...

The way it works now:

• two draws (2 points) are worth less than a full win (5), or even a single modified win (3)
• a draw and a modified win (4) is worth less than a full win (5)

The way it should work:

• two draws (4 points) is exactly worth a full win (4 points)
• a draw and a modified win (5) is worth more than a single full win (4)

...

I may have missed this, but exactly why should 2 draws = 1 win?

Seems like playing for a tie should be slightly punished (As it is now) in a tourney setting. A full win demonstrates superior skills, luck or whatever, while a draw or modified win doesnt tell or distinguish anything really.

And looking at board state is just opening a huge can of worms. Everyone here already knows just how quickly things can change for losing to winning with a bit of luck or a single poor maneuver. It can change in an instant so drawing conclusions from board state is unwise.

Speaking of Electronic Baffles, I'm totally disappointed that no one in the podcast suggested using it on Lambda Shuttles.

Speaking of Electronic Baffles, I'm totally disappointed that no one in the podcast suggested using it on Lambda Shuttles.

The guy I play with was on this right away. For a pall aces list it's pretty killer. For a doom shuttle it's just crazy.

Speaking of Electronic Baffles, I'm totally disappointed that no one in the podcast suggested using it on Lambda Shuttles.

the Bafflao was most certainly mentioned.

IM disappointed no one mentioned that on a Doomshuttle tractor beam/Baffle is essentially a 'free upgrade' it brings it to 25 points which gets rounded down for MOV ergo free.

Speaking of Electronic Baffles, I'm totally disappointed that no one in the podcast suggested using it on Lambda Shuttles.

the Bafflao was most certainly mentioned.

IM disappointed no one mentioned that on a Doomshuttle tractor beam/Baffle is essentially a 'free upgrade' it brings it to 25 points which gets rounded down for MOV ergo free.

Hmm... I wonder how I missed that.

Speaking of Electronic Baffles, I'm totally disappointed that no one in the podcast suggested using it on Lambda Shuttles.

the Bafflao was most certainly mentioned.

IM disappointed no one mentioned that on a Doomshuttle tractor beam/Baffle is essentially a 'free upgrade' it brings it to 25 points which gets rounded down for MOV ergo free.

Hmm... I wonder how I missed that.

i dont know who exactly said it, but i remember hearing "THE BAFFALO" and laughing

If you have a recourse open to you for slow play and don't use it than more fool you, I know I have been in situations where I have let things slide because I wanted to be the nice guy that I could have called a judge on but I CHOSE not to. I then give up any right to complain about their actions as I accepted them and chose to do nothing about it.

I reject but my opponent could CHEAT as a counter point.

Slow play is a symptom, not the root problem.

The problem is, there are already players slow-playing to get full wins when they clearly are losing. Decimator or YT-1300 on 1 HP? No problem, you still have at least half points locked up. It can be mathematically impossible to lose in many scenarios once you get to a certain point unless you get completely wiped off the board. It is part of the reason that we are seeing small-base point fortresses rather than large base point fortresses. And it's not as simple as just calling the TO over if you think a player is slow playing, unless you are willing to turn X-wing's atmosphere into MtG level of aggressive rules checking. I don't think anyone wants that. And even if you do, it still doesn't solve the scoring error if a player legitimately ends up with a 1HP decimator vs a full health Y-wing turret TLT.

I may have missed this, but exactly why should 2 draws = 1 win?

The total number of points awarded is the same in pretty much any other sport, with the exception of soccer (0/1/3), and hockey (0/2 points awarded in win; 1/2 awarded in OT win). It's this way in virtually any other system because it is the most fair and makes sense.

Once you accept that the same number of points should be awarded after every match, then you have 1 + 1 = 2.

Seems like playing for a tie should be slightly punished (As it is now) in a tourney setting. A full win demonstrates superior skills, luck or whatever, while a draw or modified win doesnt really tell or distinguish anything really.

This is a separate issue; the scoring system doesn't have any understanding of player intent, nor should it. A draw is a draw regardless how you arrived at that result.

And Information Theory states that there is actually a significant amount of information in a draw.

Speaking of Electronic Baffles, I'm totally disappointed that no one in the podcast suggested using it on Lambda Shuttles.

We recorded on Thursday before Dracon posted his amazing idea for Baffalo Herders. Lambda shuttles seems like the one good use for it. The problem is that it reduces its efficiency so that even if you can use the 2 turn and 0 stop regularly, you're at best only equivalent to the "normal" tier 1 ships. Having 4 of them with Tactician is another animal completely though.

