expansions and most likely two cycles of cards were designed with this scoring system in mind. I like the new system but I think it will solve some of the current scoring issues (but not all of them). All I'm saying is it will discourage players from playing an aggressive heavy build. Maybe that's the cards fault but those are the cards we have. People now are saying scum doesn't have enough blast with the current rules, with these proposed ones people will complain Navy does not have enough control.