This has probably already been discussed, but I have never given it much thought until today. And heck, I'm sick of discussing Partial Points in general, but I've got some thoughts, and I'd like to share.

It just occurred to me today that calculating partial points as a ratio of:

HP remaining / Original HP

is incorrect. A ship's cost is not determined solely by its defensive qualities, but instead by a combination of all stats. When MJ did calculations for "Jousting Value", Attack Power and Agility are also included, in addition to Hull and Shields.

Therefore, losing 2 hull on a Tie Fighter is not equivalent to 8 pts, but some lower value that also accounts for the 3 Agility, 2 Attack dice of the PS 1 ship.

So calculating points earned by removing hull/shields should be based on the point value that the Hull/Shield actually adds to the cost of the ship. Along with likely being the "correct" way to handle partial points, a method of this sort would more properly account for actually removing a ship's firepower from the board, and also includes the "difficulty" (agility) to shoot the ship.

A possible way to implement this would be to calculate the Squad Point value that each Hull/Shield pt adds to each ship's cost, calculate an Average, round to a whole number that makes sense, and use this value to calculate how many match points earned for each Hull/Shield lost. We could also do a point cost based on ship agility.

For an example of normalized value calculations, Hull pt lost is worth 1 pt, Shield lost is worth 2 pts (or heck Hull could = Shield). If say, your squad has 1 naked Blue Squadron B Wing left on the board with 2 Hull Remaining, that means your opponent scores:

5 Shield lost x 2 pts per shield = 10 pts

1 Hull lost x 1 pt per Hull = 1 pt

Total = 11 pts out of 22 pts available on a naked Blue Squadron Pilot.

Compare this to:

6/8 * 22 pts = 16.5 = 17 pts in a full ratio based system

Of course, this will be based on the normalized value we assign to each Hull/Shield.

Honestly, this is the proper way I can think Partial Points should ever be calculated, since so much of cost will be tied up in Attack Power, Agility, and Upgrades.

Downsides?

1. Lost Hull is worth more Match Points on low agility ships, there is more HP to lose, and it is easier to lose it.

- This actually makes sense to me, since the ship's Squad Points cost is based more on Hull/Shields

- ALSO, this helps gives you more points for dealing damage to low agility Fat Turrets, which a lot of people complain about, since more of their actual ship cost is Hull/Shield, and less is Attack Power/Agility

2. Ships stacked with Upgrades give less partial points per total Squad Points

- This also makes sense to me, since the upgrades have NOT been destroyed, and should not be added to the Match Points until they ARE destroyed.

3. An argument can be made for discarded Ordnance and/or Weapons and EPTs discarded due to Crits.

- This is bad for discarded Ordnance, which sucks, but could be an exception to the rule easily, with some statement of "Self discarded upgrades, or upgrades not destroyed by an opponent".

- This is good for Munitions Failure crit removing things like HLC. It makes sense to me that an upgrade lost due to a Crit is added to Matxh Points earned, even if is is based on a random Crit (dice removing Hull is already based on some randomness).

4. Defensive Upgrades like C3PO that can already be thought of as "Free Hull" will now essentially be "Free Match Points saved".

- This does not fix our "Fat Ship" issue, but by golly, based on current game design, I don't think calculating anything BUT equivalent Hull/Shield cost makes any sense.

tldr;

Based on game's Squad Point design system, calculating Partial Points only makes sense by subtracting the actual value of Hull/Shield that is used to determine a ship's Squad Points for equivalent PS 1, no ability, un-upgrades ships.

I know that actual Squad Points are not determined solely by stats, and that fluff points are added to ships for various reasons, so calculating this value will mean doing some analysis of each ship's equivalent Hull/Shield per Squad Point Value and determining a "normalized" value that is based on average, median, variance, play testing, etc etc etc.

I don't think any other Partial Point calculation makes sense based on this game's design.

tldr; tldr;

Partial Points calculated like this will not fix many of the "issues" people have with how Match Points are determined (Fat ships living at 1 hp), meaning the Current System is just an easier version of my proposal. Honestly, FFG could be thinking along the same lines, and that is why they chose not to implement a Partial Points system in the first place. Does that mean they won't? Who knows! They do seem to enjoy making changes based on Community feedback!

So, why not put it in the original thread?

So, why not put it in the original thread?

