It punishes B Wings and Y Wings and the generic turrets and Lambdas and Firesprays and the upcoming K Wing and TIE Punisher. These are ships that are based around having crap agility but a lot of hull to make up for it that are pretty much guaranteed to lose health.

I think a TIE Fighter with 1 health on it is worth more than 4 points.

I'd kind of just rather have the status quo than partial scoring honestly. I mean yeah, anything that sucks the fun out of being a Turretwing player I'm game for, but we can't take a bunch of other stuff down with super turrets.

its just complicated mostly.

So now "use random pretext to complain that something I don't like is broken" threads are a thing?

Wonderful.

Ok.

Have you played in any tournaments that used it?

Or just theorycrafting?

The title implied that you used it and don't like it.

I haven't used it, but I feel like it could hurt anyone.

The problem is that there is not a very good way of determining exactly how close a match really was (Especially if it went to time). These scoring methods are attempts to approximate it. A lot of the alternatives have been explored and tested and scrapped. Strength of schedule had issues. MoV was a proposed alternative. MoV is proven to have some problems. Partial point scoring is a proposed alternative. Undoubtedly, some problems are likely to pop up, but have they been identified yet? I'm not sure we know yet. Do we know who is worst off amongst high health, high points big turret ships, low health high points arc dodgers, low health low points swarmy ships, or anything inbetween?

I haven't used it, but I feel like it could hurt anyone.

The problem is that there is not a very good way of determining exactly how close a match really was (Especially if it went to time). These scoring methods are attempts to approximate it. A lot of the alternatives have been explored and tested and scrapped. Strength of schedule had issues. MoV was a proposed alternative. MoV is proven to have some problems.

Even with its current problems, MOV is drastically better than strength of schedule.

Partial point scoring is a proposed alternative. Undoubtedly, some problems are likely to pop up, but have they been identified yet? I'm not sure we know yet. Do we know who is worst off amongst high health, high points big turret ships, low health high points arc dodgers, low health low points swarmy ships, or anything inbetween?

The major problem with any version of partial-point scoring is that ships lose hit points at different rates--or, more precisely, the higher a ship's Agility, the less consistent the rate.

Everyone knows how it goes when you're fighting Soontir Fel: shots 1-3 fail to connect, shot 4 gets a hit and a crit through, and shot 5 destroys him. If you're fighting a Decimator, things are much more predictable: you might do 1 damage or 3 damage with your attack, but on average its hit points fall at a fairly linear rate.

People use that fact to argue that low-Agility ships will be hurt by a move to partial points, but I don't see the link. Over the long term, those inconsistencies sort themselves out for a given ship for exactly the same reason it makes sense to talk about an attack that deals an average of 0.64 damage.

Assume for a moment that we have two ships with similar overall durability in terms of the typical number of attacks it takes to kill them, but one has 0 Agility and a lot of hit points and one has 3 Agility and very few hit points. The 0-Agility ship is on a sort of death clock, because you're very unlikely to miss it--it's just a question of punching it until it dies. The 3-Agility ship is much less likely to take damage from any given attack, but (remember, this is our assumption) it takes the same number of attacks to kill it. So its hit points are still falling at the same linear rate from 100% to 0%.

The ships that are actually "hurt" by a move to any partial-points scheme are expensive ships with very high durability, but that's because they'd be placed on a more even footing with ships that don't enjoy their advantages.

Have you played in any tournaments that used it?

Or just theorycrafting?

The title implied that you used it and don't like it.

Theorycrafting. I just played a game recently with a HWK and 2 B's against a swarm and I managed to keep some near dead or half dead ships going for a while. Partial MoV would punish these types of lists heavily. If the game ends with a 31 point B at 4 health left and a Black Squadron TIE with 2 left, I have 15.5 points left and my opponent has ~10. Neat, if that game was timed I would have had a modified, yet I essentially have 31 points on the table and my opponent has 14.

Points for doing 1 damage to a 25 Point B-wing (BSP with Advanced Sensors, one of my favorite ships): 3.125**

Points for doing 1 damage to a 25 Point Interceptor (Royal Guard Pilot with PTL*): 8.333**

Points for doing 1 damage to a 25 Point Shuttle (OGP with Engine Upgrade): 2.5**

At least with ships with high agility, the difficulty of doing damage to them is balanced out by the lower number of hull points, so every damage you do is worth more. We might have to re-evaluate our assumptions as to how valuable each attribute is, but I don't think it would drive the B-wing, Y-wing, or Shuttle out of competitiveness.

My concerns with partial points are;

1) How regeneration like R2-D2, Chewbacca and Miranda's Unique Ability would affect this system: R2-D2 and Miranda in particular can't be quantified by this system (And I don't think Chewbacca should either, but he could, unlike those too), which might make them too strong.

2) Doing damage to yourself with Feedback array or Vader becomes a lot trickier decision. Each time Vader activates, the Doom Shuttle gives your opponent 4.8** points, and the Doom Patrol gives your opponent 5.5 points**- That rather limits these ships to hunting phantoms, interceptors, and Fat IG-88s***. Feedback Array Z-95s would be a bit better off, but you'd still be giving your opponent 3.5 points each time you activated it.

