I dunno...the more I look at actual tournament results, the less I feel that it's an actual problem in practice.

Just looking at the UK results, there were 234 untimed matches. Of those, 43 went to time. Of the 43 that went to time, 28 had a point spread of 30 points or less. Of those 28, 5 had a point spread between 21-30, 13 had a spread between 11-20 and 10 had a point spread between 0-10. (there was one tie).

Granted it's only one regional, but I'm curious to see what it looks like once more regional data comes in.

I dunno...the more I look at actual tournament results, the less I feel that it's an actual problem in practice.

Just looking at the UK results, there were 234 untimed matches. Of those, 43 went to time. Of the 43 that went to time, 28 had a point spread of 30 points or less. Of those 28, 5 had a point spread between 21-30, 13 had a spread between 11-20 and 10 had a point spread between 0-10. (there was one tie).

Granted it's only one regional, but I'm curious to see what it looks like once more regional data comes in.

The real question is, of those 43 games, (especially of the 15 games that had a point spread of 31+ points), how many would have had a different outcome if partial points were used? It could have been a lot of them, possibly even a majority of them. We simply don't know unless we also get the remaining hit points per ship at the end of each game as well. You can have a really good MoV against someone and actually be "losing" if the game were untimed, because you only have 1-2HP left as time is called. That is the part that we fundamentally don't know by the current tournament stats.

Could you take the every round math out of it just by adding tokens (similar to victory point tokens in board games)?

At the start of the tournament, determine your token point values:

60 pt Falcon - 60/13 = 4.6-> take 13 4 point tokens (I suggest always rounding down so that destroying a ship can be a little more valuable)

40 pt E-Wing - 40/5 = 8 - take five 8 point tokens

Mr. Froggies suggested this too, it isn't a bad idea. The main benefit is that it is easy to do the math because you only have to do a divide once at the start of the tournament for each ship, which can be part of your squad registration.

It was based on his idea. The way I understood it was he suggested the up front division to avoid doing it every round. I am suggesting you could also add tokens and avoid multiplying pts/damage * damage when calculating score each round. Just add destroyed ship points and point tokens. Though maybe he suggested this as well?

The easiest way is just to do it at the end to damaged ships. That way you don't waste time on calculations for ships that are dead or undamaged.

Could you take the every round math out of it just by adding tokens (similar to victory point tokens in board games)?

At the start of the tournament, determine your token point values:

60 pt Falcon - 60/13 = 4.6-> take 13 4 point tokens (I suggest always rounding down so that destroying a ship can be a little more valuable)

40 pt E-Wing - 40/5 = 8 - take five 8 point tokens

Mr. Froggies suggested this too, it isn't a bad idea. The main benefit is that it is easy to do the math because you only have to do a divide once at the start of the tournament for each ship, which can be part of your squad registration.

It was based on his idea. The way I understood it was he suggested the up front division to avoid doing it every round. I am suggesting you could also add tokens and avoid multiplying pts/damage * damage when calculating score each round. Just add destroyed ship points and point tokens. Though maybe he suggested this as well?

The easiest way is just to do it at the end to damaged ships. That way you don't waste time on calculations for ships that are dead or undamaged.

Ah. Fair point. There is some wasted upkeep. The payoff is simpler math at the end. It could be argued either way, but we'd just be throwing opinions back and forth over which method has more in the "pro" column, so we won't go there.

So....let me see if I get this right.

This post was made to let us know someone doesn't like a scoring system that isn't even in use?

If this is correct how did this become a thing?

"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.

The context I originally heard the Term was from WoW being used to discuss optimization of gear/rotation to increase DPS/Healing Efficiency/Survivability so I always assumed it was from there. (Of Course there is a sizeable overlap between the 2 communities so no real surprise it crossed over from StarCraft)

One unintended side effect of partial points (of any variety, point by point, or half and half) would probably be an increase in modified victories which certainly would complicate seeding a bit more. Of course more modified victories means more grumbling about a modified loss not giving you at least one point but at least strength of schedule disappearing means that it is better to play a close game for a closer MoV over forfeiting or flying off the board in an unwinnable game to try for the increased SOS

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.

