44 minutes ago, Turbo Toker said:

3. I don't have an axe to grind with regen, I have an axe to grind with all point fortressing, regen or not. I would have an axe to grind solely with regen if you instituted this beautiful partial points scoring system that would fix all point fortresses except for regenerating point fortresses. Which tend to be the best point fortresses already.

The above scoring system fixes all fortresses including regen, if the objective is to "most accurately determine who would have won if the game continued untimed", or equivalently, "who had the better tactical upper hand when the clock ran out".

44 minutes ago, Turbo Toker said:

3.5 I disagree with that idea, for the simple fact that you're not playing an untimed game. The win conditions are different. The timer is something that's part of the game that one can use towards your advantage (and I'm not talking about slow playing).

Under my system, a Miranda that has taken 10 damage and is still alive has failed to meet the win condition of killing off all enemy ships within the time limit. Since players have failed to do that, it goes to points destroyed. The enemy player wins because he's destroyed more points. And this isn't unfair because the Regen player like had more than enough health and time to chase down the other ship and kill it.

Semantically, you haven't destroyed anything of your opponent's if it is still on the board. But you have inflicted damage, even if it has been regenerated back. So, it sounds like your stated goal for a scoring system, if a game does not complete at time, would be: "to determine who has inflicted the most damage when the clock runs out", with the special caveat that regeneration does not reduce damage suffered for scoring purposes, and so damage inflicted can technically be infinite.

I disagree with your opinion of what the scoring goals should be. Consider this example:

Player 1 has a TIE Swarm.

Player 2 has Miranda + Corran Horn.

The TIE Swarm does a bunch of damage to both ships, but they regenerate it all back. Say they do 6 damage to Corran Horn and 12 damage to Miranda. At the end of the game it is one single TIE Fighter vs both Miranda and Corran Horn, who are at full health. Under your system, the TIE Swarm player wins. Do you not see the problem with that? This is the example of point #3 below.

2 hours ago, MajorJuggler said:

Other issues:

1. You have to track each damage to each regen ship somehow.
2. You could get wins with well in excess of 200 MoV, and losses with less than 0 MoV (i.e. negative) under your system.
3. Your opponent could have a 100% full health squad, and you could have 1/3 of your ships remaining, and you could be given a win.

#1 is annoying but not the end of the world if it really is the best implementation. But #2 and #3 indicate that the cure is worse than the poison.

I believe your argument above is that the Rebel player should have had plenty of time to kill the TIE swarm so he deserves to lose. You have created a scenario where the TIE Swarm can get to the point where he just has to slow play to win.

58 minutes ago, Turbo Toker said:

2. Shrug. Either keep it that way or change it such that you would still get MoV for points destroyed .

3. I don't have an axe to grind with regen, I have an axe to grind with all point fortressing, regen or not. I would have an axe to grind solely with regen if you instituted this beautiful partial points scoring system that would fix all point fortresses except for regenerating point fortresses. Which tend to be the best point fortresses already.

3.5 I disagree with that idea, for the simple fact that you're not playing an untimed game. The win conditions are different. The timer is something that's part of the game that one can use towards your advantage (and I'm not talking about slow playing).

Under my system, a Miranda that has taken 10 damage and is still alive has failed to meet the win condition of killing off all enemy ships within the time limit. Since players have failed to do that, it goes to points destroyed. The enemy player wins because he's destroyed more points. And this isn't unfair because the Regen player like had more than enough health and time to chase down the other ship and kill it.

If Miranda regenned 10 damage and got back to full health her opponent ALSO failed to meet the win condition of killing off any enemy ships. The enmy didn't "destroy" anything wrt miranda. She's at full health. Taking out a few shields on a ship that can get them back is meaningless. If you can't even get into her hull, you don't deserve to get points for her.

47 minutes ago, Turbo Toker said:

3. I don't have an axe to grind with regen, I have an axe to grind with all point fortressing, regen or not. I would have an axe to grind solely with regen if you instituted this beautiful partial points scoring system that would fix all point fortresses except for regenerating point fortresses. Which tend to be the best point fortresses already.

Actually, the term "fortressing" in X-wing is used to describe a strategy when a player deliberately bumps his ships to keep them in their initial position indefinitely and force the opponent to engage on unfavorable terms.

