Margin of Victory

[Redblock 432]

But  does any of this math 25%, 33% and like, reflect on YOUR skill as player? It counts onlyhow your opponents play. New system is based on how well you play. Players will fight to the last point even after winner is certain, and that is good thing. 

[fuzzyinferno 4]

The issue with SoS the way that Fantasy Flight defined it in their tournament rules was that it was straight points.  A player who won three matches in a tournament added 15 points to each of his opponent's SoS.  If that player then drops and three more rounds are played, his opponents are missing out on the potential of earning up to 15 more points to their SoS (although the dropped player could have just lost all three games). 

 

As a TO myself, SoS was obnoxious to calculate because I had program a spreadsheet to continually update the SoS for each player based on rounds played after a match.  What I like about MoV is that I just have to calculate it at the round end and then not worry about updating the SoS each player gained from playing in prior rounds after each round.  Granted, I am sure there is software out there that will do it all automatically, but I was unable to find it before I ran my first tournament.

 

It is true that with MoV you now need to have the players report the difference in points killed, but I was already having them report the points killed anyways as a second tiebreaker in case of a SoS tie.

 

In short, I am in favor of this new system as a TO, simply because it makes the book keeping easier.

[Forensicus 883]

The issue with SoS the way that Fantasy Flight defined it in their tournament rules was that it was straight points.  A player who won three matches in a tournament added 15 points to each of his opponent's SoS.  If that player then drops and three more rounds are played, his opponents are missing out on the potential of earning up to 15 more points to their SoS (although the dropped player could have just lost all three games). 

 

As a TO myself, SoS was obnoxious to calculate because I had program a spreadsheet to continually update the SoS for each player based on rounds played after a match.  What I like about MoV is that I just have to calculate it at the round end and then not worry about updating the SoS each player gained from playing in prior rounds after each round.  Granted, I am sure there is software out there that will do it all automatically, but I was unable to find it before I ran my first tournament.

 

It is true that with MoV you now need to have the players report the difference in points killed, but I was already having them report the points killed anyways as a second tiebreaker in case of a SoS tie.

 

In short, I am in favor of this new system as a TO, simply because it makes the book keeping easier.

 

Instead of doing a SoS spread sheet for each round you could have used one of the brilliant PC/Mac based programs or even the iPad/smartphone Apps. We've used them without any kind of major hiccups 

[VanorDM 11,599]

but anyone who claims that the MOV system is completely flawless are wrong IMO

If someone was claiming that, you might have a point.

But on one is saying MOV is flawless, only that it's better the SOS.

[Vorpal Sword 14,685]

I am using MOV as a way to calculate SOS. First averaging each player's MOV after each round. Then by that average you have a way to rank each player, higher the average the better the player. Then you add up all the MOV averages of the players that a certain player played against and the higher the number equals a tougher schedule.

Sorry for the one error...

The arithmetic error isn't the problem; the problem is that you're not even close to the system FFG has outlined. There is no averaging, and there's no "add up all the MOV averages of the players that a certain player played against".

Suppose I have an eight-player tournament. In the first round, a player tables his opponent while losing just a single Academy Pilot; the player now has a MOV of 188 (100 + 88), while his opponent has an MOV of 12 (100 - 88). In the second round, our player loses a razor-thin match that comes down to his last Alpha Squadron Pilot versus a Z-95 Headhunter, so his MOV for this round is 88 (100-12), and his total MOV is 276 (188 + 88). In the third round, he hits a hot streak on his dice and wins 100-0; his MOV for the round is 100, and his total MOV is 376.

MOV rewards you, conceptually, based on the difference between your skill level and your opponent's level. As long as Swiss pairing is used, you will be matched with the player who is (a) closest to your own skill level that has (b) not been matched with another player. Again, the problem with your example--in which you pair two players with very different skill levels near the end of the tournament--isn't that MOV is fair in that case (it isn't!) but that the entire structure of a Swiss tournament is designed to minimize, as quickly as possible, the number of pairings in which that happens.