Then it's incorrect outside of Starcraft. It'd be theory-wing here.

One unintended side effect of partial points (of any variety, point by point, or half and half) would probably be an increase in modified victories which certainly would complicate seeding a bit more. Of course more modified victories means more grumbling about a modified loss not giving you at least one point but at least strength of schedule disappearing means that it is better to play a close game for a closer MoV over forfeiting or flying off the board in an unwinnable game to try for the increased SOS

As a somewhat related topic, I think it would be fine for the scoring to be:

Full win: 5

Modified win: 3

Draw: 2

Modified loss: 1

Full Loss: 0

That way you give out 5 points for a full win and 4 points for anything else, and it is reasonably fair for both sides. Especially when using partial points I think this would be OK.

One unintended side effect of partial points (of any variety, point by point, or half and half) would probably be an increase in modified victories which certainly would complicate seeding a bit more. Of course more modified victories means more grumbling about a modified loss not giving you at least one point but at least strength of schedule disappearing means that it is better to play a close game for a closer MoV over forfeiting or flying off the board in an unwinnable game to try for the increased SOS

As a somewhat related topic, I think it would be fine for the scoring to be:

Full win: 5

Modified win: 3

Draw: 2

Modified loss: 1

Full Loss: 0

That way you give out 5 points for a full win and 4 points for anything else, and it is reasonably fair for both sides. Especially when using partial points I think this would be OK.

That's what my preference would be as well, i asked a couple local guys why it wasn't like that and they said that some people on the forums threatened to stall at the end of the game if they were gonna lose to scrape a point out and that is why FFG went 5-3-1-0-0,

I don't know how accurate this information is but it would be disappointing if true....

If Dash and Corran deal 20 points of damage to the Bs alone (No damage on the Z95) before Dash explodes and time is called they lose with an MoV of 58-55. At 21 points of damage on the Bs Dash/Corran tie as the MoV would be 58-57.75 and rounding seems like the thing to do in this case. At 22 Points of damage dealt to the Bs alone Dash/Corran would win with an MoV of 61(60.5)-58.

B-wings have eight hit points. 22 points of damage is enough to kill two B-wings and leave a third on two hit points. For you to deal 22 points of damage to 4 B-wings you'd have to hit them each for five or six damage but not finish off any of them.

Is that a probable scenario?

I had been working on the hypothetical scenario presented by trustybroom earlier in the thread to find the point where the MoV broke in favor of Dash and Corran winning on partial MoV without removing a ship from 4BZ. I don't see this as a particularly likely scenario, especially given the benefits of focus fire removing a ship before it shoots, but it's something I could see a newer player doing. Ultimately, it's highly improbable, but certainly not impossible.

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.

Then it's incorrect outside of Starcraft. It'd be theory-wing here.

If Dash and Corran deal 20 points of damage to the Bs alone (No damage on the Z95) before Dash explodes and time is called they lose with an MoV of 58-55. At 21 points of damage on the Bs Dash/Corran tie as the MoV would be 58-57.75 and rounding seems like the thing to do in this case. At 22 Points of damage dealt to the Bs alone Dash/Corran would win with an MoV of 61(60.5)-58.

B-wings have eight hit points. 22 points of damage is enough to kill two B-wings and leave a third on two hit points. For you to deal 22 points of damage to 4 B-wings you'd have to hit them each for five or six damage but not finish off any of them.

Is that a probable scenario?

I had been working on the hypothetical scenario presented by trustybroom earlier in the thread to find the point where the MoV broke in favor of Dash and Corran winning on partial MoV without removing a ship from 4BZ. I don't see this as a particularly likely scenario, especially given the benefits of focus fire removing a ship before it shoots, but it's something I could see a newer player doing. Ultimately, it's highly improbable, but certainly not impossible.

