At the risk of distracting from your point with pedantry, I'm fairly sure a crippled section is worth points.

Fair enough, and you're right you do. I debated about 1 hull left on both sections, but figured that was adding a complication not needed for the point.

The problem with the current system is it gives an 'artificial' advantage to some ships. I say artificial because in a standard untimed game they wouldn't do nearly as well as they do in a 60 min timed game.

Fat Lists don't gain the same advantage in untimed games for the outright victory condition, but they still do well on MoV for tiebreakers even in untimed games. My dual IG88 list is averaging something like 170MoV per game when it wins, and it would only be around 140 with partial points. (I don't recall the exact numbers offhand, but I know that it is a 30 point spread)

That's partially true, Baseball is not timed, but it has a definite end point. A team will win after 9 innings, unless it's a tie game. From that point, a team should get credit after 9 innings of baseball played, and despite being down on runs, they got more bats on the balls, left more runners on base, and so they claim they should get credit for that in partial runs. After calculating the score, despite having fewer runs on the board, they may be declared the winner.

That's essentially the same thing that you're suggesting.

MJ, I'd appreciate it if you would avoid 'defining' me as the 'infinite hysteresis types'. I'm not sure if you meant it to come off that way, but it does make me feel like you think you're superior to me. Not exactly a welcoming feeling. It am not, nor do I think that I fit into that profile.

I agree that a discussion is good, and it's happening now. The problem I see is that you suggest a very narrow viewpoint, you concede little to nothing, and continue to 'push' the agenda. You're not looking at other solutions. It's not breeding good discussion to come into some guys thread because he doesn't like the suggestion and then shut him down.

I didn't see anyone start the 'let's discuss how we'd redo things' here in this thread, but that's certainly what you're suggesting should happen. Fair enough. I've seen those threads, and I still object to the concept unless it starts from the beginning. I feel like this is a bit of a fruitless exercise that distracts from discussion on the current game. It's the same problem I see with 'fix the x-wing' threads and 'the sky is falling because they released the dreaded _Y_ship_ instead of _X_ ship_ I wanted them to' threads. All of them suggest that inherently, something is drastically wrong, the game needs to be repaired, and instead of promoting healthy discussion on the current situation, people get it into their heads and begin to promote that broken system.

I mean, how many players may now be flying the Chewbo list (as I have) now not because it's a fun list to fly (my reason) because they know that it promotes a long end game where you can win with a 50+ point 1 hull chewie on the table BECAUSE there are threads on it here. How many people, having flown against the Chewbo experience who were not upset at the time because the rules make it clear that this is a bonified strategy have, instead of taking the time to actually craft a list that can/should beat Chewbo (because heaven knows its doable) have read here that they should be upset because FFG didn't use a Partial points system.

Okay, that was a convoluted paragraph, so the TL;DR version is, I don't see this discussion or the promotion of a partial points system as either a fair or friendly discussion. It seems like some people are very invested in promoting it. I think better discussions would be had by spending time promoting the 'how you beat those fat lists that people bring just to win tournaments and have fun playing X-wing' discussions.

Jacob

As Vorpal said, baseball is not timed.

Even if it wasn't, and for sports that are timed, teams, rules, playfields are fundamentally the same. Scoring results are also fixed and scoring opportunities are defined as the same for both teams..

The baseball equivalent would be the home team moving the fences back a couple hundred feet when the visiting team was up and then saying, "Well it'll be worth 2 runs if you hit a home run with them back there." .

For an even more extreme thought experiment, consider a single ship that's legitimately worth 100 points.

Both the CR-90 and Raider are worth that many points.

So putting aside the limitations on epic ships in normal games. What happens if you have a 8 Tie swarm vs a CR-90 with 10 points of upgrades.

Is it accurate to say the CR-90 wins if it destroys 1 Tie Fighter leaving 7 more out there but still has 1 hull left on one of it's two sections when time is called?

I fundamentally disagree that it would be "fair" for a single 100 point ship to automatically win on time in every single game vs a swarm. (Automatic assuming it kills at least 1 ship, which is effectively an absolute certainty.) I think the overwhelming majority of players would agree that it would be unfair.

More to the point though, if it was possible to field one ship that was viable for untimed games, then I would expect nearly everyone to bring 1 SuperMegaFat Ship. If you look at tournament results, the top end is dominated by 2 ship lists, or 1 SuperFatShip + support. So what is described above already is the reality, it is just scaled back somewhat from the extreme 1-ship example. This much is certainly not debatable.

