Does List Juggler track that? I thought it was just who played who and who won.

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?

I think there are 2 things that really need to be quantified:

1. Identifying how often games go to time, since all of these results could potentially be changed with partial points.
2. Identifying the MoV advantage that Fat Ships get in untimed games. Unforuntately we can't get this without knowing the remaining hit points, which is not information that is saved.

#1 is relatively easy, and when I get around to running stats on List Juggler data that will be one of the first things I look at.

Does List Juggler track that? I thought it was just who played who and who won.

If the TO uploads the Cryodex file, then yes, you can see the per-game MoV breakdown. The only thing we don't have is "hit points remaining per ship" because obviously that isn't currently tracked.

I'm going to throw my .02 cents rounded up to whatever you like worth of opinion on this topic. First off, I am fine with exploring current predicament we seem to find ourselves in relating to big, turreted ships dominating the meta. I am someone who has attended many tournaments across 3 states, with several different metas, and I've TO'd quite a few of them with anywhere from 12 to 26 players. I can say that over all of these I have seen many players who show up unprepared, do not have a squad sheet filled out, much less one completed with Squadron Builder or some other. I've seen people show up without damage decks, who misinterpret rules, and who, honestly don't give a deep thought into MOV as it relates to squad construction. I think sometimes we forget that there is a lot of people who play this game and play competitively in tournaments who aren't vocal on these forums or on Team Covenant, etc. I've also noticed that some of the prominent voices in the online community (both here and on Team Covenant) have mathematics or engineering backgrounds or some other technical training. To them the idea of "doing more math" in between rounds of a tournament should be a piece of cake, no problem. That is not a slam against someone like Major Juggler (whom I have played online and respect) but just my observation.

I said all that to say that my stance has and will continue to be that any implementation of a "partial points" scoring system MUST be elegant and simple. I think it needs to handled foremost with FFG focusing on the tournament software side of things. Unfortunately some of the early things I've heard so far about their new one isn't looking so good.

I think you can ask a vast majority of people out there playing this game what is one of the big draws other than the Star Wars theme and I think they would say the simplicity of the core mechanics of the game. I think the competitive processes should maintain that as much as possible.

Does List Juggler track that? I thought it was just who played who and who won.

You should be able to see total destruction when looking at the "points destroyed" column. If it goes to time, it only lists what was destroyed before time.

For instance: http://lists.starwarsclubhouse.com/get_tourney_details?tourney_id=433

The round 1 game where Stefán lost to Bjarni, only 12 points scored in the game. Farther down you can see a few where points destroyed is 100.

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?

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.

No question--the major disadvantage of half/half is indeed that it still leaves exploitable seams. The (possibly) compensating advantage is that dividing by two is much easier for most people to manage than calculating a proportion, and therefore it's easier for players to work out and for opponents and TOs to check.

As you say, it's hard to say exactly how much better or worse it will be without actually running a tournament that way. It's the sort of thing a Vassal tourney would be really good for, I think, if there weren't one set to start very soon (and likely run for months).

As a non-vassal player, I heartily endorse a group of other people to go test things I'm interested in!

looking at the Ontario Regionals 2015 results from list Juggler there were 119 matches played and 22 went to time. 18.4% of the matches would be affected to a partial point system. This is a little under what I would expect to see somewhere between 20-25% of games going to time. 18 of the 22 matches had large ships in them. and the record for the wins and loses is 9 wins 6 loses. 2 of the matches both sides had large ship bases and one was a complete draw.

so now we are looking at 9 games where Partial Points would even matter 7.5% of the matches played on that day. even if would operate under the assumption the large base ships lose every single of these matches it's nothing. to complicate the game over such a small instants of results is worthless.

Now this is only one example and perhaps these results are very uncommon.........I will look at another regional and see......BRB

I've changed my mind of partial points. Even if it hurts B Wings and Lambdas and Firesprays, it would be preferable to EVERYONE running some dumb fat turret(s) around, pretending that their maneuvers matter at all.

