and my axe!

The app most of us use (tourney tracker) has 3-2-1 as the defaults, but there might be a way to alter the point amounts.

what I don't think it can do right now is differentiate between a high score partial win and a low score partial win.
The more I think about it, the sillier it seems that we reward the losing player for reaching 100pts, but don't reward the winning player for getting there (thereby making it a disincentive to not score 100pts, win or lose)

Right now it is 100% equivalent to win 199-0 as it is to win 5-3. That's insane.

I don't mind keeping the 1pt, but if you really think about it, low scoring games (both players under 100) are just as much, if not more-so, the winner's fault as it is the losers. That's why I think it should be a part that factors into the 7 point system 5pts for a high score partial win and 4pts for a low score partial win.


Now I'm sure Rich would update the app if we adopted a new system, but I think it might be a bit much top ask him to do it in a week just for a test and change it back after.


We could run it like what we have now (3-2-1), let that be the official results. Then compare how it would have turned out with the 7 point system (7-5-4-1).


We do have 1 real world example in this thread, which I found interesting. Most the the results didn't change too much, but the few minor changes that happened seemed appropriate.

So it might not end up changing any results in any particular tournament (which is actually good, I don't think anyone wants a massive change that completely makes results different). What this would actually be is a refining tweak. It's more about covering the bases for what shouldn't happen in very specific cases.

The problems with 3-2-1:
-Players have no incentive to score more in a win if they aren't going to reach 200.
-Players can "catch up" in a tournament without full wins fairly easily by scoring 100pts in a loss.
-Full Wins are not rewarded enough.


What the 7 POINT SYSTEM does:
-Incentivise players to reach 100pts no matter what, win or lose.
-reward a higher point percentage for FULL WINS.
-retain a reward for a HIGH SCORE LOSS, but have it be a much lower percentage.

Hey Tim, great to see you active on on the boards!

Another post earlier in this thread suggested using game points, and I responded there. In short - it seems "less complicated", but it actually is far more complicated.

As to record being the primary determining factor - I think the resistance is far too strong. I have given up that battle in order to try and win the war.



As to head to head, that is how it is currently (and perhaps I didn't explain it well).

If only 2 players are tied at this point, then it's simple head to head, period.

If 3 (or more) players are tied, how do you determine? Well if one player beat the other 2 (in a 3-way tie), then it seems pretty obvious. But if it's a round robin (A beat B, B beat C, C beat A) -or- nobody beat all the others (A beat B, B beat C, A and C never played), then this criteria is skipped and you go to the next tie-breaker.

It actually makes sense and is as it should be imo. It seems complicated (probably because I over-explained it), but it's really not. Usually it's only 2 players tied at this point, and it's easy to decipher then.



I cannot express how much I agree with you here! It's really just a way for games to end artificially early (again - I am a true believer that the game isn't really over until one entire squad is eliminated). It allows for lock-ins (as opposed to lock outs), and has been shown to be entirely abusable. I recognize the need for gambit, and the opposite is still worse, but I think a "happy medium" of 5 pts would be fantastic to bring back.

+1,000,000,000 to Charger's clear and concise comments on 10pt gambit.

Not a competitive player, but I'd throw my vote behind Charger's suggestion as well. I can think of a few times off the top of my head where I won a game I shouldn't have because of high gambit.

Another option on gambit... gambit scores aren't added in until time expires. Then a game doesn't end on gambit right before the other squad was going to kill your last piece.

"Hm. All I have left is Droopy and 3 Mouse Droids, but with my 7 rounds of gambit I win. Too bad for that Darth Revan you have standing right next to Droopy."

Constantly evolving.

Based on gambit ideas - it could be incorporated into the

7 point system

7pts = TRUE Full win (You defeated ALL your opponents characters)

6pts = high score partial win 200+ pts (but the opponent had characters left)

5pts = mid score partial win 100-199pts

4pts = low score partial win (>100pts)

1pt = high score loss (100+ pts)

0pts = loss (>100pts)


Thoughts?

A potentially simpler way to put it... 1 tournament point per 100 points earned in a skirmish, plus 4 points for a win.

Upon more contemplation, gambit is its own issue and should be handled separately (see other thread), and doesn’t need to be folded into here in that specific way.

7/5/4/1 is good enough

After a long fruitful conversation with Bryan about many different things, here's some thoughts.

My main goal in all of this is to get back to what the game was meant to be - one squad killing ALL of the other squad.

I think most everyone agrees that it is ultimately what should happen, and the most satisfyingly clear cut when it does.


So what do we do with the rest? I think we all agree awe don't want to regress to 15-18pt matches. My hope is to incentivize players to REALLY finish their games. Several factors, while well intended, have actually brought us away from that goal.

So how do we get closer to that goal?

In the discussion between Bryan and I - we both seemed to agree that full wins (currently 3pt wins) should be what every player is trying to get. It does currently have incentive, but there is a flip side when you factor in 1pt losses. 1 pt wins ALLOW players to get 2pt (partial) wins, and catch up. Does there need to be greater incentive? Of course the flip side of that is: what is the incentive for the losing player if there is little to no reward at all to engage in a losing proposition.

I think there was STRONG agreement that a 15-18pt game should not be the same as a 199-5pt game, as it is currently. The 7 point system addresses that, but Bryan feels that the difference between 7 and 1 is too great.



Throwing this out there - how about simply 4-3-2-1?

FOUR point system

4pts = Full win (200+ pts)

3pts = high score partial win (100-199pts or 125? or 150?)

2pts = low score partial win (>100pts or 125? or 150?)

1pt = high score loss (100+ pts)

0pts = low score loss (>100pts)


The gap isn't nearly so great as the 7 point system, but there is incentive to score higher even in unfinished games.


Furthermore - I think adding a tiebreaker of most full wins back in to the tie breaking system (it should have never left) is imperative as well.


As to gambit - I'll talk about that in the other thread.

FOUR point system

4pts = Full win (200+ pts)

3pts = high score partial win (125-199pts)

2pts = low score partial win (<125pts)

1pt = high score loss (100+ pts)

0pts = low score loss (<100pts)


This system is good but it still does not answer the question. Why would a 206-188 win get more points than a 199-0 win?
Or a more reasonable look at it: a 212 - 146 win get more than a 184-48 win?
The winner who scored 184 points way more than tripled the score of his/her opponent. (3.83 x's)
While the 212 winner beat his opponent by 1.45 x's.
It would seem that that the 184 winner truly dominated the match. In that match the opponent did not have a chance.

I would add the following:

4 pts = Win by a Gambit difference of 100 or more

This way people have another way to get 4 pts when facing against an opponent who hides, stalls, locks doors, etc.

Also, losing 212-100 is the same as losing 187-175? I don't get that either. if we want to award engaging the opponent and still make it difficult for the loser to get more then 1 pt. we could say:

2 pts = loss with at least 150 Gambit and within 25 gambit of the opponent.

This way the opponent has to have a 3 pt win and could have a 4 pt win.