There has been some side talk in the 2015 REGIONAL RESULTS THREAD about partial points for big ships.

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/174268-2015-regionals-results/

It was off topic from the main point of that thread, so I figured it was best to take the discussion elsewhere.

In that thread, the results for the Regionals are coming in and a huge majority of the winning lists are big, turreted ships. There have been a number of discussions that have spawned because of that such as how turrets have ruined the game or why aren't there more swarms? I don't really want to go into that. I don't want to bash turrets or to talk about what kills turrets and why they aren't around. To me, I want to focus on the concept of only big turreted ships winning Regionals. I don't think big turreted ships have ruined the game. I don't think they are too cheap. I don't think they are a problem in normal games. I think a simple glance at the results for 2015 Regionals shows you that something is wrong with the tournament scene.

Fortress lists is the concept that MajorJuggler coined for ships that "bank" all their points into one or two big ships. The idea is that you don't lose any points unless the big ship is destroyed. With a high PS, Engine Upgrade, and a good maneuver dial, a big ship can arc dodge and run away from combat to save it's points. When a big ship is "fat" with many defensive upgrades, it becomes quite hard to actually kill a ship that is just trying to run the clock out. This tends to favor big ships winning games by a wider margin than other lists. You can knock a ship down to 1 hull point, but if you don't kill it, you get nothing.

Is this a problem? Well, look at Regional results. If you want the game to be more than just fortress lists, then it is a problem. If you are fine with only having fortress lists fight each other for dominance, than you have no problem. I would like to think that the game should be robust enough that a variety of ships should be winning Regionals.

One solution that has been bandied about as a fix has been partial points for ships. The concern for math and complications and how many of your ships are damaged could make this a nightmare. I would say that since the problem is mostly in the big, turreted ships, that it would not be too bad to make the rule only to large based ships. For those that say there will still be complicated math to work out and all sorts of problems, I say that the solution has to be simple. It has to be easy to figure out and not that complicated. There should be no sliding scale of damage that offers up percentages. I think it should be half total of all hull/shield, rounded up. So, a YT-1300 with 8 hull and 5 shield has a total of 13 points. If you knock 7 points off the ship, it would count as partial points. So, that YT-1300 that loses all shields and then 2 hull would count. It can't be hull because then you get into a debate about how much shield vs. hull and how it favors some ships over others. Just make it the total. Well, what about ships that regain shields? Easy. Just count the total at the end of the match. 6 hull with 1 shield back means there over half the points are there and you don't get partial points.

What does partial points mean, anyways? I think something simple needs to happen. You get half the total points value of the ship, rounded down. So, if a big ship is knocked below half and is worth 61 pts, you give up 30 pts. By making it only big ships and by just cutting it in half, you don't have to do a lot of crazy math to make it happen. What's the most big ships that you can have in a list? I think 3 is the highest, and it's not that difficult to divide by 2 three times. Also, if it were made official, I'm sure that all the list generating apps could easily be tweaked to actually show half points for any large based ship. I mean, is it really that hard?

My 60 point Fat Han vs his 62 point Fat Han. If I'm half dead then he still wins on time even with 1 HP remaining on his ship, half points does nothing to fix the problem.

And if the 62 point Fat Han goes up against a 64 point Fat VT-49, then the VT-49 wins instead. Half points is better than what we have, but it only moves the goalpost.

Full-out partial points would be much better, but would require a better scoring sheet, and ideally tournament software built in to support it. The latter is unlikely to happen from FFG.

Yes, these situations are true. I do assert, though, that half points is better than what we have. I think that there could be enough of a shift in the game and also in the consciousness of hard core tournament types that it should move the game back to a greater balance. Will it make big turreted ships unplayable? Oh, no. Will it negate the problem with points fortresses? Somewhat. I think it's a conservative change in comparison to all the possible changes. That's good, though. We moved from SoS to MoV and it was an improvement. Why not improve the situation further?

Wouldn't widening the margin required for victory be easier to implement? Total MoV doesn't seem to have nearly the impact that the small margin required for a full win does.

If 62-point Han will only get a modified win by leaving 2 B's alive I think a lot of people will take him less often.

Is having a slightly higher fraction of partial wins and losses worse than the current problem somehow? I don't see the downside to this.

As an aside, the idea of the math involved in any partial point scheme is ridiculous. Division is not complicated and, withe the age of calculators upon us, I wouldn't take anyone seriously when they suggest that the administrative burden would be anything more than an extra 2 minutes at the list building stage and an extra minute at the end of each match.

The real problem is what is fair. Hitting only large ships is an interesting idea, but there are some very durable small ships as well.

