por que no los dos?

Slow-playing is rough, because it really, really needs not to happen, and yet it requires -- by its very nature -- either confrontation between players or the most intrusive and time-intensive possible action from a TO.

It's a really tough nut to crack.

Here in the Bay Area, arguably our most brilliant player is a slow player. He takes ages to set his dials, and ages from decisions. Many of us have gone to judges to ask them to watch. Sounds bad, right?

But he's the nicest, friendliest guy. He plays slow, but he's not stalling. He just wants to make the best possible move, and if given time, he always does. (That's not true for me, for instance, or for most players, IMO. There's a point of diminishing returns for me when I'm setting my dials, and even a point where my decisions get worse if I over-think them.)

Still, it's not really fair that he gets to take all this extra time, so we do mention it to him, and we do ask judges to watch. And he does his best.

But we still feel bad for going to the TO over this. Complex processing leading to optimal outcomes is one of his talents, like reading people is one of mine, but mine doesn't take time, and his does. And he's not genuinely slow-playing, he's just playing slow.

Arguably, we shouldn't feel bad about telling him, or about seeking a TO. (He, himself, would say that.) But we do, because we're empathetic human beings who are playing a game.

That's my ramble.

TL;DR? The "solution" to slow-playing isn't an easy one.

On the original subject, I have no problem with running to preserve a lead. It's easy to justify thematically: "The Alliance says we have to hold this sector until 0815 local. We die to hold it until then ... but we don't die once the chrono says 0815. Good hunting."

You know, if you want to compare X-Wing to a sport then Boxing may be the one to use. The goal is simply to knockout your opponent and end the game but there is almost always a time limit as well made up of a number of rounds of a set length of time. If there is no KO then there is scoring that is used at the end of time to determine who is the winner. Now I'll admit I don't know anything about how boxing is scored but it seems to me that if someone is up enough on points they may fight more conservatively to avoid a KO that could end them.

Viable strategy. Asking to 'fix' it is mental.

In every game, there's always someone trying to get a rule fix on the thing that stopped him from wining the last match.

Your opponent was running away? He wouldn't be if you were ahead in points!

You couldn't catch his ships? Use faster ships or corner him!

If you were in a tournament, ahead in points and you look at the table and see that if you run away all the time you win the game, wouldn't you fly away? If you wouldn't, that's why you don't win tournaments.

I'll resume all this to "Fly Better!"

I'm reminded of that thread where a Y-Wing player complained about losing to an A-Wing player who refused to engage his turrets in the pre-Autothrusters era.

I'm 100% on board with players trying to run out the clock, as long as they're not slow-playing the dials. It's up to me to find a way to intercept them. If I can't, then I look back at how I played the game and try to figure out where I could have avoided putting myself in a situation for that to happen.

This. Not much sympathy here for stressbots, Thug Life, Zuckuss party busses or a stress mountain Dengar not being able to catch my ships. It should be taken into consideration when you choose ships and combinations which severely limit your movement.

Every watch a pro sport game at any level and see the winning team run down the clock?

Point out the baseball game or golf game where this has happened, and then we can talk apples to apples about how this applies to X-wing.

Your first mistake was including golf as a sport. Does it require a level of skill to master? Yes... doesn't make it a sport. I play golf from time to time. Doesn't make me a sportsman.

I'm going to indicate my bias on this which may cause you to invalidate my opinion:

2. Most of my background in gaming prior to X-wing was with a CCG where a big part of the culture was to concede when you knew you'd lost. For my opponent to utter the quote above and not concede was upsetting

You only lose when the game is over. If you concede before that more fool you. Conceding is for people who don't want to try to win. I am hardly an ultra competitive person, but I will try my best to win, especially if I am losing. There is a difference between losing and lost.

I hate when people concede, it's an indication of not trying. Sometimes the writing is on the board, sometimes you can claw back a win, which in my opinion are the best ones.

I like the boxing anology. Now we just need three judges for each match. And lots of prize money. And our own rocky like movies.

