Which seems to be a mistake. With making full wins easier, partial wins REALLY hurt your chances.

Sithborg, could you explain what you're referring to? Because if it's in response to the example MajorJuggler cited from the West Point Regionals, the IG-88 player was choosing between a partial win (Run away with his last hull point) and a loss (Fail to wipe out opposing 48 points of ships and get blown away for his trouble), not a partial win and a full win.

I am persistently irritated by the assertion that the point of the game is to destroy your opponent's ships. No, it is not. The point of the game is to destroy your opponent's entire squadron.

A tournament system was designed that included timed games, and therefore FFG implemented a PARTIAL scoring system to award points for destroyed ships. That's right, we already use partial scoring, because destroying an opponent's ship is just a step toward the ultimate goal of destroying their squadron. Yet we still score games that go to time by scoring destroyed ships (even though that is not the goal of the game) in an attempt to measure who would be most likely to reach that end goal.

In similar fashion, damaging a ship is a step toward the goal of destroying a ship (and ultimately a squadron). Measuring it is the same thing we do now, but at a finer scale - measure a thing that is not the goal to attempt determine who would be most likely to reach that goal if the game continued to its conclusion.

The suggestions for partial scoring are simply a refinement of what we already do. It is not a fundamental change to the goal of the game - because the goal is to destroy squadrons, not ships. It is simply a more accurate version of the partial scoring already present in X-Wing.

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

Exactly as MJ pointed out as well the full system rewards people for literally running away and stalling for time. Without time limits OR with partial points the winner would have been the other player who fully deserved to win. Unless you think it's a fair and reasonable way to win (by running away/playing the clock) if you feel this way I'm sorry but I can only assume you play that way or you really havent Been matched up against anyone who has done this in which case you are the luckiest person ever. Or are you casual only?

Edit: G&Z said it perfectly. This sums up my sentiments far more succinctly than I have. TOTAL ANNIHILATION is the point! Not killing a ship or two and running for time!!

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

So a 60pt ship on one hit point winning a game when the opponent still has 59 points of ships on the field because and only because of the tournament game clock doesn't bother you? If you don't see the problem with the "point fort" effect, I doubt anyone'll persuade you that changes need a makin'.

In what world is the first point of damage as valuable as the last one? I dont see this as a critical problem. 2 ship builds are already at a firepower disadvantage.

In what world is the first point of damage as valuable as the last one? I dont see this as a critical problem. 2 ship builds are already at a firepower disadvantage.

Yeah, that's probably why they don't perform very well in tournaments.

In what world is the first point of damage as valuable as the last one? I dont see this as a critical problem. 2 ship builds are already at a firepower disadvantage.

Yeah, that's probably why they don't perform very well in tournaments.

To play Devil's Advocate again:

• The final's are untimed. Fatness of ships is irrelevant.
• The vast majority of matches don't go to time.
• Aren't the amount of fat lists seen in tournaments decreasing?
• Couldn't partial-points also reward sloppy play? It is entirely possible that someone could win a game by not focus-firing and instead just going after targets of opportunity. What is normally a very inefficient way of playing could possibly win you games.

Not to mention, in certain situations how would partial points even really help. Take the really fat Falcon. Generally it is only ever dead or slightly injured. When that list wins, the Falcon generally has barely any damage on it. How would partial points benefit? Same with Corran. Corran is usually either dead or at full health due to regenerating shields.

On a partial points system, why would you ever take a Decimator? That thing would just bleed points to your opponent. For example, a 60pt Decimator vs 60 pts of TIEs. The TIEs can put out more damage and are better at protecting your points. Also, why would you ever take Vader? Unless you only use it for hard-to-get killshots, you could end up giving your opponent more points than what you are getting back.

In what world is the first point of damage as valuable as the last one? I dont see this as a critical problem. 2 ship builds are already at a firepower disadvantage.

There is the current method, which values hull damage as 0 until the last hull, and the "totally linear" partial scoring system that values every damage equally down to zero. There are also infinitely many possibilities that lie somewhere in between the two. None but the current method actually exist, so putting forth a potential flaw in one of them doesn't invalidate the need/benefit of partial scoring, but instead just says "the revised scoring system needs to also address this" (if it is actually a flaw).

