Partial points are absoultely, positively, the worst scoring idea anyone could have for this game. Period.

Partial points are absoultely, positively, the worst scoring idea anyone could have for this game. Period.

When time is called, both players grab whatever ships they can that are left on the table. The winner is whoever can fit the most in their mouth.

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).

1) Who's buying all the chess clocks?

2) Chess has got discrete "turns" but X-Wing hasn't. When a player's clock should be running and when it shouldn't is fuzzy at best.

3) This doesn't eliminate the artificial incentive to play 2-ship builds. In fact, it might even make it stronger by making it more risky to play the fat turret's natural predator, swarms.

Partial points are absoultely, positively, the worst scoring idea anyone could have for this game. Period.

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.

Partial points are absoultely, positively, the worst scoring idea anyone could have for this game. Period.

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.

Actually, for football to be like X-Wing, it would have to be like this. Start as an untimed game played first to 100. Then, put a time limit on the games and just take the score at the time limit. Then, allow one team to say "your points only count when you get at least 12 we'll just keep track on a napkin and not put it on the scoreboard until then." Then allow the other team to say "yeah, well your points only count when you get 50". Then watch as the team that is allowed to score in 12 point increments rolls the team that can only score in 50 point increments.

this would be a solid analogy if football scoring were determined by dice rolls rather than any tangible effort

this would be a solid analogy if football scoring were determined by dice rolls rather than any tangible effort

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.

1. Comebacks from behind do happen. They don't usually happen though, so we shouldn't use a scoring system that awards a win to the person who "might" come back.

2. X-Wing is an un-timed game. Any scoring system is a bolted-on device to assess who would probably win if the game were played to it's un-timed actual conclusion. This includes the current scoring system. We award points for destroyed ships, so we are already trying to predict who will win, just doing so badly.

You need to take a step back to recognize that ships destroyed is just an arbitrary scoring criteria chosen to predict the future winner when nobody reaches the goal in time. It is not the goal of the game any more or less than damaging ships is. We are somewhat biased towards scoring for ships destroyed because it is the "first mover" in partial scoring systems, so we give it undeserved credit as being "core" to the game, when it is nothing more than the bolted-on mechanism that was selected first.

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.

I feel as if you haven't read this thread very carefully because we have already covered your objections.

1. Comebacks from behind do happen. They don't usually happen though, so we shouldn't use a scoring system that awards a win to the person who "might" come back.

2. X-Wing is an un-timed game. Any scoring system is a bolted-on device to assess who would probably win if the game were played to it's un-timed actual conclusion. This includes the current scoring system. We award points for destroyed ships, so we are already trying to predict who will win, just doing so badly.

You need to take a step back to recognize that ships destroyed is just an arbitrary scoring criteria chosen to predict the future winner when nobody reaches the goal in time. It is not the goal of the game any more or less than damaging ships is. We are somewhat biased towards scoring for ships destroyed because it is the "first mover" in partial scoring systems, so we give it undeserved credit as being "core" to the game, when it is nothing more than the bolted-on mechanism that was selected first.

X wing casually is a timed game but ever since the first tournaments there have been round times so I don't think they are just bolted on. FFG cares about there OP and competitive games. When we go to a tournament we all know there is a round time and it's a good idea to find out how much that time is. Managing that time is part of the strategy to your list and play style.

Also I love the hate on all of the 2 ship builds when just a year ago FFG was talking about wanting to make it so that swarms of low ps generics wasn't the go to list.

X wing casually is a timed game but ever since the first tournaments there have been round times so I don't think they are just bolted on.

No it isn't. X-Wing at it's core is played until one side wins, it's either or, w/l there is no points for 2nd place. A game of X-Wing doesn't end until one side is completely destroyed.

Armada on the other hand is at it's core a timed game, inasmuch as it has a round limit. So there's a way built into the game to decide who wins at the end of the game, because it may end without tabeling one side.

An incomplete list of all the problems with this idea:1) Who's buying all the chess clocks?2) Chess has got discrete "turns" but X-Wing hasn't. When a player's clock should be running and when it shouldn't is fuzzy at best.3) This doesn't eliminate the artificial incentive to play 2-ship builds. In fact, it might even make it stronger by making it more risky to play the fat turret's natural predator, swarms.

Who buys chess clocks? The same people who buy hardware lasers to measure firing arcs and acrylic tokens for $20.

Turns are very simple, if your ship is attacking or moving or taking an action it's your turn. If you are setting dials and your opponent has finished setting dials it's your turn. Not so difficult.

