I am not intending to argue that the rules should be changed so that Bob always wins.

I am arguing in favor of a new set of rules because the existing rules lead to what I consider unfair scoring situations, and it also actively encourages players to cheat. I would be in favor of these rules even if it meant I would end up with a loss. My round 3 match vs Lance is a perfect example: due to a massive swing in luck in the next-to-last round (my full health focused bandit got one-shot by the still-stressed IG-88 who was finally able to get one last shot in before it was destroyed), if the match were scored as I proposed, I would have had a modified loss getting only 1 victory point, instead of a modified win getting 3 victory points. I think his Y-wing had 5-6 hit points remaining and my K-wing had 4 hull. Using partial points at time I would have lost by 1-3 MoV. That would have been more fair.

But it's only ever brought up on the show or on the forums when it negatively effects you. Kris even asked you how often you think the current rules have worked in your favour, and you said you couldn't recall an instance.

I wasn't exactly sure offhand at the time, but it is fairly infrequently. My round 3 game with Lance was one of the few, and would have made a great example, but being aggressively personally put on the spot, I was apparently not in the right frame of mind for it to immediately come to mind at the time.

The correct and truthful answer is "it doesn't matter". I guess you can dismiss it as "well it's coming from Bob so I'm automatically dismissing anything he says", but ideally I think the argument can stand or fall on its own.

This is where personality types comes in. I understand and can appreciate that sentiment. I just don't share it. ... Again, this is just a difference of opinion and perspective. Nobody is "right" or "wrong" here.

It's not personality types, or competitiveness, it's recognition of reality.

Well that's what I get for trying to be nice - according to The Internet both my personality type and conclusions are wrong!

On a more serious note, I do like your points about the cure potentially being worse than the poison. That's worth looking into in more depth and quantifying before running out and implementing anything.

But not in this context. I apparently need to be continually reminded that for some reason Internet Forums never end up being the best place for rational discourse.

Carry on and enjoy the podcast!

Please Bob, keep dismissing my argument as circular and or irrelevant whilst not applying the same logic to your own.

I flagged it as circular logic because it's circular logic. If you think that I have invoked circular logic anywhere, please be more specific.

For example, if I know that a particular tournament is 60 minute rounds and I take a slow-to-win squad, I've shot myself in the foot. I don't think anyone argues that 60 minutes is the best roundlength, but given that I know what the expectations are, I should build (and play) in light of them. This seems to be the "don't bring a TIE swarm principle."

For me, a tournament ruleset should do the following things:

1. Promote ending games within the time limit

2. Encourage engagement in the endgame

Secondary to those goals are:

1. Encourage similar decision making in both the mid and endgame (for example, partial (proportional) points on all ships encourages target switching just before time in a way that would not be effective before a limit)

2. Attempt to "predict" the outcome had the game been untimed.

The barriers and circumstances that must be taken into account include:

1. Round limits are simply a must. We can't have untimed swiss and cut rounds. It's just not possible.

2. Reporting has to be simple, so that accuracy and speed can be maximized.

3. The ability to "predict" outcomes will never be accurate. (I like the example of the Ion BTLA-4 Y Stresshog on one HP behind an ioned B wing at full health...how would this be modeled? Or the full health ship pointing the wrong way and about to fly off the board....how about this situation?)

Given these aims and barriers, I think the current ruleset does a decent job. I don't know that a proportional points modeling in the case of a draw to break the tie would always model properly the gamestate, and I don't know that giving better incentive for drawn or mod-won games encourages endgame engagement. What about:

1. Full win (5 pts) for destroying your opponent

2. Mod win (4? 3?) for being ahead on points at time

3. Draw (2?) for being within a given range (10-12 points, maybe?) at time

4. Loss (whether timed or not) would be 0 points.

This would encourage engagement from the losing player, since being completely cleaned off and just losing at time are the same tournament points with just an MOV difference. It would encourage the 'ahead' player to try to eliminate the opponent to get the extra tourney points, and it would encourage drawing players to get ahead before time if they felt they could do so, and, if it results in a cagey drawn endgame, that's probably a fine result with me.

Sorry to keep de-railing this back to tourney rules, but it's something I enjoy thinking about.

PS: This discussion sort of reminds me of the old BCS system for college football. Each year, they'd apply a formula and each year something wonky would happen. The next year, they'd change the formula to take that wonky thing into account, and the next year something different would happen. They'd fix the rules to have reflected the outcome in hindsight, and it never worked. They ended up dispensing with the BCS entirely and nobody misses it. Changing tournament rules to fit one particular tournament outcome in hindsight isn't great practice. I don't think that's what MJ is doing here.I don't really enjoy imputing motives to folks, but I don't think arguments like "the current rules have disadvantaged me before, therefore my opinion of them is more valid" really are very helpful. I also don't think MajorJuggler's reasoning here is primarily based on sour grapes from the tournament experience, though it did highlight for him an imbalance (in his view) that the tournament rules don't reward "not-losing" enough; others are arguing they reward "winning" more strongly and that's OK.