3) The math. Before you say anything, no crunching those numbers was not hard nor incredibly time consuming. However, when a lot of it is being done at the end of every round, you open up a lot of room for mistakes, especially if people feel rushed.

*Yes, I know that interceptor needs Autothrusters, but the example works better with all the ships at the same point cost****

**I'm against fractional points, but for the sake of the argument I've included the exact ratio since how FFG implemented it wouldn't be my decision, so the exact value is relevant.****

*** To clarify, I'm referring to a list consisting solely of the two IG-2000s. The exchange is unfavorable or barely favorable against the IG-2000 if the list included a Z-95.****

**** As you can see, I have a tendency to get carried away with Footnotes.

EDIT: To clarify, I'm not opposed to Partial Scoring as a concept at all, but I do feel it needs to be very, very carefully considered by FFG to achieve a satisfactory system, so we probably won't see it in the immediate future.

Have you played in any tournaments that used it?

Or just theorycrafting?

The title implied that you used it and don't like it.

Theorycrafting. I just played a game recently with a HWK and 2 B's against a swarm and I managed to keep some near dead or half dead ships going for a while. Partial MoV would punish these types of lists heavily. If the game ends with a 31 point B at 4 health left and a Black Squadron TIE with 2 left, I have 15.5 points left and my opponent has ~10. Neat, if that game was timed I would have had a modified, yet I essentially have 31 points on the table and my opponent has 14.

If that's the actual inspiration for your post, it doesn't even rise to the level of theorycraft. You had a game that was very close, but you'd really prefer it if the tiebreaker didn't reflect that fact...?

Theorycrafting. I just played a game recently with a HWK and 2 B's against a swarm and I managed to keep some near dead or half dead ships going for a while. Partial MoV would punish these types of lists heavily. If the game ends with a 31 point B at 4 health left and a Black Squadron TIE with 2 left, I have 15.5 points left and my opponent has ~10. Neat, if that game was timed I would have had a modified, yet I essentially have 31 points on the table and my opponent has 14.

I wouldn't bet on the result of that game with just that info- A favorable position for the Tie could give it the victory if that match went on another 10 minutes. 91-84 seems a fair result, honestly.

Have you played in any tournaments that used it?

Or just theorycrafting?

The title implied that you used it and don't like it.

Theorycrafting. I just played a game recently with a HWK and 2 B's against a swarm and I managed to keep some near dead or half dead ships going for a while. Partial MoV would punish these types of lists heavily. If the game ends with a 31 point B at 4 health left and a Black Squadron TIE with 2 left, I have 15.5 points left and my opponent has ~10. Neat, if that game was timed I would have had a modified, yet I essentially have 31 points on the table and my opponent has 14.

Partial points fundamentally negates the "unfair" benefit that a 2-3 ship list has vs a 5+ ship swarm list especially at the end of the game when you have a "fat ship" that isn't quite dead.

You had the 2-3 ship list, so yes in the majority of scenarios partial points would hurt your scoring when compared to a swarm. That is the intended goal, not an unintended side effect.

You (title heading): "I hate Fat Ships and Fat Turrets!"

You (game breakdown): "I like Fat Ships and the current system because partial points would have given my opponent more points!!!"

You can't have it both ways. Either you are OK with the Point Fortresses hanging onto their points at the end of the game, or you aren't. It sounds like you don't like Fat Turrets, but when it would benefit you, you change your tune. Hm...

Also, keeping your low-health ships alive for a while still benefits you because they keep doing damage -- that is a tactical consideration and likely the only reason that your opponent didn't outright wipe you. In the end it was irrelevant because you only had 1 ship left anyway.

I'm not sure what the squads were, but from your description, the points scored would be:

Rebel player points against:

B-wing: 31*4/8 = 15

{stuff}: 69 points

points scored by swarm: 84

Imperial player points against:

Black Squadron Pilot: 14*1/3 = 4

{stuff}: 86 points

Points scored by Rebel: 90 points

So yeah you would be winning 90-84 with partial points. In the current system it would be 86-69.

What these guys both said:

If that's the actual inspiration for your post, it doesn't even rise to the level of theorycraft. You had a game that was very close, but you'd really prefer it if the tiebreaker didn't reflect that fact...?

I wouldn't bet on the result of that game with just that info- A favorable position for the Tie could give it the victory if that match went on another 10 minutes. 91-84 seems a fair result, honestly.

Re: OP: TL;DR: you had a close game and you don't want partial points, ever, because in this one game it would have benefited your opponent. OK.

Points for doing 1 damage to a 25 Point B-wing (BSP with Advanced Sensors, one of my favorite ships): 3.125**

Points for doing 1 damage to a 25 Point Interceptor (Royal Guard Pilot with PTL*): 8.333**

Points for doing 1 damage to a 25 Point Shuttle (OGP with Engine Upgrade): 2.5**

At least with ships with high agility, the difficulty of doing damage to them is balanced out by the lower number of hull points, so every damage you do is worth more. We might have to re-evaluate our assumptions as to how valuable each attribute is, but I don't think it would drive the B-wing, Y-wing, or Shuttle out of competitiveness.