When it comes to the two ship meta, that's your thing. I'm not a huge fan but it's not what I was addressing. That said I thought the same thing at first examination. The more I thought about it the more I came to the conclusion that less ships doesn't necessarily mean faster. For example a TIE swarm has 8 moving parts (8 ships) while a two ship build has two ships but will have crew, secondary weapons, and other upgrades as well as 8 opponents to consider when moving and attacking. The larger number of ships is reduced for every one destroyed, thus taking less time. Even if for the sake of argument two ships take less time the point is to increase the overall speed of the game so that games don't go to time. If two ship player takes 25 mins and the 8 ship team takes 30 mins the goal is still achieved. It doesn't have to be perfectly balanced just effective enough to keep matches from going to time. Furthermore matches not going to time does in and of itself mitigate the two ship meta somewhat because players could not rely on going to time for the win.

I've intentionally ignored the recent "chess clock" discussion because it is an attempt to address a different, if somewhat related problem. Or, perhaps more accurately, it treats the symptom and not the disease.

Problem 1) People with low health ships are incentivized to take more time. Hopefully they keep their ships, and therefore points, on the board by seeing less rounds of play. A problem with slow play.

Problem 2) Counting heavily damaged ships as the full points value encourages point vault ships and running away tactics that are not characteristic of un-timed matches. A problem with the scoring system.

The slow play (problem 1), is exacerbated by the issues with the scoring system (problem 2). It is easier to keep my point vault in play if I have to do it less rounds.

But solving the slow play problem 1 with chess clocks does not solve the issue of running away with a point vault. It will still be possible, if more difficult, to run away with a heavily damaged point vault ship and take the game to time, securing a win when you most likely would have lost an untimed match.

Clocks are a solution to slow play, but they do not fix the underlying issue of a dysfunctional points system, so we are still likely to see tactics in timed games that are out of whack, and lists that are built as much to take advantage of the points system as they are to accomplish the game's goal. But if we fix the scoring system, both problems are solved.

Let's just drop the chess clock thing. It's clear it doesn't work in an assymmetric game and given the planning phase is simultaneous it doesn't work. That, and it's completely irrelevant to determining victory.

Besides, with Partial MoV meaning a 1 health Decimator isn't equivalent to a 16 Health Decimator slow play won't be the issue it is now. Fat ship slow play takes advantage of that 60 point jump, which Partial MoV (and untimed) cure.

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

So if you quite clearly would have won the match if untimed you don't "deserve to win"? Yes, you can pull back with badly damaged ships, but the odds are stacked against you. Moreover, the alternative is to have the person more likely to win lose. It's far more common to have a fat ship go down to barely any health and then win because the games were timed and it was saved by the bell. You can't make the "I could have won were it untimed" argument because it works both ways: if the scoring system gives the win to you then the other player lost when they could have won were it untimed. It's a weakness of any timed system over untimed games.

All you can do is assess who's in the more advantageous position when time is called: who is closest to victory based on the current state of the board. A good system for assessing that should not wildly change when the state of the board does not.The death of a Falcon on 1 hull in an untimed match is certainly a setback (you've lost an attack each round) but it's not unexpected nor a wild change in each player's advantage, but the 60 point change would suggest the tables were suddenly turned as if that Falcon was at full health and killed in one round. MoV treats a full health Falcon as equivalent to a 1 health Falcon in terms of the state of the board. Partial MoV only swings when the board swings in the same way: if you double proton bomb five full health TIEs to death in one round then you'd expect a massive change and all systems reflect that, but a one health Falcon dying is not a swing of the same magnitude (a full health Falcon dying in one round certainly would be). That's a great advantage of Partial MoV: it won't switch from narrow victory to crushing defeat in one round unless the board does. If the round wasn't a hugely significant round in Untimed it won't be in Partial MoV, but it usually will be an any MoV game including a fat ship.

A 60pt Falcon on one hull dying makes a difference, but not the same difference as five Academy Pilots dying in one round.

Given a round clock must exist, MajorJuggler's solution is the best solution because the other systems (current MoV and its predecessor Strength of Schedule) are orders of magnitude worse.

If you're arguing Partial MoV isn't the best solution then you need to propose what is, or at least what's better than it. Arguing the absolute weaknesses of Partial MoV is arguing relative to untimed. That's both preaching to the choir and pointless.

All you can do is assess who's in the more advantageous position when time is called: who is closest to victory based on the current state of the board.

