I've seen lots of ideas thrown around, read a bunch of threads... its seems like all these issues revolve around going to time, and more notably, the "slow player" who intentionally stalls to beat the clock.

So in a slow play environment, we know that favors two fast ship builds. Players with fast ships could plink off an opponents ship (which is worth 12+ points) and get a full win by running the rest of the match. Or there was the game last year that caused such a stir because someone "fortressed", got a lucky kill right at the end, and won. And then there's the slow players, who intentionally run out the clock for reasons. All 3 of these aren't really the intention of FFG, and seem to all be examples of not-fun play.

Assuming we standardize on 75 or 90 minute matches, what would things look like if the only way you scored the full 5 match points was to fully defeat your opponent in the time allotted? If you went to time, depending on points you would get a modified match win - or 3 match points. What would change about fleets then? How would it affect the meta?

I would think that highly defensive builds may be chosen less, because you still have to make the cut to top 8 before going to time doesn't matter. I believe that typical defensive builds sacrifice offense, in the hopes that they can outlast opponents while getting the win through killing 12 points more than the opponent. In swiss rounds seems to be the only place this might affect things.

History: I've played a couple years now, and have rarely brought a meta-defining fleet to a tournament. I have also rarely went to time, and try and play as fast as I can because I'd like more mental breaks than the 10 minutes you get to move and setup again. I typically build more glass-cannon type fleets because of this, and play more aggressively. Win or lose, t typically happens pretty fast for my games. I have also very rarely seen your typical "slow player", or someone purposely run out the clock because they were in the lead. Maybe I'm just in an awesome area for real good games?

People who only kill 1 or 2 ships then run usually have poor M.O.V.s

With MOV's being the tiebreakers for rounds... that almost seems like it favors someone building to this because then you play the arguably weaker opponents. It also only really works if there's a cut to top X players, so that you can then just play for the (modified) win. The only time tabling an opponent really matters is the very last game of a store champs or higher. If that's the ultimate end goal... why not emphasize it a little more in the earlier rounds?

People who only kill 1 or 2 ships then run usually have poor M.O.V.s

They also have far less probability of actually winning the game. MOV is a tiebreaker, not the goal.

Its interesting because Armada has a scoring system based on the margin of points. Its possible we could see something similar in X-Wing if its received well in Armada.

Wouldnt everyone just take 3 large ships and play slowly then?

Would tournament scoring be better if you only scored a "full win" by tabling the opponent?

No.

Initially, the current proportion of small defensive lists would still occasionally get the full win, but their opponents rarely would. So more people would move to smaller, more defensive lists. The stable state is a metagame full of small defensive lists where full wins are rare.

Interesting idea but almost certainly not.

Requiring you to completely destroy your opponent for a full win would likely make the partial win a lot more common and would also make that MoV tie breaker a lot more important. A lot of the time it would effectively cut a win from 5 points down two 2 which would make those full wins far more valuable.

Now I do think that increasing the MoV required for a full win up from the current 12 points would be a good idea. If you remember back when it was 30+ points and SoS was the tie-breaker the change was very welcomed but when MoV is the tie breaker you already get a better representation on how you do.

With a full win far more valuable, why would people go with the "play to not lose" type of build (stalling, etc), when a full win was worth that much more? Outright winning 2 games would give you more match points than 3 modified wins. Maybe I just haven't seen enough tournament play of any type to understand this. But the more I think about it, the more it makes far more sense. Didn't table your opponent? modified win and 3 match points. Built a list and played quick enough that you could fully defeat your opponent in 75 minutes? You deserve the full win! 5 match points. It would also fall in line with the bit in the rules about conceding if theres no way you can win, thereby giving your opponent the full match win. I guess it seems like it would solve more than one of the problems I'm seeing run rampant across these boards. And I don't think the other suggestions are going to do the trick except for one:

I do also like the MOV being higher. I think with such a low MOV we are seeing these builds that really only have to kill one ship, then not die themselves. So the bigger defensive builds are working really well right now in this regard. With MOV being only the tiebreaker, its not as big of a concern.