2 minutes ago, VanderLegion said:

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.

Why not? The point of the (tournament) game is to destroy ships, within a time-limit, right?

Quote

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.

It's not at all meaningless. It's a defensible position to take in explaining why a ship gets a win on a time-limit when it would have lost in the absence of a time-limit.

And of course that defense could apply in either direction.

Quote

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.

Is that how it works? If one ship has Boost, it can always keep another ship with Boost in range?

You wanna stick with that?

2 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

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.

I do think SLAM and shield regeneration are problems with the game, yes, and that eventually they will probably have to be addressed. I think that (1) they are relatively minor problems, for now, compared to how bad the problem got with Large-Boost, and (2) "fixing" the problem with "half-MoV" is as terrible as idea for them as "fixing" the problem with half-MoV was for Large ships.

Just now, Jeff Wilder said:

I do think SLAM and shield regeneration are problems with the game, yes, and that eventually they will probably have to be addressed. I think that (1) they are relatively minor problems, for now, compared to how bad the problem got with Large-Boost, and (2) "fixing" the problem with "half-MoV" is as terrible as idea for them as "fixing" the problem with half-MoV was for Large ships.

That's fair - just clarifying if you included those in the same realm of problems of large-base ships with boost (separate from half-MOV).

6 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Why not? The point of the (tournament) game is to destroy ships, within a time-limit, right?

It's not at all meaningless. It's a defensible position to take in explaining why a ship gets a win on a time-limit when it would have lost in the absence of a time-limit.

Except it has nothing to do with why a ship should win. It's not like one side is attacking and the other defending, and one player gets "reinforcements" at time.

6 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

And of course that defense could apply in either direction.

Is that how it works? If one ship has Boost, it can always keep another ship with Boost in range?

You wanna stick with that?

Most likely, if they both have boost, one is going to be able to keep the other in range about as well as if neither have boost. It's not like they're restricted to primary arc to need to keep range AND arc

7 minutes ago, VanderLegion said:

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.

Maybe it should just be scored as a draw when the point values of those ships is "insignificantly" different. In the matchup of two nearly identical ships if one needs 8 damage to kill and the other only needs 1 then either destroy it or admit that when things ended there still wasn't a winner. Wins really should be dictated by more than a point or two here or there.

20 minutes ago, Turbo Toker said:

Let me clarify my position:

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

And why is regeneration SO outrageous that you'd need to track EVERY SINGLE HIT the ship takes to the point you can say "BUT IT'S DEAD JIM!" despite it still flying around in what sure looks like a perfectly healthy state? If you penalize Regeneration then you should penalize EVERYTHING that will negate hits. Every time an x7 spends an Evade Token it counts as getting HIT and you mark points off on it even if you never actually take a shield off or give it a card. I wonder what are you going to do about those things that actually can remove cards? If Leebo uses Determination and throws up 4 cards certainly he should be penalized for that set up.

39 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.

After my support ships (actually ship singular in this case -- just "sad" Corran without R2-D2 -- don't laugh! ) got taken out and he had achieved his pseudo-victory condition (he could only lose if I outright killed his Han at that point), his next 2 turns took him a LONG time to set his dials, and he proceeded to run away for the entire game. We talked about it later and he sped up his play, although obviously he was still doing his best to just keep flying away. On the final turn he was in a corner with no way to force a bump, so if we had 1 more round there would have been a guaranteed exchange of shots at range 1 or 2. Ultimately, however, neither how we arrived at this scenario (either by squad builds, defensive play, slow play, or TIE Swarm slow play), nor what the next round would be matter for the sake of discussion. No reasonable scoring system can acquire let alone intelligently use this information. All you have to go on at the end of the game are the ships' respective hit points.

In retrospect I think my Fat Han was actually 60 points not 64, as my Corran Horn had VI+R3-A2+FCS, although it doesn't actually change my point at all. Any Fat Han built out to 65 points was specifically done so it would be worth 1 more point than the common 64 point Fat Han, and would effectively be guaranteed a win if any game went to time.