I think it's worth reinforcing this. The language of "who would have won if the game went to time?" helps make the fairness problem clear, but it's not actually what any scoring system (including the version we have now) is measuring.

All the scoring system does is try to indicate who has the advantage and how big it is.

Given a round clock must exist, MajorJuggler's solution is the best solution because the other systems (current MoV and its predecessor Strength of Schedule) are orders of magnitude worse.

Partial points are a very good solution, although I don't want to rule out the idea of a better one coming along, from the perspective of creating an accurate picture of the board. But partial points can get computationally complex, and that's a legitimate criticism.

The current version of MOV is also a very good solution, from the perspective of making scoring easy--it's just not good if what you're trying to do is measure one player's advantage.

Arguing the absolute weaknesses of Partial MoV is arguing relative to untimed. That's both preaching to the choir and pointless.

This is a good point, too. Obviously playing all games to a conclusion would be more desirable--it's just not feasible.

All you can do is assess who's in the more advantageous position when time is called: who is closest to victory based on the current state of the board. A good system for assessing that should not wildly change when the state of the board does not.The death of a Falcon on 1 hull in an untimed match is certainly a setback (you've lost an attack each round) but it's not unexpected nor a wild change in each player's advantage, but the 60 point change would suggest the tables were suddenly turned as if that Falcon was at full health and killed in one round. MoV treats a full health Falcon as equivalent to a 1 health Falcon in terms of the state of the board. Partial MoV only swings when the board swings in the same way

Thank you for putting into words a thought I was unable to express. I feel this way exactly. This is why I think partial scoring is the way to go. Coincidentally, it is also why I believe any partial scoring system should ideally still award more points for the last hull than the first. Because removing a 1 HP Falcon from the board is a more significant change in board state than taking a Falcon from 13hp to 12. It definitely isn't a complete reversal of fortune that a 60 point swing would suggest, but it is more significant than the first damage.

I'm not opposed to the idea of partial points, I just don't think the current preferred method (calculating points based on remaining hull) is really doable during a tournament. The amount of time required, and how prone it is to errors would just be problematic.

How about if a ship has less than half its hull, you get half its points rounded up. It's easy, it's quick and you can have all the points calculated before a match even starts. Yes it's not as exact as doing the full calculations, but it's pretty close and would be very fast with no room for disagreement between you and your opponent.

All you can do is assess who's in the more advantageous position when time is called: who is closest to victory based on the current state of the board.

I think it's worth reinforcing this. The language of "who would have won if the game went to time?" helps make the fairness problem clear, but it's not actually what any scoring system (including the version we have now) is measuring.

All the scoring system does is try to indicate who has the advantage and how big it is.

Given a round clock must exist, MajorJuggler's solution is the best solution because the other systems (current MoV and its predecessor Strength of Schedule) are orders of magnitude worse.

Partial points are a very good solution, although I don't want to rule out the idea of a better one coming along, from the perspective of creating an accurate picture of the board. But partial points can get computationally complex, and that's a legitimate criticism.

The current version of MOV is also a very good solution, from the perspective of making scoring easy--it's just not good if what you're trying to do is measure one player's advantage.

Arguing the absolute weaknesses of Partial MoV is arguing relative to untimed. That's both preaching to the choir and pointless.

This is a good point, too. Obviously playing all games to a conclusion would be more desirable--it's just not feasible.

This is similar to what I'm saying. I'm not saying Partial points isn't a solution, but I object to the concept that 'it's the only and best solution' that's being put forward. I'm not convinced, other people aren't either, and I think some of the objections that myself and others have raised are merely dismissed over the 'but it solves the problem' argument.

I still see three major (as well as other minor) problems.

1. There's more math than is reasonable to expect in a rushed, clamour filled event. Programs would help, but it still needs to be easy to do for all people. Mistakes would become much too common and easily could swing a person's standings before it could be caught and corrected.

2. It's a major systemic change over the previous and current system of deciding who wins. Up until this point, the only thing that has mattered in any tournament or casual setting has been the complete destruction of a ship. I don't believe that a ship is merely cost/health; there are mitigating factors such as abilities, upgrades, and various other non-specific ship-to-ship variables to consider. Someone else suggested that there would be no reason to ever fly a decimator, which bleeds health and therefore points to the opponent. If all ships had identical attack, agility, hull and shields I would easily concede this, or even close enough as makes no difference, but at this point I don't see how making a systemic change of this magnitude could NOT lead to other issues moving forward. This is not a 'change X and all is well' scenario, this is 'we'll change X to solve problem Y but open up problem z and potentially more' sort of change (imo).