The point isn't that MOV is ideal for all outcomes, but that it avoids the biggest issues with strength-of-schedule in a randomly seeded tournament:

(1) MOV is more fair in the abstract, since your MOV only depends on things that happened at your tables. (SOS means that my tiebreaker score depends on my opponents' performance in games against people other than me.)

(2) MOV doesn't penalize players for opponents dropping from the tournament. (As SOS was calculated in FFG's tournament rules, this was counted as if the dropped player forfeited every remaining game.)

(3) MOV doesn't penalize players twice for losing a close game. (You take the loss under both tiebreaker methods, but under SOS you're penalized because your opponent receives 3 points instead of 5.)

(4) It's far easier to determine MOV by hand--and far easier to spot errors, even if the work is done by an application or spreadsheet.

(5) As an indicator of player skill, the error in MOV isn't necessarily lower than the error in SOS, but it's evenly distributed. (In SOS, the error is greatest for players with records in the middle--where it's most consequential, since there are a lot of middle players and only some will make the cut after Swiss play.)

 

I've cut out a bit of your quote, but there is a/the flaw that you and others seem to (totally) ignore (IMO):

´

You say that "...(the new system) depend only on stuff that happened in your actual games" but in your example I would say the exact opposite happens;

If your opponent bails then you receive a very nice/strong Margin of Victory for your "effort", but the guy at the other table who is actually trying his best to apply his skills and dice luck to beat his opponent might just end up with a horribly low/narrow MOV even though he flew well; he was simply paired against another skilled player (or some hot dice). 

Please enlighten me how this in any way is "more fair"??? I am not claiming to understand all the finesses of either system, but anyone who claims that the MOV system is completely flawless are wrong IMO

Let the hate rain begin

 

My counter to that would be that, under MOV, your opponent has an incentive to keep playing as long as there's a reasonable chance of inflicting additional damage. Even if I can't win outright, killing that Bounty Hunter + Recon Specialist means I get 54 points added to my MOV instead of 18--unlike in SOS, my performance still counts when I lose.

It's open to manipulation, of course--if I'm matched against my best friend and I see the way things are going, I might concede to grant him some extra tiebreaker points. But that's at least no worse under MOV than under SOS, and it clearly falls under the "unsportsmanlike conduct" rule in either case.

 

A good SOS system should not penalize other players for a player who drops. The dropped player's SOS rating would just stay the same, because the dropped player is not playing anyone else anymore. Therefore their SOS rating doesn't go down nor up.

What software were all these places using that it penalized players who stopped playing?

It's not a software issue, but rather an issue with the way FFG directed tournament organizers to calculate strength of schedule. Your SOS is (as you seem to understand in a later post) the number of win points your opponent gains--not, for instance, their win percentage. An opponent who drops from the tournament accumulates no more wins; an opponent who stays in the tournament is likely to be paired up against equally skilled players in later rounds, and may chalk up a victory or two as a result.

 

The SoS is by definition the sum of a player's scores. If a player drops, he cannot win more games and all his opponents will have a weaker SoS than if he had continued to play.

That's why SoS is so unpopular: your ranking depends on the score of others…

"SOS is the sum of a player's scores." The player's scores end when they drop.

"If a player drops, he cannot win more games..." He also can't lose anymore as well.

" and all his opponents will have a weaker SoS than if he had continued to play." You assume the dropped player was going to win. Dropping DOES NOT mean the dropped player will get losses for the rest of the tourney.

"That's why SoS is so unpopular:" I too would hate SOS if this is the way it was calculated, good thing it is not.

But it is the way it's calculated. As far as SOS was concerned, there were three and only three outcomes for a match: win, modified win, and loss. If my first-round opponent went 0-2 and dropped, he contributes 0 points to my SOS--precisely as if he had gone 0-5. Every round in which he didn't play counts as a loss with respect to his SOS (because he accumulates 0 points), which means the effect of that drop on my SOS is as if he lost a game in every round after he dropped.

