Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

SemperMortis wrote:
More along the lines of the fact that I don't have any influence over who I play. So when it comes down to it, if you draw weaker opponents you literally can't win from the start which is the part I don't like.

That's not true, since you should be playing until there is one undefeated player. If there are too many players for that, SoS still works better as a tiebreaker. Not having influence over who you play also means you can't manipulate scoring as you can with VPs, which is part of the reason to use SoS. This is a feature, not a bug.

You also never really had the influence you think over the tiebreakers, because you had no influence over who the other people in the tournament played, which is at least as important as your own games for determining the VP difference. The current system rewards a player for obliterating a couple of new players 100-20 in the early rounds, which is also something you have no control over. The SoS system attempts to measure who had the most difficult path to victory, and rewards them for prevailing over stronger opponents. The VP system does the opposite, rewarding players for easier games.

The bigger issue in my mind is that we've all been conditioned to feel deflated by 4th place and elated with 2nd when, as demonstrated here, the difference between the two can only be determined by arbitrary criteria. X-1 is a great showing and we need to do a better job of recognizing that.

SemperMortis wrote:
More along the lines of the fact that I don't have any influence over who I play. So when it comes down to it, if you draw weaker opponents you literally can't win from the start which is the part I don't like.

But if you win all your games, you would have, right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:
The bigger issue in my mind is that we've all been conditioned to feel deflated by 4th place and elated with 2nd when, as demonstrated here, the difference between the two can only be determined by arbitrary criteria. X-1 is a great showing and we need to do a better job of recognizing that.

Yup. When I run tournaments I do prizing based on records like that, avoiding dumb tiebreakers.