132 replies to this topic

[Budgernaut]

- 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

See, I'm still not a fan of the Light Side needing to win quickly. If I have a slow, control, Jedi deck, am I being punished because of the tie-breaker system?

I'll answer my own question because I'm feeling schizophrenic today. If you have a strong, control-style LS deck, it should be able to hold the Force. That will slow the Death Star dial down a lot. This means that the LS doesn't necessarily have to win quickly, it just has to keep the Death Star dial low.

Still, it's a difficult issue since moving the Death Star dial up is exactly how the Dark Side wins, so if you're breaking a tie based on Dark Side performance, the dial is the best thing to use. But that inherently makes fast Light Side decks better at tie-breaking than slow Light Side decks. I guess if you're confident that your deck is consistent, you don't have to worry about tie-breakers ...

[ZackyMidnight]

See, I'm still not a fan of the Light Side needing to win quickly. If I have a slow, control, Jedi deck, am I being punished because of the tie-breaker system?

I'll answer my own question because I'm feeling schizophrenic today. If you have a strong, control-style LS deck, it should be able to hold the Force. That will slow the Death Star dial down a lot. This means that the LS doesn't necessarily have to win quickly, it just has to keep the Death Star dial low.

Still, it's a difficult issue since moving the Death Star dial up is exactly how the Dark Side wins, so if you're breaking a tie based on Dark Side performance, the dial is the best thing to use. But that inherently makes fast Light Side decks better at tie-breaking than slow Light Side decks. I guess if you're confident that your deck is consistent, you don't have to worry about tie-breakers ...

I don't think you are punished bc as a control deck you aren't losing objectives to the DS and therefore aren't getting subtracted points (in my above suggestion)

[Scottie]

See, I'm still not a fan of the Light Side needing to win quickly. If I have a slow, control, Jedi deck, am I being punished because of the tie-breaker system?

I'll answer my own question because I'm feeling schizophrenic today. If you have a strong, control-style LS deck, it should be able to hold the Force. That will slow the Death Star dial down a lot. This means that the LS doesn't necessarily have to win quickly, it just has to keep the Death Star dial low.

Still, it's a difficult issue since moving the Death Star dial up is exactly how the Dark Side wins, so if you're breaking a tie based on Dark Side performance, the dial is the best thing to use. But that inherently makes fast Light Side decks better at tie-breaking than slow Light Side decks. I guess if you're confident that your deck is consistent, you don't have to worry about tie-breakers ...

If I had a DS deck that had a 100% win percentage but could not kill an objective and always would give up an objective or two before getting the lock in I would not bring it to an event with a Top Cut because I would never be able to win a round is my LS deck lost.

[ZackyMidnight]

If I had a DS deck that had a 100% win percentage but could not kill an objective and always would give up an objective or two before getting the lock in I would not bring it to an event with a Top Cut because I would never be able to win a round is my LS deck lost.

So in Flip's suggested point system you would always bring that deck, which is what my concern is with the whole system

[Scottie]

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.

Because if they don't change their card design either way, there is always going to be one end of the spectrum left out in the cold.

Do you think that Targetted Sith would be better if you removed it's offensive elements for more pure-control? I don't. The ability to take objectives is what makes that deck truly powerful not even looking at tournament play. I do not think people would not take aggressive decks if you removed in the inherent advantage in the tournament rules, where as I do think people currently opt out of pure control builds because of the inherent disadvantage in the tournament rules.

[Scottie]

So in Flip's suggested point system you would always bring that deck, which is what my concern is with the whole system

Of course I would, but is your concern really that current pure control decks have a 100% win percentage?

In the hypothetical if I had two decks that both won 7 out of 10 games, the one doing so aggressively the other complete control. I feel they are completely equal in the ability to win me a game in the overall meta, I'm currently stuck bringing the one and not the other because of the event rules. The event rules make the one deck superior to the other. I don't think that should be the case.

Do you think that you should always have to opt for the aggressive deck amongst otherwise equal options? Or do you think that the card design and event rules should give you the option to end up on either end of the spectrum based on personal play style or daily whim.

Because currently even if FFG hits the right notes on card design, the event rules skew deck construction to one side. Your worry is that if you remove that skew the pendulum will swing too far the other way. I actually have faith that FFGs card design is more balanced then then that, and if it isn't then it's better that been seen and corrected instead of duck taped.

[KennedyHawk]

Because if they don't change their card design either way, there is always going to be one end of the spectrum left out in the cold.

Do you think that Targetted Sith would be better if you removed it's offensive elements for more pure-control? I don't. The ability to take objectives is what makes that deck truly powerful not even looking at tournament play. I do not think people would not take aggressive decks if you removed in the inherent advantage in the tournament rules, where as I do think people currently opt out of pure control builds because of the inherent disadvantage in the tournament rules.

No I do not think targetted Sith would be better without it's offensive elements, but the offensive elements in that deck.

Yes I think we would see fewer aggressive heavy decks (mainly from the Navy faction) with the new proposed system. I think it addresses a few small problems but the claims that it fixes everything aren't true. We still have issues with slow control light side decks and with the set-up favoring play styles. This new system is a band-aid not a fix and I'd rather not just have another band-aid. By scoring for the DS from dial clicks and LS objective count its veering further from a true win-loss-draw system.

[Scottie]

No I do not think targetted Sith would be better without it's offensive elements, but the offensive elements in that deck.

I think you may be missing some words in this one. Or I can't read. Either or, possibly both.

Or is it fill in the blank?!

I'm going to guess have control elements to them! Or are inherent!

[KennedyHawk]

I think you may be missing some words in this one. Or I can't read. Either or, possibly both.