By the way, the question isn't whether it's 'fair.' the question is whether it's legitimate, or accurate.

I don't think it's ever been established that the clear winner of every dogfight or battle in either the real world or even the fictional world is always entire destruction of your enemy. Probably a famous example (although certainly fictional) is in the Top Gun final battle. They blew up a couple Migs, but some bugged out.

Jacob

That's partially true, Baseball is not timed, but it has a definite end point. A team will win after 9 innings, unless it's a tie game. From that point, a team should get credit after 9 innings of baseball played, and despite being down on runs, they got more bats on the balls, left more runners on base, and so they claim they should get credit for that in partial runs. After calculating the score, despite having fewer runs on the board, they may be declared the winner.

That's essentially the same thing that you're suggesting.

The problem is that there are two versions of X-wing: untimed play (around which the game is arguably balanced) and timed play, but there's only one version of baseball.

That is, baseball only happens in those defined nine innings, so a player who's good at baseball is always good in the same ways. In X-wing, there are ships that gain additional (and substantial) advantages if they're used in timed play.

Again, go back to the example of a 100-point ship. Is it fair for that ship to win almost every tournament game it enters, despite the fact that it's a 50/50 proposition in untimed play?

MJ, I'd appreciate it if you would avoid 'defining' me as the 'infinite hysteresis types'. I'm not sure if you meant it to come off that way, but it does make me feel like you think you're superior to me. Not exactly a welcoming feeling. It am not, nor do I think that I fit into that profile.

He may be noting that your position is analogous to the phenomenon of hysteresis, rather than accusing you of hysteria. (And if he is accusing you of hysteria, it's at least a really intriguing typo.)

In hysteresis, a physical system is confined to a particular kind of repetitive mathematical cycle it can't break out of (at least not without some kind of substantial "shove" from outside).

The problem I see is that you suggest a very narrow viewpoint, you concede little to nothing, and continue to 'push' the agenda. You're not looking at other solutions. It's not breeding good discussion to come into some guys thread because he doesn't like the suggestion and then shut him down.

Well, this particular guy drafted a remarkably silly OP. Also, MJ has a clear argument with a great deal of evidence behind it that (a) there is a real problem, and (b) there's at least one way to solve it. Speaking personally I'd be happy to hear discussion over part (b), but the concession you appear to be looking for is on part (a)--which, for me at least, isn't really up for debate.

All of them suggest that inherently, something is drastically wrong, the game needs to be repaired, and instead of promoting healthy discussion on the current situation, people get it into their heads and begin to promote that broken system.

I agree that's a risk: everybody misunderstands something some of the time, and some people misunderstand most things most of the time. But no one in this thread, except possibly the OP, is being alarmist--MJ, along with others including me, is discussing what we think is a fairer way to deal with tiebreakers in tournament play.

The existence of things that are wrong (and can be fixed) isn't a general condemnation of the game, and people who take it that way are misunderstanding.

That's partially true, Baseball is not timed, but it has a definite end point. A team will win after 9 innings, unless it's a tie game. From that point, a team should get credit after 9 innings of baseball played, and despite being down on runs, they got more bats on the balls, left more runners on base, and so they claim they should get credit for that in partial runs. After calculating the score, despite having fewer runs on the board, they may be declared the winner.

That's essentially the same thing that you're suggesting.

The problem is that there are two versions of X-wing: untimed play (around which the game is arguably balanced) and timed play, but there's only one version of baseball.

That is, baseball only happens in those defined nine innings, so a player who's good at baseball is always good in the same ways. In X-wing, there are ships that gain additional (and substantial) advantages if they're used in timed play.

Again, go back to the example of a 100-point ship. Is it fair for that ship to win almost every tournament game it enters, despite the fact that it's a 50/50 proposition in untimed play?

MJ, I'd appreciate it if you would avoid 'defining' me as the 'infinite hysteresis types'. I'm not sure if you meant it to come off that way, but it does make me feel like you think you're superior to me. Not exactly a welcoming feeling. It am not, nor do I think that I fit into that profile.

He may be noting that your position is analogous to the phenomenon of hysteresis, rather than accusing you of hysteria. (And if he is accusing you of hysteria, it's at least a really intriguing typo.)

In hysteresis, a physical system is confined to a particular kind of repetitive mathematical cycle it can't break out of (at least not without some kind of substantial "shove" from outside).