EDIT: I see I've been ninja'd and perhaps a white flag has been waved. I hope not, since I enjoy the discussion of how heavily to weight aspects of the game within tournament scoring. Imputing motive isn't helping the cause.

Kris: Just remember don't say never. Sometimes people make 3 Tallon Rolls Scoring could change, but as you pointed out it is what it is. so we just have use the rules as they are and take advantage of it.

Guys. One thing you don't understand about perfectionists like myself and bob. If it can be fixed we want to fix it. It's like an additiction

My wife often tells me this is not the office, because I try to fix things at home or things that I know can be improved. She tells me Just let it go! To me that is almost as hard as giving up drugs from Addicts.

It has taken me years to change my way of thinking about things, so please give the guy a break he is merely pointing out something which he thinks could be better.

We should always be striving for a more perfect system. I'm just not sure the path MJ wants to take the game down is actually more perfect.

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.

Clearly loosing is a matter of perspective in any timed game. Sure if untimed the odds are probably against them. But within the confines of the event as described, they aren't clearly loosing.

I prefer a simple win/loose/draw scenario. Any sporting event or tournament event I have participated in, there is always a tactic of "slow play". Soccer you get the team that goes up 1 - 0 early, and then for the next 85 minutes plays 11 players back in their defensive 3rd. In American Football, you get a team that possess the ball the majority of the game and dominates time of possession. If the other player can't score... they can't beat you. If they don't have the ball... they can't beat you. If they can't destroy my ships... they can't beat me. If I have tons of hull they have to chew through.... then I have a better chance to outlast them, and play defensively.

I play a lot of high hit point ships... bombers and decimators in particular. Certain builds will crush them quickly (i.e. HLCs), but in general a lot of my games go to time and I win several on time, because I have so much hull to chew through. I'm not slow playing, I'm playing within the confines of the rules as it is my best chance to win the game. Plus I like flying Bombers and Decimators.

What is slow play to one person is a viable strategy when trying to win in a competitive setting. I'll intentionally make it as hard as possible for you to kill my ships as it gives me the best chance to win. If that means we go to time, and I win by a ship that has 1 hp left on the board when we go to time... I'm fine with that.

My perception:

1) I personally like the X-Wing scoring system, especially compared to other games I have played (DIAF Warhammer Fantasy).

2) MajorJuggler brought a slower playing control list with a low offensive output. In a timed game, these are less likely to get full wins and more likely to get modified wins and ties from my personal X-Wing experience. I believe that MJ even mentioned in a previous episode of NOVA that this same list "went to time" several times in his game night friendly games.

3) I have watched several of MajorJuggler's games on YouTube. I mean no offense by this, but MJ appears to be a relatively slow player. Not the "cheating slow play" slow player, but the "agonizes over every move and decision" methodical type. The NOVA open Semifinal's game specifically springs to mind on games I've watched on YouTube that illustrate this

If you feel that an additional turn or two would have clearly made you the winner in these games, then I suggest either bringing more offense to end a game more decisively and/or working on playing a little bit more quickly so you get more turns in the same amount of time.

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.

Not to mention the entire show felt like "everyone against Bob" (in particular Kris) who I'll openly say I found highly irritating this episode. It seemed like even outside of the points discussion, Kris felt like he had to disagree with Bob on anything he said. The Mathwing discussion was particularly frustrating because it feels like Kris needs to be given a lesson on the caveats of Mathwing any time it is discussed. Yes, Bob knows there are intangibles. He isn't trying to demonstrate that one ship is unequivocally better or worse than another. All it says is that if one ship has a low efficiency, it need some unquantifiable factors to make up the points. Or if a ship is "too efficient", hopefully it has some unquantifiable drawback. It is a starting point, not a conclusion. Stop trying to put words and conclusions in that he isn't making. I'd be insanely frustrated if I were MJ and every time I said "jousting efficiency" I also had to say something like "this is just a measure of quantifiable stats with reasonable assumptions and not a definitive measure of good or better".

As an aside, the "well let me make any assumptions, let me assume my TIE fighter gets 3 evades every roll" statements were just idiotic. There is a big difference between reasonable assumptions and unrealistic ones. Most of Bob's are reasonable (though I think his assumption of Vessery getting TL 100% is too optimistic, it is a far cry from your flippant example.)