Edited July 30, 2014 by Vorpal Sword

[Forensicus 883]

......

It's open to manipulation, of course--if I'm matched against my best friend and I see the way things are going, I might concede to grant him some extra tiebreaker points. But that's at least no worse under MOV than under SOS, and it clearly falls under the "unsportsmanlike conduct" rule in either case.

......

 

 

But if you do that then at the very least you would/should be DQ'ed and possibly your friend too:

Unsportsmanlike Conduct:

....

Collusion among players to manipulate scoring is expressly

forbidden. The TO, at his sole discretion, may remove players from the

tournament for unsportsmanlike conduct.

[fuzzyinferno 4]

 

The issue with SoS the way that Fantasy Flight defined it in their tournament rules was that it was straight points.  A player who won three matches in a tournament added 15 points to each of his opponent's SoS.  If that player then drops and three more rounds are played, his opponents are missing out on the potential of earning up to 15 more points to their SoS (although the dropped player could have just lost all three games). 

 

As a TO myself, SoS was obnoxious to calculate because I had program a spreadsheet to continually update the SoS for each player based on rounds played after a match.  What I like about MoV is that I just have to calculate it at the round end and then not worry about updating the SoS each player gained from playing in prior rounds after each round.  Granted, I am sure there is software out there that will do it all automatically, but I was unable to find it before I ran my first tournament.

 

It is true that with MoV you now need to have the players report the difference in points killed, but I was already having them report the points killed anyways as a second tiebreaker in case of a SoS tie.

 

In short, I am in favor of this new system as a TO, simply because it makes the book keeping easier.

 

Instead of doing a SoS spread sheet for each round you could have used one of the brilliant PC/Mac based programs or even the iPad/smartphone Apps. We've used them without any kind of major hiccups 

 

 

You are right, and I have since found them.  I became the TO for my store somewhat suddenly and was unable to find those programs when I did a quick search.  Plus, most of those programs are third party and I would want to vet the program against my own numbers.

 

Out of curiosity, what app / software package do you prefer to use?

[Vorpal Sword 14,685]

It's open to manipulation, of course--if I'm matched against my best friend and I see the way things are going, I might concede to grant him some extra tiebreaker points. But that's at least no worse under MOV than under SOS, and it clearly falls under the "unsportsmanlike conduct" rule in either case.

 

 

But if you do that then at the very least you would/should be DQ'ed and possibly your friend too...

Right--like I said, manipulating the scoring so as to provide a better result for my friend is clearly unsportsmanlike conduct, and falls under that rule.

But the worst case under MOV (I'm losing really badly and my friend needs to keep his tiebreaker score high) is still no worse than under SOS (under which I could argue plausibly that I didn't think I could win, so I conceded), and hopefully most players will realize that conceding early under MOV hurts them exactly as much as it helps their opponent.

[Forensicus 883]

 

 

The issue with SoS the way that Fantasy Flight defined it in their tournament rules was that it was straight points.  A player who won three matches in a tournament added 15 points to each of his opponent's SoS.  If that player then drops and three more rounds are played, his opponents are missing out on the potential of earning up to 15 more points to their SoS (although the dropped player could have just lost all three games). 

 

As a TO myself, SoS was obnoxious to calculate because I had program a spreadsheet to continually update the SoS for each player based on rounds played after a match.  What I like about MoV is that I just have to calculate it at the round end and then not worry about updating the SoS each player gained from playing in prior rounds after each round.  Granted, I am sure there is software out there that will do it all automatically, but I was unable to find it before I ran my first tournament.

 

It is true that with MoV you now need to have the players report the difference in points killed, but I was already having them report the points killed anyways as a second tiebreaker in case of a SoS tie.

 

In short, I am in favor of this new system as a TO, simply because it makes the book keeping easier.