Speaking of Electronic Baffles, I'm totally disappointed that no one in the podcast suggested using it on Lambda Shuttles.

I thought we spoke about the Bump, Stall, Stall opening, maybe I am thinking of a different conversation I had...

Who can say, so much X-Wing...

To some degree, I think that I'm okay with completely arbitrary win conditions (12 points for a full win if the game goes to time), because it's a game and everything is arbitrary. As long as I know the rules and they're enforced, I'll build lists and play with them in mind. With this in mind, I'm not too interested in changing the scoring system right now, because a sub 12 point victory means you didn't do all that well in the first place, so I guess I figure you should be happy that you get any points at all. At that margin of victory, dice probably could have pushed it either way at some point in the game.

I have seen a lot of defence of the arbitrary value of 12 points as what the determines if you won "by enough". That's fine, except for the fact as soon as we get to elimination rounds (the important part of a tournament) we suddenly throw it out and all of a sudden 1 MoV point is enough for a win (and in rare cases initiative is enough for a win).

Why are we still using this arbitrary value when we don't use it during playoffs? Why is it more acceptable to not be penalised for winning a close game during playoffs and not during regular play?

I'm not defending it, or at least I don't intend to. I'm trying to say that I don't really care what the rules are, within a certain scope. If they want to call it 24 points for a full win I'd be fine with that, too. I just need to know what to expect. The issue with elimination rounds is real, but I've never seen a good solution to it, and I'm not convinced there is one. Consequently, I do everything I can to make sure my games don't go to time. I play quickly, and I tend to play squads with enough firepower to get the job done.

Speaking of Electronic Baffles, I'm totally disappointed that no one in the podcast suggested using it on Lambda Shuttles.

I thought we spoke about the Bump, Stall, Stall opening, maybe I am thinking of a different conversation I had...

Who can say, so much X-Wing...

Panic informed me above that you did in fact discuss this, and I fell asleep or something. Maybe it was kids. I blame kids.

Scum double-stress is also already a thing. Haven't had a loss yet and am considering it for store champs. Might drop the unhinged for guaranteed initiative bid against Fel.

Bossk hogs (99)

Bossk (49) - YV-666

Veteran Instincts (1), Tactician (2), Gunner (5), Feedback Array (2), Engine Upgrade (4)

Syndicate Thug (25) - Y-Wing

Twin Laser Turret (6), Unhinged Astromech (1)

Syndicate Thug (25) - Y-Wing

Twin Laser Turret (6), Unhinged Astromech (1)

The total number of points awarded is the same in pretty much any other sport, with the exception of soccer (0/1/3), and hockey (0/2 points awarded in win; 1/2 awarded in OT win). It's this way in virtually any other system because it is the most fair and makes sense.

Once you accept that the same number of points should be awarded after every match, then you have 1 + 1 = 2.

But, obviously, Xwing is not like other sports. When 2 players are tied and they get half points, and they can be more inclined to keep the tie and play more passive. The designers are intentionally punishing passive play and they want the game to be played aggressively. This is where the question truly is at, is this fair? Of note any question about fairness is arbitrary but here I would agree with the 'punishment' because passive play and conservative play is part of the game, but I believe Xwing plays 'best' when risks are taken. So, we can distinguish this game from soccer, tennis football, just by the design of how it plays and accept rules that push players in a direction- take more risks, go for the win, roll some dice, etc.

Looking at a single game, a tie does not tell us anything of value which is why you cant tie in the finals or after the cut. Or can you.... drum roll....

The designers are intentionally punishing passive play and they want the game to be played aggressively.

They have in fact accomplished the exact opposite. Players that would clearly lose if the game did not go to time are essentially required to slow play and/or run away under the following circumstances:

• a draw scenario
• ahead on points as scored by the rules even though they are clearly losing

Scoring MoV proportional to each ship's remaining health for unfinished games would fix both of these issues at the expense of taking an extra 30-60 seconds to score the game.

A slower player dictates the pace of a game, not a faster player. You can only play as fast as your opponent places dials and engages. I ran into this several times at Worlds.

Edit:

Looking at a single game, a tie does not tell us anything of value

Citation please.

P.S. You can't tie in elimination because it's elimination and somebody needs to advance. Example, football allows for draws in the regular season but not in the playoffs.

Double edit.

but I believe Xwing plays 'best' when risks are taken.

Another citation please.

It doesn't always work that way. Actually it usually doesn't work that way. FWIW I finished #20 at Worlds.

What does your placement at worlds have to do with anything ? I haven't been able to finish this episode as I just couldn't stomach it anymore after all of that. Hopefully it gets better when I do go back to it.