And while I'm ranting and providing feedback: I generally like Kris's perspective and input on many things. I think he sees things in builds and strategy that aren't presented by the other hosts, and is often quite funny. Outside of Sable Gryphon and Mynock Squadron, he has probably given me more insightful ideas to think on than any other person/show. But the Math Wing portion of the show is the special thing this podcast has going for it that differentiates it from any other show. I get far more laughs out of Kessel Run, Mynock squadron has made me think about more unique builds and combinations than any other cast, and Scum and Villainy is probably the most well rounded across all areas. If you are going to have MajorJuggler on and expect him to do MathWing, then at least have the decency to not make him defend the concepts behind jousting values every time it comes up.

If you guys are going to take your combo of too long flight reports, too little insightful strategy advice, insanely long ramblings from Sean, and "You should never blame dice but it was the dice" comments and add to it a dose of "everybody angrily and vehemently disagree with anything MJ says", then I'm not sure what I'm listening for anymore.

And I can tell this show upset me, because I typically say "it is a free thing and a lot of hard work so what is there to complain about?", but this show was more aggravation than entertainment, like listening to political pundits from the opposite party on the radio and screaming at the radio.

Plus, this episode made me think that if I were MJ, I'd just bow out, and I sincerely hope that doesn't happen. But if it does, I hope he finds his way to somewhere else less hostile.

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.

Well, frankly, that is because often others were attempting to make a counter argument that didn't understand the point Bob was making. He was (I think) attempting to say "you didn't understand what I said, so let's not go down that direction". Or, he could have sat there while Sean droned on and on for 45 minutes, because basically the entire cast spoke about how wrong he was while he said very little. (As a side note: For **** sake, somebody interrupt Sean every once in a while).

Not to mention the entire show felt like "everyone against Bob" (in particular Kris) who I'll openly say I found highly irritating this episode. It seemed like even outside of the points discussion, Kris felt like he had to disagree with Bob on anything he said. The Mathwing discussion was particularly frustrating because it feels like Kris needs to be given a lesson on the caveats of Mathwing any time it is discussed. Yes, Bob knows there are intangibles. He isn't trying to demonstrate that one ship is unequivocally better or worse than another. All it says is that if one ship has a low efficiency, it need some unquantifiable factors to make up the points. Or if a ship is "too efficient", hopefully it has some unquantifiable drawback. It is a starting point, not a conclusion.

As an aside, the "well let me make any assumptions, let me assume my TIE fighter gets 3 evades every roll" statements were just idiotic. There is a big difference between reasonable assumptions and unrealistic ones. Most of Bob's are reasonable (though I think his assumption of Vessery getting TL 100% is too optimistic, it is a far cry from your flippant example.)

And while I'm ranting and providing feedback: I generally like Kris's perspective and input on many things. I think he sees things in builds and strategy that aren't presented by the other hosts, and is often quite funny. Outside of Sable Gryphon and Mynock Squadron, he has probably given me more insightful ideas to think on than any other person/show. But the Math Wing portion of the show is the special thing this podcast has going for it that differentiates it from any other show. I get far more laughs out of Kessel Run, Mynock squadron has made me think about more unique builds and combinations than any other cast, and Scum and Villainy is probably the most well rounded across all areas. If you are going to have MajorJuggler on and expect him to do MathWing, then at least have the decency to not make him defend the concepts behind jousting values every time it comes up.

If you guys are going to take your combo of too long flight reports, too little insightful strategy advice, and insanely long ramblings from Sean and add to it a dose of "everybody angrily and vehemently disagree with anything MJ says", then I'm not sure what I'm listening for anymore.

And I can tell this show upset me, because I typically say "it is a free thing and a lot of hard work so what is there to complain about?", but this show was more aggravation than entertainment, like listening to political pundits from the opposite party on the radio.

Noted and understood. Normally our Flight Decks do not go down this route. I felt that it was a worthy discuss though and left it in. Overall, I think this is the first side track we have really taken in a flight deck. Normally its just what we are flying and how we have been doing locally.

I actually thought this was one of the more interesting Flight Decks, I feel like podcast members should challenge each other, otherwise it's just sort of a gabfest that doesn't offer anything interesting. I agree with the sentiment that it got a bit too salty at times, even though I also tend to agree with Kris on a lot of this stuff.

I actually thought this was one of the more interesting Flight Decks, I feel like podcast members should challenge each other, otherwise it's just sort of a gabfest that doesn't offer anything interesting. I agree with the sentiment that it got a bit too salty at times, even though I also tend to agree with Kris on a lot of this stuff.

