When Star Wars Unlimited first started organized play, the way to get around having intentional draws was to simply not have them.  This created a bunch of bad feeling energy as players would need to decide to take the double loss or be nice and grant their opponent the win.  When both players want the win it becomes an awkward standoff.

The solution has been to go to a more traditional card game system where draws, intentional or not, are worth 1 point.  This allows undefeated players with a couple rounds left to draw into a top 8 spot.  For example 5-0 in a 7 round event gets to 5-0-2 for 17 points.  Many intentional draws happen in the final round as well with people getting to X-1-1 to get into the top cut.

Is there another way?

Our hypothesis is that there should be a scoring system where draws exist but that playing is incentivized more than not playing.

Introducing the Porg Point System (PPS)

This is a hypothetical system that would alter the card game scoring such that intentional draws are often not the best outcome in the final rounds.  Players should be rewarded for actually playing the games.

We are not suggesting that this would be the best method of tournament scoring.  Merely we point out that there could be alternatives to the present system without having to revert to the double loss setup the game had previously.

PPS scoring attempts to reward gameplay, discourage intentional draws and maintain competitive fairness.

PPS Scoring Details

The Porg Point System keeps the point structure of the current match system.  Winning gets a player 3 points, losing is 0, and a draw is 1.  What changes is the addition of game level points and a bonus for a decisive win (2-0 sweep).

Game-Level Scoring

• 1 point per game won
• 0 points per game lost

Match-Level Scoring

• Match Win =  3 points
• Sweep Bonus (2–0 win) = 1 point
• Intentional Draw = 1 point to each player (no game win points)
• Match Loss = 0 points

Example Round Scores

Match Result	Winner	Loser
2–0	6	0
2–1	5	1
Draw 1-1	1 (for a game win)	1 (for a game win)
Intentional Draw	1 (for draw, no game wins)	1 (for draw, no game wins)

Key Incentive Properties

This scoring system creates scenarios where playing is better than drawing in nearly all competitive situations.

• 2–0 wins are slightly rewarded over 2–1 wins
  • This is done such that a winner would not be inclined to just offer their opponent a game win when reporting the match results. Plus it enhances the likelihood of leapfrog scenarios (covered in depth below).
• A 1–2 loss gives the same points as a draw
  • This is a deliberate design choice meant to make a match loss equal to an intentional draw in the scenario where one game is still won in the round. Top players should feel confident enough to think they could win at least a single game against another top player in a best of three match.
• Intentional draws become much more inefficient relative to attempting to win.
  • A possible outcome of 5 or 6 points relative to the 1 point for a draw is significantly more than the 3:1 ratio of the current scoring system.

Range of Possible Points by Match Record

Taking a look at a hypothetical tournament of 7 rounds.  This breakdown will show the range of points possible at most expected match records without draws.

Minimum points, assuming all wins are 2–1 and all losses are 0–2:
Minimum = 5 points × Number of Wins

Maximum points, assuming all wins are 2–0 and all losses are 1–2:
Maximum = (6 points × Number of Wins) + Number of Losses

Record	Wins	Losses	Min Points	Max Points
0–7	0	7	0	7
1–6	1	6	5	12
2–5	2	5	10	17
3–4	3	4	15	22
4–3	4	3	20	27
5–2	5	2	25	32
6–1	6	1	30	37
7–0	7	0	35	42

Range Overlaps

A major observation is that the intervals do overlap. This means that a lower match record could theoretically outscore a higher one.  This is the leapfrog capability for the Porg Point System

For example, the leapfrog would occur when a lower match record (4-3) finishes with a higher total score than a higher match record (5-2). This happens when the lower record player maximizes their score and the higher-record player minimizes theirs.

How often does that actually happen?  That is the key fairness question.

Mathematical Modeling of Leapfrog Scenarios

Modeling Assumptions

• 7-round tournament
• Equal 25% chance for each of the four possible game record outcomes (2–0 Win, 2–1 Win, 1–2 Loss, 0–2 Loss)
• Maximum Score: Achieved by maximizing 2–0 wins (6 points) and 1–2 losses (1 point).
• Minimum Score: Achieved by maximizing 2–1 wins (5 points) and 0–2 losses (0 points).

Math Disclaimer

The calculations involved use combinatorial analysis to sum the probabilities of every possible scenario. The porgs do not know how to do this on their own and leveraged some PorgGPT magic to assist with this.

Specific Probability Calculations

The total probability of an anomaly is calculated by summing the joint probabilities of every score combination where the score of Player A (S_A) is greater than the score of Player B (S_B).

P(S_A > S_B) = ∑_{x > y} P(S_A = x) × P(S_B = y)

A. The Most Stable Case: 4-3-0 vs. 5-2-0 (0.0610%)

PPS wants the basic match wins to remain stable. This could be disrupted when the 4-3-0 player achieves a high score (26 or 27) while the 5-2-0 player achieves a low score (25 or 26).

Based on the model’s 25% chance margin assumption (2-0, 2-1, 1-2, 0-2), the probabilities of the necessary scoring outcomes are fixed:

   
•         P(S_4-3 ≥ 26): The chance the 4–3 player scores one of their two highest possible totals (26 or 27) is 5/128.    
   
•         P(S_5-2 = 25): The chance the 5–2 player scores their minimum total of 25 is 1/128.    
   
