Well I proposed something similar to this before but understandably it was not well received. It was a rough system and needed to be ironed out. So here is a better designed with fix partial points and the when a ship is destroyed it is gives full points. Judging by the graphs I think it scales well with the different ships. Basically it gives points based upon the status of a ship.

Shields down (must start with shields > 0) = 1 point (If a ship still has shield tokens but has a damage card, then it counts as shields down)

Ship with < Half hull points = 10 points (does not stack with shields down, so it will always =10 not 11)

Ship destroyed = full points value

Here are charts showing how the MOV point system will scale separated by agility value. For full point value I used the lowest skill pilot for full value calculations and did not include any upgrades (including chardan refit).

Now ships with 3 agility seem to give points faster but as one friendly player had pointed out to me it is harder to get a hit of 3 agility than it is on say 1 agility. So 3 agility having a steeper curve makes sense.

(* Used the Imperial Bounty Hunter for point value). This shows the point curve of ships as they take more damage. When the ship flat-lines it is basically destroyed so additional hits (aka overkill) don't add more points.

Now while agility 1 ships tend to give out points slower (typically) it is easier to get hits on them. Here it shows the point release of the different ships. Compared to a fat han with these MOV modifications you would get 10 points for 10 hits on a Fat Han. Not much compared to a TIE Fighter but it is a lot better than 0 under current MOV rattings.

I put these in their own graph because the Phantom has a variable agility and Decimator has 0. If I were to include them with other graphs I could have placed the Phantom in the 3 agility which it match fairly good and the Decimator in the 1 agility.

So the system although not perfect, any fix would be better than no fix. One of the concerns that a hit against a TIE interceptor does not have the same value as a hit on a B-wing. But high agility tends to have lower hull so higher agility does give points for less hits. So this scales well in that regards.

The other concern will be shield tanks. Such as B-wing and E-wings. It is true that shielded 2 hull ships will do good as they would jump from 1 point to full points as when they reach < half hull they are dead. However some ships like Generic E-wings, and the MA-3 need all the help it can get.

As for swarms, well put it against a point fortress if it scores 2 hits on say an academy/black squadron pilot it has already got most of the points. So the point fortress player now has to face a tough choice. Go for more points and leave the limping ship to continue to roll 2-3 attack dice. Or finish the ship off and only get 2-4 more points for that last hit. So in regards to swarms I think it still scales well.

Some things to clarify that partial points don't stack. So say if the Y-wing lost shields it gives 1 point. If the Y-wing takes 3 damage cards it gives 10 points (not 11). It does have some profound effects on upgrades like shield upgrade. Giving it to an unshielded ship makes that ship give 1 point on the first hit. While on shielded ships when choosing a shield upgrade over a hull upgrade the extra point does give an extra hit before it gives the 1 point.

Also a ship that has shield tokens but still has damage cards count as shields down. So if a ship recovers a shield say R2-D2 upgrade but not before it received a damage card then it counts as having shields down even if it ends the game with 1 or more shield tokens. This will also give a buff to proton bombs as with this system proton bombs would gain 1 point for each shielded ship that they hit.

Thoughts, comments?

So I need a chart to figure out who won? No thanks.

So I need a chart to figure out who won? No thanks.

You already need a chart with the MOV in tournaments. This is just to close the MOV gap between 2 ship point fortresses (which dominate the meta) and more rounded 4-5 ship lists. The chart just demonstrates the points given per damage done. It is really quite simple.

A ship either gives 0,1,10, or full value victory points. The only thing you need to do is see which condition it meets from Good condition, to shields down, to less than half hull remaining, to destroyed. There really isn't that much math in figuring out who won.

Per ship you get:

0

1

10

what ever the point value of the ship is.

Add it together. Whoever has 12 more points than the other wins. Who ever has 1-11 points more get a modified win. If no one has more then it is a draw. Whoever has less has a loss. Much simpler than mathematically calculating point value per hit.

Can someone please explain me why cannot we just use a formula like

(Total Squad Points) * (Hitpoints Lost) / (Total Squad Hitpoints)

that any $3 calculator can do?

Does it lose a lot of precision or something?

Can someone please explain me why cannot we just use a formula like

(Total Squad Points) * (Hitpoints Lost) / (Total Squad Hitpoints)

that any $3 calculator can do?

Does it lose a lot of precision or something?