What you mean is any strategy aimed at keeping ships alive, possibly at the expense of offense, achieved through stacking defensive modifications, regeneration or the combination of both. You clearly believe that for some reason players should be punished for such a strategy and their opponent should be awarded extra points regardless of whether or not they came anywhere near actually killing them. That is a rather peculiar point of view. No player has any "obligation" to destroy the enemy completely. It's perfectly fine to play defensively if you're ahead. You're trying to force a situation where such an approach would no longer be viable and you still failed to explain why, except for some nebulous conviction that the game would somehow be better that way.

On top of that, as some have noticed, such an approach would have effectively no influence on imperials and very little on scum but it would make numerous rebel archetypes extinct. From the very beginning imperial ships were designed to be nimble, difficult to catch in arc and hard to hit but at the expense of durability. Rebels on the other hand were far easier to hit but more durable and at least to some extent capable of regeneration. Both kinds of approach were supposed to be balanced (whether they truly were is a matter of debate) and there's absolutely nothing random or undesirable about having them both in X-wing. Your quest to make regeneration a no-go therefore makes no sense. The rebel player did pay for his ability to regenerate. His cards and pilot abilities were priced around the concept that if the opponent fails to hit him hard enough and fast enough, he may be able to get his shields back. Poe's stats make absolutely no sense otherwise - he's not worth his 40ish points with his stats unless his ship goes from 6HP to effectively 10+HP.

Your argument might make sense somewhat if you could prove that regeneration is wildly imbalanced, bad for the game, cannot be fixed and should effectively get pushed out of the meta (which would almost certainly be the result of implementing your suggestions). You failed to prove a single one of those things, let alone all of them.

8 minutes ago, Lightrock said:

Actually, the term "fortressing" in X-wing is used to describe a strategy when a player deliberately bumps his ships to keep them in their initial position indefinitely and force the opponent to engage on unfavorable terms.

What you mean is any strategy aimed at keeping ships alive, possibly at the expense of offense, achieved through stacking defensive modifications, regeneration or the combination of both. You clearly believe that for some reason players should be punished for such a strategy and their opponent should be awarded extra points regardless of whether or not they came anywhere near actually killing them. That is a rather peculiar point of view. No player has any "obligation" to destroy the enemy completely. It's perfectly fine to play defensively if you're ahead. You're trying to force a situation where such an approach would no longer be viable and you still failed to explain why, except for some nebulous conviction that the game would somehow be better that way.

On top of that, as some have noticed, such an approach would have effectively no influence on imperials and very little on scum but it would make numerous rebel archetypes extinct. From the very beginning imperial ships were designed to be nimble, difficult to catch in arc and hard to hit but at the expense of durability. Rebels on the other hand were far easier to hit but more durable and at least to some extent capable of regeneration. Both kinds of approach were supposed to be balanced (whether they truly were is a matter of debate) and there's absolutely nothing random or undesirable about having them both in X-wing. Your quest to make regeneration a no-go therefore makes no sense. The rebel player did pay for his ability to regenerate. His cards and pilot abilities were priced around the concept that if the opponent fails to hit him hard enough and fast enough, he may be able to get his shields back. Poe's stats make absolutely no sense otherwise - he's not worth his 40ish points with his stats unless his ship goes from 6HP to effectively 10+HP.

Your argument might make sense somewhat if you could prove that regeneration is wildly imbalanced, bad for the game, cannot be fixed and should effectively get pushed out of the meta (which would almost certainly be the result of implementing your suggestions). You failed to prove a single one of those things, let alone all of them.

"Point fortressing" is a term from the fat Han days when you had 60+ points stored up in a single large base, boosting, tanky, and probably regenning ship. They'd kill a few enemy ships then win on points at time (especially back in the day when a lot of tournaments did 60 minute rounds so it was quite common to go to time).

It's a separate (and distinct) term from "fortressing" in a corner or whatever.

2 hours ago, SabineKey said:

I don't see the distinction.

The distinction is that there was -- and still is -- another, better, way to do it. Therefore, that change was "not necessary."

6 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

The distinction is that there was -- and still is -- another, better, way to do it. Therefore, that change was "not necessary."

But that better way has not been implemented, making the other obsolete. Again, being the lessor option doesn't mean that it is not necessary if that's the one that was picked.