The designers are intentionally punishing passive play and they want the game to be played aggressively.

They have in fact accomplished the exact opposite. Players that would clearly lose if the game did not go to time are essentially required to slow play and/or run away under the following circumstances:

• a draw scenario
• ahead on points as scored by the rules even though they are clearly losing

Scoring MoV proportional to each ship's remaining health for unfinished games would fix both of these issues at the expense of taking an extra 30-60 seconds to score the game.

A slower player dictates the pace of a game, not a faster player. You can only play as fast as your opponent places dials and engages. I ran into this several times at Worlds.

Edit:

Looking at a single game, a tie does not tell us anything of value

Citation please.

P.S. You can't tie in elimination because it's elimination and somebody needs to advance. Example, football allows for draws in the regular season but not in the playoffs.

Double edit.

but I believe Xwing plays 'best' when risks are taken.

Another citation please.

It doesn't always work that way. Actually it usually doesn't work that way. FWIW I finished #20 at Worlds.

Interesting, idea on partial points, I would consider that if it was practical.

But, I think were splitting hairs on the value of a tie. You believe a perfect 50/50 is fairest because this is how all other sports handle this. I dont mind the bias towards less points personally in encourage more aggressive play, but either way we are talking about a 0.5 difference, not anything to get too bent over either way. And, if I missed a cut by 0.5 points I am sure I can find plenty of reasons why I didnt make it rather than blaming an unfair scoring system.

Swiss tournament pairing is in a way determining if you are advancing or not. A winner is playing another winner. If your game ends in a tie you are not advancing so truly it seems reasonable to handle tie's differently than a regular schedule of games as in a regular season.

I not sure sure what you want me to cite and these are my opinions. Congrats on your placing, and I agree that passive play, running etc. has it place and will win you games but my point if Xwing is best (Subjective) when 2 players are going at it and shooting at each other each round and not just playing a chicken or cat and mouse game or perhaps playing for a tie. There is EXTRA incentive to go for the win if you can. Again, this is my opinion and you are free to disagree that other ways to play can be just as fun or be in fact better. It really is a personal experience to say whether something is fun or not. But, just perusing the forum and you can for all of the negative play experiences with slow play and running. This was one reason why they added partial points scoring so my opinions may be closer to why explaining why it is as it is.

What does your placement at worlds have to do with anything ? I haven't been able to finish this episode as I just couldn't stomach it anymore after all of that. Hopefully it gets better when I do go back to it.

The discussion is not for everyone but rest assured that we get back to more familiar territory after the flight deck with some good talk about the Mist Hunter and then the rest of The Force Awakens.

Kris

What does your placement at worlds have to do with anything ? I haven't been able to finish this episode as I just couldn't stomach it anymore after all of that. Hopefully it gets better when I do go back to it.

The discussion is not for everyone but rest assured that we get back to more familiar territory after the flight deck with some good talk about the Mist Hunter and then the rest of The Force Awakens.

Kris

It was how it was conducted that bothered me. I'll eventually get bored and go back to it I'm sure.

What does your placement at worlds have to do with anything ? I haven't been able to finish this episode as I just couldn't stomach it anymore after all of that. Hopefully it gets better when I do go back to it.

The discussion is not for everyone but rest assured that we get back to more familiar territory after the flight deck with some good talk about the Mist Hunter and then the rest of The Force Awakens.

Kris

It was how it was conducted that bothered me. I'll eventually get bored and go back to it I'm sure.

Seemed lively to me where there were good points to be made and then defended. Points are only valid if they can stand up or get refined if they can stand up criticism. Much better than everyone saying 'I agree' to each other.

The problem is, there are already players slow-playing to get full wins when they clearly are losing.

And it's not as simple as just calling the TO over if you think a player is slow playing, unless you are willing to turn X-wing's atmosphere into MtG level of aggressive rules checking.

Can you provide a specific citation where someone played slowly to get the full win? I would like to read the details.

Correcting slow play can be as simple as calling over the TO. There are steps that every player can take to eliminate slow play. Allowing an opponent to play slowly can reflect a lack of tournament experience for permitting it to happen. FFG has tournament rules for slow play, they can and should be enforced. Players enter a tournament with an understanding that time pressure is real.

How many people think that taking five minutes to set three dials is fine? Sure, each round is different but if (the general) you are going to let (the general) your opponent have all the time in the world, (the general) you can expect the game to drag longer than it should.