If a player's skilled enough to ensure that they don't lose a single ship, if they can shunt damage that effectively, if they can dance around a PTL Corran and Hypermobile Dash like that with lower pilot skill B-wings I'd wager the skill disparity is so great that they'd just use that skill to crush the opponent outright.

One unintended side effect of partial points (of any variety, point by point, or half and half) would probably be an increase in modified victories which certainly would complicate seeding a bit more. Of course more modified victories means more grumbling about a modified loss not giving you at least one point but at least strength of schedule disappearing means that it is better to play a close game for a closer MoV over forfeiting or flying off the board in an unwinnable game to try for the increased SOS

As a somewhat related topic, I think it would be fine for the scoring to be:

Full win: 5

Modified win: 3

Draw: 2

Modified loss: 1

Full Loss: 0

That way you give out 5 points for a full win and 4 points for anything else, and it is reasonably fair for both sides. Especially when using partial points I think this would be OK.

That's what my preference would be as well, i asked a couple local guys why it wasn't like that and they said that some people on the forums threatened to stall at the end of the game if they were gonna lose to scrape a point out and that is why FFG went 5-3-1-0-0,

I don't know how accurate this information is but it would be disappointing if true....

I would think that would be less of an issue with partial points since the scoring changes per round are far less "spiky". It stems from the same core reason why you would want to slow play in the hopes that your Fat Ship doesn't die.

There is already an advantage to slow playing, giving people a point for a modified loss isn't really going to suddenly make it significantly more prevalent. If we're all going to oppose a fixed round limit as if having to wait an extra 5-10 minutes for the swarm match to end is the end of the world, then we'll have to deal with the ability of a player to slow play and not be punished for it because it's almost impossible to prove.

If Dash and Corran deal 20 points of damage to the Bs alone (No damage on the Z95) before Dash explodes and time is called they lose with an MoV of 58-55. At 21 points of damage on the Bs Dash/Corran tie as the MoV would be 58-57.75 and rounding seems like the thing to do in this case. At 22 Points of damage dealt to the Bs alone Dash/Corran would win with an MoV of 61(60.5)-58.

B-wings have eight hit points. 22 points of damage is enough to kill two B-wings and leave a third on two hit points. For you to deal 22 points of damage to 4 B-wings you'd have to hit them each for five or six damage but not finish off any of them.

Is that a probable scenario?

I had been working on the hypothetical scenario presented by trustybroom earlier in the thread to find the point where the MoV broke in favor of Dash and Corran winning on partial MoV without removing a ship from 4BZ. I don't see this as a particularly likely scenario, especially given the benefits of focus fire removing a ship before it shoots, but it's something I could see a newer player doing. Ultimately, it's highly improbable, but certainly not impossible.

If a player's skilled enough to ensure that they don't lose a single ship, if they can shunt damage that effectively, if they can dance around a PTL Corran and Hypermobile Dash like that with lower pilot skill B-wings I'd wager the skill disparity is so great that they'd just use that skill to crush the opponent outright.

I'm not sure if I'd say the B-Wing player is necessarily more skilled in this example. Such a result could be caused by two players of equal skill using differing combat strategies. Perhaps the Corran/Dash player only shot the nearest target every turn, while the 4BZ player focused purely on Dash.

I'm not sure if I'd say the B-Wing player is necessarily more skilled in this example. Such a result could be caused by two players of equal skill using differing combat strategies. Perhaps the Corran/Dash player only shot the nearest target every turn, while the 4BZ player focused purely on Dash.

Hypermobile Dash is hypermobile, the B-wing is not and it has a pilot skill disadvantage. I can't picture a game in which you'd get all the B-wings down to 2 or 3 hit points and fail to make a single kill shot without deliberately trying not to.

I'm not sure if I'd say the B-Wing player is necessarily more skilled in this example. Such a result could be caused by two players of equal skill using differing combat strategies. Perhaps the Corran/Dash player only shot the nearest target every turn, while the 4BZ player focused purely on Dash.

Hypermobile Dash is hypermobile, the B-wing is not and it has a pilot skill disadvantage. I can't picture a game in which you'd get all the B-wings down to 2 or 3 hit points and fail to make a single kill shot without deliberately trying not to.