I like the boxing anology. Now we just need three judges for each match. And lots of prize money. And our own rocky like movies.

Yes, we need Rocky style movies about X-Wing players.

Sometimes you just have to accept the limitations of your game format.

The limitation of the game format, is that you need a clock so tournaments run on schedule. I think everyone is OK with that.

However there is NOT a limiting factor on how you decide a winner for a game that goes to time. Some ideas are certainly better than others, and there are definitely solutions that could be worse than what exists now, but there is still significant room for improvement.

The rules as currently written have created an environment which encourages players to cheat, and then hope that they don't get a TO called over for it.

You are dealing with humans. You really can't write an all inclusive ruleset to govern human behavior.

I agree.

Is there a conclusion based on this?

There is, it's in a book called A Brave New World. But I don't think anyone's really gonna go for that.

Everyone will think they are Alphas, not knowing they are really Epsilons. I love that book.

This is definitely not a problem, and should not be addressed. I rather see it as a viable strategy of the game, one which should be employed as necessary.

If you don't like it, find a way to plan and execute your ships better to stop them from running.

If you can't do so, then your adversary has correctly chosen the proper strategy to win.

It depends on how you look at the game.

If you consider that the intent of the game is to be played until one side completely destroys another and is declared a winner, then this obviously needs to be addressed.

I mean, time limits are mostly there to keep the tournaments running at a good pace.

In the age of ships that are VERY difficult to kill regularly in 75 minutes, and near impossible to kill 1v1 end game, we should definitely be more conscious of this issue.

ESPECIALLY because we can NOW earn FULL WINS for games with a 1 pt lead.

The first step I believe is making small base ships also be worth half pts at half hull. At the moment, there are several small base ships that are way more difficult to kill in 75 minutes than any single large base ship, and they still hoard a large # of pts. (30-40).

This is definitely not a problem, and should not be addressed. I rather see it as a viable strategy of the game, one which should be employed as necessary.

If you don't like it, find a way to plan and execute your ships better to stop them from running.

If you can't do so, then your adversary has correctly chosen the proper strategy to win.

It depends on how you look at the game.

If you consider that the intent of the game is to be played until one side completely destroys another and is declared a winner, then this obviously needs to be addressed.

I mean, time limits are mostly there to keep the tournaments running at a good pace.

In the age of ships that are VERY difficult to kill regularly in 75 minutes, and near impossible to kill 1v1 end game, we should definitely be more conscious of this issue.

ESPECIALLY because we can NOW earn FULL WINS for games with a 1 pt lead.

The first step I believe is making small base ships also be worth half pts at half hull. At the moment, there are several small base ships that are way more difficult to kill in 75 minutes than any single large base ship, and they still hoard a large # of pts. (30-40).

I think this would be a good step. I actually think we're seeing several small ships that are over 40 points that can regen and hold their own (Miranda, Poe, Corran) though those will still be tough to get half points for unless you get half points once they taken hull or something.

I don't think this tactic needs to be fixed.

...

If you consider that the intent of the game is to be played until one side completely destroys another and is declared a winner, then this obviously needs to be addressed.

I mean, time limits are mostly there to keep the tournaments running at a good pace.

In the age of ships that are VERY difficult to kill regularly in 75 minutes, and near impossible to kill 1v1 end game, we should definitely be more conscious of this issue.

ESPECIALLY because we can NOW earn FULL WINS for games with a 1 pt lead.

The first step I believe is making small base ships also be worth half pts at half hull. At the moment, there are several small base ships that are way more difficult to kill in 75 minutes than any single large base ship, and they still hoard a large # of pts. (30-40).

The intent is to kill as much of the enemy force as possible in the time allowed. If you have unlimited time then you should be expected to kill an entire force but time limits of some kind are needed for the real world.

You can't earn a "full win" with a 1 points lead. You only get a WIN instead of a Lose because the powers that be have decided that the outcome of all games must be black and white. I mean you can still earn a win even if neither side has any kind of lead so getting it by avoidance when you have a lead should be seen as common sense.