As an aside, the idea of the math involved in any partial point scheme is ridiculous. Division is not complicated and, withe the age of calculators upon us, I wouldn't take anyone seriously when they suggest that the administrative burden would be anything more than an extra 2 minutes at the list building stage and an extra minute at the end of each match.

The real problem is what is fair. Hitting only large ships is an interesting idea, but there are some very durable small ships as well.

How many times have you heard someone complain because they couldn't chase down that wounded Y-wing?

As an aside, the idea of the math involved in any partial point scheme is ridiculous. Division is not complicated and, withe the age of calculators upon us, I wouldn't take anyone seriously when they suggest that the administrative burden would be anything more than an extra 2 minutes at the list building stage and an extra minute at the end of each match.

The real problem is what is fair. Hitting only large ships is an interesting idea, but there are some very durable small ships as well.

The current point system already leads to quite a few errors and (self-inflicted)bad play experience for some players. Getting the points right for a match might seem easy, but I guarantee that adding another step of math will make errors more common. Have you been at argue tournament that has to redo pairings 3 times in one round? It's not fun. A tournament where people realize that pairings were wrong the next day is going to leave a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths.

A worse taste than Han, I'd wager.

As an aside, the idea of the math involved in any partial point scheme is ridiculous. Division is not complicated and, withe the age of calculators upon us, I wouldn't take anyone seriously when they suggest that the administrative burden would be anything more than an extra 2 minutes at the list building stage and an extra minute at the end of each match.

The real problem is what is fair. Hitting only large ships is an interesting idea, but there are some very durable small ships as well.

How many times have you heard someone complain because they couldn't chase down that wounded Y-wing?

I'm not worried about chasing down wounded Y-wings. But Corran Horn + Push the Limit + Advanced Sensors + R2-D2 + Engine Upgrade is a different story, as is Whisper + Veteran Instincts + Fire Control System + Gunner + Advanced Cloaking Device. And the TIE Advanced is durable enough on its own that I'm pretty sure someone will come up with a point-fortress version once the Raider is out.

The current point system already leads to quite a few errors and (self-inflicted)bad play experience for some players. Getting the points right for a match might seem easy, but I guarantee that adding another step of math will make errors more common. Have you been at argue tournament that has to redo pairings 3 times in one round? It's not fun. A tournament where people realize that pairings were wrong the next day is going to leave a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths.

A worse taste than Han, I'd wager.

How long do you think it would take the squad builder people to have half points listed on the squad sheet? They tend to get new pilots up pretty fast. I don't think you would actually need to do much math other than the normal tally of points.

As an aside, the idea of the math involved in any partial point scheme is ridiculous. Division is not complicated and, withe the age of calculators upon us, I wouldn't take anyone seriously when they suggest that the administrative burden would be anything more than an extra 2 minutes at the list building stage and an extra minute at the end of each match.

The real problem is what is fair. Hitting only large ships is an interesting idea, but there are some very durable small ships as well.

How many times have you heard someone complain because they couldn't chase down that wounded Y-wing?

I'm not worried about chasing down wounded Y-wings. But Corran Horn + Push the Limit + Advanced Sensors + R2-D2 + Engine Upgrade is a different story, as is Whisper + Veteran Instincts + Fire Control System + Gunner + Advanced Cloaking Device. And the TIE Advanced is durable enough on its own that I'm pretty sure someone will come up with a point-fortress version once the Raider is out.

To me, I think the problem tends to be with ships that can run away. I know the YT's have some of the best dials in the game. Combine that with the fact that large bases move even further and an Engine Upgrade to boot, and you have the most maneuverable ships in the game. Corran can regen shields, but he hash to do green to do it. The Tie Advanced can still be shot down with some concentrated fire and/or bumping. Phantoms are another problem, though. If they want to run silent, run deep, you can't do much about that. Then again, the Phantom is a huge menace to the game in many people's mind. I haven't seen many times (personally) where there is a wounded Phantom running, though. I usually see it mess up and die.

No one can run like a turret ship though and they get to shoot back the whole time!

Half the people at tournaments don't use squad builders and FFG is never going to let them decide it anyways.

Even if you try to implement half-points you have a lot of details for the players to screw up. What is 1/2 of 13? Do I get to use R2Dcrew after the last round of shooting? What if Corran is at full shields but has a point of hull damage? While it may seem trivial for us to work out these kinds of details the idea that players(one of which just lost a game) in larger tournaments will almost all get it right is a bit naive, I think. And that's for their list. And they are supposed to double-check their opponent's partial points as well?

I think the fairest way would be to implement a partial points scheme, and as what Rapture stated, isn't all that difficult with a calculator, or better yet, an Excel Spread sheet.

Assuming hull hitpoints + shield hitpoints = total hitpoints, then for each ship:

Points scored=(total cost of ship and upgrades)/(total starting hitpoints )*(total hitpoints-end of time hitpoints)

eg 58 dash with 3 hull left at the end of time would score for the opponent:

(58/10)*(10-3)=

5.8*7=

40.6 points.

