It wasn't posted in the thread for the BC to consider or brought up within the last 6 months, that I am aware. Unfortunately Richard Allen has been in hiding, so it is impossible to know if a change to the tourney tracker is easily doable or if he is even willing.

He always responds quickly when I talk to him. We have a good relationship. That is a SUPER easy fix that could be done in less than 10 minutes for him, FYI.

I think I need to point something out here: there are specific reasons why a high-engagement loss can be half as valuable as a low-engagement win. Basically, this is on purpose, because we want to reward engagement and punish non-engagement. In a 4-round event, you SHOULD be able to rank lower with a 4-0 record (all partial wins) than high engagement players with a 3-1 record (all full wins). Nobody (or almost nobody) wants to play a kiting game. There was a significant--rather, a major--problem with non-engagement and slow-play several years ago, when we adopted the 3-2-1-0 system. It wasn't adopted willy-nilly, but was very purposeful. The 4-3-1 system would adjust things just enough that non-engagement strategies and tactics would start to pay dividends again, and I think that would be a very bad thing for the health of the game.

Nevertheless, as I said often in the other thread(s) I do see where Tim and others are coming from. I think the answer lies in adjusting how Gambit works, rather than adjusting how tournament points are scored. (And there, too, things become clear when we go back and remind ourselves of the purpose and history of Gambit in the first place.)

If the Balance Committee is going to address these matters then I hope they'll look carefully at the reasons why these rules/structures were made in the first place.

Definitely will and have, I was pretty vocal when both 10 point Gambit and 3-2-1 scoring were put into place. I believe there implementation is one of the reasons we have had such a good meta over the last year.

I discussed margin of victory scoring with some BC members and that would be interesting to continue to theory craft more over. Maybe run a practice tournament with it and see how it shakes out. Not really sure it would help, hurt or be neutral. If either of the latter it's not really worth it.

Margin of victory shouldn't come into play. It adds unnecessary confusion to the scoring system, and as tint indicates, it adds bad incentives.

A 2-pt win that doesn't get to 200pts can often be the fault of the opposing player. It only takes one squad/player to prevent a game from completing in time.

One thing that isn't explicitly punished, though, is a game where neither player gets to 100pts. That sort of thing will generally be the fault of both players. I still prefer this scoring system, mentioned earlier in the thread:

4pts for a win
1pt for reaching 100pts (win or lose)
2pts for reaching 200pts (win or lose)

You won't have players with losing records ranking ahead of players with winning records, but a 90-50 win will score 2pts fewer than a 200-150 win.

So wins could be worth 4, 5, or 6 pts. Losses would generally be 0 or 1pt, but even opens up the rare 2pt loss if both players reach 200pts in the same round (a very high-engagement game).

I'm also fine with the idea of switching to 5pt gambit (still requiring a 10pt piece to gain gambit), which was mentioned earlier.

I'm also okay with how things are now, even though I think my suggestions (or many but not all of the suggestions in this thread) would be a bit of an improvement.

Off topic, but I think changing gambits points back to 5 would be a massive mistake. It had little to no impact on games at 200 before it was changed to 10. Changing it back and also making it so only a 10 cost character can get it? It would be even more irrelevant than it was.

On topic, an increase in points gained decreases the value of 1 point losses and decreases the incentive to engagement.

A 2 point tiebreaker is a consolation for not finishing the match. In an ideal world all matches would play out to completion. Since we have time constraints and a true tie isn't an option there has to be a solution. That solution does not mean it is worth more than a full win. Personally, I think someone that gets 2 full wins should rank higher than someone that got 3 tiebreakers. However, I am okay with how it currently works out.

When you finish a game you leave no doubt who won. A 2 point tiebreaker has doubt on the outcome and should lack the same value as a full win. Not just in the points scored, but in tie-breakers.

Just want to point out a major assumption made here that is not always correct.

Lower score does not always mean low engagement.
One easy example is a player with a 100pt piece vs a player with lower costed pieces. The player with the 100pt piece races to gambit and locks the other player out. The player with the lower cost characters desperately tries to engage while the player with the 100pt piece sits in gambit. Whenever they do get into gambit, they do some damage and then die. End of the game the player with the 100pt piece has 10hp left, and an R7 in the back, scored 8 rounds of gambit, and runs away to save his 100pt piece. The other player has 80pts of pieces left, all full health. Final score 200-92 (3-0), even though the lower score player was fully engaging all they could. (This is not a hypothetical by the way)

You end up intentionally "punishing" players that should not be. Heck - if anything the player with the 100pt piece was the one attempting non-engagement.

It's not as clear cut as you seem to think it is, and that's the problem. Players have learned to game the system by playing more for gambit than for attempting to defeat the opponent's pieces.

I think adjusting how gambit works is a great step in the right direction. Heck that may be all it takes. I personally think 1pt being 1/2 as much as a 2 pt win is not what the ration should be.

I find that it's rather simple to lose and get 100pts if that is your intent. I don't know why we encourage that to this extent. I have lost count how many times a player just mentally concedes the game and rushes at the opponent essentially handing them the game in an attempt to get 100pts. That shouldn't be encouraged. I believe both players should be trying to win the whole game. It ends up painting a false narrative. A kamikaze rush at the end does not necessarily mean a player is more engaged.

I believe this to be a false assumption. End of game kamikaze rush does not equate to engagement.

I have not played tournament in a long time, so my experience may be lacking there, but I've tried to keep up with the game as much as possible.

Can it be as simple as it used to be?
Someone wins...and someone loses.
Each game's points are recorded for ties.

Would go:
Record (W v. L)
Tie 1 = Points total
Tie 2 = Win points total
Tie 3 = Loss points total

If you know points are going to come into a factor at ANY point, then wouldn't engagement be encouraged anyway?

I know player's records need to be kept, so a win is 1pt and a loss is 0pts.

Maybe too simple, but why does it have to be more complicated?

Does anyone have the per game points totals for the tournament Tim started with in the first post?
I would love to compile the standings based on a purely points based system...