Jump to content



Photo

Tournaments


  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#61 ScottieATF

ScottieATF

    Member

  • Members
  • 774 posts

Posted 11 January 2013 - 06:27 PM

D.Knight Sevus said:

ScottieATF said:

 

The risk is to great because if you lose the game, and thus earn a 0 for a tie-breaker, you've conceded the whole round.  As your opponent would have to be completely dominated in return, to the point of scoring not a single objective for you to just even the score.  I mean it isn't hard for the LS to kill one objective even if soundly beaten in a straight up game, but in a game where they knew all they had to do was take one?  Just keep attacking out regardless of how open it leaves you because you only need on objective.

The second game under such a system will be completely perverted.  It will not be about atttempting to win the game, it is only about losing it not as bad.  That is going to lead the savy player into doing some stupid stuff that will gain in the short term but hand the game to thier opponent, because they don't need to try and win the game at all.  The tournament rules for a card game should not change the game that much.

 

 

If you lose the game. Only having to inflict 10 damage to win is such a massive advantage that if you can start swinging at Heart or the Death Star on turn 1, it is far more likely that you'll win the game than playing it normally. What I will concede that it does is narrow the window during which attacking Heart and the Dial are viable, but at least in the case of Trench Run, it's still got 2 Force icons for the Edge battle, making it one of the Rebel Alliance's better edge cards.

Additionally, to win the match on tiebreakers, you must do better than your opponent did while actively trying to win the match. If you win as the Light Side player with the dial at 8, you still must play well enough to advance the dial to 9 or higher. If you win as the Dark with two destroyed objectives, you must win the game outright to win the match.

Finally, looking at Netrunner's prestige system, which is very likely to be implemented in Star Wars, winning a match 2-0 gives you 6 prestige, while winning 1-1 on tie breakers only gives you 4, and affords your opponent 2. If you're actively trying to win the tournament (which you ought to be, if you're a savvy tournament player), then it is in your best interests to win every game in the match.

Netrunner's prestige system is exactly what I do not want for this game.  In the prestige system your final placement has no strict connection to your win/loss record.  In a 4 round tournament a player could win every round and sit at only 16 prestige while another player could beat him in the standings with only three wins for 18 points, while having lost to the exact player he just beat in placement.  That shouldn't happen in a tournament.  You should not be rewarded in the overall placement by getting easier match-ups.  Also Netrunner, as far as I'm aware, works off players accumulating agenda points to an end goal, on both sides.  SW has different win conditions for each side, thus being less supportive of tiebreakers.

In regards to the Trench Run, I could already find an number of people that question if the Trench Run is worth every playing.  I don't agree with them, but it clearly has its own built in downsides that force you to judge the risk/reward.  It isn't a no brainer even first turn.  If you further enchance the risk, and a 0 for a tie-breaker is a huge risk, you now tip the scales completely.



#62 Keggy

Keggy

    Member

  • Members
  • 311 posts

Posted 11 January 2013 - 06:40 PM

ScottieATF said:

Netrunner's prestige system is exactly what I do not want for this game.  In the prestige system your final placement has no strict connection to your win/loss record.  In a 4 round tournament a player could win every round and sit at only 16 prestige while another player could beat him in the standings with only three wins for 18 points, while having lost to the exact player he just beat in placement.

Lets see here, the 18 point guy has won three matches and lost one, so thats 2 matches of 6 points, 1 match of 4 points, and one match of 2 points?  Against the 16 point guy with 4 matches of 4 points?  I fail to see how the guy with 18 points shouldn't be ranked higher than the 16 pointer.



#63 ScottieATF

ScottieATF

    Member

  • Members
  • 774 posts

Posted 11 January 2013 - 06:48 PM

Keggy said:

ScottieATF said:

 

Netrunner's prestige system is exactly what I do not want for this game.  In the prestige system your final placement has no strict connection to your win/loss record.  In a 4 round tournament a player could win every round and sit at only 16 prestige while another player could beat him in the standings with only three wins for 18 points, while having lost to the exact player he just beat in placement.

 

 

Lets see here, the 18 point guy has won three matches and lost one, so thats 2 matches of 6 points, 1 match of 4 points, and one match of 2 points?  Against the 16 point guy with 4 matches of 4 points?  I fail to see how the guy with 18 points shouldn't be ranked higher than the 16 pointer.

One player has won 4 rounds, the other 3, including losing to the before mentioned player.  A player should not be rewarded in thier primary placement for having easier early match-ups or penalized for the opposite, which is what that system does.  You should not be able, in a swiss format, to beat the only other remaining undefeated player, and then somehow place behind him.



#64 D.Knight Sevus

D.Knight Sevus

    Member

  • Members
  • 139 posts

Posted 11 January 2013 - 09:42 PM

But weren't you just complaining that the second game would be perverted because the goal becomes to "not lose as badly?" As your example shows, the prestige point system solves that problem - your hypothetical undefeated player won 4 of 8 games he played, while the victor won 6 of his 8 games. While the undefeated player never lost a match, the player who actually won more of his games won the tournament, giving you incentive to win as many games as you can, rather than doing the bare minimum to secure a match win.