Or is it fill in the blank?!

I'm going to guess have control elements to them! Or are inherent!

Yeah laptop is freaking out right now, I think those offensive elements are a key part of that decks control. I don't think this change will have a big impact on decks of that nature, it's the all out offensive objective sets that will get hurt. The scoring system will still be impacting and styling deck building away from one focus to another.

I think unless you go to individual games as rounds in swiss the scoring system will always sway deck building.

[ZackyMidnight]

I think you may be missing some words in this one. Or I can't read. Either or, possibly both.

Or is it fill in the blank?!

I'm going to guess have control elements to them! Or are inherent!

its mad libs scottie

No I do not think targetted Sith would be better without it's _____(verb) offensive elements, but the offensive elements______ (pronoun) in that ______(adverb and noun) deck.

[ZackyMidnight]

Yeah laptop is freaking out right now, I think those offensive elements are a key part of that decks control. I don't think this change will have a big impact on decks of that nature, it's the all out offensive objective sets that will get hurt. The scoring system will still be impacting and styling deck building away from one focus to another.

I think unless you go to individual games as rounds in swiss the scoring system will always sway deck building.

i would vote for this. individual games is interesting

[Scottie]

My point is that isn't the tournament system skewing deck construction at that point. If you remove the focus on how the win condition is met fast or slow, control vs aggro, and one end comes up lacking it's a question of card design viability not skewed event rules. I'd rather see deck choices made on that merit over how it can be currently amongst two equal options.

[AntaresCD]

While I applaud your efforts, your article leaves out possible mitigating factors and some important points of the current scoring system, including, but not limited to:

-Strength of Schedule (the system for normal byes has relevant points when you discuss this, plus how does your system take the strength of players into account - this is a *must* in any system where you do not play every player but there is no elimination; you mention leapfrogging but leave this out).
-The difference between the Chess system (1/.5/0 or 2/1/0) and the popular system used in many sports (3/1/0) and the implications (3/1/0 was implemented to encourage players to go for the win instead of settling for draws; again a salient point in the discussion on how points drive games)

There's more, but that's two big parts missing from your analysis.

So to put it together, any system that you put together must try to do better than the existing system, with the existing card pool and game mechanics to achieve the following:
-Encourage enjoyable games (this is one of the driving factors behind de-emphasizing ds turtle much in the same way the 3/1/0 system is used in sports to make things more exciting)
-Emphasize winning over how you win (we agree here)
-Be able to take into account your strength of schedule
-Make any reasonable decktype equally appealing (this is the hard one, as by game mechanics, DS starts out predisposed to turtle)

So a slow Jedi deck, a fast Rebel deck, etc. should all score similarly under the system if they win and a turtle Sith deck, an aggressive Navy deck, and a capture happy Scum deck, etc. should all score similarly if they win. Any metrics recorded should not place weight towards any of the styles. Honestly, that is nearly impossible with the current game mechanics. People have already pointed out your system basically flip flops the weighting of decks which is just a reactionary pendulum swing in my book.

TL;DR: Points missing (possible perspective bias?) and flip flopping the problem w/o actually solving it. Good attempt though.

[Scottie]

I always voted for best of 3, but I've seen how slow some players are. Yikes.

I overall do not like the current system that indisputably benefits aggressive elements. I should want them in my deck because they help me win, not win in a certain way.

Though my main complaint to the current scoring system is you shouldn't have so many scoring results that result in not getting an separation of scoring. 8 player player events that end in 3 way ties because no one blew each other out are dumb. So dumb.

[Scottie]

People have already pointed out your system basically flip flops the weighting of decks which is just a reactionary pendulum swing in my book.

Where do you think this flip flop comes in in the purposed changes? As I read it it simply rewards you for getting closer to your victory condition, not how you ended up there. Or is it a game design issue that you see being exposed without the training wheels?

[AntaresCD]

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.

[ScottENJ]

I'm out of the house so I can't respond to the whole post I just wanted to hit one point so we are on the same page.

I'm not sure where you are reading that I am hostile towards the game design. I've said in this thread I have faith in FFGs game design. Throughout the thread I've asserted that I do not believe the removal of the advantage granted to aggressive decks will result in making them non-viable as others have. I believe aggressive play has it's own advanteogous that allow it, at least with current, trends to stand alone without a advantage built in the tournament rules. Conversely because the advantage is what it is even an hypothetical non-existant unbeatable pure control deck would not be event viable.

[stevepop]

Interesting. What would be even more interesting is if someone took records from a past tourney, applied the Flip system, and compared results to the current system.

[AntaresCD]

I'm not sure where you are reading that I am hostile towards the game design.

I was responding to Scottie (hence the quotes).

I believe aggressive play has it's own advanteogous that allow it, at least with current, trends to stand alone without a advantage built in the tournament rules. Conversely because the advantage is what it is even an hypothetical non-existant unbeatable pure control deck would not be event viable.

This goes towards he mechanics already skew the viable decktypes, which means any scoring system that wants to make all decktypes equally usable has to try to pull things in line.

[Dxopherj]

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.


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.

Why are two games required? The game is not as asymmetrical as people make it out to be. Both players utilize the same types of cards, both players have similar setups, both players turns have the same steps. The only difference is the dial and objective goal as win conditions. As long as the tournament is structured so that everyone plays the same amount of games with both sides, there shouldn't be a problem. The two issues that screw with our current structure are draws (because playing for a draw after winning is more advantageous than losing and taking the match) and byes (because a bye is worth two wins). In a single game match format the benefit of the draw is diminished (its not better than getting a match point) and a bye is only one game. Also, you are not locked into a matchup that has an extreme skill level gap for two whole games.