Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Roman_Sandal

Tournaments

66 posts in this topic

My local store came up with a really good way of handling it. Play 2 games - one as LS, and one as DS. 4 points per objective destroyed as LS, and 1 point per click on DS dial as DS, for a total possible 12 points per side per match. Then, you can use total points per player to determine winner with SOS determining ties. Had some close matches earlier tonight with this, and it seems to work fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

stormwolf27 said:

My local store came up with a really good way of handling it. Play 2 games - one as LS, and one as DS. 4 points per objective destroyed as LS, and 1 point per click on DS dial as DS, for a total possible 12 points per side per match. Then, you can use total points per player to determine winner with SOS determining ties. Had some close matches earlier tonight with this, and it seems to work fine.

And if the LS plays the Trench Run?  Or kills the Heart of the Empire?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ScottieATF said:

stormwolf27 said:

 

My local store came up with a really good way of handling it. Play 2 games - one as LS, and one as DS. 4 points per objective destroyed as LS, and 1 point per click on DS dial as DS, for a total possible 12 points per side per match. Then, you can use total points per player to determine winner with SOS determining ties. Had some close matches earlier tonight with this, and it seems to work fine.

 

 

And if the LS plays the Trench Run?  Or kills the Heart of the Empire?

that's considered a 12 point win. The caveat being that, if you're going that route and you don't get there before the DS dial reaches 12, you get 0 points if you haven't destroyed an objective yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Play 1 round as DS and 1 round as LS against each opponent.

Round wins are 1 point.

Strength of Schedule breaks ties.

 

Is there anything I've overlooked?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

stormwolf27 said:

ScottieATF said:

 

stormwolf27 said:

 

My local store came up with a really good way of handling it. Play 2 games - one as LS, and one as DS. 4 points per objective destroyed as LS, and 1 point per click on DS dial as DS, for a total possible 12 points per side per match. Then, you can use total points per player to determine winner with SOS determining ties. Had some close matches earlier tonight with this, and it seems to work fine.

 

 

And if the LS plays the Trench Run?  Or kills the Heart of the Empire?

 

 

that's considered a 12 point win. The caveat being that, if you're going that route and you don't get there before the DS dial reaches 12, you get 0 points if you haven't destroyed an objective yet.

 

You've just made Trench Run unplayable, effecting that whole objective set, and you've just taken away a large part of the built in downside of Heart of the Empire, as now it might as well say unattackable.  You can't take the chance in the first game of having a zero as a tie-breaker, because that means losing the game is a near automatic round loss. 

Tournament rules should do there best to not dictate meta or in-game tactics.  Rounds being often being decided by tie-breakers do just that, especially tie-breakers that directly effect a cards usability.   The second game of each of those rounds won't become about winning, it will become about not losing as bad as the other guy did.  Kamikaze runs against objectives that are not tactically viable but will give you the edge in tie-breakers while losing the game.  I seriously hope that is not the way FFG takes thier tournament rules for this game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ScottieATF said:

stormwolf27 said:

 

ScottieATF said:

 

stormwolf27 said:

 

My local store came up with a really good way of handling it. Play 2 games - one as LS, and one as DS. 4 points per objective destroyed as LS, and 1 point per click on DS dial as DS, for a total possible 12 points per side per match. Then, you can use total points per player to determine winner with SOS determining ties. Had some close matches earlier tonight with this, and it seems to work fine.

 

 

And if the LS plays the Trench Run?  Or kills the Heart of the Empire?

 

 

that's considered a 12 point win. The caveat being that, if you're going that route and you don't get there before the DS dial reaches 12, you get 0 points if you haven't destroyed an objective yet.

 

 

 

You've just made Trench Run unplayable, effecting that whole objective set, and you've just taken away a large part of the built in downside of Heart of the Empire, as now it might as well say unattackable.  You can't take the chance in the first game of having a zero as a tie-breaker, because that means losing the game is a near automatic round loss. 

Tournament rules should do there best to not dictate meta or in-game tactics.  Rounds being often being decided by tie-breakers do just that, especially tie-breakers that directly effect a cards usability.   The second game of each of those rounds won't become about winning, it will become about not losing as bad as the other guy did.  Kamikaze runs against objectives that are not tactically viable but will give you the edge in tie-breakers while losing the game.  I seriously hope that is not the way FFG takes thier tournament rules for this game.