As a side note, it really makes you feel every hit with 5 minutes to spare!

Half the people at tournaments don't use squad builders and FFG is never going to let them decide it anyways.

Even if you try to implement half-points you have a lot of details for the players to screw up.

Really? Half the people don't use squad builders? Even then, I'm sure that if they hand wrote the values on a sheet for counting up points for how much they lost in a round, they could write the half value for a big based ship right next to it for ease of use.

As for the messing it up, you think that players who can figure out this complicated game....with FAQ's and decloaking and upgrades...that they can't figure out "half points, rounded down, based on end of last turn"? Would there be confusion for a month? Sure, but if folks can figure out this game, complete with FAQ's, then they can figure out that simple rule.

I think the fairest way would be to implement a partial points scheme, and as what Rapture stated, isn't all that difficult with a calculator, or better yet, an Excel Spread sheet.

This is where things break down, in my opinion. You either need to make it super simple, or not at all. You start talking about spread sheets and sliding rulers and it all goes out the window. Half or none is easy and workable.

Half or none!!!

Half of none!!!

Half or none!!!

Catchy

Not a tournament player, but if you are doing the calculations at all, why wouldn't you go ahead and do full calculations? It would be easy enough to add a scorecard for each player (ala Golf), which lists each ship and how many points it had at the end of the game. Yes, you have to tally it up, but let the onus be on the player. And have the player and opponent sign off on the scorecard at the end of each match. Adds a minute, maybe... but should be simple. As your list doesn't change, you just carry your scorecard to the next table and tally at the end and next signature set. If there is a dispute in the points total, you bring over a TO / Assistant, before anyone decides points.

If you are going to a full tally, it is much easier to do final calculations. And should make the cut to elimination rounds easier to calculate. Again, the responsibility is with the player, but is verified at each stage. As a swiss pairing should not have friends meeting up, you shouldn't have too much trouble with people trying to beat the system. This way there are no half points and it doesn't move the goalpost to a half dead ship. Every shot counts, regardless of who shot first.

What if instead of partial points for big ships, your score is based on points destroyed?

5 for 81-100

4 for 61-80

3 for 41-60

2 for 21-40

1 for 0-20

Maybe this will promote an offensive mindset in tournament play, so people don't run the ships away in battle after only destroying 2 TIE fighters

My summary points:

1. Half points is better than what we have now, but still leaves significant scoring holes.
2. Scoring partial points for only large base ships also leaves significant scoring holes.
3. We are well past the point of academic debate on the subject, we need to just start running some tournaments if we really want to get some hard data. It would probably be best to wait to do this until after Regionals season is over.
4. I made a tournament scoring sheet that you can download here . I haven't actually used it yet, so feedback is welcome.

Fortress lists is the concept that MajorJuggler coined for ships that "bank" all their points into one or two big ships.

For the record, I didn't coin the term Fortress, even in reference to points. I know I had heard the phrase "Point Fortresses" from sozin before I had used it.

Continuation from the Regionals thread:

Short answer: in this particular scenario, his Han was 62 points and had 1 HP left at the end of the game. My Han was 60 points and ended with 8HP. So incidentally with half points I would have won (by one hit point). But you could also flip that around.

I don't think that Half Points are the best solution. It is better than what we have now, but it just "moves the goalpost". You can easily come up with counter-examples that are also broken. For example:

Player 1: 50 point 7 HP Fat Han.

Player 2: 64 point 6 HP Fat Han.

Under half points, the 7HP Fat Han wins. That is almost certainly not an accurate representation of the game state. At a minimum the game is much closer than a 25 point spread.

Getting the points right for a match might seem easy, but I guarantee that adding another step of math will make errors more common. Have you been at argue tournament that has to redo pairings 3 times in one round? It's not fun. A tournament where people realize that pairings were wrong the next day is going to leave a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths.

Unless you are counting the points wrong, this is purely a problem with the tournament software being used, not the MoV calculation. If you are counting the points wrong... well both players should be checking the points after a game. It is obviously in both of their best interests to get it correct.

Slightly off topic, but I had a thought today.

What I find interesting is that Fat builds were not created as a means to "game the system", but as a way to build a highly capable ship that can win games. Playing many of the "Fat" ships without all the upgrades usually results in a pretty sub par ship. Han+C3PO+Engine+Title (54 pts) is no where near as good of a ship, and will have a much harder time contributing enough to win you the game. RAC+Ysanne+Engine is also not as optimal. Defensive, yes, but inaccurate and with no tools to consistently hit token stacking ships.