39 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

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.

This would be a valid argument if one were playing a scenario and this was built in as part of the victory conditions. But it's not. FFG X-wing tournament play has one mode: 100 point deathmatch with only one primary objective, a 100% wipe of your opponent's squad. That's it, full stop. Theme and backstory does not exist and is irrelevant. If a game goes to time unresolved, then we need to apply "some other victory condition" to determine a winner. Different potential victory conditions (that are under discussion here) all have different compromises and drawbacks. Unfortunately, FFG's choice of timed victory condition is very frequently 100% in opposition to the primary victory condition. I.e. very often the game state reaches the point where if the game resolves before time then clearly Player A will win, but if the game does not resolve before time, then Player B will win. This is A Very Bad Thing, because:

1. A player that has made all the right choices and is thoroughly beating up on the other player can get forced into a loss, and there is absolutely nothing he can do about it.
2. It encourages Player B to cheat (i.e. slow play and not get caught / called out).

Jeff, you have to at least acknowledge that these drawbacks are undeniably present in FFG's timed victory condition. I appreciate that my partial points solution isn't perfect, even if I think that it is far "less worse" than FFG's solution. But the above 2 points are a really big deal. This goes all the way up to the highest levels, I have been slow played against at Worlds by a former Top 16 player (not Aaron Bonar, for the record). The Negative Play Experience is significant enough that for me personally, games become unenjoyable and it is slowly pushing me out of competitive play. I'm probably not the only one. This affects FFG's bottom line and the long term health of the game.

Again, if someone has a full health Han and loses at time to a 1 hit point Han that costs one more point... I don't see how you can look that person in the eye, in person, and say "you played worse, you deserve to lose". Maybe you can, and I just can't empathize with that.

24 minutes ago, Turbo Toker said:

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.

I understand the concepts of the proposal . I still think it isn't too cumbersome and detracts from the deathmatch nature of the game. You don't get credit for killing someone in a video game like Halo or Call of Duty just because you did enough damage to kill them over the entire match. You get the kill when you do enough damage at one time before their health regenerates.

4 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.

I'm guessing you're being sarcastic here but there is a good bit of truth behind that statement.

Eliminating the possibly of a draw was a mistake on FFG's part. They certainly could happen when FFG had that VERY narrow definition on what it took to get a draw, which was greatly punished with scoring unless of course it was intentional in which case it was overpowering, but the truth is that small differences in scoring should have always resulted in draws. What's it take to actually be showing a real lead? That can be debated but it seemed to me that a 12 point lead or more can show a clear advantage. Then you run into that scoring space where there is a difference between an advantage and what should be an overwhelming advantage and that is the zone where the modified win/loses should have been kept but with the added recognition that sometimes the disadvantaged side could have pulled that out and thus should have been awarded some tournament points for it.

21 minutes ago, MajorJuggler said:

Jeff, you have to at least acknowledge that these drawbacks are undeniably present in FFG's timed victory condition.

Of course I acknowledge the drawbacks of a timed death-match.

The difference is that you want to change the victory conditions away from a timed death-match, and toward just landing damage. And there's nothing inherently wrong with doing that. It's just that, for better or worse, the "default" way of playing the game has become a death-match (usually timed), and I'm operating under the assumption that Organized Play (and the general ruleset) doesn't intend to change that.

Quote

I appreciate that my partial points solution isn't perfect, even if I think that it is far "less worse" than FFG's solution. But the above 2 points are a really big deal. This goes all the way up to the highest levels, I have been slow played against at Worlds by a former Top 16 player (not Aaron Bonar, for the record).

Slow-playing is its own problem. It really, really sucks.

Quote

Again, if someone has a full health Han and loses at time to a 1 hit point Han that costs one more point... I don't see how you can look that person in the eye, in person, and say "you played worse, you deserve to lose". Maybe you can, and I just can't empathize with that.