I agree as well. I guess for me its trying to find a balance between the two.

I didn't personally mind the disagreement because it was disagreement; I felt that everyone misunderstood Bob's points, misrepresented them, and wouldn't let him finish. I would have been very frustrated in his shoes.

I thought he raised two interesting, separate 'fixes' for tournament rules. I disagree with both of them, but it would have been nice to have heard more about his reasoning.

I didn't personally mind the disagreement because it was disagreement; I felt that everyone misunderstood Bob's points, misrepresented them, and wouldn't let him finish. I would have been very frustrated in his shoes.

I thought he raised two interesting, separate 'fixes' for tournament rules. I disagree with both of them, but it would have been nice to have heard more about his reasoning.

All of this. Except I agree with one of them, and need a lot of thought on the other before I concur or disagree.

I didn't personally mind the disagreement because it was disagreement; I felt that everyone misunderstood Bob's points, misrepresented them, and wouldn't let him finish. I would have been very frustrated in his shoes.

I thought he raised two interesting, separate 'fixes' for tournament rules. I disagree with both of them, but it would have been nice to have heard more about his reasoning.

Yeah, that was largely what was frustrating about it. It was especially evident when everyone kept insisting that the Armada scoring system was "what he wanted" when it is not. The Armada system basically makes MOV the primary scoring system. It is just obfuscated a bit by then converting your MOV into "match point" units.

As I have said earlier in the post, we may have miss understood Bob's points but I again bring up that we were ambushed with them and I personally felt a moral obligation to present counter arguments to the ones he raised, not to try to convince him one way or the other but to stop it being given as the "shows" opinion, or even worse, the show pushing an agenda.

I am going to try a different way to bring this in to a constructive back and forth rather than a I am right, you are wrong that it feels like it has become.

For this post I am making the going to divide Bob's point on the show in to two entirely different points.

Ironically I am going to cover Point 2 first.

Assumptions I am making about Bob's second point on a change to the way round scoring works;

He feels that a 0/1/3/5 model is not the best way of scoring

I feel that both myself, Sean and Ed actually conceded this point on the show and tried to throw ideas we would like to see in to the mix.

(As a caveat I have not listened to the show yet)

I belive Sean suggests something acne to the Armada graduated scoring which I disagreed with due to the far grater potential for run away leaders to developed and make the later rounds of swiss irrelevant to the cut.

I suggested that I would remove the Modified win entirely (or agreed when Sean suggested it) as I really like the Play Better approach to making the cut and think I have demonstrated this for quite a while. The Worlds Prep Show, I believe I disagreed with Richard quite vehemently on the issue of the cut to top 16, as I honestly have no problem with only the best players on the day making the cut. My hard line approach is (evidently) not for everyone but in my 10+ years of running events across multiple games systems has always been "if you don't like my rules pack, don't come to my event."

(I in no way think that this is the "best" solution, it was just me saying what I would do)

Bob's suggestion of 1/2/3/4 I thought was a good one and despite it not being what I would do (see above) is probably the best I could think of at the time.

Conclusion

If I were to make a change for all FFG event scoring (not just my local events that I personally am running) I would probably go with a modification of Bob's idea of 1/2/3/4.

I would go with a 1/2/3/5 system.

Reason

I dislike the current penalising of the player who earns a modified win but not rewarding the person who gets a modified loss, I feel Bob's Idea addresses that but I also like the separation of 3-5 points for a "full" win as it encourages a game where engaging the enemy matters.

Whilst the change would encourage (I am going to coin the phrase Defensive Play rather than Slow Play or running away) defensive play at some points of a game where a player is first trying to hold on to their 2 points for a draw and then the 1 point for a modified loss, as long as this defensive play is within the confines of the rules I see no problem as a more skilled opposed should be able to "out fox" their opponent and be rewarded for it, where as a less skilled player may be punished.

I personally find this to be an acceptable outcome.

How all of this relates to Bob's second point, I AGREE, 0/1/3/5 is not the optimal event scoring system.

It has never bothered me enough to think about it, hence why id didn't have the 1/2/3/5 system in my back pocket for the show.

On to Bob's First point;

To explain my thoughts on Bob's First Point I make the following assumptions on Bob's thoughts on the current MOV scoring system, which I will term Large Base Half Points;

Bob Feels that;

1 - The System is NOT perfect

2 - The System ENCOURAGES cheating

3 - The System SHOULD be changed

To start I will try to address these points as separate individual statements.

1 - The System is not perfect.

I agree, anyone disagree? Thought not, so lets move on.

2 - The system encourages cheating.

