A 60 point Decimator is spending a huge chunk of its points on the PS bid, upgrades, a turret, pilot abilities, and higher base attack than a TIE Fighter. When you normalize for all that, then the "reward" for shooting at a VT-49 vs a TIE Fighter is roughly on par. Or, equivalently, if you bring something that is a glass cannon and loaded to the gills with upgrades and is paying for cool stuff like a turret and/or a fantastic dial, then yes -- your opponent is rewarded by taking out your High Value Asset. Which is how it plays out tactically in an untimed game as well.

Right, the comparison of 5 Academies to a heavily upgraded Chiranau is a bit of apples vs. oranges. It would be more appropriate to compare 4 elite/named TIES at ~15 points each vs. a 60 point Decimator vs. 3 Obsidians to a Patrol Leader.

A 60 point Decimator is spending a huge chunk of its points on the PS bid, upgrades, a turret, pilot abilities, and higher base attack than a TIE Fighter. When you normalize for all that, then the "reward" for shooting at a VT-49 vs a TIE Fighter is roughly on par. Or, equivalently, if you bring something that is a glass cannon and loaded to the gills with upgrades and is paying for cool stuff like a turret and/or a fantastic dial, then yes -- your opponent is rewarded by taking out your High Value Asset. Which is how it plays out tactically in an untimed game as well.

I wish I had the time (and perhaps skill) to work this out. I'll accept your statement as logical and supported by my limited MathWing knowledge - the VT-49 gets a host of upgrades that gives it significant advantages over a group of TIEs that isn't present in my simple example. To fully address my concern, however, can you convince me that overkill is not also an advantage for the TIEs? Is there math that you've done that factors in this advantage in addition to normalizing for PS, pilot abilities and the like?

However, wouldn't you say that playing to time with 3x 3 hull interceptors is likely a situation that is different from a point fort like a falcon? Maybe it's a just a different problem, but it's actually one that is/was mentioned as an acceptable tactic in the article when MoV was introduced, iirc. That said, partial points would change the window a player would have a more variable margin where he would be in the lead.

Remember that a Falcon playing to time with MoV does take damage: as a 13 health ship it can be hit 12 times. To try and "point fort" with interceptors is relying on not getting shot at all and being able to completely evade the shots you do get. You can't really run away all day for 75 minutes and not get hit as a tournament winning strategy, and if you could then people'd just field Decivaders or Doomshuttles.

A 60 point Decimator is spending a huge chunk of its points on the PS bid, upgrades, a turret, pilot abilities, and higher base attack than a TIE Fighter. When you normalize for all that, then the "reward" for shooting at a VT-49 vs a TIE Fighter is roughly on par. Or, equivalently, if you bring something that is a glass cannon and loaded to the gills with upgrades and is paying for cool stuff like a turret and/or a fantastic dial, then yes -- your opponent is rewarded by taking out your High Value Asset. Which is how it plays out tactically in an untimed game as well.

Right, the comparison of 5 Academies to a heavily upgraded Chiranau is a bit of apples vs. oranges. It would be more appropriate to compare 4 elite/named TIES at ~15 points each vs. a 60 point Decimator vs. 3 Obsidians to a Patrol Leader.

True, this is closer. I'm sure the best way would be to compare the PS1 equivalent VT-49 points to an equivalent number of academy TIEs. Still doesn't address overkill advantage though.

What are we comparing and why? If we're saying that TIEs are efficient in terms of hull and firepower, this isn't news. The VT-49 pays points for its turret and won't match the TIEs on efficiency.

If we're trying to work out which list'll get a small inherent advantage with PP, remember that you've still got to kill the enemy list. The strategy hasn't changed: blowing up the enemy is still the way to go.

Remember that a Falcon playing to time with MoV does take damage: as a 13 health ship it can be hit 12 times. To try and "point fort" with interceptors is relying on not getting shot at all and being able to completely evade the shots you do get. You can't really run away all day for 75 minutes and not get hit as a tournament winning strategy, and if you could then people'd just field Decivaders or Doomshuttles.

I don't want to keep going back to this, as some good points have been made about normalizing for external factors and I really need to do some quick math on PS1 equivalent VT-49 vs academies, but you are still comparing High Point High Agility ships against a a VT-49. I agree that it is roughly fair in this case. I am talking about low point high agility ships such as TIE fighters, not interceptors or Phantoms. An Interceptor may give up 7-10 points per damage done, but a TIE Fighter gives up only 4, which is not a great deal different than a VT-49. Though I admit that once I look at PS1 equivalent, the VT-49 will fare a bit better than it does in my example.