But winning a tournament game of X-Wing has never automatically gone to the person who played better, nor has it ever been automatically denied to the person who played worse.

All the above scenario says, for sure, is "In a timed death-match tournament game, you killed fewer of his points than he killed of yours." To quote William Munny, "'Deserve's' got nothin' to do with it."

20 minutes ago, StevenO said:

I'm guessing you're being sarcastic here but there is a good bit of truth behind that statement.

I wasn't being particularly thoughtful in considering implications, but no, I was being neither ironic nor sarcastic. I am (generally) in tune with your point of view on this.

2 hours ago, MajorJuggler said:

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.

Let me make a counterargument here. Assuming the goal of a good scoring system is to determine the probable winner if the game could be played without any time limit at all, in many situations partial scoring would actually make things worse, not better.

For example, let's say a full HP academy pilot is facing a 1 HP Whisper. If you used partial scoring, academy pilot would be the winner. In reality him winning is extremely improbable unless Whisper did something extraordinarily stupid AND had bad luck with dice on top of that. Current system will correctly give the win to the Whisper player.

The point is that partial scoring makes sense mostly for ships with lots of HP and a fairly steady flow of incoming damage. Two Fat Hans facing one another are a very good example of this - neither ship can really outmaneuver the other, every time one of them can shoot the other, he will get attacked in return. C3PO and title will prevent them from taking any spike damage and they've got tons of HP anyway. As a result, their duel will be a fairly predictable grind. They will take 1 damage per turn for the most part, so a player with 1 HP is 1 turn away from death while the other is 8 turns away from it.

X-wing very seldom looks like this these days (which is great!). Player that has 3 ships at 1 HP is usually in a considerably better situation than his opponent who has 1 ship at 3 HP, yet if you used partial scoring that might actually be a draw or a win for the player with 1 ship. For that matter, the former player did show considerable skill to preserve so many ships and should be rewarded for doing so. While I can understand that partial scoring might seem better than the current system in some situations, it would be clearly worse in quite a few others. And I believe those others are actually far more likely to happen in today's X-wing. We're not in Fat Han land anymore and it doesn't seem like we're getting back there anytime soon. Solutions that might be perfect for wave 2 meta aren't that good for wave 10.

Err.. editor just went crazy for me, multiple posts, sorry.

Err.. editor just went crazy for me, multiple posts, sorry.

Err.. editor just went crazy for me, multiple posts, sorry.

Err.. editor just went crazy for me, multiple posts, sorry.

Err.. editor just went crazy for me, multiple posts, sorry.

1 minute ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Of course I acknowledge the drawbacks of a timed death-match.

The difference is that you want to change the victory conditions away from a timed death-match, and toward just landing damage. And there's nothing inherently wrong with doing that. It's just that, for better or worse, the "default" way of playing the game has become a death-match (usually timed), and I'm operating under the assumption that Organized Play doesn't intend to change that.

• I do not want to change the default way of playing the game away from timed death match.
• If a game goes to time, then the "death" part doesn't even apply... the other player is still alive.
• I want the timed and untimed victory conditions to be as closely aligned as possible, because any other solution creates NPE. For the overwhelming majority of games that go to time, my solution encourages players to finish out the game in pure deathmatch style instead of flying away and/or slow playing.

41 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Why not? The point of the (tournament) game is to destroy ships, within a time-limit, right?

No.

The point of playing competitively in a tournament is to win. In order to win, you need to fulfill one of the victory conditions in the Tournament Regulations. Three of these four conditions involve completely wiping out your opponent's squad (concession counts).

End of Round
Each tournament round ends in one of the following ways:

• One Player Defeated: At the end of a game round, all of one player’s ships are destroyed.
The player with at least one ship remaining immediately earns a win and the opposing
player receives a loss.