The problem I see is that you suggest a very narrow viewpoint, you concede little to nothing, and continue to 'push' the agenda. You're not looking at other solutions. It's not breeding good discussion to come into some guys thread because he doesn't like the suggestion and then shut him down.

Well, this particular guy drafted a remarkably silly OP. Also, MJ has a clear argument with a great deal of evidence behind it that (a) there is a real problem, and (b) there's at least one way to solve it. Speaking personally I'd be happy to hear discussion over part (b), but the concession you appear to be looking for is on part (a)--which, for me at least, isn't really up for debate.

All of them suggest that inherently, something is drastically wrong, the game needs to be repaired, and instead of promoting healthy discussion on the current situation, people get it into their heads and begin to promote that broken system.

I agree that's a risk: everybody misunderstands something some of the time, and some people misunderstand most things most of the time. But no one in this thread, except possibly the OP, is being alarmist--MJ, along with others including me, is discussing what we think is a fairer way to deal with tiebreakers in tournament play.

The existence of things that are wrong (and can be fixed) isn't a general condemnation of the game, and people who take it that way are misunderstanding.

Great discussion.

I think there's more than one version of baseball. From that viewpoint, you're only talking about competitive professional or amateur baseball. There's also the casual fun that kids have in parks. 3 on 3 sorta baseball. There's also the 5 or 7 inning slow pitch with lots of drinking, unlimited outs, and general summer fun. To say there's only one kind of baseball is similar to saying there's only one kind of x-wing.

I would agree that there's a 'problem' in the sense that data is telling us that a specific ship set is winning consistently or difficult to beat out in tournament settings. I also agree that partial points is 'a' potential system, but I rather see more discussion focus around the other options than simply pushing this solution.

Don't get me wrong, it's not like I'm not in favour of the discussion, I just see a little too narrowness on the solution being promoted. Partial points is in itself a very flawed solution in my opinion, for some of the reasons suggested by the OP and by others. It's being to heavily propped up against the simple argument that to implement it is a systemic change, and it's being compared to quickly to simple situational changes that have occurred.

Jacob

MJ, I'd appreciate it if you would avoid 'defining' me as the 'infinite hysteresis types'. I'm not sure if you meant it to come off that way, but it does make me feel like you think you're superior to me. Not exactly a welcoming feeling. It am not, nor do I think that I fit into that profile.

My apologies, that was certainly not the intent. Vorpal explained the technical intent pretty well, it's a commonly used engineering term, and no offense was meant.

Thanks man. I know you to be the decent sort, which is why I made the simple request. I appreciate your kind response.

Jacob

Thanks man. I know you to be the decent sort, which is why I made the simple request. I appreciate your kind response.

Jacob

But the MIGs flew off the board so are considered destroyed! A full wipe of the enemy squad!

Lots of good stuff here gentlemen (and any ladies I may have missed).

So what other systems of scoring are out there to use?

"Theorycrafting" should not be a word. It gives an air of legitimacy to what is at best an educated guess and at worst gut feeling. There's no craftsmanship about it. Who even came up with that word? I want to grumble in their general direction.

You know that theorycrafting comes from the Starcraft community right? It has nothing to do with crafstmanship, it's just two things, game theory and starcraft, stuck together.

OP, the current MOV system punishes TIE Fighters and low hp high agility ships that are easier to kill in one shot because of bad dice rolls, so how is one system better than the other? Either way you are putting one type of ship at a disadvantage right?

How about if you don't kill all your opponent's ships before the round time is up, you get 0 points? That would eliminate the motivation for people to slow play or run away.

I don't like partial point scoring even though I hate Turretwing and the nuanceless 2 ship meta as a whole

I don't like partial point scoring either - but I don't hate "Turretwing" or think 2 ship builds are nuanceless at all - I've seen some insanely creative 2 ship builds that have been expertly flown in entertaining matches.

I think the case in favour of partial points scoring is pretty much bombproof - the math works out - it's no significant burden on the TO or players

It just doesn't fit the theme

If I was the pilot of a converted civilian freighter up against military spec hardware, and out numbered, I'm going to want to keep as far away as possible - take out the few ships foolish enough to get close - while my co-pilot furiously programs the hyperdrive to get us the hell out of there.

That's a win for this captain.

One thing that I think has not been brought up in this discussion is just how deliberate the current all or nothing MOV system is. It does help keep the swarm from dominating the meta as in days of old (a couple years ago).