3. It is not a foolproof method of determining 'who would have won' moving down the timeline of the game. I have won come from behind games, as have others. I think even if it's 'statistically unlikely' you can't say that it isn't going to happen. So partial points potentially gives the win to people who would not win moving down the road. So in other words - it will still leave the possibility that the wrong person wins the round. So then, if it doesn't fully solve the problem, why would you make the change? The answer is usually, 'it will give the win to the current larger group who is losing unfairly.' Now then - who's to say that will always be the case? Will future upgrades make this a complete non-issue? Is there another alternative that fully solves the issue? Is there potential for X, Y or Z and we just don't have the foresight that FFG has from being insiders on the future potential of the game? I have to guess that the game designers are working on waves 8, 9, 10, and potentially farther. Perhaps they're reading the data and saying, 'this upgrade will completely negate this issue, let's make it happen in wave 8.' For goodness sakes - we haven't even seen everything wave 7 will bring us!

Look, I understand everyones interest in this topic. I'm on board with the issue, and I'm not suggesting that we don't discuss alternatives. It's a really interesting discussion. I do object, and quite strongly, that there exists a 'this is a defacto, no-issue, obviously perfect solution to this fairly minor problem so it's the only one we'll accept and anyone who disagrees is under the gun to prove us wrong' attitude.

Either accept our(my) objections as being valid and worthwhile to at least a portion of the forum posting x-wing players, and stop suggesting that Partial Points is the only and obvious solution, or at least stop bashing the issue to death. We get it - the Math people all see that Partial points is the solution. I'm not going to stop looking into alternatives.

Personally, I like the idea of enforcing 75 minute rounds for competitive play (the only time this issue has come into play for me was in a shorter than 75 minute round and would have been a non-issue in a 75 minute round), and I'm interested in the potential for adjusting the points given for partial wins. Both those ideas warrant more exploration on how they might affect the data.

Jacob

I'm not opposed to the idea of partial points, I just don't think the current preferred method (calculating points based on remaining hull) is really doable during a tournament. The amount of time required, and how prone it is to errors would just be problematic.

How about if a ship has less than half its hull, you get half its points rounded up. It's easy, it's quick and you can have all the points calculated before a match even starts. Yes it's not as exact as doing the full calculations, but it's pretty close and would be very fast with no room for disagreement between you and your opponent.

The partial MoV calculation is just health left/total health x point cost, and you only have to do it for surviving damaged ships, not every ship on the board. The maximum number of times you'd ever have to do it is eight and that's incredibly improbable, it's more likely to be one to three ships needing it. It's not much harder than adding up the ships to calculate MoV. As for checking, it's got the same inbuilt check as MoV does: both players are doing it and have vested interests in opposite directions.

I'm not opposed to the idea of partial points, I just don't think the current preferred method (calculating points based on remaining hull) is really doable during a tournament. The amount of time required, and how prone it is to errors would just be problematic.

How about if a ship has less than half its hull, you get half its points rounded up. It's easy, it's quick and you can have all the points calculated before a match even starts. Yes it's not as exact as doing the full calculations, but it's pretty close and would be very fast with no room for disagreement between you and your opponent.

The partial MoV calculation is just health left/total health x point cost, and you only have to do it for surviving damaged ships, not every ship on the board. The maximum number of times you'd ever have to do it is eight and that's incredibly improbable, it's more likely to be one to three ships needing it. It's not much harder than adding up the ships to calculate MoV. As for checking, it's got the same inbuilt check as MoV does: both players are doing it and have vested interests in opposite directions.

"It's not much harder"...

Even me trying to do it in a test scenario here in at my desk had me scratching my head and taking more time than I would have at a tournament, and I'm alright with Math. I can't see that everyone out there is going to have an easy time with it. Most of the players I play with rely on another person who knows how to do MOV correctly at our events (me or a couple other guys). Even I make mistakes, which is why I think that there needs to be a very simple method (like you have a modified loss you get 1 point not 0) or there needs to be a universal tool available, and I wouldn't call carrying around a laptop with some software a universal tool.

Jacob

I'm not opposed to the idea of partial points, I just don't think the current preferred method (calculating points based on remaining hull) is really doable during a tournament. The amount of time required, and how prone it is to errors would just be problematic.

