There has been a lot of debate on if MoV is better than SoS (I believe it is since it puts everything in your own hands as you are not dependent on your previous opponents doing a good job). Then there has been a lot of discussion about MoV favouring two ship builds (I agree it does).

MoV is made up of points lost and points destroyed, what would happen if we kept those two things appart?

1st tiebreaker is points destroyed (PD).

2nd tiebreaker is points lost (PL).

3rd tiebreaker is SoS.

Keeping the score after each match would not be more difficult than it is currently (easier actually).

This would encourage offensive play to get ahead within the same point group without taking away much from defensive play as you'd still keep your PL down while winning when playing defensively.

Destroying one ship (of two in the current meta popular lists) will add quite bit to your PD and losing a few cheap TIEs in the process would hurt you much less in the PL department than the current MoV would.

I am sure there are lots of things I have missed (I realise it doesn't fix the Fat Han with one hull left at end of time) but what do you think?

Anything to break up the two ship tournament domination.

Anything to break up the two ship tournament domination.

I'm still unconvinced that MoV is the reason for this. A lot of people will very vocally disagree with me, but they will usually use corner case examples. I'd say it's a fair statement that the overwhelming majority of games don't go to time, so clearly two ship lists are crushing tournaments without touching MoV anyway.

Anything to break up the two ship tournament domination.

I'm still unconvinced that MoV is the reason for this. A lot of people will very vocally disagree with me, but they will usually use corner case examples. I'd say it's a fair statement that the overwhelming majority of games don't go to time, so clearly two ship lists are crushing tournaments without touching MoV anyway.

It's not. Just a fortunate side effect for the builds that are already good. Screwing with the scoring system could only skew it more though. Partial scoring would cause IGs to become EVEN more ubiquitous.

For those less educated in the art of acronyms, what is SoS?

Anything to break up the two ship tournament domination.

I'm still unconvinced that MoV is the reason for this. A lot of people will very vocally disagree with me, but they will usually use corner case examples. I'd say it's a fair statement that the overwhelming majority of games don't go to time, so clearly two ship lists are crushing tournaments without touching MoV anyway.

I think they aren't going to time because b's and Y's are crashing through obstacles trying(and often failing) to get that last hull on Han. I have had many games that didn't go to time but the points tied up in one of my ships forced the opponent to play extremely aggressively in the late game. Rolling red dice before you are in a position to roll them well isn't a good plan, but sometimes the time and point balance forces you to do it anyways.

There has been a lot of debate on if MoV is better than SoS (I believe it is since it puts everything in your own hands as you are not dependent on your previous opponents doing a good job). Then there has been a lot of discussion about MoV favouring two ship builds (I agree it does).

MoV is made up of points lost and points destroyed, what would happen if we kept those two things appart?

1st tiebreaker is points destroyed (PD).

2nd tiebreaker is points lost (PL).

3rd tiebreaker is SoS.

Keeping the score after each match would not be more difficult than it is currently (easier actually).

This would encourage offensive play to get ahead within the same point group without taking away much from defensive play as you'd still keep your PL down while winning when playing defensively.

Destroying one ship (of two in the current meta popular lists) will add quite bit to your PD and losing a few cheap TIEs in the process would hurt you much less in the PL department than the current MoV would.

I am sure there are lots of things I have missed (I realise it doesn't fix the Fat Han with one hull left at end of time) but what do you think?

This has potential, but someone needs to test it out. It could be a good solution. I'm just not sure it's all that mathematically different that MOV. Everyone that wins the game by destroying his opponents ships will always get 100 PD. You'd only get less that 100 PD if you lost or the game went to time (which doesn't happen as often as people think it does). So then, most of the winners are still falling back to PL as the primary tie breaker. I think some math needs to be done to some existing tournament results with the PD/PL tiebreaker to see if there is a functional difference from MOV.

If instead of MoV, a percentage of "health" left was used to measure tie breakers, it might help discourage "fleeing" from the battle.

Here are some frustrating scenarios in MoV that can be alleviated:

Lets say a 2 ship build (Brobots for this example) finish a match with 1 hull left each, and they just took the winning shot at a 4BZ list, that 4BZ list ends the match having 0 points even though that doesn't accurately represent how close the match actually was. With a percentage based system, they would have 14/16 points, or 87.5% of damage dealt. The winner still gets his full points, however is now at a 12.5% MoV.

If say the same match up happens, and the Brobots destroy a Z and B but leave all else with full health, but both end the match with the 1 hull each again, instead of rewarding the ships that were more than likely running the clock to stay alive, you have a 14/16 (87.5%) damage dealt vs. 12/36 (33.3%). Win should go to the 4BZ.

Don't know at what point you would consider a modified win (maybe less than 10%?). Also for anyone that says it's too complicated for people to calculate, in a day and age where everyone owns a smart phone and have computers capable of calculating this stuff I don't see an issue with it, but I guess it could slow down pairings between rounds.