$3! We ain't all made of money Mr moneybags.

The distinction between damage on shields and hull feels completely arbitrary, as do victory points with no relation to the cost of the actual ship damaged.

Landing four hits on a 50pt IG88 gives a single measly point. Yeah, I'm sure that will greatly help in the final standings. Sorry, but I really don't see the added value of this system.

i don't want to see another "fix the point fortress thread" until we get a real breakdown of how many fat lists actually go to time anyway(and win). I personally think we have spent 1000 hours on this forum trying to solve a problem that only exist in 10% of games that include a fat ship. So about 1 in 30 of your games you might run into this problem, but then hey, its still just a game.

"...So the system although not perfect, any fix would be better than no fix..."

I .. I don't think this is so.

Rather I think that "no fix" is a great deal better than most of the fixes I've read about.

In fact, the quality, "better" is rather subjective. Better at what? The present MoV system is easy and puts the right people in the right order. Isn't that what it is supposed to do?

Don't forget that dice are used in this game, and some of the people who make the cut are not there because they are necessarily the best players, they are there because at some point they either they rolled well, or their opponent rolled poorly.

In other words, because the tallies from which the MoVs are calculated reflect both skill and arbitrary dice rolls, the precision of the MoV is never going to be perfect. The MoV calculation merely provides a way to determine who is playing well that day, and who isn't.

It is important to understand this one point: the dice can and do award games that are off the bell curve, but as you increase the number of rounds played, you reduce the influence of these fringe wins/losses. In other words, the more games that are played, the more the MoV value will accurately predict who the best players are.

Given that this is so, even a perfect MoV calculation isn't going to be better at determining who makes the cut in 5 or 6 rounds - because even after 5 or 6 rounds there will still be players who will make the cut because they were lucky that day. In other words, unless we start playing 10+ rounds to determine who makes the cut - the accuracy of the MoV calc is, for all intents and purposes - more than accurate enough.

A fool measures with a micrometer what he intends to mark with a chalk and cut with an axe.

In fact, the quality, "better" is rather subjective. Better at what? The present MoV system is easy and puts the right people in the right order. Isn't that what it is supposed to do?

The problem with it is it's not very good when games go to time because it rewards you for loading all your points onto a small number of ships. That way, you can only lose those points all at once whereas the player with a load of small ships has them chipped away slowly. How big the problem is, no idea, but it is there, and more importantly people believe it's there. And if people believe the system's biased in favour of a ship, that's the ship they'll use.

Everyone keeps trying to fix the main complaint with the basic partial MoV (splitting a ship's points over its hit points is supposedly too complicated for most people) with more complex systems. There have been a lot of systems suggested and so far I've only seen two that I think have any chance: splitting points amongst hit points which I think would deal with the problem quite nicely if people could cope with it, and the one where the full win limit is based off the cheapest ship the player with the most expensive cheapest ship has (so for Rookie X-wing and Dagger B-wing versus three Black Squadron TIE fighters it's the X-wing) which I don't think is as good but is less work intensive and would probably help.

The problem with it is it's not very good when games go to time because it rewards you for loading all your points onto a small number of ships. That way, you can only lose those points all at once whereas the player with a load of small ships has them chipped away slowly. How big the problem is, no idea, but it is there, and more importantly people believe it's there. And if people believe the system's biased in favour of a ship, that's the ship they'll use.

It isn't that the point you are making can't be seen - it is that the point you're making doesn't seem all that important.

The whole point of a swarm is to win by attrition - you're gambling that with many weak ships, you can take out a few strong ships, before they can take out enough of your weak ships to foil the plan.\

Inherent in that scheme is the notion that if you lose, your MoV is going to suck.

I consider that to be one of the inherent trade offs of such a build. A dual phantom build is like that too - if you win, you win big - but if you lose - you lose big. Play at your own risk.

The idea that we need to visit again the way MoV is calculated in order to give swarms a better MoV when they lose, isn't really something that I think needs to happen. You can still win playing a swarm - at our regional the highest ranking player going into the cut (5 and 0) was a tie swarm. He was cutting two and three ship builds to ribbons. Had he failed to do so even once, perhaps his MoV would have been lower - but he still would have made the cut by a long shot.

So I am thinking this concern isn't really founded, or if it is founded, it isn't founded on enough to really require the change you suggest.

This is just my opinion mind you, I don't think it is any better than yours, just different.