I appreciate that FFG is only tweaking one thing at a time to see the results from each tournament season. In the last FAQ they mandated 75 min. rounds across the board. Let's wait and see how that affects the turret fortress 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.

LOL. I hadn't considered degrees of "fatness".

Does this upgrade make my B-Wing look fat?

Should we be talking about "Fat Fel" (and his antithesis, "Thin Fel")?

I'm sorry I just don't get it and see the vision that you guys do of partial points. If fail to bring down Han or another fat ship then it's on me. Either I brought an inefficient list or I didn't play well enough or I maybe simply got out played. Partial points is like getting 11th place trophies. Either you killed the ship or you didn't. If you were 1 round away then maybe the next time things will go in your favor.

I don't like partial point scoring even though I hate Turretwing and the nuanceless 2 ship meta as a whole

I don't like partial point scoring either - but I don't hate "Turretwing" or think 2 ship builds are nuanceless at all - I've seen some insanely creative 2 ship builds that have been expertly flown in entertaining matches.

I think the case in favour of partial points scoring is pretty much bombproof - the math works out - it's no significant burden on the TO or players

It just doesn't fit the theme

If I was the pilot of a converted civilian freighter up against military spec hardware, and out numbered, I'm going to want to keep as far away as possible - take out the few ships foolish enough to get close - while my co-pilot furiously programs the hyperdrive to get us the hell out of there.

That's a win for this captain.

And a failure of your mission if you were tasked with killing those fighters.

Until we get actual competitive missions (hopefully someday), applying story and fluff to our games does not work. Right now we are told we are dog fighting. That means you are tasked with killing the other guy and anything else is failure.

We really do need missions though.

I'm sorry I just don't get it and see the vision that you guys do of partial points. If fail to bring down Han or another fat ship then it's on me. Either I brought an inefficient list or I didn't play well enough or I maybe simply got out played. Partial points is like getting 11th place trophies. Either you killed the ship or you didn't. If you were 1 round away then maybe the next time things will go in your favor.

Or one list only needed to kill 12% of the enemy force to win before time was called while the other list needed to kill 60%.

How about if you don't kill all your opponent's ships before the round time is up, you get 0 points? That would eliminate the motivation for people to slow play or run away.

That'd encourage spiteful slow play.

It just doesn't fit the theme

If I was the pilot of a converted civilian freighter up against military spec hardware, and out numbered, I'm going to want to keep as far away as possible - take out the few ships foolish enough to get close - while my co-pilot furiously programs the hyperdrive to get us the hell out of there.

That's a win for this captain.

And if you program the hyperdrive without knocking out a lone enemy fighter, it's a draw? Thematically, the escape to lightspeed scenario doesn't hold.

Thematically, if you go up against a squadron of TIE fighters and kill a single fighter while they leave you venting atmosphere on backup power, shield generator blown out, hull breaches everywhere, life support barely hanging on then the TIE fighters came out on top in that engagement. You don't win because the glove compartment still works.

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.

LOL. I hadn't considered degrees of "fatness".

Does this upgrade make my B-Wing look fat?

Should we be talking about "Fat Fel" (and his antithesis, "Thin Fel")?

He's SFelte.

I'm sorry I just don't get it and see the vision that you guys do of partial points. If fail to bring down Han or another fat ship then it's on me. Either I brought an inefficient list or I didn't play well enough or I maybe simply got out played. Partial points is like getting 11th place trophies. Either you killed the ship or you didn't. If you were 1 round away then maybe the next time things will go in your favor.

Again, let's talk about the hypothetical example of a single 100-point ship. If I'm flying it and I kill any of my opponent's ships, then all I have to do is not die. In a timed game, I only have to kill 12% of your list to win, but you have to kill 100% of my list.

The super-fat ship in that example doesn't have to outplay you--it just has to outlast you. The ship's very existence means I've stacked the deck against my opponent in ways that have very little to do with what happens at the table, and a great deal to do with gaming the structure of a timed tournament.

Or, to put it more realistically: I have a four-ship Scum list I really like. It's fun, and it has a decent success rate in practice games. But I'd be a fool to take it to Regionals, because a two-ship list with a 60/40 point split gives me an enormous advantage on anything bigger. A two-ship list gives up MOV more slowly than a four-ship list, so it's more likely that I'll be ahead when time is called regardless of what's actually happening on the table.

[i'm starting to feel like a broken record, here, so this will probably be my last post in the thread.]

