Just now, Turbo Toker said:

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.

In order for accurate calculations, accurate records must be maintained. Note taking is prohibited as is phone use due to some specialty apps used awhile ago. Meaning, if you want a complex method of awarding points per hit, it must rely on token pools or memory. Token pools are iffy because it could require a large number of tokens to display how much damage was done during a round, and requiring a play to lug that many tokens around and keep track of all of them makes the game drag. That leaves memory, which is known to be faulty (look at eye witness accounts). So, you could have two people disagreeing as to how much damage was done to a regenning ship. And both are easily manipulated. A few tokens taken away and puff, that damage never happened. One player says he did X amount of damage, the other is saying Y amount of damage was done. One could easily lie to inflate or deflate their score.

Finally, you turn a rather straight forward scoring game and make it more cumbersome, detracting from enjoyment and ease. Once again, the benefit of the action is not lining up with the cost of the action.

To help with regen ships, as well as make half point scoring less common, maybe change it from half hit points destroyed, to half HULL points destroyed, and make it round up.

So against corran if you can get 1 hull damage in, you get half points on him, Miranda would be 2 hull damage, and so on. Obviously doesn't help if you only damage their shields all game, but if that's the case you're already in a lot of trouble. This would be a reward for at least getting close to destroying them.

For current large ships it wouldn't be a huge change. For a ghost you'd only need to 11 total damage vs 8 currently as an example.

Then the only issue becomes what point cutoff do you start using half points. I'd say a minimum of 34, but 45-50+ seems most ideal.

26 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

In order for accurate calculations, accurate records must be maintained. Note taking is prohibited as is phone use due to some specialty apps used awhile ago. Meaning, if you want a complex method of awarding points per hit, it must rely on token pools or memory. Token pools are iffy because it could require a large number of tokens to display how much damage was done during a round, and requiring a play to lug that many tokens around and keep track of all of them makes the game drag. That leaves memory, which is known to be faulty (look at eye witness accounts). So, you could have two people disagreeing as to how much damage was done to a regenning ship. And both are easily manipulated. A few tokens taken away and puff, that damage never happened. One player says he did X amount of damage, the other is saying Y amount of damage was done. One could easily lie to inflate or deflate their score.

Finally, you turn a rather straight forward scoring game and make it more cumbersome, detracting from enjoyment and ease. Once again, the benefit of the action is not lining up with the cost of the action.

Add up the points you destroyed with a calculator after the match. In case of a regen ship, mark how much damage has been done to it with a countdown die, piece of paper, or some other form of counter.

What about this is difficult, tedious book keeping, or takes more than a minute maybe?

The cost of the action is 30 seconds of simple math on a calculator, the benefit of the action is fixing point fortressing.

A 26 point Biggs has been killed. That counts as 26 points.

A 26 point Stresshog has taken 7 damage. That counts as 22.75, which is rounded down to 22.

A 48 point Miranda has taken 3 damage. That counts as 16 points.

Your opponent has destroyed 64 points.

16 minutes ago, Turbo Toker said:

Add up the points you destroyed with a calculator after the match. In case of a regen ship, mark how much damage has been done to it with a countdown die, piece of paper, or some other form of counter.

What about this is difficult, tedious book keeping, or takes more than a minute maybe?

The cost of the action is 30 seconds of simple math on a calculator, the benefit of the action is fixing point fortressing.

A 26 point Biggs has been killed. That counts as 26 points.

A 26 point Stresshog has taken 7 damage. That counts as 22.75, which is rounded down to 22.

A 48 point Miranda has taken 3 damage. That counts as 16 points.

Your opponent has destroyed 64 points.

Lol. Still trying to use the same illegal steps to make your point, while also side stepping my other points. Also, for someone who repeatedly said that without an extreme rule, cheating would become rampant, you are awfully trusting that no such loopholes will be exploited here.

Quote

Lol. Still trying to use the same illegal steps to make your point, while also side stepping my other points. Also, for someone who repeatedly said that without an extreme rule, cheating would become rampant, you are awfully trusting that no such loopholes will be exploited here.