My proposed system doesn't alter the actual MoV, it just changes the conditions for a full victory. If the odds of earning a modified win rather than a full win go up owing to a particular list, only those lists (and players) that actually deserve to win will do so. We'll see really quickly if the problem with the meta is turrets or the MoV system.

My proposed system doesn't alter the actual MoV, it just changes the conditions for a full victory. If the odds of earning a modified win rather than a full win go up owing to a particular list, only those lists (and players) that actually deserve to win will do so. We'll see really quickly if the problem with the meta is turrets or the MoV system.

That sounds interesting.

What criteria would be used to determine the odds of a modified win?

Blue Five mentioned it already: https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/180146-the-real-problem-with-turrets-margin-of-victory/?p=1658912

Well I proposed something similar to this before but understandably it was not well received. It was a rough system and needed to be ironed out. So here is a better designed with fix partial points and the when a ship is destroyed it is gives full points. Judging by the graphs I think it scales well with the different ships. Basically it gives points based upon the status of a ship.

Shields down (must start with shields > 0) = 1 point (If a ship still has shield tokens but has a damage card, then it counts as shields down)

Ship with < Half hull points = 10 points (does not stack with shields down, so it will always =10 not 11)

Ship destroyed = full points value

Here are charts showing how the MOV point system will scale separated by agility value. For full point value I used the lowest skill pilot for full value calculations and did not include any upgrades (including chardan refit).

Now ships with 3 agility seem to give points faster but as one friendly player had pointed out to me it is harder to get a hit of 3 agility than it is on say 1 agility. So 3 agility having a steeper curve makes sense.

(* Used the Imperial Bounty Hunter for point value). This shows the point curve of ships as they take more damage. When the ship flat-lines it is basically destroyed so additional hits (aka overkill) don't add more points.

Now while agility 1 ships tend to give out points slower (typically) it is easier to get hits on them. Here it shows the point release of the different ships. Compared to a fat han with these MOV modifications you would get 10 points for 10 hits on a Fat Han. Not much compared to a TIE Fighter but it is a lot better than 0 under current MOV rattings.

I put these in their own graph because the Phantom has a variable agility and Decimator has 0. If I were to include them with other graphs I could have placed the Phantom in the 3 agility which it match fairly good and the Decimator in the 1 agility.

So the system although not perfect, any fix would be better than no fix. One of the concerns that a hit against a TIE interceptor does not have the same value as a hit on a B-wing. But high agility tends to have lower hull so higher agility does give points for less hits. So this scales well in that regards.

The other concern will be shield tanks. Such as B-wing and E-wings. It is true that shielded 2 hull ships will do good as they would jump from 1 point to full points as when they reach < half hull they are dead. However some ships like Generic E-wings, and the MA-3 need all the help it can get.

As for swarms, well put it against a point fortress if it scores 2 hits on say an academy/black squadron pilot it has already got most of the points. So the point fortress player now has to face a tough choice. Go for more points and leave the limping ship to continue to roll 2-3 attack dice. Or finish the ship off and only get 2-4 more points for that last hit. So in regards to swarms I think it still scales well.

Some things to clarify that partial points don't stack. So say if the Y-wing lost shields it gives 1 point. If the Y-wing takes 3 damage cards it gives 10 points (not 11). It does have some profound effects on upgrades like shield upgrade. Giving it to an unshielded ship makes that ship give 1 point on the first hit. While on shielded ships when choosing a shield upgrade over a hull upgrade the extra point does give an extra hit before it gives the 1 point.

Also a ship that has shield tokens but still has damage cards count as shields down. So if a ship recovers a shield say R2-D2 upgrade but not before it received a damage card then it counts as having shields down even if it ends the game with 1 or more shield tokens. This will also give a buff to proton bombs as with this system proton bombs would gain 1 point for each shielded ship that they hit.

Thoughts, comments?

For the love of god and all that is holy, please god no. Chaos incarnate. I have a new game we can all play. Who can ruin Xwing the fastest? The partial MOV crowd has a big lead, who thinks they can catch them?

Not seeing how partial MOV would ruin X-Wing.

Here are the steps that should be taken about MoV

1. Propose hypothesis. <done>--point fortresses gain an unfair advantage when game goes to time, and this is the primary reason they are winning a lot of tourneys.