This is a very flawed statement for me and almost feels like a Straw Man erected to add weight to the movement form point 1 to point 3, the fact that a system (i am using system in reference to the MOV scoring system and will be referring to the Rules System simply as the Rules) allowed the opportunity for cheating does not equal encouraging cheating.

The only game I have ever played that ENCOURAGED cheating was Blood Bowl, where there were specific rules for if you were caught cheating you had a player sent off. I often cheated in Blood Bowl, I remember one game where I made it though an entire half with 13 Goblins on the pitch...
Even then, baked dice or an actual lie to an opponent on what a rule does was not allowed and I don't know anyone who would have done such a thing, even in a game that actively encourages cheating.

If what Bob actually means is that it CAN encourage Defensive Play at SOME points than I will happily concede that point as it is 100% valid, but that is fine because that is within the rules.

I reject the premise that the scoring system encourages cheating as a reason it should be changed as the will always be opportunities to cheat and if a player A has a problem with player B there are procedures to follow, ignoring the RULE to give you a reason to change the SYSTEM seems sill and needless.

3 - The System should be changed.

This is a purely subjective opinion based assumption that can be argued both for and against, as we have been doing.

If I make the assumption that the system should change, or even as Bob has suggested try to come up with a system as if the current one did not exist than what should it accomplish?

To directly quote Bob;

For example, I'll take some liberty and paraphrase Kris I and's back-and-forth:

• Bob: "The scoring rules are unfair for timed games."
• Kris: "The rules are fair because they apply equally to both players at the start of the game."
• Bob: "But at the end of a game the player who would clearly have lost if the game did not go to time, can instead get a win by stalling out the clock."
• Kris: "Flying away is legal and according to the current rules scoring, that player is ahead on points and so should win."
• Bob: "But that doesn't answer the question of if the current rules are fair or not."
• Kris: "The rules are fair because they are the rules that we play by."
• Sean: "You just have to accept the fact that these are the rules."

In my opinion, he paraphrases for me and then take his words as my argument.

I was trying to make an example of the difference between a timed and untimed game and how they should be approached.

I think I make my point better here;

As much as I hate tennis let me bring a comparison from that sport as to how your argument is coming across, to me at least.

Regardless of the surface it is being played on a tennis court is the same size with the same lines marked on it.

Doubles and Singles interact with this court in different ways, both games are still tennis and both are plays on the same court.
You seem to be asking for singles shots to be scored in on the doubles court.

Timed games and untimed games are both still X-Wing and both still played on the same table but they are fundamentally different in how they are scored. The argument of "but if the game had not gone to time is irrelevant" it is a straw man argument along the same lines of if we had been playing double that shout would have been in.

The rules for both timed and untimed games are the same but the scoring SYSTEM are different, this is something that both players are aware of going in to the game.

This is a fact regardless of what the system is and rather than dismissing Bob's point I did a personal analysis of the benefits of his change and came up with the following;

The pro of his suggested change as I understood them was that it is a better model of the state of an untimed game in a timed environment.

This could well be true but as has been pointed out in this very thread, it is by no way a perfect model. Cases that "feel" wrong will still come up.

The fact that a change is not perfect is not enough to reject it out of hand however, which I did, and have not.

The reason I said that I did not like the change is because of the cons I presented.

That time between rounds would increase.

I don't mean sound insulting to anyone, but we are not as smart as we think we are! Especially after 7 rounds of swiss so we would be double checking our math or even worse assuming that the TO was competent!

I believe that Sean actually defends Bob's proposed change here by saying how it could be implemented with software.

Sean's (insane in my opinion) use of 3 computers to TO an event aside, more data entry between rounds = more time and an increased chance of human error.

Now in the same way that I rejected the premiss of a Scoring System being responsible for people cheating I also (quite fairly) reject the premise of a scoring system being responsible for human error, hence why I never brought it up but I am trying to demonstrate my though process.

After reviewing this I came to the conclusion that Bob's first point was, in my opinion not a beneficial change to the game whilst his second point was interesting and probably a good change.

I have yet to see any argument for Bob's first change to convince me that that is a beneficial change to the game and the points I attempted to put forwards have been largely ignored.

I also feel the fact that we all agreed with Bob on his second point has been glossed over.

In summery yes it was Bob's flight deck and we argued over his proposals but he introduced 2 proposed changes that invited analysis and comment. Had Bob raised these earlier I feel there is a good chance they would have been given there own segment and the discussion would have been perceived as more constructive.

If Bob feels railroaded that was never my intention and I can only apologise but I stand by my points.