13 hours ago, MajorJuggler said:

The problem with this approach is that it requires paper, a pen, and a smartphone. The general consensus is that people don't want to go through the hassle of taking an extra 60 seconds to score a game that already went to time, and that some people are incapable of math even with a simple to follow scoring sheet. The counter argument is that if this had been the scoring system from day 1, then nobody would give it a second thought because it would be "normal" and we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

No, go ahead. Use another discussion as a personal attack against me in order to discredit my argument. Go ahead, fine.

Here you go Sabinekey. Here is my argument, this Majorjuggler quote. He's saying the same thing as I am*, except he's Majorjuggler so his opinion counts more than mine does. The truth of an argument depends on who is saying it, right?

Note taking and using a calculator is only illegal during a match, and the rules could easily be changed to allow people to mark down how much damage has been taken on a regen ship on a slip of paper. I see Magic players do that all the time for counting how much life they have left, or they use a countdown die or some other sort of counter. You'd be adding up how many points you've scored after the match, when it would be legal to do so.

I trust players to accurately keep track of how much damage has been done to a regen ship for the same reason that I trust them to accurately keep track of how much damage a ship has taken normally. I trust them not to mess with the numbers for the same reason I trust them not to palm damage cards on a Decimator when their opponent isn't looking or put extra shields on things when their opponent isn't looking. There aren't any more "loopholes" in this system than there are when you currently track how much damage has been done to a ship.

*Majorjuggler and I agree on partial point scoring. We differ on how partial point scoring should effect regen ships.

Also, sorry if I got a little frustrated with this post Sabinekey. I'm sure that you're an amicable person. I disagree with your side of the argument, I hold no ill will against you personally.

Sorry for being a TL:DR guy but I saw someone saying Half MOV should be applicable to ships of all size with 9 hull and above?

You da man bro.

2 hours ago, Grivoire said:

Sorry for being a TL:DR guy but I saw someone saying Half MOV should be applicable to ships of all size with 9 hull and above?

You da man bro.

Yup, because it makes sense to get half points for Thane Kyrell but not for Corran Horn... not. Really, current rules might be imperfect and sometimes feel arbitrary but it makes no sense to replace them with something even more imperfect and more arbitrary.

6 hours ago, Turbo Toker said:

Add up the points you destroyed with a calculator after the match. In case of a regen ship, mark how much damage has been done to it with a countdown die, piece of paper, or some other form of counter.

What about this is difficult, tedious book keeping, or takes more than a minute maybe?

The cost of the action is 30 seconds of simple math on a calculator, the benefit of the action is fixing point fortressing.

A 26 point Biggs has been killed. That counts as 26 points.

A 26 point Stresshog has taken 7 damage. That counts as 22.75, which is rounded down to 22.

A 48 point Miranda has taken 3 damage. That counts as 16 points.

Your opponent has destroyed 64 points.

You do realize that counting score is not something you do once at the end of the match? In many matches players choose their options based on whether they're ahead or behind and their relative chances of killing something that will swing the score back in their favor (or of losing something that will put them behind again). Right now making these choices is relatively easy - or at least it's easy to get the information based on which you have to make them. Your proposal would effectively result in people having to update the current score based on every single hit that is taken by any ship in the game. In close matches that would be a nightmare to keep track of and you could expect a lot of downtime when players would furiously make calculations who's winning instead of planning their maneuvers and moving the game forward. I won't even get into the limitless potential to stall the game if someone tried to abuse this.

6 hours ago, SabineKey said:

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

I'll have you know that Accountants of the Outer Rim is all the rage on Coruscant these days.

7 hours ago, Turbo Toker said:

No, go ahead. Use another discussion as a personal attack against me in order to discredit my argument. Go ahead, fine.

Here you go Sabinekey. Here is my argument, this Majorjuggler quote. He's saying the same thing as I am*, except he's Majorjuggler so his opinion counts more than mine does. The truth of an argument depends on who is saying it, right?