How about if a ship has less than half its hull, you get half its points rounded up. It's easy, it's quick and you can have all the points calculated before a match even starts. Yes it's not as exact as doing the full calculations, but it's pretty close and would be very fast with no room for disagreement between you and your opponent.

The partial MoV calculation is just health left/total health x point cost, and you only have to do it for surviving damaged ships, not every ship on the board. The maximum number of times you'd ever have to do it is eight and that's incredibly improbable, it's more likely to be one to three ships needing it. It's not much harder than adding up the ships to calculate MoV. As for checking, it's got the same inbuilt check as MoV does: both players are doing it and have vested interests in opposite directions.

It's actually quite a lot of burden on the players. Currently, you just count points destroyed. Simple addition.

Say you have two damaged ships and your opponent has three. You need to do the calculation for your ships and your opponents ships to check them. You're doing more difficult calculations and the amount of calculations you need to do has increased dramatically. Say if you disagree...now the TO has to do the calculations for both players. And this is just one match in one round. Multiply that over multiple rounds in a 30+ player tournament and that's a lot of math.

Yes, those calculations might be easy for me and you, but they're not easy for EVERYONE and have the potential to add considerable time to a tournament.

It's actually quite a lot of burden on the players. Currently, you just count points destroyed. Simple addition.

Say you have two damaged ships and your opponent has three. You need to do the calculation for your ships and your opponents ships to check them. You're doing more difficult calculations and the amount of calculations you need to do has increased dramatically. Say if you disagree...now the TO has to do the calculations for both players. And this is just one match in one round. Multiply that over multiple rounds in a 30+ player tournament and that's a lot of math.

Yes, those calculations might be easy for me and you, but they're not easy for EVERYONE and have the potential to add considerable time to a tournament.

If it's mental addition then it's not easy for everyone and prone to wild error. If you've got a calculator then it's just a case of pressing different buttons and if the answers are wrong they'll be obviously wrong: if you've scored 36 points from a two damage TIE fighter then you know something's wrong.

I'm not opposed to the idea of partial points, I just don't think the current preferred method (calculating points based on remaining hull) is really doable during a tournament. The amount of time required, and how prone it is to errors would just be problematic.

How about if a ship has less than half its hull, you get half its points rounded up. It's easy, it's quick and you can have all the points calculated before a match even starts. Yes it's not as exact as doing the full calculations, but it's pretty close and would be very fast with no room for disagreement between you and your opponent.

The partial MoV calculation is just health left/total health x point cost, and you only have to do it for surviving damaged ships, not every ship on the board. The maximum number of times you'd ever have to do it is eight and that's incredibly improbable, it's more likely to be one to three ships needing it. It's not much harder than adding up the ships to calculate MoV. As for checking, it's got the same inbuilt check as MoV does: both players are doing it and have vested interests in opposite directions.

This is similar to what I'm saying. I'm not saying Partial points isn't a solution, but I object to the concept that 'it's the only and best solution' that's being put forward. I'm not convinced, other people aren't either, and I think some of the objections that myself and others have raised are merely dismissed over the 'but it solves the problem' argument.

"That is being put forward."

That line is critical.

It's impossible to say it's the best system in absolute terms because it's impossible to assess the infinite number of possible systems. However, to say Partial isn't the best system put forward is to say that MoV or SoS is.

2. It's a major systemic change over the previous and current system of deciding who wins. Up until this point, the only thing that has mattered in any tournament or casual setting has been the complete destruction of a ship. I don't believe that a ship is merely cost/health; there are mitigating factors such as abilities, upgrades, and various other non-specific ship-to-ship variables to consider. Someone else suggested that there would be no reason to ever fly a decimator, which bleeds health and therefore points to the opponent. If all ships had identical attack, agility, hull and shields I would easily concede this, or even close enough as makes no difference, but at this point I don't see how making a systemic change of this magnitude could NOT lead to other issues moving forward. This is not a 'change X and all is well' scenario, this is 'we'll change X to solve problem Y but open up problem z and potentially more' sort of change (imo).

And whoever said there's no reason to run a Decimator because it "bleeds points" has done something of a maths fail. A 60pt Decimator is still a 60 point Decimator. How you get more than 60 points out of it?

3. It is not a foolproof method of determining 'who would have won' moving down the timeline of the game.

Suggest a system that is. Otherwise you're comparing to Untimed.

Partial Points is better at modelling the state of the board than MoV is.

but at this point I don't see how making a systemic change of this magnitude could NOT lead to other issues moving forward.