Kris

I actually thought this was one of the more interesting Flight Decks, I feel like podcast members should challenge each other, otherwise it's just sort of a gabfest that doesn't offer anything interesting. I agree with the sentiment that it got a bit too salty at times, even though I also tend to agree with Kris on a lot of this stuff.

I agree as well. I guess for me its trying to find a balance between the two.

Bob Feels that;

1 - The System is NOT perfect

2 - The System ENCOURAGES cheating

3 - The System SHOULD be changed

To start I will try to address these points as separate individual statements.

1 - The System is not perfect.

I agree, anyone disagree? Thought not, so lets move on.

2 - The system encourages cheating.

3 - The System should be changed.

1 - The System is NOT perfect

You say nobody disagrees, but I think some people actually do disagree. Some say the point is to "destroy ships", so partial scoring is counter to the game's goal. Bob hit on this, that the point actually is to destroy a squad in an untimed game. You can look at this two different ways - either just accept that the system as-is creates what is basically two different variants of the game with different strategies, or attempt to mold the ruleset so the play goals are as consistent as possible in either format. Or stated differently, is it right that the scoring system creates something very different than the "gold standard" of play that determines championships, or should it try to create as closely as possible a similar experience within the restriction of time?

I also see people who refuse to acknowledge the problem because they disagree with his solution. There were many multi-page threads a year or so ago with plenty who disagreed that there was an issue.

2 - The System ENCOURAGES cheating

I think this is only one of the facets. There is also:

2a. The system creates the "two variants" problem mentioned above

2b. The system distorts the meta toward certain ships that "score well" rather than builds that just "better" (note that this is a nudge in this direction, not a full on meta-shaper)

2c. The system's inaccuracy is potentially even more problematic in the most important games - elimination rounds where a 1 point delta is a win.

2d. The system is more likely to create negative experiences than a better system would - "Really? That 1hp 48pt Miranda is the victor over a fully healthy Soontir Fel and Academy Pilot?" It feels wrong and creates a negative experience. Not to mention that the "run away" tactics that are (rightfully) employed under the current system are often a negative annoyance to many.

Bob didn't expand on these issues (in part probably because this ground has been covered and argued ad nauseum in other venues), but "cheating" isn't the only factor.

Please Bob, keep dismissing my argument as circular and or irrelevant whilst not applying the same logic to your own.

I flagged it as circular logic because it's circular logic. If you think that I have invoked circular logic anywhere, please be more specific.

"The fundamental underlying problem is that many times a player who is CLEARLY going to lose if the game does not go to time, can instead be guaranteed a win if the clock runs out. "

First of all, I am not sure this is a underlying problem that comes up "many" times. You gave one very specific example and this issue is driving your entire argument. The only tangible thing I see in this very selective example with the decimator is to "to decrease slow-play cheating', or 'more accurately represent the board state" in an unfinished game. However, I and several other feel this is simply an unsubstantiated ascertain that we have a wide spread problem of slow play cheating or the real winners in a close game are getting the shaft. I dont think this happens many times (pure ascertain from me but I am not arguing for a change) but please cite some tangible evidence especially with all of the data you have access to. I am not sure your assumption one player will ever "clearly" lose is accurate either, especially in a dice game where you just dont know until the last ship is removed and no one can reliably predict a winner in an unfinished game. This concern is dismissed with a counter point that an unfinished game should not have a winner and loser?

I have noticed you are extremely dismissive of others points as 'circular logic' but instead provide a view without demonstrating there is a pervasive problem. As the partial points scoring did a significant change to the 2 ship meta which people can understand. Here, the status quo is not arguing for a change so it is on you to show why the changes should occur and how the current scoring is unfair. I am sure everyone here is all ears.

You boys just keep a going to them wonderful friendly flying casual tournaments...

:lol:

Bob Feels that;

1 - The System is NOT perfect

2 - The System ENCOURAGES cheating

3 - The System SHOULD be changed

To start I will try to address these points as separate individual statements.

1 - The System is not perfect.

I agree, anyone disagree? Thought not, so lets move on.

2 - The system encourages cheating.

3 - The System should be changed.

Kris, I think that is a very fair and well spoken reply, and I see your perspective, but just wanted to hit on a few points on the quoted portion.

1 - The System is NOT perfect

You say nobody disagrees, but I think some people actually do disagree. Some say the point is to "destroy ships", so partial scoring is counter to the game's goal. Bob hit on this, that the point actually is to destroy a squad in an untimed game. You can look at this two different ways - either just accept that the system as-is creates what is basically two different variants of the game with different strategies, or attempt to mold the ruleset so the play goals are as consistent as possible in either format. Or stated differently, is it right that the scoring system creates something very different than the "gold standard" of play that determines championships, or should it try to create as closely as possible a similar experience within the restriction of time?