#65 ScottieATF

ScottieATF

    Member

  • Members
  • 774 posts

Posted 12 January 2013 - 06:31 AM

D.Knight Sevus said:

But weren't you just complaining that the second game would be perverted because the goal becomes to "not lose as badly?" As your example shows, the prestige point system solves that problem - your hypothetical undefeated player won 4 of 8 games he played, while the victor won 6 of his 8 games. While the undefeated player never lost a match, the player who actually won more of his games won the tournament, giving you incentive to win as many games as you can, rather than doing the bare minimum to secure a match win.

You are completely correct that it helps on that issue, but I'd prefer that issue be the problem then having a Prestige-esque placement system.

There are two main things I want from the tournament rules.  I don't want them to dictate meta or stratedgy more then they need to.  I think a two game system will frequently force you to go to tie-breakers, and I think that there is no way for tie-breakers to not dictate meta or stratedgy.  Particularly because the game, unlike Netrunner, has differing win conditions for each side in addition to certain win altering card effects (which I am un-aware if Netrunner has).  Nor do I want the tournament system to handle placement based on anything other then who is the last man standing among the undefeated players.  I think the Prestige system unfairly penalizes you for not getting softball match-ups in the early round, and that ultimately you should not be able to lose a tournament, if you've never lost a round.  Under the Prestige system I believe it's possible for an undeated player to actually finish third, all based on the fact that he/she had close rounds?  I think the Prestige system works fine when you do a Top Cut, but for mid-sized to smaller tournaments it just leads to silly situations.

I'd prefer a best of three format (I think the game length supports it) with standard swiss pairings and the tournament ending when there is one undefeated player left.  Secondary tie-breaker can be game win-loss ratio as it won't decided overall winner just 2nd and lower. 



#66 Xenu's Paradox

Xenu's Paradox

    Member

  • Members
  • 154 posts

Posted 13 January 2013 - 05:02 AM

ScottieATF said:

D.Knight Sevus said:

 

ScottieATF said:

 

The risk is to great because if you lose the game, and thus earn a 0 for a tie-breaker, you've conceded the whole round.  As your opponent would have to be completely dominated in return, to the point of scoring not a single objective for you to just even the score.  I mean it isn't hard for the LS to kill one objective even if soundly beaten in a straight up game, but in a game where they knew all they had to do was take one?  Just keep attacking out regardless of how open it leaves you because you only need on objective.

The second game under such a system will be completely perverted.  It will not be about atttempting to win the game, it is only about losing it not as bad.  That is going to lead the savy player into doing some stupid stuff that will gain in the short term but hand the game to thier opponent, because they don't need to try and win the game at all.  The tournament rules for a card game should not change the game that much.

 

 

If you lose the game. Only having to inflict 10 damage to win is such a massive advantage that if you can start swinging at Heart or the Death Star on turn 1, it is far more likely that you'll win the game than playing it normally. What I will concede that it does is narrow the window during which attacking Heart and the Dial are viable, but at least in the case of Trench Run, it's still got 2 Force icons for the Edge battle, making it one of the Rebel Alliance's better edge cards.

Additionally, to win the match on tiebreakers, you must do better than your opponent did while actively trying to win the match. If you win as the Light Side player with the dial at 8, you still must play well enough to advance the dial to 9 or higher. If you win as the Dark with two destroyed objectives, you must win the game outright to win the match.

Finally, looking at Netrunner's prestige system, which is very likely to be implemented in Star Wars, winning a match 2-0 gives you 6 prestige, while winning 1-1 on tie breakers only gives you 4, and affords your opponent 2. If you're actively trying to win the tournament (which you ought to be, if you're a savvy tournament player), then it is in your best interests to win every game in the match.

 

 

Netrunner's prestige system is exactly what I do not want for this game.  In the prestige system your final placement has no strict connection to your win/loss record.  In a 4 round tournament a player could win every round and sit at only 16 prestige while another player could beat him in the standings with only three wins for 18 points, while having lost to the exact player he just beat in placement.  That shouldn't happen in a tournament.  You should not be rewarded in the overall placement by getting easier match-ups.  Also Netrunner, as far as I'm aware, works off players accumulating agenda points to an end goal, on both sides.  SW has different win conditions for each side, thus being less supportive of tiebreakers.

In regards to the Trench Run, I could already find an number of people that question if the Trench Run is worth every playing.  I don't agree with them, but it clearly has its own built in downsides that force you to judge the risk/reward.  It isn't a no brainer even first turn.  If you further enchance the risk, and a 0 for a tie-breaker is a huge risk, you now tip the scales completely.

Minor nitpick: The scenario you describe would result in player B having 20 prestige, since player A won the match 1-1 and not 2-0.






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS