Jump to content

Welcome to Card Game DB
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

How to Fix Tournament Scoring

* * * * * 1 votes

  • Please log in to reply
132 replies to this topic

#41
Jarrett

Jarrett

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 750 posts
I don't like it. It rewards players for almost winning (and yet not), which seems kind of silly.

After talking to TGO on the matter awhile back, I think we just need less points and not more, and we need to make it based off of games (and not matches).

Win a game (out of two games) - 2 Point
Lose a game - 0 Points
Game to Time - 1 Point per player

No extra points for winning a match, so if you play a match, you can get a max of four points. Leapfrogging can still sort of happen, but not anymore than a normal swiss event for any other game. This essentially puts the focus on winning games and not matches (which is the problem right now).
  • AntaresCD, yodaman and KennedyHawk like this

#42
AntaresCD

AntaresCD

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 176 posts

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.

While I agree with your points, that type of format would lead to inevitable complaints in tournaments as people would (fairly or unfairly) feel that they got bad matchups (player-wise) playing one side or the other.

And the mechanics are dis-similar enough that how can you say which player did better in a matchup?

Honestly, you could be right that they are similar enough that one game would capture everything you need to know, but the *perception* will be contrary to that. That spells doom for organized play.

#43
Toots

Toots

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 255 posts
I don't believe Tournament scoring should exist, it should just come down to strength of schedule. Get rid of the match winner and just let both games count, that way if you win one of each you aren't getting penalised by your play style. Finals can be done with extra games to get it done. Right now finals come down to, you win your first game you can change your style in the second, you don't play to win you play to prevent opponent doing better then your game 1.

#44
AntaresCD

AntaresCD

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 176 posts

I don't like it. It rewards players for almost winning (and yet not), which seems kind of silly.

After talking to TGO on the matter awhile back, I think we just need less points and not more, and we need to make it based off of games (and not matches).

Win a game (out of two games) - 2 Point
Lose a game - 0 Points
Game to Time - 1 Point per player

No extra points for winning a match, so if you play a match, you can get a max of four points. Leapfrogging can still sort of happen, but not anymore than a normal swiss event for any other game. This essentially puts the focus on winning games and not matches (which is the problem right now).

I'd take it one step further personally and move to a 3 point win system. To discourage both stalling for draw and to make high seeded players in later rounds keep trying to win (The classic 2/1/0 vs. 3/1/0 argument).
  • ZackyMidnight likes this

#45
ZackyMidnight

ZackyMidnight

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 561 posts

I'd take it one step further personally and move to a 3 point win system. To discourage both stalling for draw and to make high seeded players in later rounds keep trying to win (The classic 2/1/0 vs. 3/1/0 argument).


I have yet to see an argument of why this isn't a solid way of doing things? Of course all things have flaws but this just seems the most fair to me

#46
AntaresCD

AntaresCD

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 176 posts

I have yet to see an argument of why this isn't a solid way of doing things? Of course all things have flaws but this just seems the most fair to me

The biggest problem of a 3/1/0 system is when one player/team gets ahead, they get *really* far ahead, but the incidence of high seeded players getting to sit on their laurels is markedly less than 2/1/0, so it's generally considered acceptable especially weighed against the push away from draws and towards going for it for a larger segment of games that would otherwise be boring and/or go for draws.

#47
Dxopherj

Dxopherj

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 420 posts

I don't like it. It rewards players for almost winning (and yet not), which seems kind of silly.

After talking to TGO on the matter awhile back, I think we just need less points and not more, and we need to make it based off of games (and not matches).

Win a game (out of two games) - 2 Point
Lose a game - 0 Points
Game to Time - 1 Point per player

No extra points for winning a match, so if you play a match, you can get a max of four points. Leapfrogging can still sort of happen, but not anymore than a normal swiss event for any other game. This essentially puts the focus on winning games and not matches (which is the problem right now).


This is a system I like. I think those bonus game points are just to be a better tiebreaker than strength of schedule. But unnecessary.

#48
ZackyMidnight

ZackyMidnight

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 561 posts

The biggest problem of a 3/1/0 system is when one player/team gets ahead, they get *really* far ahead, but the incidence of high seeded players getting to sit on their laurels is markedly less than 2/1/0, so it's generally considered acceptable especially weighed against the push away from draws and towards going for it for a larger segment of games that would otherwise be boring and/or go for draws.


All systems are flawed, but it seems that a system where a good player gets far ahead by WINNING is better then a system where a player performs well all day and is leap frogged at the end. Sitting on your laurels is something that happens in every competitive arena and if you win and you want to manipulate the scoring for whatever reason then that's your reward for winning. If other players don't like it then prevent that person from winning early on.

#49
AntaresCD

AntaresCD

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 176 posts

All systems are flawed, but it seems that a system where a good player gets far ahead by WINNING is better then a system where a player performs well all day and is leap frogged at the end. Sitting on your laurels is something that happens in every competitive arena and if you win and you want to manipulate the scoring for whatever reason then that's your reward for winning. If other players don't like it then prevent that person from winning early on.