I also see people who refuse to acknowledge the problem because they disagree with his solution. There were many multi-page threads a year or so ago with plenty who disagreed that there was an issue.

2 - The System ENCOURAGES cheating

I think this is only one of the facets. There is also:

2a. The system creates the "two variants" problem mentioned above

2b. The system distorts the meta toward certain ships that "score well" rather than builds that just "better" (note that this is a nudge in this direction, not a full on meta-shaper)

2c. The system's inaccuracy is potentially even more problematic in the most important games - elimination rounds where a 1 point delta is a win.

2d. The system is more likely to create negative experiences than a better system would - "Really? That 1hp 48pt Miranda is the victor over a fully healthy Soontir Fel and Academy Pilot?" It feels wrong and creates a negative experience. Not to mention that the "run away" tactics that are (rightfully) employed under the current system are often a negative annoyance to many.

Bob didn't expand on these issues (in part probably because this ground has been covered and argued ad nauseum in other venues), but "cheating" isn't the only factor.

I will open by saying that I was vocally not a member or the FFG forums until recently ( I think I joined in September when I confirmed for worlds) and so any previous discussions of Bob's idea was unknown to me, I remember us talking about a change being needed to sake up the fat turret meta but quite flippantly didn't really care what was done but was expecting half points, I think. (I would have to go back and listen to the shows)

So now that I know that people are arguing that the current system IS perfect, I would stress that I disagree. As evidence I would raise that there is opposition to that argument which by its very definition precludes the system from perfection, it can be good enough to for you, but never perfect without consensus.

With that out of the way I will attempt to elaborate on why I am still not convinced by the proposed solution with your extra premises.

2a - games states variants

I believe I touched on this with my Tennis comparison and am glad to explore it a little deeper.

I compleatly agree that a 60 minute game is a differ game to a 75 minute game, to an untimed game.

On this I think we are in agreement.

If this is an argument to change the game that I would expect the change to remedy this, which in my mind, the fix Bob proposed does not.

I will use an example.

Time has been called so we finish the current round.

Player A has Zeb in the attack shuttle with a TLT with two Hull remaining but no shields.

Player B has 2 Academy TIE Fighters, TIE 1 is undamaged TIE 2 has 1 hull remaining (and to exaggerate my point a little more) has been reduced to 1 agility due to crits.

Board state is that the TIEs do not have shots this round, Zeb has a range 1 shot on the undamaged TIE or the TLT shot on the 1 Agility TIE with 1 Hull remaining. If there were another turn both TIEs should be able to get Zeb back in arch.

What is the correct play?

In the timed game the ONLY way to win this scenario with the change is to swing the game by more than 4 points so you have to take the range 1 shot at the undamaged TIE and hope to do 2 or more damage.

I would argue that in an untimed game the correct play would be to finish off the easy kill to remove its fire which a TLT against an agility 1 ship should easily do.

So the variance in game states would still exist it just moves the goal posts as Bob would say.

2b - nudging the meta towards ships

I again agree with this point the meta is heavily influenced by the scoring system as playing that "meta" game is how you win events.

Unfortunately I don't see any improvement by implementing the proposed change, if anything Regen becomes even more powerful whilst Imperial aces become more of a liability due to their inherent cost/hit point ratio.

I could honestly see a very stagnant R2-D2 based Meta evolving.

2c - faults more impactful when in elimination rounds

Because of the use of POTENTIALY in your argument here I don't really have a counter point that is unbiased, I would say that personally I am drawn to a more punishing system the closer to the final you get and so for me this is not really an issue even if it IS the case but I am happy to concede the point as long as you understand my reasoning and that potentialy it could be no better after the proposed change.

2d - Negative Experiances

I would like to split this in to two points and again I will tackle the second first.

2d-i Game State

2d-ii Run Away

Run Away;

What you say is a "negative annoyance to many" I could call a challenging puzzle to others.

We see the same argument for TLT's we saw it before for Phantoms.

Without being condescending if a player is not good enough to see that if they do it too Hard on to a ship and do not kill it, than they could lose the game right there than maybe they should play better.

I will use an anicdotal example of my own play from worlds, in my final game where if I win I make the top 32 I was paired against Corran and 2 Gray Squadron TLT's I lost the Shuttle in exchange for the first TLT and then saw the opportunity to go for Corran with both Jax and Vader whilst hugging range 1 of the Y-Wing, that round I stripped his shields then for the next 3 rounds I traded unanswered range 1 shots from Jax on to him but could not get past that 1 regenerating shield. I could not get Vader in arch as well and so I fluffed my chance as I had gone too hard and so lost the game. Was running the right move for Corran, but it was my fault I lost not a negative play from my opponent.