What does your placement at worlds have to do with anything ? I haven't been able to finish this episode as I just couldn't stomach it anymore after all of that. Hopefully it gets better when I do go back to it.

The discussion is not for everyone but rest assured that we get back to more familiar territory after the flight deck with some good talk about the Mist Hunter and then the rest of The Force Awakens.

Kris

It was how it was conducted that bothered me. I'll eventually get bored and go back to it I'm sure.

As I said earlier in the Thread, I felt a little blindsided by the topic on the show as we had no prep for it like we would have if it were a regular segment not a part of the flight deck, no ones fault but the choice was to either only put one side across or to try to present counter points and a chose the latter.

Kris

What does your placement at worlds have to do with anything ? I haven't been able to finish this episode as I just couldn't stomach it anymore after all of that. Hopefully it gets better when I do go back to it.

The discussion is not for everyone but rest assured that we get back to more familiar territory after the flight deck with some good talk about the Mist Hunter and then the rest of The Force Awakens.

Kris

It was how it was conducted that bothered me. I'll eventually get bored and go back to it I'm sure.

As I said earlier in the Thread, I felt a little blindsided by the topic on the show as we had no prep for it like we would have if it were a regular segment not a part of the flight deck, no ones fault but the choice was to either only put one side across or to try to present counter points and a chose the latter.

Kris

Right. I agree with you. You did the right thing. It was the talking over and cutting others off that bothered me. Most of this was bob being a bit to shall we say eager to make his point.

I will offer a suggestion:

Modified win gets MOV equal to 75 + points destroyed.

Modified loss gets MOV equal to 25 + points destroyed.

Tie gets MOV equal to 50 + points destroyed.

This paired with a 4 tournament point system, might be useful.

but I believe Xwing plays 'best' when risks are taken.

Another citation please.

It doesn't always work that way. Actually it usually doesn't work that way. FWIW I finished #20 at Worlds.

What does your placement at worlds have to do with anything ?

I wasn't sure what you meant by "plays best", as in "placing better", or "makes for a more exciting game". If the former, then consistency wins tournaments. Ask Paul*. If the latter, then beauty is in the eye of the beholder. A chess match between two skilled players can be even more exciting than just charging in and throwing dice. FWIW, I tend to play fairly aggressively, but it also costs me games sometimes too.

* notable exception: a crazy close 4 FWD in 2014...

The problem is, there are already players slow-playing to get full wins when they clearly are losing.

And it's not as simple as just calling the TO over if you think a player is slow playing, unless you are willing to turn X-wing's atmosphere into MtG level of aggressive rules checking.

Can you provide a specific citation where someone played slowly to get the full win? I would like to read the details.

I have stopped counting, but I have quite a few examples off the top of my head. The level of "intentional nefariousness" can very depending on the player and circumstance. Notables include affecting who makes it into Regional cuts, and repeat observations of at least one player that has made the cut at Worlds. I don't want to toss mud around on this thread, so if you're interested PM me.

However....

Correcting slow play can be as simple as calling over the TO. There are steps that every player can take to eliminate slow play. Allowing an opponent to play slowly can reflect a lack of tournament experience for permitting it to happen. FFG has tournament rules for slow play, they can and should be enforced. Players enter a tournament with an understanding that time pressure is real.

How many people think that taking five minutes to set three dials is fine? Sure, each round is different but if (the general) you are going to let (the general) your opponent have all the time in the world, (the general) you can expect the game to drag longer than it should.

... slow play is the symptom not the cause. It can happen without slow play. And if you have to resort to calling over a TO because your opponent is "artificially" trying to give himself a win, then there is fundamentally a problem with your scoring system, not with needing to enforce slow play.

... slow play is the symptom not the cause. It can happen without slow play. And if you have to resort to calling over a TO because your opponent is "artificially" trying to give himself a win, then there is fundamentally a problem with your scoring system, not with needing to enforce slow play.

I would say a player artificially trying to give himself a win is cheating no matter the scoring system.

You make a lot of interesting points Bob. In my opinion, this is not one of them.

Kris

... slow play is the symptom not the cause. It can happen without slow play. And if you have to resort to calling over a TO because your opponent is "artificially" trying to give himself a win, then there is fundamentally a problem with your scoring system, not with needing to enforce slow play.

If you have to call over a TO because your opponent is playing slowly, then that's because they are playing slowly. If they are deliberately stalling the clock, then it's cheating.

The scoring system, however good or bad it is, is irrelevant if someone is playing slowly.

The scoring system may have some bearing on the tactics a player uses; eg running away and turtling-up, but that's not defined as slow play.