Often time when I'm playing swarm, half my ships skate by with one or two health left, so I don't think it would be too adversely biased towards high agility, low health ships. Even Soontir tends to take some damage over the course of a game and each damage on him would be more than damage on a fattie.

The arguments about this being complicated are ludicrous. Dollar store calculators. Also, the calculation for how many points each health on a ship is worth only have to be done once on the squad sheet for the whole tournament. If each health on ship X is worth 4 points and it took 5 damage, your opponent just got 20 points because it's already been determined that each health on my ship is worth 4 points and that's written on the sheet.

Events run by TO's that don't actually care about X Wing and get everything wrong are still going to get it wrong.

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?

Exactly this. We're still at the stage of identifying whether or not there is a systemic issue with the game. Is being a "points fortress" broken? Or is it one of the benefits paid for by having only three red dice tying up 60% of your squad?

Is it an unfair advantage, or an advantage paid for?

looking at the Ontario Regionals 2015 results from list Juggler there were 119 matches played and 22 went to time. 18.4% of the matches would be affected to a partial point system. This is a little under what I would expect to see somewhere between 20-25% of games going to time. 18 of the 22 matches had large ships in them. and the record for the wins and loses is 9 wins 6 loses. 2 of the matches both sides had large ship bases and one was a complete draw.

so now we are looking at 9 games where Partial Points would even matter 7.5% of the matches played on that day. even if would operate under the assumption the large base ships lose every single of these matches it's nothing. to complicate the game over such a small instants of results is worthless.

Now this is only one example and perhaps these results are very uncommon.........I will look at another regional and see......BRB

So, you think partial points wouldn't affect the meta at all?

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?

Exactly this. We're still at the stage of identifying whether or not there is a systemic issue with the game. Is being a "points fortress" broken? Or is it one of the benefits paid for by having only three red dice tying up 60% of your squad?

Is it an unfair advantage, or an advantage paid for?

I think it's an unfair advantage. If it wasn't unfair, then you would see other ships winning Regionals.

Division is not complicated

It's really not. I've done many tournaments with partial scoring (though none as big as say a Regional event) and it's not hard at all. Hell, players have to register their lists beforehand, so all that's needed is a "points per hit" section for each ship. For (an easy) example, a Rookie with an Engine is 25/5, or 5 "points per hit". At the end of the game, multiplication is even easier than division, so if you've done 3 hits to that Rookie 3*5 = 15 points.

I used to work at a movie theater where we got to take home the left over popcorn at the end of the night. Bags about half that size would regularly find their way home with me.

Division is not complicated

It's really not. I've done many tournaments with partial scoring (though none as big as say a Regional event) and it's not hard at all. Hell, players have to register their lists beforehand, so all that's needed is a "points per hit" section for each ship. For (an easy) example, a Rookie with an Engine is 25/5, or 5 "points per hit". At the end of the game, multiplication is even easier than division, so if you've done 3 hits to that Rookie 3*5 = 15 points.

The "correct" way to calculate is to do the rounding after all the multiplication and division, otherwise you get weird scenarios where a 52 point Fat Han is worth the same number of points per shot as a 64 point Fat Han. I made a scoring sheet, linked earlier in the thread.

Other ships do win regionals. Currently there are a lot of fat turrets winning, but there is a lot of spread in how they're set up. And they fact they're winning is not proof that they have an unfair advantage. It shows they're popular.

Goomba, "maneuvers on turrets don't matter" is BS hyperbole that adds nothing to the conversation. If that was even slightly true, nobody would ever take engine upgrade.

looking at the Ontario Regionals 2015 results from list Juggler there were 119 matches played and 22 went to time. 18.4% of the matches would be affected to a partial point system. This is a little under what I would expect to see somewhere between 20-25% of games going to time. 18 of the 22 matches had large ships in them. and the record for the wins and loses is 9 wins 6 loses. 2 of the matches both sides had large ship bases and one was a complete draw.

so now we are looking at 9 games where Partial Points would even matter 7.5% of the matches played on that day. even if would operate under the assumption the large base ships lose every single of these matches it's nothing. to complicate the game over such a small instants of results is worthless.