2. Gather data, <Not done> Find out if your hypothesis is correct, or if it is probably correct. This data should include, the percentage of games that go to time, and the percentage of those game that are won and lost by point fortress. And the average MoV for all games. The sample size should be no less than 100 games.

3. Propose solution. <done many times> we turned this into step 1.2. But we have no reason to believe we are even fixing a real problem. Just speculation at this point.

4. Test the solution. <not done> After a solution is decided upon, test it in the same way as step 2, and compare results.

As you see, I noted that we have no data on weather this is actually a problem, and we should still be in the gather data step.

But that is the good news....because if you want to weigh in on this problem, you get to go out and play games and that is way more fun than debating a scoring system. Just be sure to collect the data when you do.

The distinction between damage on shields and hull feels completely arbitrary, as do victory points with no relation to the cost of the actual ship damaged.

Landing four hits on a 50pt IG88 gives a single measly point. Yeah, I'm sure that will greatly help in the final standings. Sorry, but I really don't see the added value of this system.

Well for the shields it is a quick bench mark for ships. A ship with its shields still up won't feel as vulnerable as a ship that just lost them. Also in a way it gives unshielded ships a slight advantage allowing for the first hit to not give a point (unless they put on shield upgrade which seem un-thematic for most TIEs. Then the is 50% hull. I think this is better than 50% hull + shields.

However I have thought of different scoring values but in order to keep things as simple as possible I went with a fixed partial point system at bench-marked intervals instead of total points over hit points.

The other values were

shields down = # of shields (MA-3 =1, X-wing = 2, B-wing = 5)

half hull = half value of pilot/ship

destroyed = full value.

I can do a different graph to show which set up scales between # of hits needed to score points to see if that is a little more even.

Here are the steps that should be taken about MoV

1. Propose hypothesis. <done>--point fortresses gain an unfair advantage when game goes to time, and this is the primary reason they are winning a lot of tourneys.

2. Gather data, <Not done> Find out if your hypothesis is correct, or if it is probably correct. This data should include, the percentage of games that go to time, and the percentage of those game that are won and lost by point fortress. And the average MoV for all games. The sample size should be no less than 100 games.

3. Propose solution. <done many times> we turned this into step 1.2. But we have no reason to believe we are even fixing a real problem. Just speculation at this point.

4. Test the solution. <not done> After a solution is decided upon, test it in the same way as step 2, and compare results.

As you see, I noted that we have no data on weather this is actually a problem, and we should still be in the gather data step.

But that is the good news....because if you want to weigh in on this problem, you get to go out and play games and that is way more fun than debating a scoring system. Just be sure to collect the data when you do.

Well I think we have plenty of data. Thanks to internet aids such as list juggler reporting on regionals. Based on the data we know:

• Lists winning the regional have been won mostly 2 ship builds or a list that involves a large ship (usually with a turret) with more than half the points in it. Their are a few outliers (tend to come mostly from Europe, thanks for keeping it classy across the pond).
• Most winning lists tend to have large ships
• Swarms lists which were strong last year are now all but absent from the regional winners.

Sure it still might be too soon to call what is up however the theory around has been pointing to point fortresses and their strength in the MOV. Now of course this is coming from podcasts and a few players from my store that have won a regional and competed at Gencon. So I will offer my hypothesis then.

I hypothesize that the winner of the Nationals and Worlds will include a large ship. either a 2 ship build and/or one of those ships will have half or more of the list point value on them. Now this is a broad hypothesis and if this proves true at the end doesn't necessarily confirm the conclusion that point fortresses are dominating the MOV controlled meta. BUt we are getting results for the data.

Now if the hypothesis was true does that mean my proposal is better? Not really, but I think it might narrow the gap between the 2 ship lists and the 5 ship lists. Jousting values and the meta will be shaken up a bit if ships start giving points before they are destroyed. It might be enough to break the 2 ship/ point fortress hold.

Well I think we have plenty of data.

We're missing the "did the games go to time" info, and the "hp remaining" info. In certain, limited cases the first might be implied by the player's final MOV and their match history, but that's very imprecise, and only available for swiss rounds. The second is utterly unavailable.

Yes, the data on "why" those builds are winning is missing. Anecdotal evidence from one guy or 3 is not going to get us anywhere. In my experience for example, I have gone to time against 2 "fat" builds in recent memory, and I beat them both. But I do not conclude that 4 ship rebel lists have an advantage in MoV environment.