And again, this is purely a hypothetical situation where one list loses a ship, but still wins on Partial MoV. It's incredibly unlikely to occur, but as I said before it's not impossible. Quite frankly, it's the only argument that I've heard against partial MoV that makes any legitimate sense, and at the end of the day, the situation is incredibly unlikely to occur in practice. Personally, I think Partial MoV, in tandem with the suggested changes to tournament scoring above, would be a fine adjustment to the current system.

The probability of that situation occuring between competent players who aren't deliberately attempting to engineer it is so low I doubt it's ever actually happened.

And even if it were probable I fail to see how it's an argument against Partial MoV.

There is already an advantage to slow playing, giving people a point for a modified loss isn't really going to suddenly make it significantly more prevalent. If we're all going to oppose a fixed round limit as if having to wait an extra 5-10 minutes for the swarm match to end is the end of the world, then we'll have to deal with the ability of a player to slow play and not be punished for it because it's almost impossible to prove.

People oppose it because it would, fairly self-evidently, make tournaments much more difficult to run--as multiple people have explained to you, at length, multiple times.

The probability of that situation occuring between competent players who aren't deliberately attempting to engineer it is so low I doubt it's ever actually happened.

And even if it were probable I fail to see how it's an argument against Partial MoV.

I suppose I approached this from the wrong angle. The only reason I can see it as an argument against partial MoV, is because of that emotional response of "Hey, I shot down one of your ships. You didn't take any of mine down, but I still lost. What?"

In the recent UK Regional two games could have their results flipped in this manner.

Jonathan Whelan vs Simeon Dellapina, round 2 in Swiss, 3Bs and 2Zs vs Brobots.

Martyn Hotchkiss vs Craig Reed, round 4 in Swiss, a 4BZ list vs another Brobot list.

Brobots won with an MoV of 12-0 under the current rules both times. Now, if we had data on how many shields and hull were remaining, we would be able to determine how close those games actually were and whether or not they would have actually won those games. So, in essence these two games highlight the issue with the current MoV system. And given the prevalence of both these types of lists, we may see more of these results over the course of the Regional season.

I suppose I approached this from the wrong angle. The only reason I can see it as an argument against partial MoV, is because of that emotional response of "Hey, I shot down one of your ships. You didn't take any of mine down, but I still lost. What?"

To which I'd respond "Both your 50pt ships are on one HP and about to die, you killed one Academy Pilot/Binyare Pirate/Bandit Sqd Pilot."

I suppose I approached this from the wrong angle. The only reason I can see it as an argument against partial MoV, is because of that emotional response of "Hey, I shot down one of your ships. You didn't take any of mine down, but I still lost. What?"

To which I'd respond "Both your 50pt ships are on one HP and about to die, you killed one Academy Pilot/Binyare Pirate/Bandit Sqd Pilot."

Which doesn't seem like enough of an answer. Quite frankly, the premise of the game is and has been kill your opponents ship, and if you have killed more than your enemy, to the tune of 12 plus points, you win.

It's a hard pill to swallow to flip the rules that greatly, which is exactly why I'm saying Partial points doesn't seem to be as 'no-brainer' as some make it out to be.

However, awarding 1 point to a modified loss might make some sense. I'd like to see the way that might change the game. The main thing I'd see is that players would make more of an effort to get the full win in, not just settle for the 'I'm up, and I'll run to make sure I stay up enough to at least get the modified'.

Jacob

I suppose I approached this from the wrong angle. The only reason I can see it as an argument against partial MoV, is because of that emotional response of "Hey, I shot down one of your ships. You didn't take any of mine down, but I still lost. What?"

To which I'd respond "Both your 50pt ships are on one HP and about to die, you killed one Academy Pilot/Binyare Pirate/Bandit Sqd Pilot."

Which doesn't seem like enough of an answer. Quite frankly, the premise of the game is and has been kill your opponents ship, and if you have killed more than your enemy, to the tune of 12 plus points, you win.