•         P(S_5-2 = 26): The chance the 5–2 player scores their second-lowest total is 5/128.    

The total probability is the sum of two scenarios: (1) the 5–2 player scores 25, and (2) the 5–2 player scores 26.

  Scenario 1: S_5-2 = 25 is Leapfrogged (5/16,384)  
  P(S_4-3 ≥ 26) × P(S_5-2 = 25) = 5/128 × 1/128 = 5/16,384

  Scenario 2: S_5-2 = 26 is Leapfrogged (5/16,384)  
  P(S_4-3 = 27) × P(S_5-2 = 26) = 1/128 × 5/128 = 5/16,384

The total probability of a 4–3 player leapfrogging a 5–2 player in this simplified model is the sum of both scenarios:

  P(Total Leapfrog) = 5/16,384 + 5/16,384 = 10/16,384

This result confirms an exceptionally low anomaly rate, with a probability of approximately 0.0610%.

B. The Least Stable Case: 6-1-0 vs. 6-0-1 (19.3601%)

This comparison shows the risk of the intentional draw (6-0-1) being outscored by the high-variance loss (6-1-0). This happens whenever the 6-1-0 player achieves a higher score X than the 6-0-1 player achieves Y.

• Range: S_6-1-0 ∈ [30, 37] vs. S_6-0-1 ∈ [31, 37].
• Calculation: The probability is calculated by summing the joint probabilities for all 28 score combinations where S_6-1-0 > S_6-0-1 (e.g., P(S=37) × P(S ≤ 36), P(S=36) × P(S ≤ 35), etc.).

  P(S_6-1-0 > S_6-0-1) = ∑_{x > y} P(S_6-1-0=x) × P(S_6-0-1 < x) = 3,173/16,384

Probability of Lower Record Outscoring Higher Record

The above show just two of the possible examples of the leapfrog. The following chart expands this and shows the probability that the record on the left (the player with the lower number of match wins, or the player who took the loss) will outscore the record on the right (the player with the higher number of match wins, or the player who took the intentional draw) in a total-points ranking system.

Pairing (Lower vs. Higher Record)	Score Range of Player on Left	Score Range of Player on Right	Total Probability P(SLower > SHigher)	Percentage Chance
4-3-0 vs. 5-2-0	[20, 27]	[25, 32]	10 / 16,384	0.0610%
5-2-0 vs. 6-1-0	[25, 32]	[30, 37]	12 / 16,384	0.0732%
5-2-0 vs. 5-1-1	[25, 32]	[26, 31]	1,544 / 16,384	9.4244%
6-1-0 vs. 6-0-1	[30, 37]	[31, 37]	3,173 / 16,384	19.3601%

Why the PPS Could Work

Preservation of Match Record Integrity

The system is highly stable for match win preservation. This is demonstrated by the low probability of a lower match win count leapfrogging a higher one. The chance for a player with one fewer win to outscore a higher-ranked player is negligible (less than 0.08% in both cases). This confirms that a player really must win matches to advance and prevents point margins from destabilizing the core structure of the Swiss ranking.

Disincentive of Intentional Draws

The PPS setup creates a significant disincentive for intentional draws. The player who plays the match has a higher point ceiling and they have a substantial chance of being rewarded with a higher point score than the player who took the intentional draw:

• The 5-2-0 player has a 9.42% chance of outscoring the 5-1-1 player.
• The 6-1-0 player has a 19.36% chance of outscoring the 6-0-1 player.

This forces players nearing the cut-line to weigh the safety of the ID against the possible reward of actually playing games for the maximum possible score. Those with 6 wins are getting into the top cut regardless. However those with 5 wins need to consider that playing their final round and winning would be a better controlled outcome instead of just leaving it up to a nearly 1 in 10 chance that they miss the cut based on total number of points earned.

Additional Benefits

• Organic timed draws are preserved
  • Draws remain legal and earn 1 point.  No player is punished for slow or defensive strategies.
  • 99.9% match-record ordering fidelity is extremely high for any Swiss scoring system.
• Easy to explain
  • “Each game is worth 1 point, match win is 3 points, sweep is 1 extra point”
• Promotes honest reporting
  • A 2–0 win is worth 1 additional point over a 2–1 win.  Intentionally reporting a 2–1 match result when the actual outcome was 2–0 costs the match winner points.

Summary

The original Star Wars Unlimited tournament point structure was flawed because matches ending in a double loss just felt bad all around.  The current system may also be flawed from various points of view because the intentional draw often negates the final round or two of an event’s Swiss pairings before the top cut.

The Porg Point System is a Swiss point scoring system designed to better incentivize playing games.  The match wins matter.  Decisive rounds matter.  Game wins matter.  All of this could add up to a system where there is less final round inaction and more games getting played.

Is the PPS absolutely guaranteed to work? No.
Are there statistical outliers that create oddities in standings? Yes.

The PPS is simply an attempt to find a middle ground between the original double loss system and what we have today.

Quick Note About Melee

Why are the game records correct with draws in the third position but match record has draws second?
This seems backwards for the match record or at least extremely inconsistent with itself.

Take a look at Wooooo’s most recent PQ win. His draws are shown as 0-0-3. His match record is listed as 7-2-0 when really it should be 7-0-2.

Do better Melee.