What I'm getting at is, it was really "only after the fact" that people started considering Fat lists to be "gaming the system". They started off as a way to actually make these ships capable of being competitive. For these ships, both accuracy and reliable defense are required to make up the 42+pts you invest in the base ship. It also just happens that so many highly capable ships or combinations of ships fit into the 35-42 pt range, which really help round out these fat lists thrive. In these cases, it is a no brainier to add more upgrades rather than another ship, because you NEED reliability in order to have reliable success with a 42+ pt ship.

This same reason is why Dual Ig88 is more popular than Dual Ig88 + 1 Support ship. I don't think the latter list is unpopular because that 1 support ship "gives easy MoV", but rather, that putting more upgrades on the 2 IG88 makes them more reliable, more capable, and more flexible. It is much easier to get the full value of a 36+ pt ship when you invest upgrades into it to make it more capable.

Dash + HLC + Title is another good example. This ship is cheap and powerful, but not nearly as capable as when PTL + Engine + Kyle Katarn are added.

I hold the same feelings for Whisper and other ACD Phantoms. I find the best value of that ship comes in when FCS is included. Without it, even a 4 dice gun is not reliable enough for the 35+ pts you invest into it.

tldr;

The MoV benefit that "Fat ships" have is just an after effect of trying to make a highly capable, worthwhile ship.

I don't think anyone who started playing these ships went into each match thinking "if I live at 1 HP, I have an MoV advantage". On the contrary, players were more like "a ship loaded with that many upgrades will be free points for the enemy and taking these ships is very risky".

My how the times have changed.

Right, but they already get it wrong now fairly often.

I don't think anyone who started playing these ships went into each match thinking "if I live at 1 HP, I have an MoV advantage".

Not only have I been thinking that, I have been tracking it for 30+ games.

Firespray, Aggressors, and Shuttles aren't as capable of being point fortresses. The issue isn't large ships, the issue is specific ships both large and small that are capable of being points fortresses.

My summary points:

1. Half points is better than what we have now, but still leaves significant scoring holes.
2. Scoring partial points for only large base ships also leaves significant scoring holes.
3. We are well past the point of academic debate on the subject, we need to just start running some tournaments if we really want to get some hard data. It would probably be best to wait to do this until after Regionals season is over.
4. I made a tournament scoring sheet that you can download here . I haven't actually used it yet, so feedback is welcome.

...

I don't think that Half Points are the best solution. It is better than what we have now, but it just "moves the goalpost". You can easily come up with counter-examples that are also broken. For example:

Player 1: 50 point 7 HP Fat Han.

Player 2: 64 point 6 HP Fat Han.

Under half points, the 7HP Fat Han wins. That is almost certainly not an accurate representation of the game state. At a minimum the game is much closer than a 25 point spread.

I can't check on the sheet while at work. I'll try to recall when I'm at home, though.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on the holes that are left when you make it only large based ships. I haven't heard all that yet.

On one thought, do you think that if half points were given up by big based ships that it wouldn't change the meta to see a significant drop in large turrets winning? While I know that it shifts the goalpost, do you think it won't have a significant effect on the meta?

Lastly, do you think the point spread between what is a win vs. modified win should be changed, as well?

I can't check on the sheet while at work. I'll try to recall when I'm at home, though.

OK. It is just a publicly view able google doc.

Basically what Vorpal said above. You can still have a 44 point small base ship that is a Point Fortress.

It would change things, but it is impossible to tell by how much unless you tried it. But I guarantee that you would still want to take a 60+ Point Fortress. You would still be able to consistently lock up 20+ points towards MoV and even the win condition.

NA, I think 12 points is fine. Also remember that if you fully wipe your opponent's squad then you get 5 tournament points regardless of MoV. That's already in the rules. So if you win 100-97 with a 1HP bandit squadron pilot left, you still get the full 5 tournament points.

Yeah, google docs gets blocked at work. Sorry.

While I know that the smaller ships can also carry a lot of points and be hard to kill, I haven't seen them to be as much of an issue (then again, I don't follow it as closely as you and others do). It's usually them combined with the big turreted ships that does it. I think that the ability to use great maneuver dials, large bases to go extra far, and Engine Upgrade allows big ships with turrets to run farther away than anyone else...and still get to fire at you. It's like a super arc dodger. I've found that the smaller ships can be easier to handle than the larger ships.

So...you think that half points is OK, but not as good. You would want a sliding scale of points? Is that your preference? You think that is what would do it for the meta?

Dr.Juggler we have a lot of data stored up in the List Juggler. The information we are after is whether the matches with large fat ships go to time or not. What percentage of matches go to time, as this is the only thing a partial point system will solve. If the large fatty ships are completing their matches a partial point system will do nothing to lessen the impact they have on the game. Are we properly identifying the situation that gives the Fatty ships the edge?