 

Instead of doing a SoS spread sheet for each round you could have used one of the brilliant PC/Mac based programs or even the iPad/smartphone Apps. We've used them without any kind of major hiccups 

 

 

You are right, and I have since found them.  I became the TO for my store somewhat suddenly and was unable to find those programs when I did a quick search.  Plus, most of those programs are third party and I would want to vet the program against my own numbers.

 

Out of curiosity, what app / software package do you prefer to use?

 

 

I've run a couple of tourneys using the SWSwiss (2.0.8 is the latest version I think) and liked it. It hasn't got much fancy stuff going on, the GUI is very plain and the overall functionality isn't the greatest. I quickly learned that saving Rounds after they started and when completed was very essential since dropping players might cause chaos.

 

Later I found the X-Wing by Cryodex (version 2.2): also a standalone for Mac/Pc it has some slightly more advanced features such as saving or building a pool pf players and then selecting them in future tourneys, it'll assign a seeding value and you are able to define or choose to cut to Top 2/4/8 after a selected number of rounds. Easier and slightly better than SWSwiss IMO

 

For iPad/smartphone I've used the X-Wing TO App and have had no issues. Works VERY nicely, though a bit cumbersome to start up a tourney. But that is due to a couple of nice features:

Tounament Format: Has setup/scoring for Dogfight, Escalation, Epic and Team Epic

Registration: Player name and option for "group" assigning (used for 1st round pairings) and if the Person has a bye

List Validation: Faction (previously also included list point total)

and finally

Check In: Only people "checked-in" will be eligible for the rounds.

[ObiBen 50]

The chess community is the one who came up with this system and they base their tie breaks on some sort of strength of schedule. But hey, what do they know they just invented the system.

As an interesting note, the chess community has an ongoing Strength of Schedule score (rating) which lends itself better to that game, as opposed to it being only based on a few games played.

[VanorDM 11,599]

As an interesting note, the chess community has an ongoing Strength of Schedule score (rating)

Which is why SoS works in chess, and doesn't work here nearly so well. Which was mentioned at least a couple times now, but Frydaddy is either ignoring that, or just hasn't bothered to read the posts.

If X-Wing had a ELO type system and you knew the retaliative strength of everyone going into the event it may work better. But since you don't, SoS doesn't work as well here, because it was invented to work in a different framework then X-Wing uses.

[doji 163]

Mov punishes you for having a close game again t a higher skill opponent and rewards you for ****** a lower skill opponent.

Sos rewards you for playing higher skill opponents and punishes you for ****** lower skill opponents.

Most people don't like Sos because of drops and playing the newbie round 1 and 2 that you know will loose out the rest of the tournament there Sos is worthless and will loose all tie breakers to someone who played better people.

Mov will do the opposite it will give players a huge advantage from dominating those same players round 1 and 2 in the final stage over a player who played good opponents through out the round.

Sos is better for smaller tournament s loaded with new players and little kids.

Mov would be better at larger tournaments filled with high Level players

[Jobu 719]

I am hardly a tournament expert, but I don't understand why they don't just do something like 100-(opponents ship value remaining)-(the value of your ships destroyed).  No Win, Modified Win or Loss.  Just a value that can easily be compared to other peoples items and added up over the course of a tourney.

 

So if I end a game versus two one hundred point squads and all that is left is my rookie x-wing and his academy tie:

He would get: 100 - 21 - 88 = -9

and I would get 100 -12 - 79 = +9

 

If the Tie wiped me we would get:

100 - 0 - 88 = +12

and I would get 100-12-100 = -12

 

If I wiped the Tie:

100-21-100 = -21

100-0-79 = +21

 

What am I missing?  I know there is some oddness when you deal with squad values that are less than 100, but this seems easy and takes how well you performed into account rather than having a point system (W/MW/D/L) with a secondary point system tacked on for the common occurance of that being insufficient.  I could also see some additional weirdness where expensive ships need to be targeted first due to a point system, but I am shooting the Falcon first anyhow.

