Margin of Victory

[Frydaddy 8]

Moving on...my point has been made, MOV sucks.

"Peace Out!" (Drops mic)

[Slugrage 5,007]

And poutine is awesome!
 

(or for you Americans, with a weird aversion to anything French: Cheese fries with gravy!)

[trustybroom 570]

I have a legitimate question!

So, for MoV aside from winning your match you want to destroy farm more points from your opponent than he/she destroys of yours, correct?

Do you think that will have any kind of effect on list building?

For example, flying a TIE swarm you need to lose a lot of ships before it really starts impacting your score, but if you lose a Firespray that's a lot of points.

Is this an issue? Do you think that it will help steer people away from lists such as the double Falcon?

[Vorpal Sword 14,685]

Is this an issue? Do you think that it will help steer people away from lists such as the double Falcon?

Hard to say. On one hand, it's a huge hit to your score if you lose a Falcon; on the other hand, if I have four TIEs worth 56 points and I have one Falcon worth the same, you take a 30-something point hit for losing three of them--and I lose 0 points for a three-quarters dead YT.

For the most part, I actually don't think the incentives have really changed. You still want to kill as much of your opponent's stuff as possible, while losing as little of your stuff as possible, and your W/L record is still a larger contribution to your success or failure than your tiebreaker score. So I doubt we'll see much of an effect on list choices.

[Buhallin 4,520]

Moving on...my point has been made, MOV sucks.

Well, I'll say your point has been stated.

 

Not the same as being made.

[StevenO 2,996]

Are you sure you understand it? Here let me spell it out.

I am 2-1 going in to the final round. and my loss was due to bad dice rolling vs a 1-2 turtling opponent in the second round( we were both undefeated going into the second round) He killed 65 points and I killed 50, diff of 15. 

...

 

I almost wonder.  How is that second round opponent 'only' 1-2 when you LOSE to him in the second round after you were both undefeated going into that second round?  Seems to me like you were both 1-0 going in and he came out 2-0 while you came out 1-2.  In the third round he happens to lose and you win now you BOTH should be as 2-1.

 

I don't know how he did in round 4 but if that guy you lost to just happens to be squeezing by you SHOULD have a stronger MoV then that guy who defeated you; this should give you the tie break although I guess that shouldn't happen since he is clearly the better player than you and possibly faced a better SOS because he went undefeated longer than you did.

 

Besides having that glaring record issue I really find it amusing that you think it is going to be easy to completely destroy someone that you get "paired down to."

 

Sometimes a "lopsided" MoV really isn't all that lopsided if you actually look at what happens.  Although it may be a hard fight if dual Falcons defeat a TIE swarm with both Falcons surviving the MOV will likely be HUGE even if the fight was a nail biter; conversely when the Swarm wins the MOV is likely to be a lot smaller as two Falcons really ought to take a big bite out of a TIE swarm before going down.  So here you have the 'heroic' victory actually producing a significant MOV while the expected victory is likely to produce a much smaller MOV.

[Ken-Obi 367]

Well I for one learned a lot about SOS and MOV, so I have to say thanks to the players that contributed!

[Spike IT 57]

 

 

 

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?

 

 

Rhetorical question: How many (X)-2 players made top 8 at a Regional this year? Not counting Australia.

 

Actual Answer:  Kublacon Regional, qualifiers #7 & #8 both had X-2 records, one of which was SprollyG of these boards.

 

There were two X-2 record qualifiers from the Denver regional as well.  I was the victim of the SoS problem of not controlling your own destiny by finishing 9th. 

 

I was 2-2 after 4 rounds and when standings were posted had the 3rd highest SoS in the group.  I got paired against the player with the 2nd highest SoS and won.  I figured with a 10 point SoS advantage over the 4th highest SoS after 4 rounds I was guaranteed to make the top 8 - so was very surprised when my name was called 9th.  Turns out only 1 of my 3 opponents won their last round game (one player had dropped), where as the guy that leapfrogged me was able to because all 4 of his opponents won their last round - resulting in a 15 point swing in SoS and me missing out on a set of acrylic dice. 

 

I am sure it is not perfect, but i for one am happy about MoV in place of SoS - for the sole reason it rewards you on your play rather than the play of others!

Edited July 31, 2014 by Spike IT

[Danath "ATLAS" 326]

Sorry, didn't read all the pages but in Alpha Imdaar SoS hosed me.

 

My first game was against someone who didn't win any games.

 

So in the end I tied with 2 other players. They SoS was higher so I placed 3rd.

 

However I cleaned two of my games leaving all my ships on the board and took out a high amount of my 3rd game.

 

But having that 0 killed me SoS. I would have placed 1st due to my ability to clean the table and keep my ships on the board. 

[Spike IT 57]

 

One interesting side effect of MoV is that if you do really well early on, it will pair you up against the other players with the same record and a similar MoV. So if you do really well on your first and second game, it is going to become very difficult to keep getting wins, let alone keeping up a high MoV, because you will be playing the best players. In this way MoV does a  better job at quickly "sorting" players than SoS, which is a good thing. But it is brutal if you are the guy at the top.