• Mutual Destruction: At the end of a game round, all of both players’ ships are destroyed.
Players follow the rules for “Final Salvo” on page 17 using all of their ships to determine
the winner.

• Concession: A player voluntarily concedes defeat at any point during the game. All of that
player’s ships are destroyed. The conceding player receives a loss and his or her opponent
receives a win.

• Time: At the end of a game round, the round time limit has been reached. (If time is called
during a game round, players must finish that game round.) The player with the greater
score receives a win, and his opponent receives a loss. If both players have the same score,
they follow the rules for “Final Salvo” on page 17 to determine the winner.

So no, the goal is never to just destroy a few ships within the time limit. The primary goal according to the Tournament Rules, is, and always has been, and will be for the foreseeable future, to destroy ALL of your opponent's ships. If you only manage to destroy some of your opponent's ships, then you have failed in your primary objective that is directly covered in three out of four of the victory conditions. Because we can't let tournament games go to infinity, we require a special case victory condition. As written above, it is actually very elegant: "the player with the greater score wins".

So, the real question is: how do you determine who gets more points? I can just as easily flip this around: you have a more expensive ship remaining at time (albeit at one hull), but you didn't kill all of the opposing squad. Why should that player be granted a victory? What is your criteria for scoring points? You still circle back to justifying how points should be awarded for a game that did not complete.

Scoring points for destroying ships (or even half points), is in fact a completely arbitrary way to assign points that is not related to the primary victory condition.

It is the current Rule of Law because FFG has dictated it as such. But it is still an arbitrary decision, presumably made because it is easy to implement. That doesn't mean that it's the best solution, or that circular reasoning should be used to justify its own existence.

5 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

But winning a tournament game of X-Wing has never automatically gone to the person who played better, nor has it ever been automatically denied to the person who played worse.

All the above scenario says, for sure, is "In a timed death-match tournament game, you killed fewer of his points than he killed of yours." To quote William Munny, "'Deserve's' got nothin' to do with it."

Ok, since I think you're dancing around the core point, lets make this simpler:

If someone has a full health Han and loses at time to a 1 hit point Han that costs one more point, tell me that you will look them in the eye in person, and tell them "You deserve to lose" with conviction.

I can't do that. When it happens to me I am disheartened and it's a strong motivator to quit competitive play entirely. And when I get the win at time even though I feel like I'm definitely losing, I still feel bad and it's still encouraging me to quit competitive play. It's just not fun on either end.

10 minutes ago, Lightrock said:

X-wing very seldom looks like this these days (which is great!). Player that has 3 ships at 1 HP is usually in a considerably better situation than his opponent who has 1 ship at 3 HP, yet if you used partial scoring that might actually be a draw or a win for the player with 1 ship. For that matter, the former player did show considerable skill to preserve so many ships and should be rewarded for doing so. While I can understand that partial scoring might seem better than the current system in some situations, it would be clearly worse in quite a few others. And I believe those others are actually far more likely to happen in today's X-wing. We're not in Fat Han land anymore and it doesn't seem like we're getting back there anytime soon. Solutions that might be perfect for wave 2 meta aren't that good for wave 10.

Its not fat ham anymore, but you can easily have similar situations. 1 health Asajj vs 7 health asajj for instance, A 1 health x7 Ryad vs a 4-6 health x7 ryad, etc. 1 health scout vs a higher health scout (neither with torps remaining)

2 minutes ago, MajorJuggler said:

So no, the goal is never to just destroy a few ships within the time limit. The primary goal according to the Tournament Rules, is, and always has been, and will be for the foreseeable future, to destroy ALL of your opponent's ships. [But, if you can't, the winner is the player who destroys the most ships by point-value.]

I don't think you'll quibble with what I've added. If not, that's functionally identical to "the point of a tournament death-match is to kill your opponent's ships." Which is what i said.

Quote

If someone has a full health Han and loses at time to a 1 hit point Han that costs one more point, tell me that you will look them in the eye in person, and tell them "You deserve to lose" with conviction.