Now this is only one example and perhaps these results are very uncommon.........I will look at another regional and see......BRB

GO DATA MINING GO!!

In all seriousness, that's what we need to look at to answer question #1 (games that go to time). It is also possible (although unlikely) that the Fat Ships could have won using partial points when they lost with the current system. So the % of impacted matches could be higher than 7.5%.

There is also the issue of total MoV (question #2). That is harder to answer.

#3 is how the tactics would change. If you know that you don't HAVE to kill Han first, does that change your optimal strategy?

So, you think partial points wouldn't affect the meta at all?

The Answer to this is yes and no. Would it dramatically shift the meta Yes does it lessen the impact large base ships have on the meta No. If a partial point system is put into place the Value of completely dodging hits will hold a much higher value. Upgrades like R2-D2 are already frustrating to deal with and now this ships recovers points. Ships that can simply dodge all day and just avoid taking damage will rise in the meta. The natural enemy to these arc dodgers is the Turret. So in a sense you will broaden the value of Turrets.

I look at another Regional 2015 in List Juggler and there were 107 matches played where 15 went to time, that is 14% of the games played. 12 of these games had large base ships in them. the record is 6 wins 3 loses and 3 both had large base ships in them. so in this regional a partial point system would impact 5.6% of the matches with large base ships in them.

The issue I see is we are looking in the wrong place to solve what is perceived to be the problem.

From List Juggler, I can see that you can export the CSV of the lists.

Is there a way to export the results? Would make figuring out how many games go to time much quicker to see how much point fortresses are important.

I find it odd that the first tiebreaker isn't simply the combined opponents win percentage. As you reach 5 rounds or more, the numbers are likely going to be different enough that even if current MOV is left alone and just moved to second tiebreaker it won't matter often enough.

I find it odd that the first tiebreaker isn't simply the combined opponents win percentage. As you reach 5 rounds or more, the numbers are likely going to be different enough that even if current MOV is left alone and just moved to second tiebreaker it won't matter often enough.

The old system used Strength of Schedule, the problem is that if someone dropped then your tiebreakers were hosed. SoS is now the 2nd tiebreaker. Calculating a percentage rather than points is an interesting idea, and would be better than straight up points, but SoS matters so infrequently now that it doesn't really matter.

Is the Partial Point system a reaction to the current meta? Is it being discussed to lessen the impact of Large Turreted Ships? Is it worth turning the whole system on it's head just to invite and answer to less then 20% of tournament games played?

FFG has also seen the situation coming (even with their lack of data collecting) of Turrets ruling the game. This is why Autothrusters was partially put into play. yes this upgrade give some ships that previously had no shot at getting in but also make it harder on the turrets. I believe the batter way to shake up the meat is to introduce cards that pose a threat to large based ships.

Is the Partial Point system a reaction to the current meta? Is it being discussed to lessen the impact of Large Turreted Ships? Is it worth turning the whole system on it's head just to invite and answer to less then 20% of tournament games played?

FFG has also seen the situation coming (even with their lack of data collecting) of Turrets ruling the game. This is why Autothrusters was partially put into play. yes this upgrade give some ships that previously had no shot at getting in but also make it harder on the turrets. I believe the batter way to shake up the meat is to introduce cards that pose a threat to large based ships.

I don't think the issue is how many games are played with large turreted ships.

It's how many regionals are being won by them. They haven't won them all this year but they certainly are in the lists that have won the majority of them. Some of the lists are actually quite interesting (like running a WSF with Intel Agent as a blocker or actually having Chewie in the crew slot on YT-2400) but seeing that many wins by similar types of ships seems to be bothering a good portion of the community.