There just needs a system to promote less running away to keep points and a more offensive mindset. No one runs away in a finals match because its untimed. It's kill or be killed. That's how every match should be.

Anything to break up the two ship tournament domination.

I'm still unconvinced that MoV is the reason for this. A lot of people will very vocally disagree with me, but they will usually use corner case examples. I'd say it's a fair statement that the overwhelming majority of games don't go to time, so clearly two ship lists are crushing tournaments without touching MoV anyway.

It's not. Just a fortunate side effect for the builds that are already good. Screwing with the scoring system could only skew it more though. Partial scoring would cause IGs to become EVEN more ubiquitous.

A single shield/hull off a 50 point IG is worth more than any any other large ship in partial points. Currently, unless you get all 8, you get nothing, I don't see how it is better now.

For those less educated in the art of acronyms, what is SoS?

Strength of Schedule.

In a nutshell, a mechanic used to determine tie breakers (not the hammer vs miniature kind) which sadly is flawed - in that what happens at tables other than your own, can have a negative effect on you.

e.g. your first opponent has to drop out early, thus getting no more games in, and no SoS points for you, from that opponent.

The system was actually designed to allow running away instead of balls to the wall deathmatch. FFG said so themselves

Under the new rules, a player only needs to destroy at least 12 squad points (the lowest squad point cost of a single ship) more than his or her opponent, which means players no longer have to build their lists with total annihilation in mind and can opt for a slightly more tactical, defensive game if they wish.

If instead of MoV, a percentage of "health" left was used to measure tie breakers, it might help discourage "fleeing" from the battle.

Here are some frustrating scenarios in MoV that can be alleviated:

Lets say a 2 ship build (Brobots for this example) finish a match with 1 hull left each, and they just took the winning shot at a 4BZ list, that 4BZ list ends the match having 0 points even though that doesn't accurately represent how close the match actually was. With a percentage based system, they would have 14/16 points, or 87.5% of damage dealt. The winner still gets his full points, however is now at a 12.5% MoV.

If say the same match up happens, and the Brobots destroy a Z and B but leave all else with full health, but both end the match with the 1 hull each again, instead of rewarding the ships that were more than likely running the clock to stay alive, you have a 14/16 (87.5%) damage dealt vs. 12/36 (33.3%). Win should go to the 4BZ.

Don't know at what point you would consider a modified win (maybe less than 10%?). Also for anyone that says it's too complicated for people to calculate, in a day and age where everyone owns a smart phone and have computers capable of calculating this stuff I don't see an issue with it, but I guess it could slow down pairings between rounds.

There just needs a system to promote less running away to keep points and a more offensive mindset. No one runs away in a finals match because its untimed. It's kill or be killed. That's how every match should be.

Calculators and smart phones don't solve the underlying problem of doing arithmetic. Last time I checked, schools were allowing students to use calculators in math class, and those same students are still regularly missing questions by making simple arithmetic errors, some even fail the class entirely. If calculators perfectly solved the arithmetic problem, no one would ever screw up an arithmetic problem, and yet it happens all day everyday all across the world. Adding ratios or percentages or rounding of any kind is just asking for complete scoring chaos.

The system was actually designed to allow running away instead of balls to the wall deathmatch. FFG said so themselves

Under the new rules, a player only needs to destroy at least 12 squad points (the lowest squad point cost of a single ship) more than his or her opponent, which means players no longer have to build their lists with total annihilation in mind and can opt for a slightly more tactical, defensive game if they wish.

Good to know.

I do think the MoV is less of an issue than people make it out to be. But when it does because someone is running away it's infuriating. But I guess thats what you get for not closing!

Anything to break up the two ship tournament domination.

I'm still unconvinced that MoV is the reason for this. A lot of people will very vocally disagree with me, but they will usually use corner case examples. I'd say it's a fair statement that the overwhelming majority of games don't go to time, so clearly two ship lists are crushing tournaments without touching MoV anyway.

It's not. Just a fortunate side effect for the builds that are already good. Screwing with the scoring system could only skew it more though. Partial scoring would cause IGs to become EVEN more ubiquitous.

Right- I'm not saying mov is the only reason. It's still the same best players as always winning. Mov just favors 2 ship builds better and allows for more room to error. A 4-1 tie swarm might not make the cut over a 4-1 brobrat list- it's just how the system favors things.

It's not a two ship meta now. Anything can win- which is great! it's just the tiebreaker that favors finishing order for two ship builds.

By going to this system, you are 99% of the time eliminating points lost completely. It's very rare that the MOV ends up being exactly the same. While it's likely to happen once or twice at the end of the tourney (more often through out, especially the early rounds), it's not worth playing for the tie breaker of the tie breaker, and worrying about points lost. Note, I'm not commenting whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, just pointing out the consequence of going to points destroyed instead of MOV.