 

So, what you're saying is that the only way to play trench run or go up against heart of the empire is to attack only that, and nothing else? Why would you do that anyway? you get up to 3 attacks per turn (4 or more with trench run, as it's still not clear whether you can attack the DS dial multiple times in a turn, since the card specifically states after saying you can engage it as though it were an objective that it is, in fact not an objective), so why would you just doing 2-5 (being generous) damage to one objective and call it quits for the turn? People im my meta who use trench run will go after other objectives too, and just because they look across the board and see heart of the empire, that doesn't become their only target either. Trench run and Heart are special win conditions that are outside the norm, so why should we make special exceptions for things that aren't within the foundation win conditions? (also, I should note that, even with several LS players using trench run and several DS players having heart out on the table, this did not negatively effect the matches).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

stormwolf27 said:

So, what you're saying is that the only way to play trench run or go up against heart of the empire is to attack only that, and nothing else? Why would you do that anyway? you get up to 3 attacks per turn (4 or more with trench run, as it's still not clear whether you can attack the DS dial multiple times in a turn, since the card specifically states after saying you can engage it as though it were an objective that it is, in fact not an objective), so why would you just doing 2-5 (being generous) damage to one objective and call it quits for the turn? People im my meta who use trench run will go after other objectives too, and just because they look across the board and see heart of the empire, that doesn't become their only target either. Trench run and Heart are special win conditions that are outside the norm, so why should we make special exceptions for things that aren't within the foundation win conditions? (also, I should note that, even with several LS players using trench run and several DS players having heart out on the table, this did not negatively effect the matches).

Basically, yes. The entire advantage of attacking Heart of the Empire or the Death Star Dial is that you reduce the amount of total damage that you need to deal to win. Yes, you could engage multiple objectives in a turn, but focusing all of your damage on Heart or the Dial makes the most of your advantage in playing it.

That being said, I disagree that Trench Run becomes useless - it still reduces the damage you need to deal from on average 15 to 10. If your opponent opens Heart of the Empire, or you with Trench Run, it's still worth targeting them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

D.Knight Sevus said:

stormwolf27 said:

 

So, what you're saying is that the only way to play trench run or go up against heart of the empire is to attack only that, and nothing else? Why would you do that anyway? you get up to 3 attacks per turn (4 or more with trench run, as it's still not clear whether you can attack the DS dial multiple times in a turn, since the card specifically states after saying you can engage it as though it were an objective that it is, in fact not an objective), so why would you just doing 2-5 (being generous) damage to one objective and call it quits for the turn? People im my meta who use trench run will go after other objectives too, and just because they look across the board and see heart of the empire, that doesn't become their only target either. Trench run and Heart are special win conditions that are outside the norm, so why should we make special exceptions for things that aren't within the foundation win conditions? (also, I should note that, even with several LS players using trench run and several DS players having heart out on the table, this did not negatively effect the matches).

 

 

Basically, yes. The entire advantage of attacking Heart of the Empire or the Death Star Dial is that you reduce the amount of total damage that you need to deal to win. Yes, you could engage multiple objectives in a turn, but focusing all of your damage on Heart or the Dial makes the most of your advantage in playing it.

That being said, I disagree that Trench Run becomes useless - it still reduces the damage you need to deal from on average 15 to 10. If your opponent opens Heart of the Empire, or you with Trench Run, it's still worth targeting them.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who's to say too that there won't be other future special win conditions added in future sets that further complicate what ever for and against system we come up with (something that I'm still not sold on that we actually need) but if we HAVE to have a tie breaker system I think it should be disconnected from win conditions entirely. 

An example of this is from deciphers lotr tcg tourney system. It too had 3 unique win/lose conditions that made it too hard to determine win loss differentials. Now their game was one game per round because you only needed one deck but let's say for arguements sake that we are allowing 1-1 draws in a round and both opponents walk away with even points. If at the end of the tourney there are 2 or more players with equal points a count back system was applied to determine the winner. You looked at who each player played and total up their scores, the player who played the toughest opponents won. The only way this system fell down was if everyone played everyone.

Edit: I actually liked this because it created a sense of anticipation while the players waited for the winner to be announced!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0