16 of the reported regionals so far were won by a list that included a VT-49, YT-1300, or YT-2400.

Other ships do win regionals. Currently there are a lot of fat turrets winning, but there is a lot of spread in how they're set up. And they fact they're winning is not proof that they have an unfair advantage. It shows they're popular.

The last tally I saw was that 2 out of 14 did not have any big, turreted ships. There were numerous Regionals this past weekend and I believe all of them had big, turreted ships as winners. We are past the point that the numbers reflect more than just the popularity of the lists.

Is the Partial Point system a reaction to the current meta? Is it being discussed to lessen the impact of Large Turreted Ships? Is it worth turning the whole system on it's head just to invite and answer to less then 20% of tournament games played?

FFG has also seen the situation coming (even with their lack of data collecting) of Turrets ruling the game. This is why Autothrusters was partially put into play. yes this upgrade give some ships that previously had no shot at getting in but also make it harder on the turrets. I believe the batter way to shake up the meat is to introduce cards that pose a threat to large based ships.

I believe that the problem is the number of large turreted ships that are winning events. It's my idea that partial points would help stop it. Will it actually do that? I don't know.

I wonder if Wave 7 being bombers is part of that fix? I've played Tie Bomber lists and they are great at smashing big, turreted ships. They suck at arc dodgers and now bro bots. I'd take my Tie Bomber list to Regionals, except that I expect a lot of bro bots out there to stop me. Still, this thread is making me want to take it just to smash every big, turreted ship I face and prevent it from getting to the top tables. I just don't know if I will face enough of them overall.

Is the Partial Point system a reaction to the current meta? Is it being discussed to lessen the impact of Large Turreted Ships? Is it worth turning the whole system on it's head just to invite and answer to less then 20% of tournament games played?

FFG has also seen the situation coming (even with their lack of data collecting) of Turrets ruling the game. This is why Autothrusters was partially put into play. yes this upgrade give some ships that previously had no shot at getting in but also make it harder on the turrets. I believe the batter way to shake up the meat is to introduce cards that pose a threat to large based ships.

I don't think the issue is how many games are played with large turreted ships.

It's how many regionals are being won by them. They haven't won them all this year but they certainly are in the lists that have won the majority of them. Some of the lists are actually quite interesting (like running a WSF with Intel Agent as a blocker or actually having Chewie in the crew slot on YT-2400) but seeing that many wins by similar types of ships seems to be bothering a good portion of the community.

16 of the reported regionals so far were won by a list that included a VT-49, YT-1300, or YT-2400.

I do understand the desire to topple the leader in the current meta, I just challenge the way it's achieved. You could simply introduce a weapon that hits large ships harder then smaller ships. Perhaps a Secondary weapon that reduces agility when fired or a missile like this:

I ntruder Missile

Attack 3 Range 2-3

Attack (Target Lock): Discard this card to perform this attack

If this attack hits, the defender suffers hits equal to half rounded down of it's remaining Hull and Shields. Then Cancel All dice results.

5 points

these are much better ways at handling the problem then changing the scoring system in the game.

Is the Partial Point system a reaction to the current meta? Is it being discussed to lessen the impact of Large Turreted Ships? Is it worth turning the whole system on it's head just to invite and answer to less then 20% of tournament games played?

FFG has also seen the situation coming (even with their lack of data collecting) of Turrets ruling the game. This is why Autothrusters was partially put into play. yes this upgrade give some ships that previously had no shot at getting in but also make it harder on the turrets. I believe the batter way to shake up the meat is to introduce cards that pose a threat to large based ships.

I don't think the issue is how many games are played with large turreted ships.

It's how many regionals are being won by them. They haven't won them all this year but they certainly are in the lists that have won the majority of them. Some of the lists are actually quite interesting (like running a WSF with Intel Agent as a blocker or actually having Chewie in the crew slot on YT-2400) but seeing that many wins by similar types of ships seems to be bothering a good portion of the community.