It's a hard pill to swallow to flip the rules that greatly, which is exactly why I'm saying Partial points doesn't seem to be as 'no-brainer' as some make it out to be.

However, awarding 1 point to a modified loss might make some sense. I'd like to see the way that might change the game. The main thing I'd see is that players would make more of an effort to get the full win in, not just settle for the 'I'm up, and I'll run to make sure I stay up enough to at least get the modified'.

Jacob

I honestly don't think it's THAT big of a change. It would balance out a lot of the issues with the current system which while better than the previous one, can still be improved. MJ even supported with math the fact that ALL ships would reach a tight cluster, so while it would take the advantage away from fat 2 ship lists, it would serve to balance the game even more, not push an advantage for swarm.

Another point is that yes the purpose is the KILL your opponents ships. However, as was stated multiple times the timing system is necessitated by the need to wrap up tournaments and not a true function of the game. So yes I do think that saying "hey I lost one ship in 7 but you are down to 2 total HP I win here" is not such a terrible thing considering if you got to play out the game until total annihilation (as is the purpose of the game) then im sure no one would bet on the two single hp Falcons winnkng against 6 ships.

In summation, I don't understand how people can so misunderstand the effect of the partial scoring system. There are no logical arguments that I have seen against it so far with the exception of costing more time and effort during the tournament.

And before anyone accuses me of just wanting it skewed in my favor, I primarily have been playing 2 ship lists in the form of boba and igb and boba with kath/Emon. It simply makes way too much sense balance wise to go to partial points. Every argument against partial points with the exception of the time cost I could provide a counter point for. Now whether or not you like the idea or want it that is each persons opinion and we are all entitled to them. There is nothing wrong with liking or disliking something. But I can't accept that people think it is logical from a purely balance perspective to have the current system over partial scoring.

~ another example is how FFG is pushing longer rounds (I think they mandated 75 min rounds as opposed to 60 recently correct?) this even shows that FFG wants to give as much of a chance to actually finish games as possible because that is the desired outcome... Total annihilation of one side. Partial points simply brings the scoring of the games that STILL don't finish more in line with that. Im sure most of us have played or witnessed a tourney game where one person was a slow player (not slow playing) and ended up winning on MoV due to no partial scoring. That can be very frustrating and in no way fair to the player who gets matched against the new or simply slower player. In fact personally it makes me loathe playing those kinds of players when they have fat lists when if there was at least partial scoring I could actually enjoy myself as I do in every other game because I won't have to worry about a frustrating result due to having a super low ship give zero points when one more round would have ended it. (And against most players that turn would have happened) in reverse I don't enjoy winning at all if it happens due to time and I ckearly would have lost. I've given a couple of games away in tournaments when I clearly would have lost if it went one or two more turns.

Or how about we use those 75 minutes and just kill there ships like we've been doing?

the premise of the game is and has been kill your opponents ship, and if you have killed more than your enemy, to the tune of 12 plus points, you win.

That's true, but that amounts to parroting back what the rules have always been. Nobody is debating what the rules have always been, the discussion is about what the rules should be or could be. The discussion distills down to this:

Person 1: "Rule X is broken. Using Rule Y instead would be more fair."

Person 2: "The game has always been judged according to Rule X. Therefore we should always use Rule X."

Person 1: "But Y is better!"

Person 2: "Doesn't matter."

Furthermore, the premise of the untimed game has always been to completely destroy all ships on one side. Points are irrelevant and the above does not apply. Using points to determine victory in a timed game has always been a limitation of competitive play. The question is: what is the best and most fair way to determine how to score those points?

Or how about we use those 75 minutes and just kill there ships like we've been doing?

Because lots of games still go to time at 75 minutes. Did you happen to watch the West Virginia Regionals on twitch over the weekend? There was one match where a dual IG-88 list was up on points 52-50. He had 1 hull left on his only remaining ship, and spent several turns running away until he won on time. He wasn't even shooting, he was just purely running away. There is nothing that his opponent could have done to win.