Yeah, once you look at "partial MoV per shots fired" onto a target, and then normalize for glass cannon: tank ratio, and PS bid, then pretty much all the ships in the game end up falling in a very tight cluster.

I don't really consider a B wing with an HLC and FCS fat or any other 30~ point ship to be fat. IMO triple X wing builds or triple B or 2 b's and something else aren't in the same boat as 2 ship lists.

I don't want it both ways, that was the whole point of this thread, to state that even though I don't like Turretwing, I think instituting partial points would harm a bunch of other stuff that I don't want to be along with point fortresses. I also don't think that it was particularly relevant that I was the person flying the list. Besides, it was my opponent's. I beat him with my 7x Black squadron list, and then I suggested that we switch places and the last few rounds were a half health B against a TIE with 2 health left that was target locked. I'm the only swarm player in my area, I don't want to be unfair to people who like flying power trio builds because I can just dump damage on whatever I want and get an equal amount of points as if I had actually put thoughts into my shots and tried to focus something down.

I think a good compromise for partial points scoring would be half n' half points scoring. If the ship is at half of its total health (shields and hull) or less (without being destroyed) then half of its points are considered destroyed during scoring.

I don't really consider a B wing with an HLC and FCS fat or any other 30~ point ship to be fat. IMO triple X wing builds or triple B or 2 b's and something else aren't in the same boat as 2 ship lists.

It is 100% relative to the other squad. Your build was significantly "Fatter" than your opponent's, you had 3 ships vs his 7. A 3-ship build is closer in "Fatness" to a 2-ship build than it is to a swarm.

I'm the only swarm player in my area, I don't want to be unfair to people who like flying power trio builds because I can just dump damage on whatever I want and get an equal amount of points as if I had actually put thoughts into my shots and tried to focus something down.

Even if it doesn't directly give you any more points to take 8 hit points off one B-Wing compared to 3 off two of them and 2 off a third, the fact that from that point on your opponent is scoring fewer hits on you each round (and therefore fewer points) is enough of an incentive to try and destroy enemy ships under most circumstances?

I think a good compromise for partial points scoring would be half n' half points scoring. If the ship is at half of its total health (shields and hull) or less (without being destroyed) then half of its points are considered destroyed during scoring.

It's a definite compromise: it's far less effective than going the full distance to proportional scoring (where you'd get points of MOV for every point of damage), but it's almost as easy as the current MOV to adjudicate.

I sort of have two problems with partial points, one being that a ship at 1 hp functions equally well as a ship with 10 hp, it just dies faster, and two being that it's always given as a solution to the two ship *problem*. As a person who likes to play two ship/aces lists a whole lot I don't think it's that reasonable of a position to take to just state categorically that a perfectly legitimate list building choice is a problem. I don't play fat turrets, so maybe I'm not part of the 'problem', but it just feels weird to categorize an entire genre of lists as problematic.

As I'm sure I've said before, a much more practical solution would be just to ban the falcon and decimator altogether

yeah yeah yeah, people spent money on them and they're balanced etc. but you're forgetting this incredibly nuanced counter-argument:

**** fat han and chiraneau

It's fine the way it is. It feels like people are trying to change the scoring instead of trying to change how they play against those lists. People would never say anything if they beat that list, it's only when losing do they go you know what this scoring isn't fair!

What if you only gave partial points to large based ships?

What if you only gave partial points to large based ships?

You mean you would score partial points for damage on an enemy large based ship?

I can't say I'm a fan, seeing as how Aggressors have the same effective hit points as B-wings and Y-wings. Granted, the extra 2 agility on the Aggressors makes quite a difference, but at first pass, it seems arbitrary to me to give partial points based on base size.

I think partial points makes sense if ships lose stats as they lose hit points. At 1/3 hull lost, reduce evasion and primary weapon value by 1, at 2/3 hull lost by 2 and you can't use secondary weapons.

The above system is definitely flawed, but similar to what I think would need to be the case for partial points to make sense. Currently you gain no tactical advantage for damaging ships (aside from certain criticals), only from destroying ships. Because of this it makes sense for points to align with the actual tactical goals of the game.

The problem with 'fixes' like the partial point system is that it's just a matter of time before the next thing arrives that needs to be fixed.

So the meta is dominated by 2 ship list 'fat' turreted ships? With Partial points it will swing back to swarms with high agility, or whatever.

I think that people are advocating these ideas, but the real solution isn't to 'fix' the system, because inevitably the system will end up proving to still be exploitable by other issues that present themselves. I get that partial points is being heavily advocated, but I'm of the opinion that we just take what FFG has given us and use it to its best advantage. No offence meant to MajorJuggler and the rest, but you guys seem to push really hard for your fixes, and I don't know what its really accomplishing or what you're hoping to gain.

Jacob

#f*ckitwhybother?