Absolutely not. What I would say (and sincerely) is, "Oh, man, that sucks. You definitely would have won with one (or two, or seven) more turns. Sorry, Bob."

(Honestly, maybe I'm still "dancing around the core point," but I can't even imagine how ****-headed someone would have to be before I would say, without deep irony, "You deserve to lose.")

Quote

I can't do that.

Okay. But it's not the only option.

Quote

When it happens to me I am disheartened and it's a strong motivator to quit competitive play entirely. And when I get the win at time even though I feel like I'm definitely losing, I still feel bad and it's still encouraging me to quit competitive play. It's just not fun on either end.

And that sucks. Sincerely. I've been feeling myself in the same boat, for different reasons, and it sucks.

12 minutes ago, Lightrock said:

Let me make a counterargument here. Assuming the goal of a good scoring system is to determine the probable winner if the game could be played without any time limit at all, in many situations partial scoring would actually make things worse, not better.

For example, let's say a full HP academy pilot is facing a 1 HP Whisper. If you used partial scoring, academy pilot would be the winner. In reality him winning is extremely improbable unless Whisper did something extraordinarily stupid AND had bad luck with dice on top of that. Current system will correctly give the win to the Whisper player.

You're right, and here's another, more up to date hypothetical example:

1 HP Miranda can drop a Conner Net on 2 HP Fenn Rau next turn in the activation phase. 2 instant damage with Sabine = dead Fenn.

There's many other examples of "paper-rock-scissors" hard counters that could be used, that just by happenstance would get scored "correctly" by the current system. But you'll also probably find an equal number of hard-counters that would be scored "wrong" by the current system. (And then you have all the other scenarios which are not hard counters, which will be treated much more fairly under my system.)

Unfortunately, no reasonable scoring system exists that can intelligently infer anything about the game state. (Allowing a TO to make arbitrary judgment calls on who wins games at time would solve this problem, but it would create others and so would not be reasonable.) So if we have developed a scoring system that is running into the fundamental limits of what the 'AI' scoring is capable of (i.e. just looking at the ships' remaining hit points), then we have done about as good a job as is possible. That's a good thing.

7 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

[But, if you can't, the winner is the player who destroys the most ships by point-value.]

I don't think you'll quibble with what I've added. If not, that's functionally identical to "the point of a tournament death-match is to kill your opponent's ships." Which is what i said.

It may seem like splitting hairs, but I don't think it's accurate for 2 reasons:

1. "If you can't" means it is a secondary objective, not a primary objective.
2. Under the current rules, the secondary goal is not to destroy ships. The secondary goal is to score points, which you can do by getting half points on large base ships.

When the primary and secondary objectives are well aligned, then NPE is minimized. For me, this is the most important factor, especially considering that this is a game (!) that is supposed to be fun. I know, heresy among the competitive crowd!

Most (if not all) practical examples that people have raised (legitimately) of my own system's shortcomings are actually examples of when the primary and secondary objectives are misaligned.

Slow play is a symptom of misalignment, not a cause. Tournament deathmatch play isn't even designed with a secondary objective in mind, it's just a necessary band-aid added on top because we can't have infinitely long tournament rounds. It's already a compromise. A system with true primary and secondary objectives would have the player score points for both during the game. In X-wing, you are either fighting to accomplish the primary objective, OR the secondary objective, but sometimes you won't know which one will apply until it is too late, and/or you can't control which objective you're fighting for.

Forgive me recapping some of this but I think it's useful to summarize first...

It sounds like most people are generally in agreement that making a separation on point scoring based on base sizes no longer makes a whole lot of sense, and I whole-heartedly agree. I think the question then is "what was base size a proxy for when this rule was introduced". While it's tempting to say hit points, I think it's much more likely that it's more the percentage of your list that something represents. i.e. 8 ties do a reasonable approximation of "how much of your list did I destroy" whereas two YT-1300's being still on the board with 1HP each obviously does not.