Give an example of an issue moving forward. Otherwise you're just quoting Sod's Law (I think it's Murphy's Law in the US): saying that something will go wrong without saying what could be applied to literally any proposal ever.

I do object, and quite strongly, that there exists a 'this is a defacto, no-issue, obviously perfect solution to this fairly minor problem so it's the only one we'll accept and anyone who disagrees is under the gun to prove us wrong.'

I and everyone else are open to other solutions, but in order to discuss the merits and weaknessess of partial points relative to it you need to actually suggest one. We'll happily discuss the flaws of partial points against other systems if you point out a flaw.

Nobody is sticking to Partial Points in defiance of evidence. We're sticking to it because of the complete absence of points against it. "Something will probably go wrong" is not a point against it. You could say that about literally anything.

We're not saying there are no superior alternatives and there are no flaws, but you actually have to suggest other systems or flaws in partial points relative to those systems. It's impossible to defend PP against a completely undefined system nor to discuss a flaw of "something will go wrong somewhere at some point."

All there is at this point is the calculation requirement. Beyond that, we've got nothing beyond that bar a few people who believe the 1 health Falcon that killed a TIE fighter should win (and at the risk of Appeal To Motive we can all guess what they fly).

Either accept our(my) objections as being valid and worthwhile to at least a portion of the forum posting x-wing players, and stop suggesting that Partial Points is the only and obvious solution, or at least stop bashing the issue to death. We get it - the Math people all see that Partial points is the solution. I'm not going to stop looking into alternatives.

Personally, I like the idea of enforcing 75 minute rounds for competitive play, and I'm interested in the potential for adjusting the points given for partial wins. Both those ideas warrant more exploration on how they might affect the data.

75 minute rounds still need a clock resolution system. Moving the modified win goalpost I'm not sure about given FFG deliberately moved it down from where it was when they brought in MoV. Doing so would discourage sniping a ship and running away, but the point fort issue still exists: even if you fully engage a 1 hull Falcon is still equivalent to an undamaged one: the points at a point in the game are still very much out of whack with board state.

Good thoughts. Here is my take on each of them.

1. There's more math than is reasonable to expect in a rushed, clamour filled event. Programs would help, but it still needs to be easy to do for all people. Mistakes would become much too common and easily could swing a person's standings before it could be caught and corrected.

This is actually my biggest concern. For most TOs and players this will not be an issue, but you still want it to be as simple and robust as possible.

Very true - I'm also more than OK with that, I think that is the direction the game needs to go. Regionals prep and meta discussion now heavily revolves around winning a timed game even at 75 minutes. Supposedly the winning list at UK Milton Keynes Regionals (64 players) won on time in many of his games. The tactic was to get ahead and then run away and preserve MoV and kill the clock. It apparently worked.

I think that fear would be quickly dispelled once you play a couple tournaments under the new rules. Once you normalize points per shot for glass cannon:tank ratio, PS bid, turret/dial and upgrades, all the ships end up being pretty tightly clustered. Just because a ship has low standard deviation on its durability doesn't mean it's bad or won't get taken. It just means it is consistent. And consistency wins tournaments. What all Fat Ships will lose is their massive MoV advantage in untimed games, and also their even larger victory condition advantage in timed games.

emphasis mine.

This is not a minor problem. It is defining the entire meta game. I won a store Championship, and as any competitive player would, I am aiming to win a Regional too. The current system is defining what lists get brought and are viable at least as much as the current paper-rock-scissors squad balance that exists. Talk to any number of high level players in the game at any length about what is going through their mind when they are considering squads at Regionals, and it is the same story. You need to have a REALLY good reason not to bring a Fat Ship or a 2-ship list. 4BZ and Panic Attack (and its variants) are some of the few Non Fat lists that can manage to be viable. Swarms still look like they are dead, despite being better on paper than the majority of the more prolific Fat Lists out there.

Macar compiled some really good stats showing the breakdown of the Fat Ship Meta for Store Championships (wave 5). Regionals season is upon us, and early reports are indicating that despite the infusion of wave 6, Fat Lists are at least as prevalent now as they were before.

Thanks Tie Pilot. You've summed up your arguments handily while ignoring my points and others. This is the condescension I'm talking about from the (edit) some Partial Points advocates. Please listen and be willing to concede points, otherwise we're all just talking at the air.

1. MoV is not being put forward. It's what's in place. SoS was in place before, and it's been replaced, so it's not being put forward either. Please don't put words in peoples mouths.