Honestly, awarding half points for reducing a large base ship to half it's health (rounded down?) seems like the simplest and fairest way to do it. I was playing a game last night against a 4 Y-wing player, who managed to get my Dash down to 4 health early in the game, but was then unable to ever pin Dash down again, which is fine, but the score at the end of the game did not accurately represent how close the match was.

A similar experience happened in his next one against 2 IG's (although he actually managed to kill both of them, but it was untimed. If it was timed, he would have lost with the current scoring because he had reduced both IG's to half or less, but had lost a single Y-wing, meaning he was down about 25 points and his opponent still had all of them, when a more accurate scoring system would have awarded him around 50 points or so for the 2 IG's, giving him the win. There's tons of examples where doing this would have changed things out substantially, but the big deal is that a lot of games go to time, awarding the victory to a player that is likely going to lose both ships if the game kept going, but because they've invested so many points into one ship, they're able to pull out a win. It's very frustrating, it seems patently unfair and it provides an inaccurate measure of skill.

Obviously it's not a perfect system- Lambda's would be hurt by it, and they don't need the nerf, and it still doesn't represent the difference between a well-fed Han at 7 health and at 1, but at that point I think it's negligible. Half points for Half damage on Large-Base ships (and reducing Boost Distance by about 33%) would effectively deal with a lot of the current issues and make big, points laden ships, not unviable, but less easy-mode.

Why large base only? It works fine for small base too (looking at you B-wings and Y-wings)

So I wanted to post this suggestion in the Fell's Wrath fix thread, but it just didn't seem suitable since it's only applicable in tournament play. Basically, my thought was to fix Fell's Wrath by making a condition where if he is the last ship on the board for his side, his squad points do not count towards the MoV. This (hopefully) turns FW into a mini Biggs.

But if MoV is to stick around there should be something that prioritizes the point gains. Not all squad points are equal. 23 points spent on a Tie Advanced (pre-buff) is not the same as 23 points spent on a B-wing. The meta really determines the value of the ship so it's tough to just calculate points at the end of a match and call that fair. There really should be something akin to a "warlord" in 40K who gives an extra couple of points if he's killed.

By going to this system, you are 99% of the time eliminating points lost completely. It's very rare that the MOV ends up being exactly the same. While it's likely to happen once or twice at the end of the tourney (more often through out, especially the early rounds), it's not worth playing for the tie breaker of the tie breaker, and worrying about points lost. Note, I'm not commenting whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, just pointing out the consequence of going to points destroyed instead of MOV.

This isn't true; "points lost" are half of what determines if you won the game in the first place. I don't think that the OP is proposing getting rid of tournament points entirely.

And that's why I am unconvinced that the proposal will work. Unless the method for determining the player who gets the tournament points for winning changes, we haven't actually addressed the problem.

There seems to be the ongoing assumption that large ships should always lose. The thing is that we don't have any data about how often any of these rules would even make a difference. How often do games go to time with a fat ship running away from battle with one or two points left?

The two most appealing ways in my opinion to fixing the 2 ship build problem are scenario scoring (having the most point value of ships at the end of a round in a zone wins a scenario point is an example) and fixing ordinance.

If you can spend 4-6 points on a bit of ordinance that severely cripples half of your opponent's fleet, it will deter some people from playing two ship lists. But it won't completely remove them from contention, instead the metagame analysis that a person would have to make is a series of decisions for every event:

Base Level: Two-ship lists are the most efficient way of protecting your points.

Next Level: Bringing ordinance beats two-ship lists, so bring ordinance.

Next Next Level: Don't bring a two ship list, but don't bring ordinance, spread those points out to beat ordinance lists with more efficient builds

Base Level Beating Next Next Level: A two ship list is the most efficient list in the efficiency battle, so you will beat the Next Next Level folk.

Maybe instead of changing the tournament format we hope that the upcoming ordinance changes will provide another tool to beat two-ship lists.

Or scenario scoring.

Zone control favors tanks and penalizes arc dodgers (can't dodge arcs and occupy a zone if the arcs cover the zone).

Zone control favors tanks and penalizes arc dodgers (can't dodge arcs and occupy a zone if the arcs cover the zone).

Depends on size/number of zones. Plus prevents those large ships from both arc-dodging AND being tanky.

But if MoV is to stick around there should be something that prioritizes the point gains. Not all squad points are equal. 23 points spent on a Tie Advanced (pre-buff) is not the same as 23 points spent on a B-wing. The meta really determines the value of the ship so it's tough to just calculate points at the end of a match and call that fair. There really should be something akin to a "warlord" in 40K who gives an extra couple of points if he's killed.

Really? No thanks!

Don't want this game to be drawn towards the 40K circus!

Why large base only? It works fine for small base too (looking at you B-wings and Y-wings)

'Cause X-wing is supposed to be a game of starfighter combat, not freighter combat.

The small difference might encourage more fighters to make their appearance.