There have been a lot of threads about this topic over the last few weeks. Which is original? Almost all have a LOT of posts. I felt a new topic would reach more viewers, etc, etc, etc.

So your just crowding up the forums with extraneous threads so that your posts will get more visibility?

So your just crowding up the forums with extraneous threads so that your posts will get more visibility?

If you have nothing to add, then don't post and bump it to the top. If no one wants to continue the discussion, it'll quickly fall off and the clutter will be gone.

As for the actual post... Interesting idea. It surely makes scoring it very easy, which seems to be one of the biggest complaints about partial points and whatnot. And it makes sense in the game, I know I will almost always take the kill shot over a potentially better shot that doesn't have a chance to kill someone, your partial kill MOV still reflects this. And it also works in the "in universe" setting. Well, kinda. Something that has just lost shields really hasn't taken any damage at all, so that part doesn't work. But something that has a minor hull issue is going to be grounded (or not really weakened on a capital ship scale) for a short period of time while it under goes minor repairs. But something that was on emergency life support as it limped home (or a Star Destroyer burning and venting atmosphere all over) are going to be out of commission for an extended period of time. But the fact that the ship still exists is still much better than the ship being dead.

This is overcomplicating it to a ridiculous extent.

1. Lost Hull is worth more Match Points on low agility ships, there is more HP to lose, and it is easier to lose it.

No, it's not.

Take two point equivalent ships, the 25pt Blue Squadron Pilot with Advanced Sensors and the 25pt Royal Guard Pilot TIE interceptor with Push The Limit.

If you kill either ship, they're worth 25 points.

If you score them at the end of the match based on their remaining health, then each hit point on the B-wing is worth 25 points x 1 / 8: its point cost is split across each of its hit points, and each hit point is worth just under 3.2 points.

The TIE interceptor has three hit points, and therefore each hit point is worth 25 x 1 / 3: each hit on the TIE interceptor is worth 8.3 points.

This incorporates everything you'd ever need to incorporate. A TIE interceptor is harder to hit, and thus each hit is worth more. A B-wing is easier to hit but each hit is worth less. Damage to more expensive, more powerful ships is worth more than damage to grunts.

Take any set of ships with any set of damage, apply Simple Partial MoV and you'll get a decent representation of the state of the board and almost always a good represenation of each player's advantage or disadvantage at that point: their chances of winning in an untimed game. It's far better than the bizarre situations created by the current systems (a 1 hit point Falcon can win on MoV against a full health ship costing a single point less.) If a game is incredibly close MoV will reflect that.

I can't see a way to exploit it: no choice of squadron has an inherent advantage. Falcons and TIE swarms have just as good a chance as each other. Regenerating ships are no better than they were under previous systems.

The mathematics simple enough for just about any player with a simple calculator to handle and to be honest the tournament software would probably calculate it automatically from remaining health.

This is overcomplicating it to a ridiculous extent.

1. Lost Hull is worth more Match Points on low agility ships, there is more HP to lose, and it is easier to lose it.

No, it's not.

Take two point equivalent ships, the 25pt Blue Squadron Pilot with Advanced Sensors and the 25pt Royal Guard Pilot TIE interceptor with Push The Limit.

If you kill either ship, they're worth 25 points.

If you score them at the end of the match based on their remaining health, then each hit point on the B-wing is worth 25 points x 1 / 8: its point cost is split across each of its hit points, and each hit point is worth just under 3.2 points.

The TIE interceptor has three hit points, and therefore each hit point is worth 25 x 1 / 3: each hit on the TIE interceptor is worth 8.3 points.

This incorporates everything you'd ever need to incorporate. A TIE interceptor is harder to hit, and thus each hit is worth more. A B-wing is easier to hit but each hit is worth less. Damage to more expensive, more powerful ships is worth more than damage to grunts.

Take any set of ships with any set of damage, apply Simple Partial MoV and you'll get a decent representation of the state of the board and almost always a good represenation of each player's advantage or disadvantage at that point: their chances of winning in an untimed game. It's far better than the bizarre situations created by the current systems (a 1 hit point Falcon can win on MoV against a full health ship costing a single point less.) If a game is incredibly close MoV will reflect that.

I can't see a way to exploit it: no choice of squadron has an inherent advantage. Falcons and TIE swarms have just as good a chance as each other. Regenerating ships are no better than they were under previous systems.