That Partial Points is being forward by a bunch of (albeit pretty great) forumites isn't the point. You've ignored the point I was trying to make. My point is that people are merely dismissing the objections being raised, you included, and summing up the issue as 'it's simple math, it solves all problems, so what's not to like.'

2. Simple maths on the Decimator? Are you saying that it's simple math that a Decimator is a bad choice? You gave one example of a 5 tie swarm and a 60 point Decimator - however that's not the entirety of the ship. I can't see a single reason to take that Decimator over 5 ties in a competitive environment given that I have no ability to mitigate the damage done. If the point of taking a ship is to do damage and survive with as much hull as possible (as opposed to taking out ships) there is little to no reason to take a Decimator. It would really make sense to take Ties, which are more maneuverable, and their high agility makes them infinitely more sustainable over the long term. I don't see how it's a given with your simple 'maths' because you have merely provided one anecdotal instance where it would make sense. No, with Partial points there would be no reason to fly a decimator, or anything with low/no agility - after all, the reason which partial points is being put forward is that there are a couple low agility 'point fortresses' flying around and this suggestion is to reduce or eliminate their perceived domination.

3. Again, you keep saying 'the burden of proof is on the opponent.' To say that I need to 'suggest a better system' than Partial points otherwise I'm just saying that status quo is fine' isn't a fruitful discussion. You're just saying, 'come up with something better' or else I'm not worth listening to. Please don't make this discussion come down to that sort of line of thinking. I would suggest that the burden of proof for advocating Partial Points is still with those advocating Partial Points. My point is that people have suggested it to solve the problem, but yet the problem would still exist in the future, albeit in a perhaps more reduced form. The question still exists then - if it doesn't actually fully solve the problem, is it really a solution?

4. Here's a problem example for the future, one that you might be ignoring - if Partial Points rewards keeping your health intact, what then would be the desire to not fly high agility swarms? Wasn't it not to long ago that swarms dominated the meta? And now we've swung fully the other way, correct? Meta swings need to stop being so fully back and forth. With Partial Points, the advantage is given to ships that either can mitigate incoming damage with high agility, or simply keep themselves from ever being damage by constantly running. By implementing Partial Points there is the assumption that it will reduce or eliminate the 'point fortresses.' If we're not going to be flying the point fortresses because of the 1 in X situation where this could be an issue, what other meta swings might we see? It's not Murphy's Law to ask the question - have you thought it all out? Have you seen down the road far enough to be so certain that this solution is fool proof? What if the Meta swings all the way back to Swarms again. Is that what we want to see happen?

5. "Partial Points is better at Modelling the current state of the board than MoV is." I'm not convinced. You take it as a given, and I don't see it as a completely arbitrarily 2+2=4 solution like you. I don't see it, and nobody has taken the time to answer the questions I'm asking, like 'what about the stats of the ships, the abilities of the ships, the upgrades attached to the ships, and the other factors that take into account the potential of the game.' Simply stating that it's 'better' doesn't show it to be. You don't need to list out all the reasons, I've read them and I'm not convinced, and you just don't seem to accept that.

6. It seems you ignored my final paragraph. I'm interested in enforcing the 75 minute time limit and exploring a point given for a modified loss. I think it would have a less drastic impact on the game, and it would potentially solve the issue that you and the partial point people are up in arms about. Why do you keep suggesting that I need to propose some major change to the game? This is an isolated issue, one that may have been blown out of proportion as the meta adjusts to keep itself in balance, and it ignores the potential for future game elements that may make this a non-issue. I'm fine with staying pat, but if the issue needs to be addressed I'd rather see small, or potentially tiny adjustments rather than large systemic changes.

You haven't actually addressed my arguments and thoughts. You seem not to be hearing me. Please, take some time and ponder my objections in the post above, then simply say, "ok, I hear you" and then move on. That's all I'm asking, not for an argument or a shouting match as to each others ideas.

Jacob

4. if Partial Points rewards keeping your health intact, what then would be the desire to not fly high agility swarms? Wasn't it not to long ago that swarms dominated the meta?

2. Someone else suggested that there would be no reason to ever fly a decimator, which bleeds health and therefore points to the opponent. If all ships had identical attack, agility, hull and shields I would easily concede this, or even close enough as makes no difference, but at this point I don't see how making a systemic change of this magnitude could NOT lead to other issues moving forward.