I don't imagine many people think it's reasonable to compute fully proportional scoring or similar as the book-keeping misses the point. Frankly I'd personally much rather just extend game times so that more finish more often than make competitive X-Wing into even more of a weird scoring/time meta-game than it already is. We definitely need to try and encourage people to continue to play with the primary goal of killing all opposing ships as much as possible, as the game becomes pretty dumb and unbalanced once people switch into "get half points/run" points meta-gaming.

Thus I think there's really two short term solutions that satisfy the goals of both remaining simple (like the current rules) and more related to points than some other arbitrary metric:

1) Half points for all ships. Honestly there's not very many disadvantages to this one other than increased accounting.
2) Half points for all ships over a certain point threshold. This would be fine with me too, but given that no one is going to agree 100% on the threshold and people can build lists around it, it's maybe not ideal to put an arbitrary cutoff in there. I think it's far from proven that even inexpensive ships would be affected much by giving half points so this is probably overkill.

Regen is a separate issue. While making it half points for all ships would bring it more to the forefront with rebels (and indeed running away to regen back past half is the pinnacle of dumb meta-gaming nonsense that we'd like to avoid I think), I will note that this problem does technically already exist with Gonk today. Since you can only (currently?) regen shields there might be something interesting that can be done with hull values and half points here though, which seems like the best direction.

Anyways this is something that skews list building somewhat and contributes to why we don't see some of the big bases out there much (particularly the non-turret ones), so I'd love to see it get addressed at some point.

11 minutes ago, punkUser said:

Thus I think there's really two short term solutions that satisfy the goals of both remaining simple (like the current rules) and more related to points than some other arbitrary metric:

And that's the problem: they're short term solutions (e.g., kludges), just like half-MoV on Large ships in the first place was a kludge.

There's nothing inherently wrong with a kludge. The problem only comes when the kludge becomes an accepted work-around to the actual problem, then shows its shortcomings as a kludge, and then gets doubled-down on by kludges pasted over the first kludge.

I will always be in favor of addressing the actual problem, rather than "fixing" it with baling-wire and bubble-gum. (I'm consistent about this: see my endless bitching about nerf after nerf of JM5K-related cards, as opposed to just fixing the @#$%ing JM5K.)

I haven't read the whole thread, so forgive me if this has been suggested already.

Half points for all ships, points awarded after a ship has received enough damage to bring it at or below half.

So if you drop 48 point Miranda to 4 hull, you score 24 right away. She can regen, but it'll only preserve the last 24 points.

4 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

And that's the problem: they're short term solutions (e.g., kludges), just like half-MoV on Large ships in the first place was a kludge.

There's nothing inherently wrong with a kludge. The problem only comes when the kludge becomes an accepted work-around to the actual problem, then shows its shortcomings as a kludge, and then gets doubled-down on by kludges pasted over the first kludge.

I will always be in favor of addressing the actual problem, rather than "fixing" it with baling-wire and bubble-gum. (I'm consistent about this: see my endless bitching about nerf after nerf of JM5K-related cards, as opposed to just fixing the @#$%ing JM5K.)

What "actual" problem are you talking about in this case?

7 minutes ago, VanderLegion said:

What "actual" problem are you talking about in this case?

In general, ships that are worth a lot of points and disproportionately hard to kill, especially (but not exclusively) with a time limit. Specifically, regen-ing ships, SLAM-ing ships, incredible token-stacking ships, multiply-repositioning ships, Engine Upgrade on Large PWTs, and so on. These things are a problem -- degree of which can be argued all folks want; I'm not quite ready to dip further into that than I already have -- for which half-MoV is a terrible kludge.

(And, worse, it's a terrible kludge that doesn't even help non-tournament players who don't follow tournament rules. And, even worse than that, it's a kludge that has unintended consequences like driving completely unobjectionable ships out of the tournament-competitive game. It's just a terrible, terrible idea.)