It's 2017 already. Half portion for all!

1 hour ago, VanderLegion said:

"Point fortressing" is a term from the fat Han days when you had 60+ points stored up in a single large base, boosting, tanky, and probably regenning ship. They'd kill a few enemy ships then win on points at time (especially back in the day when a lot of tournaments did 60 minute rounds so it was quite common to go to time).

It's a separate (and distinct) term from "fortressing" in a corner or whatever.

We briefly called it castling. I wish that stuck, it's what I think of for the latter move.

15 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:

I'd say 34 points personally. If it's more than a third of your list, it gives up half points if you get it to half health.

Regen ships are the trick there though.

If you're drawing a like I'd say 30 to keep it clean or 33 points but I guess we're all just throwing out numbers here. I do think it should stay above 24 points as I really want to avoid cutting points to less that what a dead AP or Bandit could provide.

For the most part I've skipped most of this thread. I do think the penalty of half the total points of a large ship for just taking half of its starting hull value+shields is wrong considering the more modern "point fortresses" that you can see; either the half-point penalty should not discriminate based on size or it should be done away with entirely.

If half points stay just basing it on some hull+shield as a cut-off has loads of problems to me. We all should know that 8 hull+shield sitting behind 3 agility generally will live longer than 10 hull+shield sitting behind no agility or even 1 agility. Regeneration has always been an issue but if you are going to do something about that they you also must account for every other ability that stops likely damage needs to have something done with it as well. Getting free Evade tokens may not be exactly the same as getting to restore a shield token but it's sure similar enough that if you're penalizing regeneration then you should also penalize anything that helps avoid taking that damage in the first place.

14 hours ago, Turbo Toker said:

No half health scoring for large ships anymore, replaced with partial scoring for every ship. Some of the best point fortresses in the game right now are small base ships that have high agility and token stacks, or low agility and regen. They're also no longer necessarily expensive either, Asajj in Parattanni is only 40 points.

Then you take this one step further by keeping track of how much damage is done to ships that regenerate in order to prevent regen from dominating after the scoring change.

Let's say a ship has 5 health, can regenerate health, and is worth 25 points.

Each of its health is worth 5 points towards points destroyed.

At the end of the match, it's still alive but it has taken 6 damage over the course of the game.

Your opponent gets 30 points for doing 6 damage to a 5 health ship.

The max MoV one could get out of a game would be 200 in order to limit abuse of this.

So instead of regen ships being obnoxious point fortresses that get up on points and then just run until time is called, you can beat the points out of them like candy so that way they're forced to engage.

Point fortresses into point piñatas.

Though now my goal isn't to kill the ship, it's to take off all its shields, allow them to regen, then take them off again.

Kind of a weird unintended consequence, there.

53 minutes ago, Hawkstrike said:

Though now my goal isn't to kill the ship, it's to take off all its shields, allow them to regen, then take them off again.

Kind of a weird unintended consequence, there.

That's true. Why kill a ship if you can deal more damage by just repeatedly stripping it's shields.

2 hours ago, SabineKey said:

Again, being the lessor option doesn't mean that it is not necessary if that's the one that was picked.

At this point, I have literally no idea what you're talking about.

33 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

At this point, I have literally no idea what you're talking about.

*sigh* proper word usuage.

2 hours ago, Hawkstrike said:

Though now my goal isn't to kill the ship, it's to take off all its shields, allow them to regen, then take them off again.

Kind of a weird unintended consequence, there.

Fair point. Maybe once you deal 9 damage to Miranda you score all of her points, and 10 damage wouldn't net you bonus.

That would also make scoring less messy.

You should still be able to beat the points out of them like candy, like any other ship in the game under a partial point scoring system.

1 minute ago, Turbo Toker said:

Fair point. Maybe once you deal 9 damage to Miranda you score all of her points, and 10 damage wouldn't net you bonus.

That would also make scoring less messy.

You should still be able to beat the points out of them like candy, like any other ship in the game under a partial point scoring system.

How is scoring full points for a ship that's at full health when the game ends "less messy"?

right now it's not an"partial points" system. It's none, half or all. Ffg will never implement full partial points because it's way too much math required.