Remember that a Falcon playing to time with MoV does take damage: as a 13 health ship it can be hit 12 times. To try and "point fort" with interceptors is relying on not getting shot at all and being able to completely evade the shots you do get. You can't really run away all day for 75 minutes and not get hit as a tournament winning strategy, and if you could then people'd just field Decivaders or Doomshuttles.

I don't want to keep going back to this, as some good points have been made about normalizing for external factors and I really need to do some quick math on PS1 equivalent VT-49 vs academies, but you are still comparing High Point High Agility ships against a a VT-49. I agree that it is roughly fair in this case. I am talking about low point high agility ships such as TIE fighters, not interceptors or Phantoms. An Interceptor may give up 7-10 points per damage done, but a TIE Fighter gives up only 4, which is not a great deal different than a VT-49. Though I admit that once I look at PS1 equivalent, the VT-49 will fare a bit better than it does in my example.

What are we comparing and why? If we're saying that TIEs are efficient in terms of hull and firepower, this isn't news. The VT-49 pays points for its turret and won't match the TIEs on efficiency.

I would say, yes, that is probably the ending point. More than anything, I'm pontificating openly and quickly without letting thoughts settle into a fully formulated idea and am possibly just working myself around to a subtlety that was hidden to me or forgotten by me.

Truly what my line of thinking is leading me to is a point I made to someone else in this thread perhaps.

With partial scoring, we are likely to again find that high efficiency - high quantity ships are just a superior force in comparison to named pilots and upgraded ships as they were before the one-two punch of MOV and Phantoms that led to heavily upgraded ships. This is not a bad thing, because the point I made before is that ships shouldn't be "propped up" artificially by the scoring system and should be adjusted through the design. We'll just possibly be back into the wave 3 meta of spending points on efficient ships rather than upgrades, with some (now smaller) adjustment due to the (now nerfed) Phantom.

It makes me want to visit a few alternate universes. Partial scoring universe, Partial scoring but no phantom nerf universe, etc.

Not necessarily. High PS and upgrades has a lot of advantages now in terms of making other ships dead. Wave 3 high PS simply had next to nothing going for it. Now there's a whole host of tricks high PS can bring.

However, I do see where you're coming from. What I dislike about PP is that every hit matters for scoring. While that's a good thing when it comes to determining board state, it's a looming influence during the game.

MJ, if PP were only used for MoV tiebreaking and the winner was determined by the current system (dead ships) how would that affect tournament rankings?

I wish I had the time (and perhaps skill) to work this out. I'll accept your statement as logical and supported by my limited MathWing knowledge - the VT-49 gets a host of upgrades that gives it significant advantages over a group of TIEs that isn't present in my simple example. To fully address my concern, however, can you convince me that overkill is not also an advantage for the TIEs? Is there math that you've done that factors in this advantage in addition to normalizing for PS, pilot abilities and the like?

It's in the backlog to do a comprehensive cost analysis analysis of most the ships, but no ETA.

As far as durability considering the "kill shot" is concerned, I started calculating durability that way in MathWing 2.0. So it's been that way for a while now. You just have to do quite a bit more complicated math to actually calculate the probability density function for shots to kill rather than just straight coefficients for each agility value.

Not necessarily. High PS and upgrades has a lot of advantages now in terms of making other ships dead. Wave 3 high PS simply had next to nothing going for it. Now there's a whole host of tricks high PS can bring.

However, I do see where you're coming from. What I dislike about PP is that every hit matters for scoring. While that's a good thing when it comes to determining board state, it's a looming influence during the game.

MJ, if PP were only used for MoV tiebreaking and the winner was determined by the current system (dead ships) how would that affect tournament rankings?

That's.... confusing! Because you would need to calculate 2 different MoVs! I don't think tactics would change all that much, because you are primarily after that 5 points for a full win.

FWIW...

When I record the games for my league, I'll record live ships, damage and points when time is called. Then I can calculate both half hull points and full partial points.

I can either post the results on the form or just share the excel file with whomever wants it.

MajorJuggler, could you give me a formula for how partial points would work? Or is it just hull/points?

I'll make a PDF scoring sheet in the next couple of days that should make it clear.

Edit

Points per ship = rounddown[(points) * (hit points removed) * (starting hit points) ]