The mathematics simple enough for just about any player with a simple calculator to handle and to be honest the tournament software would probably calculate it automatically from remaining health.

The 25 pt RGP would at most be worth 4 partial points if each Hull was worth 2 pts (or whatever value we come up with). A Blue Squadron + Adv Sensors could be worth up to 14 partial points.

I just don't think a ratio calculation properly includes the ship's equivalent squad points spent on Attack Power , Agility, and Upgrades. The case you stated works out well for your argument since Attack Power is equivalent, but let's consider something more drastic.

24 pt Blue Sqaudron + FCS

And

24 pts of 2 x 12 Pt Academy Pilot

The firepower for these 2 IS different, and that is reflected in the Squad Point cost of each ship. Also, the points spent on Agility and Upgrades are quite a bit different.

I just don't think it is the "proper" way to calculate the Match Scoring if the 1 Hull ship's firepower and its Upgrade cards are still influencing the game (such as Mara Jade, Rebel Captive, Pilot abilities, etc). The Squad Point costs of all ships and upgrades are included when using a Ratio system, and that doesn't make sense to me, especially if those abilities and the Firepower are still on the field when time is called.

I agree the Ratio calculation system would fix the issues people have with 1 hp turrets, but I do not think it is the right way to handle scoring in this game, since Squad Points include more than just Hull and Shields.

The implemention could also be very simple.

1. FFG would assign a pt value for Hull and Shield destroyed that is calculated with much care.

2. Match would end, add points from ships totally destroyed

3. Add up all Hull/Shields removed from ships alive on table, multiply by the value FFG assigns, add to your Match Points

4. No rounding required, hehe

But at the end of the day, I don't think it is necessary, since the current design of the game already incorporates the Squad Point cost of upgrades and all stats into the design of each ship, and fully removing ships is pretty close to the same outcome as the method I am suggesting. I'd have to hash out some examples of whether it would help combat the Fat Ship problem people are having.

So your just crowding up the forums with extraneous threads so that your posts will get more visibility?

Please read all my posts with a light hearted, thoughtful view point. I did try my best to say "I think" vs "this is the truth", since these discussions are so largely based on our own personal opinions. I enjoy this game too much to actual be mad about anything related to it.

Also, Is it so wrong to want my own space?!! :p

man, if this was going to be a legit "partial points" thread you should have only posted some of your arguments

I may have missed it, but I don't think there was a single use of the word "meta" in the original post. Without that, this whole thread has little to no value

I just don't think it is the "proper" way to calculate the Match Scoring if the 1 Hull ship's firepower and its Upgrade cards are still influencing the game (such as Mara Jade, Rebel Captive, Pilot abilities, etc). The Squad Point costs of all ships and upgrades are included when using a Ratio system, and that doesn't make sense to me, especially if those abilities and the Firepower are still on the field when time is called.

Every system in existence factors in upgrades and cost.

The issue with assigning a value to hull or shields is that value of hit points is not consistent from ship to ship. A TIE defender's hull point is worth more than a Decimator's. A fixed value for hull creates a twofold problem: the partial points for killing a ship don't add it up to the cost of the ship, and low agility ships are placed at a disproportionate disadvantage.

24 pt Blue Sqaudron + FCS

And

24 pts of 2 x 12 Pt Academy Pilot

The firepower for these 2 IS different, and that is reflected in the Squad Point cost of each ship. Also, the points spent on Agility and Upgrades are quite a bit different.

There again each hit on a TIE is worth 4 points and each hit on the B-wing is worth 3. I get what you mean, that killing one TIE and doing one damage to the other isn't truly equivalent to putting both on one hit point, but trying to compensate for that either overcomplicates the system or generates new flaws.

I just don't think it is the "proper" way to calculate the Match Scoring if the 1 Hull ship's firepower and its Upgrade cards are still influencing the game (such as Mara Jade, Rebel Captive, Pilot abilities, etc). The Squad Point costs of all ships and upgrades are included when using a Ratio system, and that doesn't make sense to me, especially if those abilities and the Firepower are still on the field when time is called.

Every system in existence factors in upgrades and cost.

The issue with assigning a value to hull or shields is that value of hit points is not consistent from ship to ship. A TIE defender's hull point is worth more than a Decimator's. A fixed value for hull creates a twofold problem: the partial points for killing a ship don't add it up to the cost of the ship, and low agility ships are placed at a disproportionate disadvantage.