Note taking and using a calculator is only illegal during a match, and the rules could easily be changed to allow people to mark down how much damage has been taken on a regen ship on a slip of paper. I see Magic players do that all the time for counting how much life they have left, or they use a countdown die or some other sort of counter. You'd be adding up how many points you've scored after the match, when it would be legal to do so.

I trust players to accurately keep track of how much damage has been done to a regen ship for the same reason that I trust them to accurately keep track of how much damage a ship has taken normally. I trust them not to mess with the numbers for the same reason I trust them not to palm damage cards on a Decimator when their opponent isn't looking or put extra shields on things when their opponent isn't looking. There aren't any more "loopholes" in this system than there are when you currently track how much damage has been done to a ship.

*Majorjuggler and I agree on partial point scoring. We differ on how partial point scoring should effect regen ships.

Also, sorry if I got a little frustrated with this post Sabinekey. I'm sure that you're an amicable person. I disagree with your side of the argument, I hold no ill will against you personally.

The problem is you show a lot of inconsistency and inflexiblity in your stances. Yes, Major Juggler carries more weight with me because I've observed his patterns of behavior and actually think he has a reasonable understanding of how the game works. I still don't agree with him on this point.

Partial scoring is another thing that will drag the flow of play down, parts of which are highlighted by Lightrock. Standard play for X-Wing is suppose to be a quick and easy deathmatch. It should depend on total destruction, not attrition, for scoring.

44 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

The problem is you show a lot of inconsistency and inflexiblity in your stances. Yes, Major Juggler carries more weight with me because I've observed his patterns of behavior and actually think he has a reasonable understanding of how the game works. I still don't agree with him on this point.

Partial scoring is another thing that will drag the flow of play down, parts of which are highlighted by Lightrock. Standard play for X-Wing is suppose to be a quick and easy deathmatch. It should depend on total destruction, not attrition, for scoring.

I agree with the sentiment (It should depend on total destruction, not attrition, for scoring.), but that still leaves the issue of deciding who should win at time.

I still think the current MOV method distorts gameplay, and we're seeing an increasing amount of that distortion. That said, finding a suitable alternative that removes (or lessens) that distortion is definitely hard. I'm glad people are spit balling ideas, at least.

57 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

The problem is you show a lot of inconsistency and inflexiblity in your stances. Yes, Major Juggler carries more weight with me because I've observed his patterns of behavior and actually think he has a reasonable understanding of how the game works. I still don't agree with him on this point.

Me, either. MJ isn't wrong a lot, but he's wrong about this.

Quote

Partial scoring is another thing that will drag the flow of play down, parts of which are highlighted by Lightrock. Standard play for X-Wing is suppose to be a quick and easy deathmatch. It should depend on total destruction, not attrition, for scoring.

Yes. Partial scoring devalues forcing enemies to split fire. Partial scoring, in many cases, would discourage eliminating a ship, because if that ship has only 1 HP left, there are more points to pick up elsewhere. Partial scoring (as a way of saying who has the upper hand at the end of timed game) ignores any potentially equalizing or even winning final positioning advantage. Partial damage scoring becomes not a dogfighting game, where the goal is to eliminate enemies, but a Breakout style game, where the goal is to just chip away at the opposition.

It's a bad idea. It was a bad idea for Large ships, and it's even worse for all ships.

Maybe any game that goes to time, if the score difference is X-or-less (say, 50 to spitball), should be scored as a draw.

8 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Maybe any game that goes to time, if the score difference is X-or-less (say, 50 to spitball), should be scored as a draw.

If you reintroduce draws, then we need to change tournament scoring for wins/losses/draws, and hopefully in such a way that draws aren't as bad as mod-wins were.

I know I'm late commenting. But I didn't think the 1/2 point rule was about the health of large based ships. Not really. It was about dumping a lot of points into a tank that could survive to the end. This left one side to just kill a couple of little ships and keep the tank from dying itself.

Why don't we just award points destroyed?

Partial scoring exists so that higher ship-count lists do not accept an immediate systemic disadvantage in the scoring system. Otherwise, the strongest possible theoretical list (by scoring metrics) would be a single 100 point craft. What other possibilities besides partial points can you come up with that avoid disadvantaging swarms and encouraging low ship count?