16 of the reported regionals so far were won by a list that included a VT-49, YT-1300, or YT-2400.

I do understand the desire to topple the leader in the current meta, I just challenge the way it's achieved. You could simply introduce a weapon that hits large ships harder then smaller ships. Perhaps a Secondary weapon that reduces agility when fired or a missile like this:

I ntruder Missile

Attack 3 Range 2-3

Attack (Target Lock): Discard this card to perform this attack

If this attack hits, the defender suffers hits equal to half rounded down of it's remaining Hull and Shields. Then Cancel All dice results.

5 points

these are much better ways at handling the problem then changing the scoring system in the game.

I don't entirely disagree. A similar card is a good reason why interceptors are seeing play now (autothrusters). The problem with those kinds of methods is the improve the ships that can take them but don't improve those that can't. In some cases, they aren't enough to help ships back into the meta. Look at a-wings. They are seeing some play in regionals but not because of autothrusters, they're just a blocker sit-in for Z95s in the majority of lists where they're being played (surprising to me, including one winning list with a Dash). That's about where they've been played for awhile now.

And both Han and Dash could take that missile for the mirror match against other large ships. Doesn't fit their playstyle but I've seen some run missiles on Dash to discourage getting inside the donut hole.

If you want to know what partial point would do you do NOT need to run a tournament using them but rather just get the added information so the 'what if' situations could then be examined later. If you change the system then other things will change and you will not get an accurate example of what the change in scoring actually does.

Run your tournament but have sides note remaining shield/hull for ships so that someone can use that information later to see what various partial scoring systems would have done.

One also should remember that partial points will affect more than just the games that go to time where MoV is used to pick the winner. It will almost certainly reduce the MoV for the winners of any completed games which then disadvantages them when it comes to further tie breakers.

I'm also going to say that partial points don't come close to telling us a game's current situation any more than full kills do. If you're considering hitpoints as "starting shield + hull" then you're saying that a HWK, X-Wing, and Advanced are all worth the same assuming the final cost of each is the same. Of course if the are all taken down so they need two more cards to kill the threat of each and the chance at taking them out can be COMPLETELY different:

HWK: If it's lost its turret and the support aspect of it is gone/useless than it really should be as good as destroyed with only 2 hull remaining.

X-Wing: Maybe it has a damage card on it but with certain astromechs the shields can recharge or damage cards could be removed. It currently may be as vulnerable as that HWK but it can recover and with 3 attack dice it is a much bigger threat were the game to continue.

TIE Advanced: It may not have the shield recharge potential of the X-Wing but it still has an extra agility die to prevent getting those two extra cards AND it also has the Evade action available to help avoid those cards. It may not have the recovery potential of the X-Wing or present as great a threat but it IS less vulnerable in its current state and may be able to maintain that edge.

On those Fat ships having something like Chewbacca as crew can lead to a big point swing. You don't use him unless you need to but if he's not used then the YT-1300 is 'suffering' because he wasn't used earlier to prevent a damage card AND recharge a shield. If used the ship could have 8/13 of it starting hull+shield instead of 6/13 which kicks your 'half damage' requirement although smart game play may have chewie still sitting on the ship.

Run your tournament but have sides note remaining shield/hull for ships so that someone can use that information later to see what various partial scoring systems would have done.

Part of the problem with this approach...and the approach to see exactly how many matches would it affect overall...is that it doesn't account the psychological effect it would have on the meta. Look at the Phantom nerf. Yes, it weakened them, but it's not like they are bad options now. Still, how many Phantoms do you still see in tournament play? They are almost gone and replaced by Soontir Fel. So, while they didn't get that bad, the effect on the meta was huge. You might quantify how many games would be effected, but it might have a greater impact than the actual numbers if it happens.

Possibly.