 

This is very true.  One of the negative points against an MoV system is that it can create some perverse incentives...  Back in the SWCCG days, it wasn't uncommon to see someone tank their first game on purpose to try and get easier matchups for the rest of the event.  It was very risky, and I don't think I ever saw it work, but a lot of people don't like that it can work like that.

 

It's called the Swiss Gambit - at least in chess.  Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.  If tournament points were the only deciding factor (like at many chess events), it can be a huge advantage to make your path getting to a certain level easier than others in the same scoring group.  But if there are other tie-breakers used to determine ranking (like X-Wing), then it usually goes against you because you had the weaker opponents. 

[Gundog8324 440]

 

After Ranking by Match Points, tie breakers should be:

1. Best Match Points per game in games between the tied players.¹
2. Best Match Points per game in common games between the tied players.²
3. Strength of Victory (Match Points per game of all players that a player has defeated)
4. Strength of Schedule (Match Points per game of all players that a player has played)
5. Best combined ranking of Points Scored and Points Allowed
6. Margin of Victory in common games
7. Margin of Victory in all games
8. Initiative.
9. Coin toss.

I've always wondered why Head to Head was never the primary factor in Swiss Events. I feel the "Swiss Gambit" only works when you aren't trying for it.  

 

I benefited from it at my first X-Wing tourney (I had some games on Vassal and non-tournament games with people so not a complete new player)  I took a risky list for fun: lost 100-22  But I figured I was still in it if I maxed out my last 2 games I did 100-0 round 2 and 100-16(maybe 100-0) round 3 finished 4th after one of the tables above me finished in a modified win by I think the at that point 4th place player (a 1-1 record) against the 2-0 3rd place player.

 

I believe the player that I lost too round 1 finished 2-1 (maybe with a modified or maybe 1-2) ended up in like 6-7th out of 12 players.  I don't recall all of the tiebreakers or the order they were applied (the TO was using a program to sort the data for pairings and standings).

 

I am telling this as a story of always have a positive spin things can get turned around fast and no matter which system lucky match ups will help.

[Gundog8324 440]

 

Is this an issue? Do you think that it will help steer people away from lists such as the double Falcon?

Hard to say. On one hand, it's a huge hit to your score if you lose a Falcon; on the other hand, if I have four TIEs worth 56 points and I have one Falcon worth the same, you take a 30-something point hit for losing three of them--and I lose 0 points for a three-quarters dead YT.

 

That's the choice isn't it? It also brings into play tactical decisions.  If I am flying 4 Interceptors or 3 ship Rebels(non-falcon) do I just take the points and kill a Falcon's Supporting cast and have something to show for a MoV tiebreaker or do I bet I can at least kill a Falcon to get the points before I am wiped?

 

To borrow Major Juggler's use of NFL comparisons.  Do you want to blitz (with expensive ships) and risk getting burned big (losing a 30+pt ship) or play a zone (Swarm) and just give up small chunks of yardage 1 first down at a time until they reach the end zone (losing a 12pt ship every round or every other round)?

[MajorJuggler 7,752]

One interesting side effect of MoV is that if you do really well early on, it will pair you up against the other players with the same record and a similar MoV. So if you do really well on your first and second game, it is going to become very difficult to keep getting wins, let alone keeping up a high MoV, because you will be playing the best players. In this way MoV does a  better job at quickly "sorting" players than SoS, which is a good thing. But it is brutal if you are the guy at the top.

This is very true.  One of the negative points against an MoV system is that it can create some perverse incentives...  Back in the SWCCG days, it wasn't uncommon to see someone tank their first game on purpose to try and get easier matchups for the rest of the event.  It was very risky, and I don't think I ever saw it work, but a lot of people don't like that it can work like that.

It's called the Swiss Gambit - at least in chess.  Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.  If tournament points were the only deciding factor (like at many chess events), it can be a huge advantage to make your path getting to a certain level easier than others in the same scoring group.  But if there are other tie-breakers used to determine ranking (like X-Wing), then it usually goes against you because you had the weaker opponents.

You don't need, or want, to lose the first game. You might want to win by a small margin though.

[doji 163]

But remember were playing in a system were someone can go undefeated with 4 modified wins and is considered to have done worse then Someone who went 3-1 (not that Sos or mov changes this) will be interesting how many more modified wins we will have as people try yo max out there mov when They should have turtled

Edited August 1, 2014 by doji

[Gundog8324 440]

 

You don't need, or want, to lose the first game. You might want to win by a small margin though.

 

Unfortunately I would still call that a Gambit because trying to win narrowly could just as easily turn into a narrow loss or a modified win (almost as bad)

[doji 163]

You don't need, or want, to lose the first game. You might want to win by a small margin though.