Based on that goal, I think that half-points should be implemented for all ships more expensive than a certain value. Hit points has nothing to do with it--the issue is that earning points is binary (you get all of 'em or none of 'em), and that disproportionately favors small numbers of expensive ships. Against a Swarm, you earn points in bite-sized 12-point increments, but against a Corran/Miranda (for example) you only have two ~50-point heaps available.

As for what that points value should be...there's a question, and it all depends on what size of squadron you want to encourage and what "resolution" you want in scoring. At the low end, 24+ points would mean that the smallest half-point increment would be 12, right in line with the cheapest hull in the game; this would strongly encourage 2- and 3-ship builds. At the high end, you have 50+ points, which strongly encourages 2-ship builds at 49 each. Drawing the line around 33+ points puts three-ship builds in a weird place where some craft will award half points and some will not; this would encourage 4-ship builds. And so on...

All ships should score half-points if they are half-dead. Many small ships are harder to kill than large ships nowadays, and in Epic huge ships really should score some points too. especially given that fewer rounds means MoV is more important in Epic tourneys. We played an Epic Tourney awhile back and it was silly getting 0 points for a Raider that had a crippled fore section and only one hull left on its rear section.

My guess is that half points on ALL ships would even further disadvantage small ships with 1-2 agilty than they already are (esp bad for B-wing, G1A, Y-wing, Arc170).

11 hours ago, Turbo Toker said:

Here you go Sabinekey. Here is my argument, this Majorjuggler quote. He's saying the same thing as I am*, except he's Majorjuggler so his opinion counts more than mine does. The truth of an argument depends on who is saying it, right?

Note taking and using a calculator is only illegal during a match, and the rules could easily be changed to allow people to mark down how much damage has been taken on a regen ship on a slip of paper. I see Magic players do that all the time for counting how much life they have left, or they use a countdown die or some other sort of counter. You'd be adding up how many points you've scored after the match, when it would be legal to do so.

I trust players to accurately keep track of how much damage has been done to a regen ship for the same reason that I trust them to accurately keep track of how much damage a ship has taken normally. I trust them not to mess with the numbers for the same reason I trust them not to palm damage cards on a Decimator when their opponent isn't looking or put extra shields on things when their opponent isn't looking. There aren't any more "loopholes" in this system than there are when you currently track how much damage has been done to a ship.

*Majorjuggler and I agree on partial point scoring. We differ on how partial point scoring should effect regen ships.

In the above quote in question that you referenced, I was referring to the partial points scoring which I have been a proponent of for two years, which has no special consideration for regeneration other than the respective ships' final hit points. In regards to tracking damage and calculating points, there is a key difference between this approach and yours:

My approach does not require tracking anything during the game that is not already being tracked. Yours requires tracking how much health has been regenerated as the game progresses , and at the end of the game adding this value to the damage suffered. I believe this difference is what was being discussed.

Also, more generally and relevant to the conversation at large: players must already write down their results on a score sheet, and players already use pen, paper (the score sheet), and a smartphone to make calculations at the end of the match. So that much is clearly already legal per the tournament rules. But adding partial points scoring would require at least one of the following:

1. The players' squad sheets must now indicate a lookup table for many points each ship is worth for each damage. Then you just add all the points up like you normally would anyway. (see below).
2. A separate worksheet is included to aid in performing the math (division, multiplication, rounding, then adding).
3. Players are comfortable enough with the math to make the calculations on their own without either #1 or #2.

Example squad sheet for a single pilot:

Omega Leader (26)

Comm Relay

Juke

Damage Suffered: 0 1 2 3 4

Points Scored: 0 6 13 19 26

None of these are trivial, but #1 is the most elegant, especially because all the online squad spawners could automatically include this information. If you're using the formal paper copy squad sheet then it would be a bit of a pain to manually fill in 17 damage values for a 16 hull decimator, but you only have to do it once before the tournament starts. Having this information directly on the squad sheet also avoids the "notebooks aren't legal" technicality, as the squad sheets are a required component for tournament play, typically with 2 copies - one for the TO and one for yourself and your opponent to reference.