Oh I agree, I was just answering your question. I prefer to be able to argue both sides of an issue so I had the knowledge you sought. =)

#50
LethalHobo

LethalHobo

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 821 posts
Just go the Netrunner way. 2 points for a game win, 0 for loss, 1 to each for time. Works for them. I never see any of that base complaining about it, and their numbers are supposedly bigger than ours.

#51
LethalHobo

LethalHobo

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 821 posts
Edit: Double Post.

#52
dbmeboy

dbmeboy

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 3914 posts

Just go the Netrunner way. 2 points for a game win, 0 for loss, 1 to each for time. Works for them. I never see any of that base complaining about it, and their numbers are supposedly bigger than ours.

This is almost what we have... except with an extra 0.5 points for winning the match. I'm perfectly fine with dropping the bonus point for swiss, but we'll still need some form of tie breaker for elimination rounds.

#53
chunkygorillas

chunkygorillas

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 922 posts
I'm no expert, but because of how asymmetrical this game is I think that the current system is the best. Right now no play styles get a downside. If I'm playing sith control I don't really care that I don't blow up objectives because if I played it right I should have stopped them from blowing up more than one, and if I play agro navy I also don't care how many they blow up as long as I'm blowing them up faster haha. In your proposed system I feel like Agro navy would be as viable and slower light side decks would also suffer. I feel like if this game was more like netrunner where both sides are trying to accomplish the same goal (score 7 agenda points) this system would would, but with the different goals and the different play styles to achieve those goals that some decks will just be punished by it.

#54
ScottENJ

ScottENJ

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 237 posts

I was responding to Scottie (hence the quotes).



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.


Same person my phone is locked on this account for some reason.

#55
fliptheforce

fliptheforce

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 447 posts
Thanks for all the comments guys, they are really appreciated. TGO and myself talked a great deal about the scoring change this afternoon on our stream, but I'd like to address a few of the things I've read about in regards to my 'solution':

1) The solution is bad because it doesn't incorporate Strength of Schedule

I actually think it does, in a matter of speaking. The Game Points address how well players have done throughout the event. The only time Strength of Schedule would/should play a role is determining players on the same points. In this solution, it would be a tie on Match and Game Points (which should rarely happen, especially given DS can score .5 pts). I do think that if players are pure tied on Match and Game Points, strength of schedule can be used as a third tiebreaker.

2) This solution is bad because DS will just 'turtle' (play control decks and never forgo their position)

This solution allows the DS player to play whatever deck they choose, whether that's a 'turtle' deck or not. Currently, our scoring system forces the DS player to build decks that can destroy objectives AS WELL AS forcing the LS player to play decks that can win quickly. As a player, you are punished for failing to do either. My solution has no punishments, as the only difference is giving your opponent Game Points (which serve as secondary tiebreakers).

3) This system is very flawed because the DS has no incentive to blow up objectives

This is actually not a flaw, but was designed this way on purpose. The rules already benefit the Dark Side blowing up objectives (the dial moves faster). Tournament players should be able to move the dial at the speed they want to move at, observing the advantages and disadvantages of both. A 'turtle' deck will lose if it cannot turtle correctly, and an aggressive DS deck will lose if it cannot defend its objectives while also initiating attacks. If 'turtle' players want to risk the game on whether or not they can do nothing, they should be allowed to and not punished for it.

4) This makes playing Navy less desirable

Actually, quite the opposite. The entire SoCal team, including TinyGrimes, piloted Navy decks at this year's World Championships. They were able to defend their objectives and blow up objectives perfectly fine. This choice wasn't made, to my knowledge, because they only wanted to risk racing their opponents all day, but because their decks were designed to handle the early game elements while pushing the dial to 12 during the mid-game, rather than the late-game. This decktype would be more than beneficial under my solution, as it accomplishes the only DS goal: getting the dial to 12.

5) "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 is actually, 100%, my favorite 'complaint.' I 1000000% think that the Sith player did better while still losing. Why? Because the Sith player achieved the DS goal of getting the dial to 12, and fell short by one click. The Navy deck DOES NOT HAVE TO ATTACK, and could have opted to sit back and defend against the opponent's attacks. The Navy player did not have the ability to win the game by blowing up the objectives, and fell short of the goal of winning the game and leaving the dial 3clicks below 12. Of course the Sith player did better. This game, by its own rules, is scored on whether or not the Death Star dial got to 12. It is not scored on blowing up objectives for the Dark Side.


We will be conducting a 'mock' tournament on Saturday, April 19th using this current scoring system and posting the result online. If any players are interested in joining us, please hit me up with a PM. We will be posting results online for everyone to see.

Thanks again for your feedback, it's been a pleasure to follow along over the afternoon.