Once you normalize points per shot for glass cannon:tank ratio, PS bid, turret/dial and upgrades, all the ships end up being pretty tightly clustered. Just because a ship has low standard deviation on its durability doesn't mean it's bad or won't get taken. It just means it is consistent. And consistency wins tournaments. What all Fat Ships will lose is their massive MoV advantage in untimed games, and also their even larger victory condition advantage in timed games.

This is similar to what I'm saying. I'm not saying Partial points isn't a solution, but I object to the concept that 'it's the only and best solution' that's being put forward. I'm not convinced, other people aren't either, and I think some of the objections that myself and others have raised are merely dismissed over the 'but it solves the problem' argument.

I still see three major (as well as other minor) problems.

Good thoughts. Here is my take on each of them.

1. There's more math than is reasonable to expect in a rushed, clamour filled event. Programs would help, but it still needs to be easy to do for all people. Mistakes would become much too common and easily could swing a person's standings before it could be caught and corrected.

This is actually my biggest concern. For most TOs and players this will not be an issue, but you still want it to be as simple and robust as possible.

2. It's a major systemic change over the previous and current system of deciding who wins. Up until this point, the only thing that has mattered in any tournament or casual setting has been the complete destruction of a ship.

Very true - I'm also more than OK with that, I think that is the direction the game needs to go. Regionals prep and meta discussion now heavily revolves around winning a timed game even at 75 minutes. Supposedly the winning list at UK Milton Keynes Regionals (64 players) won on time in many of his games. The tactic was to get ahead and then run away and preserve MoV and kill the clock. It apparently worked.

2. Someone else suggested that there would be no reason to ever fly a decimator, which bleeds health and therefore points to the opponent. If all ships had identical attack, agility, hull and shields I would easily concede this, or even close enough as makes no difference, but at this point I don't see how making a systemic change of this magnitude could NOT lead to other issues moving forward.

I think that fear would be quickly dispelled once you play a couple tournaments under the new rules. Once you normalize points per shot for glass cannon:tank ratio, PS bid, turret/dial and upgrades, all the ships end up being pretty tightly clustered. Just because a ship has low standard deviation on its durability doesn't mean it's bad or won't get taken. It just means it is consistent. And consistency wins tournaments. What all Fat Ships will lose is their massive MoV advantage in untimed games, and also their even larger victory condition advantage in timed games.

3. It is not a foolproof method of determining 'who would have won' moving down the timeline of the game.... So then, if it doesn't fully solve the problem, why would you make the change?

The only foolproof scoring method involves accelerating a DeLorean to 88 MPH and then sneaking a peak at the final result. Of all the practical scoring methods suggested so far, the most accurate one is partial points. I may go back and do some data mining on the Team Covenant Aces to demonstrate this. To answer the question, of why we would use an imperfect system: because it is about 10x less imperfect than the current system. Conversely, why would you not use the better system?

Will future upgrades make this a complete non-issue? Is there another alternative that fully solves the issue?

No. It is a mathematical certainty that the current system will always have a strong bias towards Point Fortresses regardless of what future upgrades are used. If anything it may only get worse with new releases of ships and upgrade cards as we get more ships capable of being Point Fortresses, and existing Point Fortresses gain new capabilities.

I do object, and quite strongly, that there exists a 'this is a defacto, no-issue, obviously perfect solution to this fairly minor problem so it's the only one we'll accept and anyone who disagrees is under the gun to prove us wrong' attitude.

emphasis mine.

This is not a minor problem. It is defining the entire meta game. I won a store Championship, and as any competitive player would, I am aiming to win a Regional too. The current system is defining what lists get brought and are viable at least as much as the current paper-rock-scissors squad balance that exists. Talk to any number of high level players in the game at any length about what is going through their mind when they are considering squads at Regionals, and it is the same story. You need to have a REALLY good reason not to bring a Fat Ship or a 2-ship list. 4BZ and Panic Attack (and its variants) are some of the few Non Fat lists that can manage to be viable. Swarms still look like they are dead, despite being better on paper than the majority of the more prolific Fat Lists out there.

Macar compiled some really good stats showing the breakdown of the Fat Ship Meta for Store Championships (wave 5). Regionals season is upon us, and early reports are indicating that despite the infusion of wave 6, Fat Lists are at least as prevalent now as they were before.

Is there potential that this is a current situation and not a permanent one?

MJ, I am not a math whiz, but I see that there's potential out there for a more moderate solution that rewards the modified win less or at least rewards the modified loss more. What impact would that have on the Meta prep? If people understood that going a full 75 minutes would be required and that they would still be giving up points to their opponents even with a modified win, what kind of change would that make?

Jacob