2 hours ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Yes. Partial scoring devalues forcing enemies to split fire. Partial scoring, in many cases, would discourage eliminating a ship, because if that ship has only 1 HP left, there are more points to pick up elsewhere. Partial scoring (as a way of saying who has the upper hand at the end of timed game) ignores any potentially equalizing or even winning final positioning advantage. Partial damage scoring becomes not a dogfighting game, where the goal is to eliminate enemies, but a Breakout style game, where the goal is to just chip away at the opposition.

Partial scoring would indeed discourage eliminating a ship in some cases because the potential "overkill" doesn't yield any additional points. This is one of the compromises which I am very honest about.

But it would have far less of an impact than it is usually made out to be.

The " in some cases " is really only the final round of the game. For any round before the final round of the game, taking a ship off the board is almost always going to be the best course of action anyway, because it will prevent that ship from returning fire and inflicting damage on you in the future. Getting this snowball effect going is therefore beneficial to both the 100% squad kill victory condition, and the partial point scoring at time victory condition.

Ah -- but then you might point out that if a ship is running away and getting no shots or contributing any squad synergy, the partial scoring discourages you from chasing down and killing the ship. This is correct... but this is already the correct strategy for the 100% squad kill victory condition anyway! If my opponent wants to fly a damaged and otherwise useless ship away for several turns, then I will gladly focus my attacks on the next most vulnerable or critical ship remaining in the fight. Again, to achieve a 100% squad kill victory, you want to get the snowball effect going as early as possible against ships that are actually contributing to the fight. Correct target priority can be highly fluid, it is not static.

2 hours ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Me, either. MJ isn't wrong a lot, but he's wrong about this.

It's a bad idea. It was a bad idea for Large ships, and it's even worse for all ships.

Any solution to determining the victor for a game that does not end in a 100% squad wipe fundamentally has to make compromises. Regardless of one's particular opinions on which compromises are least desirable, reasonable discourse is only possible when these compromises are identified and acknowledged. Broadly asserting that there is one perfect solution and everything else is wrong neither contains any useful information nor merits a response.

It is true that 64 point Fat Hans were a balance problem back in the day even for untimed games (this we agree on). But without even half point scoring, they were also causing problems for the victory condition determination for games unresolved at time (this we disagree on).

Lets make this practical with a real world example. I have a 100 point list with a 64 point Fat Han. My opponent has a 100 point list with a 65 point Fat Han. The game goes to time, and he has one 1 point remaining on his Fat Han, and I have 8 hit points remaining on mine. It is intellectually indefensible to maintain that my opponent should be given a win because his 1HP Han costs one more point than my 8HP Han. This is not a theoretical example: this is precisely how I lost a Store Championship in 2015. I could have had a full health 13 hit point Fat Han, and I still would have lost.

You are of course entitled to your opinion that no change to the scoring system was necessary. However I do not feel it is possible to have a reasonable discussion with anyone that holds such a position, particularly when not acknowledging the compromises in their own proposed approach.

By extension, the same exact scoring problem still exists today even with half points. If the game were to have ended with a 1 HP 65 point Fat Han vs a 6HP 64 point Fat Han, the player with the Fatter ship will still win today. The common example in today's meta looks different, for example a 1HP 40 point Miranda will always win at time against a full health Fenn Rau. The underlying problems and associated Negative Player Experiences directly resulting from the scoring system's compromises have not changed in the last 2 years.

2 hours ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Maybe any game that goes to time, if the score difference is X-or-less (say, 50 to spitball), should be scored as a draw.

1. Draws are bad for a tournament structure for a variety of reasons. You would be re-introducing the issues that FFG recognized (and recognized quickly, for the rate at which they change things) as being detrimental to the game, and caused them to do an about-face.
2. You still have to determine how to count the points up at the end of the game to determine if the "X" threshold has been met -- which brings us back to square one.