In my perfect world, the last damage would carry more points, just not 60 of them. In other people's perfect world, the last damage needs no extra points because it carries with it the built in value of removing a gun.

In what world is the first point of damage as valuable as the last one? I dont see this as a critical problem. 2 ship builds are already at a firepower disadvantage.

Yeah, that's probably why they don't perform very well in tournaments.

I agree that there exists a partial points system that would be an improvement over the current system. I dont believe it is the one that is being championed here and i dont think the sky is falling without it either.

In what world is the first point of damage as valuable as the last one? I dont see this as a critical problem. 2 ship builds are already at a firepower disadvantage.

Yeah, that's probably why they don't perform very well in tournaments.

I forgot that the only competitve list is fat han.

I agree that there exists a partial points system that would be an improvement over the current system. I dont believe it is the one that is being championed here and i dont think the sky is falling without it either.

So what partial points system do you think would be superior?

In what world is the first point of damage as valuable as the last one? I dont see this as a critical problem. 2 ship builds are already at a firepower disadvantage.

Yeah, that's probably why they don't perform very well in tournaments.

To play Devil's Advocate again:

• The final's are untimed. Fatness of ships is irrelevant.
• The vast majority of matches don't go to time.
• Aren't the amount of fat lists seen in tournaments decreasing?
• Couldn't partial-points also reward sloppy play? It is entirely possible that someone could win a game by not focus-firing and instead just going after targets of opportunity. What is normally a very inefficient way of playing could possibly win you games.

Not to mention, in certain situations how would partial points even really help. Take the really fat Falcon. Generally it is only ever dead or slightly injured. When that list wins, the Falcon generally has barely any damage on it. How would partial points benefit? Same with Corran. Corran is usually either dead or at full health due to regenerating shields.

On a partial points system, why would you ever take a Decimator? That thing would just bleed points to your opponent. For example, a 60pt Decimator vs 60 pts of TIEs. The TIEs can put out more damage and are better at protecting your points. Also, why would you ever take Vader? Unless you only use it for hard-to-get killshots, you could end up giving your opponent more points than what you are getting back.

1) so fatness is irrelevant for final round only. This isn't fair for the other rounds. Plus the fact that fat lists still beat out non fat some of the time in finals proves that partial points isn't going to put them out of a chance.

2) but a fair number do. It's not inconsequential and leads to games where people literally run away for the last few turns to game the clock.

3) it could be but lists change and flow and even with timed rounds some lists such as the swarm have a definite advantage over fat han or deci lists.

4) I would say no. That "sloppy" play example leaves ships alive which then shoot at you thus increasing the damage you take and points you lose. Remember the partial scoring goes both ways and in no way diminishes the advantages of taking out enemy ships comoletely. What it DOES though is punish the people who use the "my bigger ship has one hp so now I'm gonna just run away while my escorts continue the engage" ideology which I have seen a far greater than zero number of times.

I'm not sure why you think it "hardly ever" happens. I have seen that very scenario happen at LEAST once a tournament (and my locals average 8-12 player tournaments so that is a fair number.

Of course people would still take the deci. Yes it bleeds points but you get far less per hit. MJ even pointed out that while the point loss is steady you actually lose the same as elites over time. They are just spiky... Same way it is now. Vader would be just as useful. Can't use it willy nilly but I would still gladly trade 2 hits worth of points for a crit on soontir.

Over and over in this thread I see posters wanting a system that will better reflect how the game "would" have ended if untimed. Repeatedly I hear about how a ship with 1 hull left is unfairly given a win or modified win against an opposing squad with more health and more ships. I have personally flown a 1 hp Dash from a draw on points, to completely eliminating the opposing squad's remaining and relatively intact two ships. The problem with predictive analysis, is that humans, using math or crystal balls, are horrible at predicting the future. Such predictions are problematic especially when trying to anticipate the outcome of events that are dependent on human choices and actions. Sure we might be able to run some formulas on who should* win based off of jousting values or the relative value of hull/shield points, but that isn't the same as determining who will win. Any scoring system should not try to predict the future, but determine who has performed better up to the moment when time is called.

Except that Partial Points isn't predictive at all. It's a more accurate representation of the game state when time is called. It does not predict who would win if the game continued, merely who is in a better position to possibly win.

Edit: "more".