What we need to find out is if they are just flat out tabling the opposition, or sneaking in to the top 8 via MoV shenanigans. My hypothesis is a little different. "Fat" builds are winning because they are pretty easy to use, and have less swings so they are more likely to have a consistent performance across 5-8 games. In addition, people are still using a disproportionate number of "fat" builds: so we should expect them to have a larger showing in top lists. This might be residual effect from the phantom changing the meta so dramatically, and we have not adjusted back yet.

With Gencon coming up we should see some precise data. Now while every match might not be recorded looking at what gets into the Top 8 (which is judged by MOV) and comparing it to the final match (which is not timed) can give you a good data comparison. You never get a complete picture with a data sample. Analysis is required to put the data into an understandable picture and see if that picture can lead to accurate predictions.

However it is probably true that "fat turret" builds are grossly over-represented in the premier competitive scene as people tend to copy popular builds that win instead of take a risk and experiment with their own builds, much like people playing Hunter in Hearthstone.But success does replicate itself. People use Fat turrets because they work. As for being easier sure it is easier to win if your build is stronger but as I said before just because a player has copied a tournament winning list doesn't mean that the player will win the tournament they are in.

As for anecdotal evidence, even though the data is collected by one guy, he is using multiple sources for the data. So calling it merely the opinion of 1 person is a gross under-representation of the data. You don't need 50 people to make a report as long as you can validate the sources that one person gathers. I would say if a person provides a report with 50 credible sources I will consider that person has credible information.

Maybe at Gencon we can get some more insight into what the cut to 8 looks like. If we could get an account of all the lists that are in the running to make the cut(have the same record), and see who comes out on top based on MoV. That is the data I would like to see. I am actually not trying to be argumentative, I just want to be sure we need to fix something before we go wild on the forums(too late).

Here are the steps that should be taken about MoV

1. Propose hypothesis. <done>--point fortresses gain an unfair advantage when game goes to time, and this is the primary reason they are winning a lot of tourneys.

2. Gather data, <Not done> Find out if your hypothesis is correct, or if it is probably correct. This data should include, the percentage of games that go to time, and the percentage of those game that are won and lost by point fortress. And the average MoV for all games. The sample size should be no less than 100 games.

3. Propose solution. <done many times> we turned this into step 1.2. But we have no reason to believe we are even fixing a real problem. Just speculation at this point.

4. Test the solution. <not done> After a solution is decided upon, test it in the same way as step 2, and compare results.

As you see, I noted that we have no data on weather this is actually a problem, and we should still be in the gather data step.

But that is the good news....because if you want to weigh in on this problem, you get to go out and play games and that is way more fun than debating a scoring system. Just be sure to collect the data when you do.

I know someone had started looking at "data" involving how many 'hit points' ships had as games ended and then looking at how some of the proposed partial point systems would have altered things. The problem is that is was a terribly small sample size.

Although it would be a lot of work it would be great is we could somehow get all of this information from the GenCon tournament:

1. Squad Compositions.

2. "Ship Life" for each ship remaining at the end of each game.

Knowing those things would make it possible to actually evaluate what kind of effect various Partial Point systems would have at least at the match level and likely up to tie breakers. It wouldn't be perfect as the current system would be getting used to make matchings and determine actual game winners which could potentially be different with an incomplete game and some partial point systems.

It would probably be best if just the swiss rounds were counted although everyone usually looks only at the elimination rounds for information. At that point MoV as a tiebreaker is irrelevant and going for the win is all that matters. In the elimination rounds the only thing about Partial Point systems that would matter is when the would actually change the final outcome of a game.

Can someone please explain me why cannot we just use a formula like

(Total Squad Points) * (Hitpoints Lost) / (Total Squad Hitpoints)

that any $3 calculator can do?

Does it lose a lot of precision or something?

$3! We ain't all made of money Mr moneybags.

If you can't do $3, it's on the "cheap" smartphone you have in your pocket too... or ipod / musicbox... whatevs...

Incidentally, I'm a fan of cheap and simple. You know exactly how many points are in a squad when built. Every time you take a hit, it is easy to see how many points it cost you. Most people can do it in their heads, but it only matter for calculation at the end. Han has 2 hull left... multiply 2*Fatness. Move on.

With Gencon coming up we should see some precise data.

Are there actually plans to collect hp remaining info at GenCon?