[Vorpal Sword 14,685]

Mov punishes you for having a close game again t a higher skill opponent and rewards you for ****** a lower skill opponent.

Sos rewards you for playing higher skill opponents and punishes you for ****** lower skill opponents.

Most people don't like Sos because of drops and playing the newbie round 1 and 2 that you know will loose out the rest of the tournament there Sos is worthless and will loose all tie breakers to someone who played better people.

Mov will do the opposite it will give players a huge advantage from dominating those same players round 1 and 2 in the final stage over a player who played good opponents through out the round.

Sos is better for smaller tournament s loaded with new players and little kids.

Mov would be better at larger tournaments filled with high Level players

As long as the Swiss format is doing its job, MOV works, because MOV works under the assumption that most pairings have players at similar skill levels. When that assumption is violated, MOV definitely does start to do weird things. Among other implications, that means MOV works best for long tournaments, but favors players with "lucky" early matchups (matches against weak players).

Any tiebreaker system, though, is going to struggle to produce reasonable results in short, randomly seeded tournaments. If you only have seven players, it's just hard to run a tournament period.

What am I missing?

What you're describing is very close to what they've just introduced as a tiebreaker.

Edited July 30, 2014 by Vorpal Sword

[Buhallin 4,520]

One thing that could be done to mitigate the weirdness of the randomness would be to seed players in each round based on tiebreaker.  FFG's system doesn't actually do this for some reason.  You group players only by tournament points, then pair them randomly within each group.

 

If you seed by tiebreaker, skew from the random pairings tend to work themselves out.  If you demolish that random newbie, you end up high on the list and face other big winners.  If you squeak by because you had a harder opponent, you end up lower and get opponents who also didn't do as well in the first round.

 

I've never understood why they don't seed by tiebreaks, either here or SoS.  For SoS it maybe makes it easier than having to calculate the full SoS each round, but differential is far easier to track.

 

It's actually worth noting that you CAN use the tiebreaks.  The tournament rules specify that players will be matched to others with the same number of tournament points, but it doesn't go into detail on how to do that...  so you can use the tiebreak and be perfectly within the rules.

[Frydaddy 8]

MOV PROS AND CONS

PROS:

Easy to calculate

CONS:

Rewards playing lesser opponents.

Promotes stalling when you play better opponents.

Promotes power players to crush the hopes and dreams of newbs.

[Buhallin 4,520]

MOV PROS AND CONS

PROS:

Easy to calculate

CONS:

Rewards playing lesser opponents.

Promotes stalling when you play better opponents.

Promotes power players to crush the hopes and dreams of newbs.

It's almost like you're not paying attention to anything anyone is saying at all.

 

Oh wait, no almost.  That's EXACTLY what it's like.

 

<sigh>

 

I generally try not to take joy in the discomfort of others...  but you?  Yeah, schaudenfreude is in full effect.  The change has happened, it's real, it's not going anywhere any time soon, and I am actively enjoying your distress about it from here on.

[Frydaddy 8]

It'

MOV PROS AND CONS

PROS:

Easy to calculate

CONS:

Rewards playing lesser opponents.

Promotes stalling when you play better opponents.

Promotes power players to crush the hopes and dreams of newbs.

It's almost like you're not paying attention to anything anyone is saying at all.

 

Oh wait, no almost.  That's EXACTLY what it's like.

 

<sigh>

 

I generally try not to take joy in the discomfort of others...  but you?  Yeah, schaudenfreude is in full effect.  The change has happened, it's real, it's not going anywhere any time soon, and I am actively enjoying your distress about it from here on.

Ditto, but back at you.

I can hardly wait to hear about how you got eliminated from the prize pool, just because you had to play a better opponent.

[Buhallin 4,520]

 

Ditto, but back at you.

I can hardly wait to hear about how you got eliminated from the prize pool, just because you had to play a better opponent.

 

False premise.