Except that Partial Points isn't predictive at all. It's a more accurate representation of the game state when time is called. It does not predict who would win if the game continued, merely who is in a better position to possibly win.

Edit: "more".

That is the problem, any scoring system should not try to determine who is the better position for any future turns. You make the statement that partial points are more accurate representation of the game state when time is called. That is something worth debating and deciding, but then you go further. You add a statement about who is in a better position to "possibly" win: attach a value to current hull/'shield numbers based on their ability to ascertain the likelihood of a certain and unperformed future outcome, i.e. predict a future event.

Right now, as a t.o., I see a ton of extra work, or dependance on a piece of software (that I likely could never practically replace on paper if needed as backup) to score wins differently in games that went to time. Proponents of partial scoring argue that the current system unfairly benefits "fat" ships, but this is due to the idea that if there was more time, the outcome would be a loss. That is what I have issue with. There is no way of knowing who would win until it is played out. I have seen games go both ways when time wasn't a factor. Sell us skeptics on how it is a better indicator than full points for destroyed ships only when determining performance up to the point time was called.

7 pages in and no one's presented a better solution than "just ban turrets"

7 pages in and no one's presented a better solution than "just ban turrets"

Or just stop playing. Now you won't lose to turrets.

7 pages in and no better solution than "ban turrets"

7 pages in and no one's presented a better solution than "just ban turrets"

Or just stop playing. Now you won't lose to turrets.

but at least it'll now be literally impossible to offer anything worse than that

we've passed a milestone (or a kidneystone), gentlemen!

any scoring system should not try to determine who is the better position for any future turns.

That includes the current scoring system. What you are really advocating is to play pure untimed matches, because that is the only real solution. As was eloquently stated above, the goal in an untimed match is not to kill ships, it is to kill the entire squad. Killing individual ships is only a stepping stone to get to that goal. The only way to not let MoV not affect the victory condition is to play untimed games. It really is that simple.

Unfortunately you can't do untimed games except for the final match.

any scoring system should not try to determine who is the better position for any future turns.

That includes the current scoring system. What you are really advocating is to play pure untimed matches, because that is the only real solution. As was eloquently stated above, the goal in an untimed match is not to kill ships, it is to kill the entire squad. Killing individual ships is only a stepping stone to get to that goal. The only way to not let MoV not affect the victory condition is to play untimed games. It really is that simple.

Unfortunately you can't do untimed games except for the final match.

No, he's not 'really advocating' that we only play untamed matches, that's not what he's recommending at all. What he's saying, pretty precisely, is that Partial Points based on health value of the ship also rewards people who may not actually deserve the win. I too have won matches that were untimed with badly hurt ships. I would potentially have lost those games if they went to time with a partial points system.

I don't see that Partial Points is a 'bullet proof better solution' than what's in there now. I have a hard time seeing that making a systemic change like this would not have a larger impact, and just lead to different problems.

I am not person two declaring 'there's no problem.' I'm another person saying, 'your solution isn't the best one.'

Jacob

any scoring system should not try to determine who is the better position for any future turns.

That includes the current scoring system. What you are really advocating is to play pure untimed matches, because that is the only real solution. As was eloquently stated above, the goal in an untimed match is not to kill ships, it is to kill the entire squad. Killing individual ships is only a stepping stone to get to that goal. The only way to not let MoV not affect the victory condition is to play untimed games. It really is that simple.

Unfortunately you can't do untimed games except for the final match.

No, he's not 'really advocating' that we only play untamed matches, that's not what he's recommending at all.

You're right, verbiage -- more accurately I meant to communicate that although it is likely not what he intended, the only logical conclusion from his premise is that to score games correctly you need to have them be untimed.

Except that Partial Points isn't predictive at all. It's a more accurate representation of the game state when time is called. It does not predict who would win if the game continued, merely who is in a better position to possibly win.

Edit: "more".

That is the problem, any scoring system should not try to determine who is the better position for any future turns. You make the statement that partial points are more accurate representation of the game state when time is called. That is something worth debating and deciding, but then you go further. You add a statement about who is in a better position to "possibly" win: attach a value to current hull/'shield numbers based on their ability to ascertain the likelihood of a certain and unperformed future outcome, i.e. predict a future event.