2d-i Game State

I agree that a better system may aliviate some of the "bad taste" moments, for the reasons I covered in 2a I just don't feel that the one Bob put on the table is it.

Cheers for the articulate argument.

I should stress that it is not my goal to convince you that you or Bob are wrong, I am just explaining why I disagree.

Kris

2 - The system encourages cheating.

If what Bob actually means is that it CAN encourage Defensive Play at SOME points than I will happily concede that point as it is 100% valid, but that is fine because that is within the rules.

It seems to me that a lot of people reacted very strongly to the use of the term "cheating". I do believe that MJ meant that the current system encourages deliberately slow play for the express purpose of eating clock, which would constitute a breach of the rules:

"Players are expected to behave in a mature and considerate manner, and to play within the rules and not abuse them. This prohibits intentionally stalling a game for time..."

2 - The system encourages cheating.

If what Bob actually means is that it CAN encourage Defensive Play at SOME points than I will happily concede that point as it is 100% valid, but that is fine because that is within the rules.

It seems to me that a lot of people reacted very strongly to the use of the term "cheating". I do believe that MJ meant that the current system encourages deliberately slow play for the express purpose of eating clock, which would constitute a breach of the rules:

"Players are expected to behave in a mature and considerate manner, and to play within the rules and not abuse them. This prohibits intentionally stalling a game for time..."

I would argue that any game system which determines a winner after a fixed period of time incentivises (is that a word?) the player/team currently winning to slow the tempo of the game and limit the number of chances the current 'loser' has to change their fortunes.

In various ball games, teams continually perform 'safe' passes to run down the clock.

In X-Wing, it can be achieved by defensive play, but it can also be achieved by cheating slow play.

You aren't going to get away from it unless you move to x number of turns format. But that creates a different set of problems.

2 - The system encourages cheating.

If what Bob actually means is that it CAN encourage Defensive Play at SOME points than I will happily concede that point as it is 100% valid, but that is fine because that is within the rules.

It seems to me that a lot of people reacted very strongly to the use of the term "cheating". I do believe that MJ meant that the current system encourages deliberately slow play for the express purpose of eating clock, which would constitute a breach of the rules:

"Players are expected to behave in a mature and considerate manner, and to play within the rules and not abuse them. This prohibits intentionally stalling a game for time..."

I would argue that any game system which determines a winner after a fixed period of time incentivises (is that a word?) the player/team currently winning to slow the tempo of the game and limit the number of chances the current 'loser' has to change their fortunes.

In various ball games, teams continually perform 'safe' passes to run down the clock.

In X-Wing, it can be achieved by defensive play, but it can also be achieved by cheating slow play.

You aren't going to get away from it unless you move to x number of turns format. But that creates a different set of problems.

Right, if you're going to put a time limit on the game, the game will have to have a way of determining who wins at the end of that time limit. The fact that it might not be a close approximation of an untimed game is immaterial, because an untimed game is not an option in a live tournament format. This is where I think Kris' tennis analogy is strong (although I rather like tennis, there's no other sport where you are more certain that the victor deserved to win than in tennis). Timed games are just a different game than untimed games. If anything, the final game of a tournament should also be timed to keep the win conditions the same as all the other games, instead of trying to approximate untimed games in a timed format.

Ed, if I might make a suggestion:

If I understand Kris correctly, some of the "heated-ness" of the scoring discussion is because this was a topic that folks hadn't prepared for. I enjoyed the discussion, and I would request that you float it by the cast that they consider adding it as a future segment topic, so that everyone can come ready to discuss their viewpoint. If they decline, they decline, but I think this thread has demonstrated that there is some more ground to cover here and that it would benefit everyone to have a chance to gather their thoughts on the topic.

Random aside: I like Kris' term of "defensive play". I'm going to start using that one myself.

Ed, if I might make a suggestion:

If I understand Kris correctly, some of the "heated-ness" of the scoring discussion is because this was a topic that folks hadn't prepared for. I enjoyed the discussion, and I would request that you float it by the cast that they consider adding it as a future segment topic, so that everyone can come ready to discuss their viewpoint. If they decline, they decline, but I think this thread has demonstrated that there is some more ground to cover here and that it would benefit everyone to have a chance to gather their thoughts on the topic.

Random aside: I like Kris' term of "defensive play". I'm going to start using that one myself.

I agree. I think that this would be a great topic to prep for.

BTW, thanks for being a defender of us engineers MJ (see what I did there).

Oh, and here is the youtube version of the Death Star architect rant: