Where do you think this flip flop comes in in the purposed changes?
Two DS decks, pure Sith control and pure aggressive Navy both lose to the same LS deck. Both went 6 turns. Sith, by nature, were able to hold the force, Navy didn't but were able to get 2 objectives. Sith sees the dial at 11, Navy at 9. The Navy missed their 3rd objective by 1 damage and the Sith line completely collapsed in their last turn. Who truly did better while still losing? Why? Considering that there are good arguments on both sides the fact that your scoring system will consistently reward the Sith player in the breakdown is an issue.
Or is it a game design issue that you see being exposed without the training wheels?
This kind of hostile thinking (toward the game, not me) doesn't help creative discussion as people get defensive of the things they love. If you don't like the game mechanics, fine, I find it a little annoying at times too. The fact that the DS wins by a clock and one decktype is able to more consistently run the clock (while making the game somewhat boring/hopeless for the opponent) is an issue. An issue they tried to address in the scoring system (with mixed results).
The stated goal of all this discussion is to find a tournament scoring system that:
-takes the mechanics into account
-keeps the rounds finish-able in a timely manner (no 3 game matches, sadly)
-makes all decktypes equally desirable (letting playstyle choose)
-makes relative player performance measurable in a more granular fashion
The first and third points, sadly, conflict. The fourth point is difficult to capture.
Honestly, I've given this a lot of thought too. My first suggestion was implemented recently (bonus point to a sweep for consistency in points). My second is the need to shift to a 3/1/0 paradigm. Currently each game is scored as 4/2/0 (which is just 2/1/0). As any discussion in the swiss system will go over, one of the driving factors for 3/1/0 over 2/1/0 is to encourage players to "go for it." If I have two play choices, one giving me a low chance for a win and the other giving me a high chance of a draw, a 2/1/0 system tends to encourage draws and a 3/1/0 system tends to encourage going for it. Which makes better tournaments?
Having at least two games is pretty much required by the mechanics (asymmetrical play), but two leads to ties.
One thing we will never have is a perfect system, and anyone claiming otherwise is deluding themselves. That does not mean we shouldn't try to improve, it just means anyone claiming to have one should set off red flags.