I'm sorry I just don't get it and see the vision that you guys do of partial points. If fail to bring down Han or another fat ship then it's on me. Either I brought an inefficient list or I didn't play well enough or I maybe simply got out played. Partial points is like getting 11th place trophies. Either you killed the ship or you didn't. If you were 1 round away then maybe the next time things will go in your favor.

Again, let's talk about the hypothetical example of a single 100-point ship. If I'm flying it and I kill any of my opponent's ships, then all I have to do is not die. In a timed game, I only have to kill 12% of your list to win, but you have to kill 100% of my list.The super-fat ship in that example doesn't have to outplay you--it just has to outlast you. The ship's very existence means I've stacked the deck against my opponent in ways that have very little to do with what happens at the table, and a great deal to do with gaming the structure of a timed tournament.Or, to put it more realistically: I have a four-ship Scum list I really like. It's fun, and it has a decent success rate in practice games. But I'd be a fool to take it to Regionals, because a two-ship list with a 60/40 point split gives me an enormous advantage on anything bigger. A two-ship list gives up MOV more slowly than a four-ship list, so it's more likely that I'll be ahead when time is called regardless of what's actually happening on the table.[i'm starting to feel like a broken record, here, so this will probably be my last post in the thread.]

How often do you go to time with a list like that?

How often do you go to time with a list like that?

Since the ship doesn't actually exist... Never. Doesn't change the point being made though.

MoV and winning based on ships killed favors defensive ships worth lots of points.

An interesting idea I've heard suggested would be to divide 8 victory points amongst your ships in a 100 list. You fly 8 ships, each one is worth 1 VP. You fly 2 each one is worth 4.

Someone pointed out that this would make killing a Z equivalent to killing Han in a 3 Z + Han list, but okay. You can point fort all you want but that fortress is only worth 1/4th of your list. You might have to actually you know, not run with it the whole game to get it to be worth flying.

2 ship builds would still be kind of point fortressey, but it wouldn't be as bad imo. You fly a 3 ship list against one and they've killed one of your ships and you've killed 1 of theirs and you're winning.

That really doesn't help much at all, in fact, I'd say it makes it worse, heavily discouraging additional ships.

The only argument I can see against partial points is having to calculate it. Beyond that, it doesn't encourage any play practices beyond those you'd expect from the untimed game, doesn't advantage any particular ships over the untimed game, and more accurately represents the state of the board when time is called.

I'm sorry I just don't get it and see the vision that you guys do of partial points. If fail to bring down Han or another fat ship then it's on me. Either I brought an inefficient list or I didn't play well enough or I maybe simply got out played. Partial points is like getting 11th place trophies. Either you killed the ship or you didn't. If you were 1 round away then maybe the next time things will go in your favor.

Again, let's talk about the hypothetical example of a single 100-point ship. If I'm flying it and I kill any of my opponent's ships, then all I have to do is not die. In a timed game, I only have to kill 12% of your list to win, but you have to kill 100% of my list.The super-fat ship in that example doesn't have to outplay you--it just has to outlast you. The ship's very existence means I've stacked the deck against my opponent in ways that have very little to do with what happens at the table, and a great deal to do with gaming the structure of a timed tournament.Or, to put it more realistically: I have a four-ship Scum list I really like. It's fun, and it has a decent success rate in practice games. But I'd be a fool to take it to Regionals, because a two-ship list with a 60/40 point split gives me an enormous advantage on anything bigger. A two-ship list gives up MOV more slowly than a four-ship list, so it's more likely that I'll be ahead when time is called regardless of what's actually happening on the table.[i'm starting to feel like a broken record, here, so this will probably be my last post in the thread.]

How often do you go to time with a list like that?

The principle is exactly the same in a 2-ship list as in a 1-ship list, merely the extent of the distortion is different. Therefore a 2-ship list is in fact "like" a 1-ship list. I can't answer for Vorpal, but here are my results. (These are all very small tournaments -- don't laugh! )

• February 7, 2015 Rivendell Store Championship: (2 ships, 60/40): 2 out of 3 games went to time
• February 21, 2015 Cape Cod Collectibles Store Championship (2 ships, 60/40): 1 of 2 games went to time (bye in round 3).
• April 25, 2015 Rivendell Spring Tournament (2 ships, 50/49): 0 of 3 games went to time.

So out of 8 games, 3 went to time. In all 3 games that went to time, the "fatter" list won every single time. These were all 75 minute rounds.

I am sure we can find many other common examples. 2014 Canadian Nationals comes to mind.