Right now, as a t.o., I see a ton of extra work, or dependance on a piece of software (that I likely could never practically replace on paper if needed as backup) to score wins differently in games that went to time. Proponents of partial scoring argue that the current system unfairly benefits "fat" ships, but this is due to the idea that if there was more time, the outcome would be a loss. That is what I have issue with. There is no way of knowing who would win until it is played out. I have seen games go both ways when time wasn't a factor. Sell us skeptics on how it is a better indicator than full points for destroyed ships only when determining performance up to the point time was called.

If you track the damage deal turn by turn of a game you could get an accurate count of the current points remaining on the board, which would tell you who is ahead in points only. Partial points just picks a round and says, "Whichever side is ahead right now wins." The game could be close, it might not be. Partial points only tells us how close in terms of hull/shields remaining on surviving ships represent. The current system only has one check for who is ahead, and that's how many ships are left on the board. Partial points adds a second check on the shields/hulls remaining on those ships left on the board. It's more accurate than what currently exists.

I don't think anyone arguing for has said that the outcomes would always be losses which a lot of opponents seem to be reading it as, but rather some results would be, which is more than currently all of those results. Personally, I don't think it's too much more work, since as stated elsewhere in this thread, the calculations are fairly simple, and most people have a calculator in their pocket these days. Leave it to the players and have them check their opponent's work. If there's a discrepancy, involve a T.O., otherwise it's just another 30 seconds of work. Furthermore, this process is only necessary when a game goes to time, which the large majority do not, and even then only on surviving ships. Dead ships still give their full value.

In football when the time is up the game is over. Even if you just got a 1st down and are at the one yard line and you are down by a few points. Even though you would prolly score a TD or at the very least a field goal. They don't award points for these non existent future scenarios.

X wing is the same way. Don't tell me that after 75 minutes and you got that falcon down to hit left that you deserve the win. The parameters are clearly out there and if you didn't get the win than either change something in your list or how you play. I play tournaments all the time and I have dealt with fat turrets, runners, stallers, everything. I had a guy at world's look at his howl runner dial for 3 minutes because he couldn't decide on whether to run or turn and fight. Honestly I don't care if people do that. I've been on the receiving end and I've been on the giving end of it. It's a tactic that is legal and sometimes gets you the win so it's OK in my book. I understand that everyone has different definitions of fun so I don't try to say whose is better. I don't mind if you try to run from me, I don't mind if fortress your ships up. I just don't care because I should be able to form a decent strategy to get past it.

If I lose, even if it's a 1 hull falcon I'm gonna go back and figure out what to adjust. Did I really need one more round? Was there anyway I could flown or blocked better? Did his list just counter mine and I need to rethink parts of it? Could I have played faster? Could my opponent have sped his game up and could I have asked him without causing a scene?

If I lost I lost. I don't need partial parts because if I wanted all of those points I should have won the match

Football is a poor analogy. It was designed with a finite playing time. The problem with X-Wing is more like if football were originally designed to be played until one team scored 25 points, and everyone plays it that way while learning it, but the NFL cuts games off after four 15-minute periods. Now, "things you have to do to win NFL games" wouldn't match "things you have to do to win football games". I think it's reasonable for people to dislike that.

To be clear: the issue isn't so much that the strategies necessary to win timed games aren't "fun" as that they're significantly different from what's necessary to win the kind of games the base rules were built around.

More edit: also dissatisfaction at how much of a disconnect there is between "who is ahead right now" and "who'd be more likely to win if we didn't artificially cut the time short".

So I've breezed through 8 pages of comments, many of them have been by highly intelligent people with well articulated points on every side of the discussion. What doesn't seem to have happened is addressing the issue. The issue is determining a winner within the context of limited time. Rather than addressing the winner side why not address the time side? I understand that not all matches can go on indefinitely (wouldn't it be great if all matches just lasted until one player had no ships left?).

Use a simple chess timer. If the match goes to time the player who took more time loses. This motivates everyone to play as quickly as possible, eliminates the stall tactics and should drastically reduce if not eliminate games going to time (in those cases where timed games are necessary). I'm not suggesting this is a perfect system only that:

Games decided by one player eliminating all of their opponents ships > some form of representative/predictive scoring (partial MoV) > straight ships destroyed when time is called (standard MoV). So instead of discussing which form of option #2 or #3 is best let's find the most efficient way to get the most amount of games into option #1.