I'll certainly agree that if large ships are going to award half of their full point value for losing half starting shield+hull then that should apply to small ships as well.

I think you guys are mis-understanding the point I am trying to make.

No one cares if this tactic is used.

We are all here to win tournaments, and we will all do what we can to make it happen. Every match is a puzzle with a solution. When you're in a match, you're doing your ****-dest to solve that puzzle.

However, there now exist multiple small-base ships that are nigh-unkillable in some game situations, and it just so happens that these ships are worth a good deal of points. People don't even have to run away with these ships to win on points. They can still exchange fire for every round, and know that they have no chance of losing until they are at 1-2 hull and in range 1 with TL+F of the last remaining enemy ship, which then becomes a game of avoiding that situation.

It also so happens that the small base versions of these ships do not reflect the amount of effort you put into destroying them. They are also worth more points than every single large base ship at half hull or less, even when they themselves are at 1 hull. This in itself creates a skew in game-play and list building.

A 1 hull Juke x7 Vessery = 35 pts.

A 7 hull Fat Han = 30 pts.

This just seems absurd to me. The amount of effort put into to kill an x7 Defender is substantial, and players should be rewarded for it.

The same is said for playing against regen ships. Sometimes even getting a Corran Horn down to 1 Hull is VERY difficult, and it sucks that nothing in the final score of a timed game reflects this.

Of course, we'll just end up in another rabbit-hole of "said ship is greater points than other ship".

Oooooh, I had an idea:

Okay, so you guys know how Modified Wins ended up being pretty sh*tty for tournament scoring, where Mod Win basically = a Loss?

I am proposing that if the point difference between players is not greater than 12 points, do a Final Salvo to determine the winner.

Mod Wins sucked, but they made sense at first.

Now, players winning by 1-11 points wouldn't be guaranteed a win.

In my opinion, this would, in fact, reflect the "uncertain" state of the game much better than any point system we could come up with. It accounts for possible "upsets" that could happen in an unlimited timed game (Major Explosion into Major Explosion into Direct hit or something), but still let players that can only win by running out the clock have a "chance" to win.

Oooooooooh and:

The player with more points at time gets to roll additional dice in some fashion.

I think this would be a good step. I actually think we're seeing several small ships that are over 40 points that can regen and hold their own (Miranda, Poe, Corran) though those will still be tough to get half points for unless you get half points once they taken hull or something.

Replace the initial shields with other shield tokens (like red ones, or a sharpie X on one side). They can then lose their initial shields, and be worth half points, but still regen with the other shield tokens for the purpose of survival.

I think this would be a good step. I actually think we're seeing several small ships that are over 40 points that can regen and hold their own (Miranda, Poe, Corran) though those will still be tough to get half points for unless you get half points once they taken hull or something.

Replace the initial shields with other shield tokens (like red ones, or a sharpie X on one side). They can then lose their initial shields, and be worth half points, but still regen with the other shield tokens for the purpose of survival.

The problem with this type of fix is that it defeats some of the point of the regen. As a Corran player, I play such that I have no issue losing my shields because I have invested points in being able to gain them back. That is I put Corran in a position for a good shot where he takes some return fire, rather than in a position for a bad shot, but where he doesn't take return fire. Regeneration is just a different way around damage. You don't give up points for dodging arcs and not being shot, or evading shots.

Corran shouldn't give up points for using his regeneration ability, Soontir doesn't give up points every time he dodges a shot with his token stack, autothrusters and Palpatine

Of course, we'll just end up in another rabbit-hole of "said ship is greater points than other ship".

Oooooh, I had an idea:

Okay, so you guys know how Modified Wins ended up being pretty sh*tty for tournament scoring, where Mod Win basically = a Loss?

I am proposing that if the point difference between players is not greater than 12 points, do a Final Salvo to determine the winner.

Mod Wins sucked, but they made sense at first.

Now, players winning by 1-11 points wouldn't be guaranteed a win.