13 minutes ago, VanderLegion said:

How is scoring full points for a ship that's at full health when the game ends "less messy"?

right now it's not an"partial points" system. It's none, half or all. Ffg will never implement full partial points because it's way too much math required.

It's less messy than my points piñata suggestion where you'd kill a regen ship twice over and score double the points from it and then have to cap the max MoV you could get for a round at 200.

No, it's not too complex. You must have a dim view of the X-Wing community. We're not idiots.

You figure out how much each health is worth on a ship. You write this down on your squad sheet or whatever. It's already been figured out, so all you have to do is simply add these numbers up in case of partial damage, then you round down.

Each point of damage on a 9 health, 48 point Miranda is worth 5 1/3rds points. Let's say she took 7 damage over the course of a game. So that's 37 1/3rds points, which is rounded down to 37 points.

Oh I'm sorry, the X-Wing community can't do simple division or addition on a calculator.

25 minutes ago, Turbo Toker said:

It's less messy than my points piñata suggestion where you'd kill a regen ship twice over and score double the points from it and then have to cap the max MoV you could get for a round at 200.

No, it's not too complex. You must have a dim view of the X-Wing community. We're not idiots.

You figure out how much each health is worth on a ship. You write this down on your squad sheet or whatever. It's already been figured out, so all you have to do is simply add these numbers up in case of partial damage, then you round down.

Each point of damage on a 9 health, 48 point Miranda is worth 5 1/3rds points. Let's say she took 7 damage over the course of a game. So that's 37 1/3rds points, which is rounded down to 37 points.

Oh I'm sorry, the X-Wing community can't do simple division or addition on a calculator.

And then you have a 47 point 9 health ship instead that's worth 5.2222222 points per heath. Or a 61 point ship with 13 health that's worth 4.692307692307692 per health.

I never said it's too complex. I said it's too much math. Its not that I think the X-Wing community is stupid or can't do the math. It's that there's too much you have to do and it requires a lot more time between rounds to calculate out all the points

18 minutes ago, VanderLegion said:

And then you have a 47 point 9 health ship instead that's worth 5.2222222 points per heath. Or a 61 point ship with 13 health that's worth 4.692307692307692 per health.

I never said it's too complex. I said it's too much math. Its not that I think the X-Wing community is stupid or can't do the math. It's that there's too much you have to do and it requires a lot more time between rounds to calculate out all the points

Use a calculator. It doesn't take that long.

A 61 point ship with 13 health that takes 9 damage has given up 42.23... points, which is rounded down to 42.

What about that is difficult or takes up a significant amount of time?

29 minutes ago, Turbo Toker said:

Use a calculator. It doesn't take that long.

A 61 point ship with 13 health that takes 9 damage has given up 42.23... points, which is rounded down to 42.

What about that is difficult or takes up a significant amount of time?

So, you want to make a Star Wars themed book keeping game?

32 minutes ago, Turbo Toker said:

Use a calculator. It doesn't take that long.

A 61 point ship with 13 health that takes 9 damage has given up 42.23... points, which is rounded down to 42.

What about that is difficult or takes up a significant amount of time?

To start with, the fact that it requires a calculator. It's inherently going to add time pulling out your phone and loading up the calculator every round to figure out points.

10 minutes ago, VanderLegion said:

To start with, the fact that it requires a calculator. It's inherently going to add time pulling out your phone and loading up the calculator every round to figure out points.

Takes about 30 seconds.

Less if you already had a calculator out or your smartphone's phone app already open.

8 minutes ago, Turbo Toker said:

Takes about 30 seconds.

Less if you already had a calculator out or your smartphone's phone app already open.

Which is illegal.

3 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

Which is illegal.

Wait until the end of the match then. Spend an extra 30 seconds tallying how many points were destroyed, check it with your opponent, and turn the sheet of paper in to whoever is responsible for scoring.

Just now, Turbo Toker said:

Wait until the end of the match then. Spend an extra 30 seconds tallying how many points were destroyed, check it with your opponent, and turn the sheet of paper in to whoever is responsible for scoring.

So, it is based on memory, which is faulty, and adds in an increased risk of manipulation.

4 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

So, it is based on memory, which is faulty, and adds in an increased risk of manipulation.

No, you do the calculations, you write them down on the score sheet, have your opponent sign off on them, and turn them into the TO.