Finally, please keep in mind that I am aware the system isn't 'perfect.' I do, however, believe it is nearly perfect. I also believe that it is much, much closer to 'perfect' than the current scoring system we have in place.
  • holliday88 likes this

#56
yodaman

yodaman

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2743 posts
Interesting reading. I'd like to bring up one other suggestion and that relates to the issues of draws. Stripping down to a 3/1/0 per each game approach might work best if each game within a match had a set time limit rather than only have a time limit for the match itself. With this tweak, it would be possible for both games in a match to end up as draws. I suspect the majority of times when a 2nd game isn't completed in a match is due to the 1st game going far longer than half of the allotted time (be it 60 or 70 minutes) not because the 1st game ended quickly and the 2nd one took forever.

#57
Jarratt

Jarratt

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3660 posts
A couple of things.

Scum barely even feature in the current tournament structure because their way of winning games is generally dial. The Sith version of control allows for a lot of openings to actually deal objective damage. There might be less dial pushing Sith deck in favour of objective damaging Sith decks but at least Sith has that option while Scum struggles bit with that. The system proposed by Flip and TGO addresses that and allows more DS decks to hit the board.

Each Game in the Match should be played on separate timers. So if it is a 70min round then each game gets 35mins. If the first game goes short the second game can go long but the first game cannot go long. Turtle Sith/Scum and slow Jedi can just eat up a Match and if you want to make each game valuable then you need to make each game the same.

It would be nice to see more differential in the LS Game score. As some have pointed out what if you hit all 3 objectives to 4 but don't kill any before you lose. That is better than someone getting 2 but doing no damage to a third. I could be as simple as 3 damage on an objective gains a point, or as complicated as 2/3/45 damage on an objective gains a half point. Obviously their are a bunch of factors like health 6/10 objectives and Jabba's Base that mess with this. Maybe something like you get the score of your best 3 objectives damaged. 2pts if destroyed, 1pt if you have done at least half the damage to the objective.

Winning the game through any alternate conditions like Trench Run, Heart of the Empire or decking an opponent is a full 6 Game Score.

Finally, and I know this seems weird, why play the same opponent in a match or have matches at all. Have paired rounds so you play Light then Dark or Dark then Light but swap opponents. I think one of the limitations of Swiss in Star Wars is that you play 3-5 rounds meaning you see only 3-5 people. A big loss in the first round means you are playing lesser ranked opponents and can sneak into a top cut. If you see more people then it could balanced out further. I also like the idea that a game of Star Wars is not a match. It plays so much better when the stakes are only the single game you are playing and not a subsequent game that completes a match. I do think this would make a tournament a lot harder to manage. You have to repair after every game, and then after every 2 games you need to reset which sides people are playing so you don't play LS, DS, LS, DS and miss playing someone. You can play someone twice as long as the pairing is the reverse. This also means in terms of byes (certainly the odd player variation) you are only skipping 1 Game. Could this work?

#58
TGO

TGO

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2588 posts

The system proposed by Flip and TGO addresses that and allows more DS decks to hit the board.


Just so everyone gives credit where it's due, flip devised this system with help from his wife and zero help from me. While I am in favor of this system I am not deserving of any credit for its design.

#59
dbmeboy

dbmeboy

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 3914 posts

Finally, and I know this seems weird, why play the same opponent in a match or have matches at all. Have paired rounds so you play Light then Dark or Dark then Light but swap opponents. I think one of the limitations of Swiss in Star Wars is that you play 3-5 rounds meaning you see only 3-5 people. A big loss in the first round means you are playing lesser ranked opponents and can sneak into a top cut. If you see more people then it could balanced out further. I also like the idea that a game of Star Wars is not a match. It plays so much better when the stakes are only the single game you are playing and not a subsequent game that completes a match. I do think this would make a tournament a lot harder to manage. You have to repair after every game, and then after every 2 games you need to reset which sides people are playing so you don't play LS, DS, LS, DS and miss playing someone. You can play someone twice as long as the pairing is the reverse. This also means in terms of byes (certainly the odd player variation) you are only skipping 1 Game. Could this work?


This kind of system has been tossed around a lot, particularly by those of us who have a background with Decipher's SWCCG. It does have a slight downside in taking more time to run a tournament as you have to re-pair people often. If it's going to take an hour to pair people between rounds *coughGenConcough* then that becomes a big problem...

As far as the proposed scoring system goes, I'm not sure it does much to help make different kinds of decks viable in a world where we have top cuts. In those cases, the "secondary score" goes back to being a tie breaker... and in this case the tie breaker is almost unchanged. The only difference is that the DS wins tie breaker is now just objectives destroyed by LS, which will lead to an increase in true ties as there are only 3 options (0, 1, and 2).
  • AntaresCD likes this

#60
Scottie

Scottie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1968 posts

Just go the Netrunner way. 2 points for a game win, 0 for loss, 1 to each for time. Works for them. I never see any of that base complaining about it, and their numbers are supposedly bigger than ours.


I don't believe this is true. Netrunner has had now two major restructures of their tournament system because of player feedback. They just introduced a double elimination single game round Top Cut format because of complaints about the previous format handling of elimination rounds. It simply seems as if FFG is more willing to explore different options (as opposed to just adjusting the existing option) with Netrunner then they have been with Star Wars.