In my opinion, this would, in fact, reflect the "uncertain" state of the game much better than any point system we could come up with. It accounts for possible "upsets" that could happen in an unlimited timed game (Major Explosion into Major Explosion into Direct hit or something), but still let players that can only win by running out the clock have a "chance" to win.

Oooooooooh and:

The player with more points at time gets to roll additional dice in some fashion.

Here are some mental thought exercises to illustrate a point. Let's pretend the scoring system doesn't exist yet. You're Frank Brooks and you're not done writing them.

Scenario 1:

A game goes to time. Nobody slow played, stuff just didn't quite die. Both players have 36 points of dead TIE Fighters. One player has a 64 point Fat Decimator with 8 hull remaining. The other player has a 63 point Fat Decimator with 1 hull remaining.

Which player should be given the win, and why? (Remember, in our hypothetical example the scoring system doesn't exist yet, so the real rules can't be used as justification one way or the other.)

Scenario 2:

Both players have a 100 point squad. Game goes to time as above. One player has a 1 hull 51 point Miranda remaining. The other player has a 4 hull 50 point Miranda remaining. Who should win and why?

Now think about any proposed change to scoring. How would it score the above cases? If it is different than your ideal declared winner, why is this?

How would you determine if a player was running away or trying to get better positioning?

Strategic Retreat...

How would you determine if a player was running away or trying to get better positioning?

Strategic Retreat...

Strategic Retrograde Advance.

I think this would be a good step. I actually think we're seeing several small ships that are over 40 points that can regen and hold their own (Miranda, Poe, Corran) though those will still be tough to get half points for unless you get half points once they taken hull or something.

Replace the initial shields with other shield tokens (like red ones, or a sharpie X on one side). They can then lose their initial shields, and be worth half points, but still regen with the other shield tokens for the purpose of survival.

The problem with this type of fix is that it defeats some of the point of the regen. As a Corran player, I play such that I have no issue losing my shields because I have invested points in being able to gain them back. That is I put Corran in a position for a good shot where he takes some return fire, rather than in a position for a bad shot, but where he doesn't take return fire. Regeneration is just a different way around damage. You don't give up points for dodging arcs and not being shot, or evading shots.

Corran shouldn't give up points for using his regeneration ability, Soontir doesn't give up points every time he dodges a shot with his token stack, autothrusters and Palpatine

I don't think these are comparable, sorry, especially since Corran has access to the very similar defense options as well as other synergies himself. I think there's a significant difference with paying for something at a basic level to prevent the damage in the first place and another that takes points back off the board.

Put another way paying 4 points for R2D2 would give you two abilities in a tournament setting: Regain a shield and regain 10 points -- for doing a green maneuver. I think R2D2 should be about paying 4 points to keep your ship alive longer, which I have no problem with, not for trying to gain points in tournament scoring.

Of course, none of it matters unless there is some kind of partial points (half or whatever) implemented.

Personally, I just like to see a set amount of charges implemented in regen, which I think fixes both issues in this thread to some extent, but I doubt that will happen.

@MajorJuggler - You are definitely on to something. The only counter argument I would say is that this is where list building comes into play. Purposefully loading up a ship with more points than a common meta threat is another strategy I have used to help win games. For example, I have won with Guri vs Soontir at time because my Guri was worth more points. The downside is that if she went down, she is worth more points for a single kill. The same is true for your Decimators and Mirandas. The fact that the opponent's Decimator or Miranda was worth more points changes your tactics throughout the game. There are dozens of similar examples out there with other ships too.

I wouldn't be sad if there was a 'more fair' way to realize the 'winner', but most of the options just seem even more cumbersome. Revamping it from scratch might be the way to go, but if it is 'fixed' strategy may be less of a factor, which might dull the game a little.

@MajorJuggler - You are definitely on to something. The only counter argument I would say is that this is where list building comes into play. Purposefully loading up a ship with more points than a common meta threat is another strategy I have used to help win games.

This is a product of the scoring method, though, too. The scoring method (regardless of what it is) will always be a part of the metagame. The goal, I think, is to try and get it as close as possible to the actual objective of the game.