39 minutes ago, MajorJuggler said:

It is true that 64 point Fat Hans were a balance problem back in the day even for untimed games (this we agree on). But without even half point scoring, they were also causing problems for the victory condition determination for games unresolved at time (this we disagree on).

Actually, we agree on that.

What we disagree on (I think) is what the fix. The problem with "fat" ships being point lockers was a function of them invariably having Engine Upgrade, allowing them to range away from retaliation, taking advantage of the extra displacement that Engine Upgrade provides for Large ships. FFG recognized and (mostly) fixed this problem for Large-ship Barrel Roll, but instead of fixing the problem for Boost, FFG instead ...

... created the half-MoV rule.

In other words, FFG's "fix" for a built-in imbalance in the game itself was to change the way the game was scored in tournaments. It didn't matter that their "fix" killed the viability of ships way beyond the actual problem ships ... because that "fix" was the easiest thing to do.

Half-MoV for all ships is, again, arguably the easiest thing to do. And, again, it's "fixing" an imbalance in the game itself by changing the tournament scoring and changing the overall win condition for a dogfight from "destroy ships" to "land damage." And, again, it will have tremendous implications far beyond the actual problem ships.

It's simply a terrible idea.

But good news: the fact that it's a terrible idea means it's about 75% likely, at least, to be implemented by FFG.

5 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Actually, we agree on that.

What we disagree on (I think) is what the fix. The problem with "fat" ships being point lockers was a function of them invariably having Engine Upgrade, allowing them to range away from retaliation, taking advantage of the extra displacement that Engine Upgrade provides for Large ships. FFG recognized and (mostly) fixed this problem for Large-ship Barrel Roll, but instead of fixing the problem for Boost, FFG instead ...

... created the half-MoV rule.

In other words, FFG's "fix" for a built-in imbalance in the game itself was to change the way the game was scored in tournaments. It didn't matter that their "fix" killed the viability of ships way beyond the actual problem ships ... because that "fix" was the easiest thing to do.

Half-MoV for all ships is, again, arguably the easiest thing to do. And, again, it's "fixing" an imbalance in the game itself by changing the tournament scoring and changing the overall win condition for a dogfight from "destroy ships" to "land damage." And, again, it will have tremendous implications far beyond the actual problem ships.

It's simply a terrible idea.

But good news: the fact that it's a terrible idea means it's about 75% likely, at least, to be implemented by FFG.

It's not only engine that was the problem, and changing large ship boost wouldn't have fixed the fat han point locker issue. Look at MJs example of the store champ he'd lost. Changing engine wouldn't change a thing for who wins between 2 fat hand. Half points (or full partial points) would have

2 minutes ago, VanderLegion said:

It's not only engine that was the problem, and changing large ship boost wouldn't have fixed the fat han point locker issue. Look at MJs example of the store champ he'd lost. Changing engine wouldn't change a thing for who wins between 2 fat hand. Half points (or full partial points) would have

You do not know that. It's entirely possible that Bob's opponent maintained that 1 HP on his Falcon by ranging away from shots. In fact, smart money would bet that's exactly what happened.

Also, Bob asserts that it's intellectually indefensible that a 1 HP 65-point Han beats an 8 HP 64-point Han, but of course that's not at all true. One can easily imagine the time limit on tournaments representing "just hold on to this patch of space until reinforcements arrive," or so on. It's certainly not necessary to do so, but there are certainly ways to justify losses on time that would have been wins without a time limit.

4 hours ago, SabineKey said:

The problem is you show a lot of inconsistency and inflexiblity in your stances. Yes, Major Juggler carries more weight with me because I've observed his patterns of behavior and actually think he has a reasonable understanding of how the game works. I still don't agree with him on this point.

Partial scoring is another thing that will drag the flow of play down, parts of which are highlighted by Lightrock. Standard play for X-Wing is suppose to be a quick and easy deathmatch. It should depend on total destruction, not attrition, for scoring.

1. I flexed my opinion when Hawkstrike pointed out how silly it would be to continually reward damaging a regen ship and allowing one to score 96 points for doing 18 damage to a 48 point Miranda instead of just killing her. Since I've been flexible with my opinion, that now makes me inconsistent I guess.