24 pt Blue Sqaudron + FCS

And

24 pts of 2 x 12 Pt Academy Pilot

The firepower for these 2 IS different, and that is reflected in the Squad Point cost of each ship. Also, the points spent on Agility and Upgrades are quite a bit different.

There again each hit on a TIE is worth 4 points and each hit on the B-wing is worth 3. I get what you mean, that killing one TIE and doing one damage to the other isn't truly equivalent to putting both on one hit point, but trying to compensate for that either overcomplicates the system or generates new flaws.

I agree that it would create new flaws, but I think based on how ships and squad points are designed, any other Partial Points system would be outside the original Squad Point design.

I also think that with some work, a Match Point value for Hull/Shields destroyed could be calculated. Major Juggler has done a good job calculating a raw PS 1 equivalent cost of a ship. I'm not sure if this data weights stats by some factor and just multiplies that factor by how many of each stat or what not, but if it doesn't, I bet with some work some data could be created that assigns a relative Squad Point value to each ship stat value. This value could be used for hull/shields to give us what we need.

The issue with assigning a value to hull or shields is that value of hit points is not consistent from ship to ship. A TIE defender's hull point is worth more than a Decimator's. A fixed value for hull creates a twofold problem: the partial points for killing a ship don't add it up to the cost of the ship, and low agility ships are placed at a disproportionate disadvantage.

That's because you are paying for this those extra Hull and Shields in your squad points. Ships pay X for each pt of Agility and Y for each Hull. B Wings trade out having higher agility for more Hull and Shields, and it has the benefit of preventing them from being 1 Shot and relying on Green dice, where as a Tie pays pts for 3 Agility so it has potential to avoid 3 damage. When we deal damage to a ship, we remove Hull and Shields, not Agility or Attack Power. Since those are the components removed, we should really be looking at only calculating THOSE points into our partial scoring. The pts spent on Attack stats and Agility stats are still present.

Heck, I wouldn't be opposed to counting stats lost due to crits like Weapons Malfunction that are still present when the game ends, since at the end of the game those stats are removed from your ship. Of course, a normalized value would have to be calculated for Attack Power and Agility.

Again, what I'm really trying to get at is I think based on the game's Squad Point design, the proper way to handle partial points is to deduct stats lost when the game ends. This, however, will likely not FIX the issues we want partial points for. But since I think that moving to any other Partial Point system would not be the correct method, there really is no benefit to moving to any the Partial Points system I have suggested.

My argument seems to be...

1. Only proper solution based on game design is what I have outlined

2. Moving to this design probably doesn't fix any the issues players want (will need to be mathwinged more)

3. There is no benefit to moving to the solution I outlined, since it doesn't "fix" much

4. Systems that do fix our issues are different from the way Squad Points were designed for the game

5. Therefore, moving to those systems would not be "proper" based on current game

1. Only proper solution based on game design is what I have outlined

2. Moving to this design probably doesn't fix any the issues players want (will need to be mathwinged more)

3. There is no benefit to moving to the solution I outlined, since it doesn't "fix" much

4. Systems that do fix our issues are different from the way Squad Points were designed for the game

5. Therefore, moving to those systems would not be "proper" based on current game

2 and 3 contradict 1.

Squad points were intended as a balancing tool for squad building, so I'm not sure what you mean by 4.

5 is an opinion and therefore I can't really respond to it.

1. Only proper solution based on game design is what I have outlined

2. Moving to this design probably doesn't fix any the issues players want (will need to be mathwinged more)

3. There is no benefit to moving to the solution I outlined, since it doesn't "fix" much

4. Systems that do fix our issues are different from the way Squad Points were designed for the game

5. Therefore, moving to those systems would not be "proper" based on current game

2 and 3 contradict 1.

Squad points were intended as a balancing tool for squad building, so I'm not sure what you mean by 4.

5 is an opinion and therefore I can't really respond to it.

Also, it is all an opinion, I have made that pretty clear with many "I think" statements, not trying to hide that fact. However, it must be noted that the want/need for any Partial Points system IS an Opinion. The Fat Ship "issue" is an opinion. Some people might not think it is a problem. You can view it as a fact that those situations exist, but it is your opinion if you think it is bad for the game. The more I think about the Squad Points design, the more I realize that I don't think there is anything wrong with the current game system. Destroying Hull/Shields is not the same as destroying the Points put into Attack Power, Upgrades, Agility, etc. it just so happens that Hull/Shield are used to determine whether the ship stays on the board.