Unfortunately I would still call that a Gambit because trying to win narrowly could just as easily turn into a narrow loss or a modified win (almost as bad)

If you use this tactic you want to loose but by as small a margin as possible. Since you don't worry about Sos the player can test his fate by loosing round 1. Which if he figures he will go loose 1 game anyway why not loose early. Now in theory he will get to face worse players in round 2 then hewould if he won. Which means he should have a better chance at victory as well as be able to increase his mov. Repeat each round till the cut. If everything goes according to plan his mov will be higher taking the early loss and playing against lower Sos oopponents then if he wins early games and looses his last match facing higher Sos oopponents. Edited August 1, 2014 by doji

[ScottieATF 2,864]

 

One interesting side effect of MoV is that if you do really well early on, it will pair you up against the other players with the same record and a similar MoV. So if you do really well on your first and second game, it is going to become very difficult to keep getting wins, let alone keeping up a high MoV, because you will be playing the best players. In this way MoV does a  better job at quickly "sorting" players than SoS, which is a good thing. But it is brutal if you are the guy at the top.

 

I think there is some confusion here.  No where in the Tournament Rules or the OP Document (which explains how to run a Swiss event) is MoV mentioned as a part of sorting pairings.  There is no guarantee that just because you go 5(200) and 5(200) that you will be paired against another player with the same Match Points (Tournament Points) and closest MoV, you are simply put into a group with others with the same Match Points and paired from there randomly.

 

I see no mention of MoV in the pairing section of the X-wing Event Rules, maybe I'm missing it, but I'm not sure where the idea that MoV figures into Swiss pairings is coming from.

[MajorJuggler 7,752]

 

 

One interesting side effect of MoV is that if you do really well early on, it will pair you up against the other players with the same record and a similar MoV. So if you do really well on your first and second game, it is going to become very difficult to keep getting wins, let alone keeping up a high MoV, because you will be playing the best players. In this way MoV does a  better job at quickly "sorting" players than SoS, which is a good thing. But it is brutal if you are the guy at the top.

 

I think there is some confusion here.  No where in the Tournament Rules or the OP Document (which explains how to run a Swiss event) is MoV mentioned as a part of sorting pairings.  There is no guarantee that just because you go 5(200) and 5(200) that you will be paired against another player with the same Match Points (Tournament Points) and closest MoV, you are simply put into a group with others with the same Match Points and paired from there randomly.

 

I see no mention of MoV in the pairing section of the X-wing Event Rules, maybe I'm missing it, but I'm not sure where the idea that MoV figures into Swiss pairings is coming from.

 

 

Hm, that's a good point. I just assumed that it would pair up higher MoV players against each other, I should have read that closer.

 

However what's even MORE interesting is this from the Organized Play Guide:

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/organized-play/support/op-flyer-booklet.pdf

 

Breaking Ties

If players have identical Match Points at the end of the 

tournament, the TO should use the following tie breakers to 

resolve the rankings–

1) Head-to-Head: If one player has defeated all opponents 

with the same total number of Match Points, that player is 

ranked ahead of the others in the same Match Point group.

2) Strength of Schedule: Calculate each player’s strength 

of schedule by summing the total Match Points of all that 

player’s opponents. The player with the highest strength of 

schedule wins the tie. This method breaks the tie in favor of 

the player who faced the most challenging competition over 

the course of the entire tournament. 

 

Did X-wing ever use Head-to-head as a tiebreaker, or was it only just strength of schedule? It would seem like head-to-head could still be used, but the X-wing rules specifically over-ride it. Which is dumb.

 

Breaking Ties 

If players have identical win-loss records, the tie is broken based upon Margin 

of Victory. The player with the highest Margin of Victory wins the tie and 

advances. If the players are still tied, calculate the strength of each player’s 

schedule by combining total match points of all their opponents. The player 

whose opponents had the highest total combined match points wins the tie 

and advances.

[ScottieATF 2,864]

Not in the previous update.

[Vorpal Sword 14,685]

Did X-wing ever use Head-to-head as a tiebreaker, or was it only just strength of schedule? It would seem like head-to-head could still be used, but the X-wing rules specifically over-ride it. Which is dumb.

I don't know that I've ever seen it come up, actually. You'd have to have faced each other, which means your records were necessarily different at that point, and then managed to get your records back into parity by the end of the tournament. And even then, in order to be relevant, the two players involved would have to be precisely at either side of the cut.

[ScottieATF 2,864]

It is possible though unlikely. Still it is a good provision to have, as head to head is the simplest and cleanest tiebreaker.

Still to reiterate since there was alot of discussion on it; there seems to be no reason to not go for highest MoV possible every round as MoV does not figure into pairings.

[MajorJuggler 7,752]

Still to reiterate since there was alot of discussion on it; there seems to be no reason to not go for highest MoV possible every round as MoV does not figure into pairings.

 

So, the best approach is the Conan the Barbarian strategy:

 

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.