Let me clarify my position:

Partial point scoring for all ships. Regenerating health on a ship does not regenerate MoV.

So a 5 health regen 48 point Corran that has taken 5 damage over the course of the game and finishes the game with full health? Your opponent scores 48 points destroyed off of him.

You would keep track of how much damage has been done to a regen ship however would be best, scrap of paper and pen, abacus, countdown die, whatever.

Scoring would be done as it always has been at the end of a match. You would just spend 30 seconds on a calculator now.

2. Players with more experience with their list would be rewarded for being able to estimate and for knowing these point totals ahead of time. It wouldn't slow games down. Maybe with some simple floor rules and examples, judges would be able to better police slow playing.

In a timed game, games are already decided by attrition instead of total destruction sometimes.

What partial point scoring does is aim to minimize the effects of luck. If a 48 point Miranda takes a below average amount of damage and skates by with one health when time is called, then you have a 48 point swing decided by one (un)lucky roll, the difference of one single damage. With partial point, the difference between a ship at one health and zero isn't so harsh.

You saw this extreme before half health large ship MoV with entire 60 point swings dependant on killing a Falcon/keeping a Falcon alive with one health left. Now you're seeing it with small bases that cost 30-40-50 points because they can hold more points than a large base after the large ship MoV nerf.

On the surface, partial point scoring seems like it rewards spreading out damage in order to maximize points. It may seem like that one health ship is not worth finishing off because it will only net you another 5 points , but that also means that it's not worth it for your opponent to run away with these points, so he'll be more aggressive with them, at which point you'll want to finish the ship off in self defense. So it would end up working out.

Engagements would happen more often because you'd have nothing to lose. Getting up on points and running away would happen less often.

What this would result in, Majorjuggler, is that more fights would end in total destruction as opposed to the clock. More fights would end as if they were untimed. Regen players would have reason to engage sometimes if R2-D2 only recovered shields and not your MoV.

So a 2 health Omega Leader would be worth more points than a full health Corran that has taken 4 damage.

This fixes the point fortress problem. Regen ships are just as durable as every other ship, except now they can't point fortress any better than any other ship. They wouldn't be able to lock games down anymore.

7 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

You do not know that. It's entirely possible that Bob's opponent maintained that 1 HP on his Falcon by ranging away from shots. In fact, smart money would bet that's exactly what happened.

Also, Bob asserts that it's intellectually indefensible that a 1 HP 65-point Han beats an 8 HP 64-point Han, but of course that's not at all true. One can easily imagine the time limit on tournaments representing "just hold on to this patch of space until reinforcements arrive," or so on. It's certainly not necessary to do so, but there are certainly ways to justify losses on time that would have been wins without a time limit.

I'm with MJ on this one. If one player is at 1 health and the other is at 8 with almost identical ships, the one health ship is NOT the one that deserves the win just because it cost a point more. And the argument about holding out for reinforcements or some such at time is meaningless. It doesn't matter. If that was the case, then theoretically BOTH players would be getting reinforcements and the one that was more likely to win if you didnt go to time (throne with way more health) would still have the advantage.

as for the lower health player ranging away with engine, presumably BOTH had engine so MJ could be boosting closer anyway to negate any attempts to range away.

12 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

You do not know that. It's entirely possible that Bob's opponent maintained that 1 HP on his Falcon by ranging away from shots. In fact, smart money would bet that's exactly what happened.

Also, Bob asserts that it's intellectually indefensible that a 1 HP 65-point Han beats an 8 HP 64-point Han, but of course that's not at all true. One can easily imagine the time limit on tournaments representing "just hold on to this patch of space until reinforcements arrive," or so on. It's certainly not necessary to do so, but there are certainly ways to justify losses on time that would have been wins without a time limit.

Or, if it's old Fat Han, the 1HP Han took an evade action, used C-3PO, and possibly used R2-D2 crew to mitigate 2-3 damage per turn...

Also, then are you equally upset at SLAM K-Wings that regen? They can similarly boost around the board avoiding a fight if they're head on points.