I'm starting to notice a potential issue with the way points are awarded at X-wing tournaments, and I'm interested in other opinions.

I'm getting the impression that it's more difficult for an Imperial squad to achieve a Total Victory in a tournament match than it is for a Rebel squad. Here's my thinking on the matter:

• Rebel vs. Rebel - High damage, low defense game. This matchup's chance of going to time is much lower than any other matchup; and even if it does, the point values on Rebel ships are so high that destroying even a single ship gets you very close to a Total Victory, if not all the way there.
• Rebel vs. Empire - High damage vs. high defense. This matchup seems equally likely to end in a Total Victory or a Modified Victory for either side.
• Empire vs. Empire- Low damage vs. high defense. This matchup's chance of going to time is much high than any other matchup, and therefore has a much higher chance of a Modified Victory. It's not uncommon in an Imperial squad for the destruction of two ships to still not account for the 33 points required for a Total Victory.

So, what's the result? Well, to me, it seems that Rebel players have a better shot at achieving Total Victories and, ergo, scoring 5 points on a win as opposed to the 3 you get for a Modified Victory.  Ultimately, the Empire relies on its defense to survive long enough to swarm and wittle down the enemy, but the fact that matches are timed (out of necessity, mind you; I make no claims that matches could be un-timed, that would never work) means that playing a defensive game will hurt you in the long run.

Thoughts?  Am I crazy?  I would be very interested to see a total breakdown of matchups and their results from the Inaugural tourney at GenCon and the Worlds tourney.  Does anyone have those on hand?

 So are you saying the bad guys should get to win?

 Double post, stupid board.

 I think Imp on Imp have the highest potential to end in 1-1 Tie.

Imp vs Reb, usually if the Imps can take down one of the Rebel ships or trade ship for ship, because their ships are much cheaper will end in a full victory.

The real problem as I see it is the wild span of points awarded.  5 points for a full win (which includes a bye win), 3 points for a modified win, 1 point for a tie, 0 for a loss.  I've brought it up elsewhere but you could have a player get a bye first round, lose second round in a modified victory, and win their final match in a full win, win a three round tournament against a player undefeated with 3 modified wins.

FFG change your scoring to 3-2-1-0.  5-3-1-0 does not work.

It's simpler than that, even.  A 3-0 record of 3 Modified Victories will be bumped by a 2-1 record with 2 Total Victories.

But, while noteworthy, that's not really my point.  All I'm driving at is that, because of the likelihood of there being Empire vs. Empire matchups, it seems to me that Empire players are going to end up with more Modified Victories than Rebel players, because a Rebel vs. Rebel matchup is (in my mind) far less like to go to time.

Well, I guess you're point is that a person who only technically "won" a single match  could bump out a 3-0 player.  I getcha.

And I realize that I'm not exactly arguing from a position of strength here, since the current World Champion won with an Imperial squad.  However, I did play him in the Featured Match for Round 3, and he only got a Total Victory by hitting 33 dead on the nose.  He was whooping my butt the whole game, but even then, I only lost 2 ships.

R5Don4 said:

I'm pretty sure Imperial Vs Imperial will always end in a….TIE.  I couldn't resist.

Tawnos said:

Here you go the guy who is 2-1  with 2 Total victories lost his match to the guy who is 3-0 with 3 Modified wins.  Yet he loses because Mr. Undefeated has 9 pts but 2-1 has 10 pts.  Way to score it FFG.

Tawnos said:

Yeah, I found that odd as well, that winning by 33 pts counts as a total victory, because I didn't think it was at all. My understanding was it was a modified victory, until it was explained to me later that it counted as total. So I dunno. You'd think the people who can design a game like this could design a tournament scoring system that would have fewer problems.

Heh.  Sorta getting sidetracked.  But yes, I think a 3-2-1-0 breakdown would work out better.  In that scenario, it's not possible for a 2-1 to outscore a 3-0.

Anyways, does anyone know if the tournament data from GenCon and Worlds are available?  I'd like to figure out the ratios of faction to victory type to see if there's anything to lend credence to what I'm thinking.

 I could be completely wrong here, and I've not played in any official tournaments as of yet…but from (mis?)reading the tournament rules I think this might not be as bad as it sounds. From what I saw, it seemed to me that the scoring was primarily used for seeding, breaking of ties, and determining strength of opponents. The way I read it standings were based on record first, THEN the aforementioned stuff. In the swiss style they favor, this should not result in any undefeated player losing the tournament to a player with a loss regardless of 'score'. Maybe I read that wrong though. Granted, this does nothing to address your original issue of Rebel vs. Imp scoring chances. Though perhaps it does help to relegate it to a secondary issue. Thoughts?

That may be.  I don't know if it's come up yet.  That does alleviate some concerns with it.

So far, my observation is that a Modified Victory is like a half win. It generally only really qualifies you for Top 4 if you get another win to go with it, otherwise it's not really better than a loss. Two Modified Victories is only 1 point better than a Total Victory and a defeat, and you really need a Total Victory to go with them to have a shot at Top 4.

But, like you said, my observation has been about factions and their respective likelihood of getting a Modified vs. Total Victory, not necessarily whether the exact point values are good or bad.  That seems a separate (but related) discussion.

Shouldn't a total victory be worth more than a modified victory? Because, you know, it's a Total Victory? If I totally whooped an opponent's a** once, shouldn't that be worth a lot more that that opponent winning a small victory against me? I mean, they shouldn't score both victories the same point value right?

                 I would have to say with the 5-3-1-0 scoring FFG has effectively encouraged players to be more aggressive in their play. It helps to ensure that the players that are most aggressive, not the most boring in my opinion, end up in the final games. I understand how a good player could still get shorted with his three half victories, but if he was that good then why could he have at least turned one of those into a whole one?

                 Now from the other end I would not be opposed to them changing the scoring, but I feel like it would encourage people to play squads that come out hot, but then end up being really slow after they take out their opponents most prized luke skywalker on steroids. Again, I am not picking sides, just trying to play devils advocate for a minute.

Again, this discussion wasn't meant to be about the point values of Total vs. Modified Victory, but rather the frequency with which the different factions seem to achieve Modified vs. Total Victory.  For whatever reason, the discussion keeps getting dragged back over to the point values.  I don't really feel that the specific point values are necessarily that important to this discussion, except to say that a Total Victory is (by necessity) worth more than a Modified Victory.

KarmikazeKidd said:

As per the FFG SWX Tournament Rules final standings are determined by Tournament Points first, Record second and Strength of Schedule third.