I'm just trying to look at the game state in a non subjective way that actually incorporates the non hull or shield stats you put into your squad. When time is called, there are times we can clearly see a winner, but since that 1 HP ship is still alive, a win might have been denied. Based on this ship STILL having all the Attack, Agility, and Upgrade pts still in play, we cannot say that a Fat Han is worth only 1/13 * 63 pts, since we've only removed 12 Hull/Shield from the board, and NOT the 30 pts or whatever that are Upgrade, Attack, and Agility stats. It would only be fair that those stats are still considered in play, since they ARE in play, and the opposing player should NOT get credit for destroying them, since they were NOT destroyed. We can either calculate Hull/Shield equivalent value, or leave the game as it is.

I'd be curious to see stats on how often tournament games go to time with a "fat" ship still alive and winning due to fatness. Namely, those situations where they killed more than their own points and then ran for safety.

How often does this happen?

And since the only system that I deem "proper" has no added value, then there is no reason to implement any Partial Points system.

Let me get this straight. Your stance is, quite literally, because the only method you individually like doesn't work, there's no case for implementing a Partial Points system at all?

I'm not really sure how to respond to that. I'm guessing that's not what you meant, but it sure reads that way.

I'd be curious to see stats on how often tournament games go to time with a "fat" ship still alive and winning due to fatness. Namely, those situations where they killed more than their own points and then ran for safety.

How often does this happen?

I played 5 games with a Chewbo list a spring tourney this past weekend. A couple weekends previous I won 4 of 4 rounds. Of the 5 games this past weekend, I won all 5 including the final. In 3 of the 5 I wiped the board with either both or just Chewie on the table. Chewie was 53 points and Leebo was 47.

One game that was close I ended up with a Modified win by not removing a 51 point Agressor from a dual IG-88 build. My opponent assumed that Leebo was the pricier and thought he had the win. When he figured out that he didn't, it was a toss up as to whether he would outright win or I would down the road, but chances are more in favour of him winning in the long term.

In the other game, the final round of swiss before the cut to top two, I got my second modified win of the day as a Generic Decimator chased Chewie around trying to eat him up before time was called. I never slow played, but eventually time was called (by my opponent who was also the TO) with a one health Chewie barely surviving as he tried to turtle around the board. The Decimator had a Rebel Captive aboard, so my last several turns I was just choosing not to shoot, so I definitely played to try and get Chewie to survive to time.

The thing is, it's a part of the strategy currently, but it's certainly not what I went in with. I like flying Chewbo because it's more challenging than people give it credit for. One of my friends says it's 'X-Wing Easy Mode' but I disagree. It's not super easy, but my build is geared to compensate for both the low agility the ships feature and compensate for bad rolls with Lone Wolf, Predator, The MF title and C-3PO. In my opinion, it's not easy to fly well, and it's not always easy. It does do well against certain lists, but another set of lists it will suck against.

I guess I'm saying is, only once would I really say in two tournaments using this list (so 9 total rounds) would I say I won due to 'fatness'. To be fair, I think that's one round in which another 5 minutes I would have lost. In other games I've played, and in some rounds I would have won completely with another 10 or 15 minutes, or lost completely with another 10 or 15. So take that for what it's worth.

Jacob

<snip> And heck, I'm sick of discussing Partial Points in general<snip>

You had me at the first sentence...

And since the only system that I deem "proper" has no added value, then there is no reason to implement any Partial Points system.

Let me get this straight. Your stance is, quite literally, because the only method you individually like doesn't work, there's no case for implementing a Partial Points system at all?

I'm not really sure how to respond to that. I'm guessing that's not what you meant, but it sure reads that way.

Yes, sort of. Don't get too hung up on the "no partial points at all" part, as I still haven't done the math. I mean, I'm not expecting a response, or trying to convince anyone of anything in particular. I'm just passing along a thought an important piece of the Partial Points puzzle that I don't think should be ignored.

That is, "Points spent on Attack Power, Upgrades, and Agility".

It just so happens that further thinking about this system made me think it MIGHT not be necessary.

I'm sorry if you don't like it.