 

I've actually used this exact system for my own tournaments for the last year or more, with absolutely zero complaints from anyone.  It's actually a pretty solid system that does have its weaknesses, but far fewer than SoS.

 

So no - you won't hear any crying from me on it, elimination or no.

[Vorpal Sword 14,685]

MOV PROS AND CONS

PROS:

Easy to calculate

CONS:

Rewards playing lesser opponents.

Promotes stalling when you play better opponents.

Promotes power players to crush the hopes and dreams of newbs.

I'm done arguing about this after this post, but none of the cons are real.

"Rewards playing lesser opponents."

I've already addressed this several times, and so have others, but MOV rewards players who are more skilled than their opponents--specifically, more skilled than the Swiss tournament pairing method estimated when it matched the two of you. If you're paired with someone much weaker than you are, that's likely to lead to an "undeserved" spike in your MOV for the round.

But this is, at a minimum, no worse than strength of schedule punishing you for being matched with a relatively poor player. Furthermore, it's an example of something that the pairing method itself is already designed to minimize, particularly as the number of rounds increases.

Basically, you're right on this point but only if the pairing method has already failed--in which case no tiebreaker method handles the situation well.

"Promotes stalling when you play better opponents."

Under MOV, players have an incentive to do as well as possible even if they can't win, because doing so improves their tiebreaker scores. The only way stalling would be a reasonable strategy is if a player were to conclude that they were so badly outmatched that he or she would be unable to destroy any of his or her opponent's ships--which is never a reasonable conclusion in a dice game.

MOV has a bias, but it's toward aggressive play rather than stalling or turtling.

"Promotes power players to crush the hopes and dreams of newbs."

Do you understand that this directly contradicts your previous point? You can't simultaneously argue that MOV promotes stalling tactics (which are conservative and defensive) and that it drives players toward no-holds-barred dream-crushing (which is aggressive).

But in any case, how is this any different from any other tournament scoring method? You move up by winning, regardless of your opponent's skill level. I have never seen nor heard of a player getting to, say, 25 points up and then kicking back as if victory were assured and he or she didn't want to be rude by running up the score (again, at least in part because it's a dice game, and a hot streak for your opponent can obliterate your lead in a single round). This is... nonsense.

I've faced new players in tournaments a number of times, and I'm not rude to them and I don't play a cutthroat game, but if they get tabled then that's what happens.

Edited July 30, 2014 by Vorpal Sword

[Introverdant 707]

Just want double elim.

Is that so wrong?

[ScottieATF 2,864]

Double Elimination would hurt participation. One of the selling points of Swiss is that even the losing players get to keep playing.

[Introverdant 707]

Double Elimination would hurt participation. 

 

Citation needed.   

 

One of the selling points of Swiss is that even the losing players get to keep playing.

 

Which is nonsensical, and requires bizarre contrivances like Strength of Schedule & Margin of Victory.

Nobody who loses two Swiss matches in an X-wing tournament is making the final cut in any case, generally speaking.

 

 

I suppose it's irrelevant. If it were up to me, it'd be double elim - but Swiss is what we have so *meh*.

Edited July 30, 2014 by Introverdant

[StevenO 2,996]

I love the discussion that getting "paired against someone with a lesser record" actually means getting paired against a "lesser player."  Even the BEST player could get paired with someone who has "lesser" skill but a cold streak on with the dice can mean defeat.  Now this player who happens to have a loss, through small fault of his own, is labelled a "lesser opponent" despite being better than you are.  Now you're saying anyone who has to face this guy is "lucky" because he happened to get unlucky early on.

[WonderWAAAGH 7,153]

Which is nonsensical, and requires bizarre contrivances like Strength of Schedule & Margin of Victory.

Nobody who loses two Swiss matches in an X-wing tournament is making the final cut in any case, generally speaking.

 

Rhetorical question(s): can you get diced out of chess? In how many other Swiss-style games can you be completely obliterated by bad luck?