15 minutes ago, MajorJuggler said:

So how does the scoring system determine the game state? The entire point of a scoring system is to determine the game state, but you haven't defined how the scoring system should function and why it works well for games that go to time.

Here is the scenario again:

Scenario: Miranda / Nym vs 8 TIE Fighters: Miranda and Nym both have 1HP left, one TIE is dead, and the other 7 TIEs are at full health. How should the scoring system handle this? This is an extreme example but the tactical repercussions in more "normal" scenario play out in 100% of the games that I have played.

In this case, the scoring system should give the win to the (gag) Nymranda player, who very obviously outflew the TIE swarm, forcing it to perfectly divide all of its damage, such that both Nymranda ships remain fully functional. If the TIE player had played any better at all -- I mean, like any better -- he would have finished off a ship and won.

There's no problem here that balancing the ships better wouldn't solve.

Just now, MajorJuggler said:

Stopping regen on bumps is tactically really good design but that alone doesn't prevent the many common scenarios of Corran running away for infinity turns, regenerating the entire time.

I thought about further restricting R2-D2 to be only every other round, and only if not overlapping, but decided to just start with every other round. But it's still in alpha, not even beta yet, there is plenty of time to get test data and tweak it. :-)

Actually you did change my mind on it. Having both a bild up ("gonk-ed") and no overlap might be too much. I think I'd be fine to try either version but prefer the gonked one. That might be the better solution but would require a stronger overhaul like your community mod while the no-overlap could be more easily implemented in the official game.

5 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

In this case, the scoring system should give the win to the (gag) Nymranda player, who very obviously outflew the TIE swarm, forcing it to perfectly divide all of its damage, such that both Nymranda ships remain fully functional. If the TIE player had played any better at all -- I mean, like any better -- he would have finished off a ship and won.

There's no problem here that balancing the ships better wouldn't solve.

What if the game ended at time before the TIE Swarm could win, because Miranda / Nym held dials for 8 minutes, with 9 minutes left?

This happened at MA Regionals 2015, with a near-death decimator having one legal move to stay on the board next turn. There were no half points as you suggested, which directly resulted in the scoring system encouraging certain players to slow play. Such a scoring system is part of the problem, not the solution.

Slow playing is cheating. That's a completely separate issue.

1 minute ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Slow playing is cheating. That's a completely separate issue.

If your scoring system directly encourages cheating, and now we have to go down the rabbit hole of determining what constitutes slow play, which is impossible to enforce, then your scoring system is completely FUBAR.

7 minutes ago, MajorJuggler said:

If your scoring system directly encourages cheating, and now we have to go down the rabbit hole of determining what constitutes slow play, which is impossible to enforce, then your scoring system is completely FUBAR.

Begging the question. I don't accept your premise (the system "encourages" cheating), nor your secondary premise (slow play is impossible to enforce).

Cheating is a separate issue from half-MoV. The only thing the two subjects have in common is the game itself.

41 minutes ago, MajorJuggler said:

So how does the scoring system determine the game state? The entire point of a scoring system is to determine the game state, but you haven't defined how the scoring system should function and why it works well for games that go to time.

Here is the scenario again:

Player with initiative wins.

Next question?

12 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Begging the question. I don't accept your premise (the system "encourages" cheating), nor your secondary premise (slow play is impossible to enforce).

Cheating is a separate issue from half-MoV. The only thing the two subjects have in common is the game itself.

Slow play rules are insanely hard to enforce. Because by the time you realize you're being slow played, Call the judge, Get the judge from w/e they were doing, then have the judge around long enough to establish that yes it's slow play while he's there. the guy slow playing for 8 minutes gets like 16 minutes before theres any enforcement. With 9 minutes left that's 7 too late to matter.

I like the idea of not rewarding slow play period.because then you don't gotta struggle to enforce something that is encouraged by the mechanics

And that's something Final Salvo dies very nicely a lot of the time, because there's no certainty waiting for you as a result of slow play. It can't disincentivise all slow play situations, where say a 25% chance of final salvo win is better than 4% chance if you play to win in time, but it disincentivises the vast majority.

2 hours ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Maybe from a technical sense, but not from a tactical wargame sense. Partial scoring -- of any sort -- encourages behavior that is diametrical to any reasonable goal when playing a fighting simulation.

To put it another way: X-Wing already has partial scoring, in every case except when a squadron is composed of only one ship.

Partial scoring is simply bad. It was bad when FFG did it, and it's bad when you're doing it.

Just in case it's not clear, this is actually a deal-breaker for me. I was in hoping for better design than FFG, but this is doubling down on one of the stupidest changes they made to the game(*). I just can't support it.

(*) And not even actually to the game. It's a tournament rule. Ships for the game are forced to be balanced -- okay, "balanced" -- for a rule that doesn't even exist in the actual game rules-set.

I don't understand how we can play a timed game without partial scoring, we need some sort of tie breaker. Everything's got partial points: boxing, MMA, you name it. A KO can't be the only way to determine a victor.

I'm not married to the idea of more refined MOV, but I don't see why it's somehow a dealbreaker when it's already a necessity for a workable, timed event.

Discussions about scoring systems for ships, scoring for matches, and matchup luck are imo way more interesting and important than the 10th thread on harpoons or how to nerf any card, really.

A match scoring system should reward aggressive, offensive play, reflecting the inherent advantage of red over green dice.

What options are there?

The recent TC open used kill points, which was great, and lost points were used as tie breakers. That way you rather keep attacking and take more with you than trying to preserve MoV.

What about a general penalty of some sort if the game goes to time?

And is that a discussion for another thread?

55 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Begging the question. I don't accept your premise (the system "encourages" cheating), nor your secondary premise (slow play is impossible to enforce).

Cheating is a separate issue from half-MoV. The only thing the two subjects have in common is the game itself.

OK, fixed the wording so it's not begging the quesiton:

1 hour ago, MajorJuggler said:

Since your scoring system directly encourages cheating, and now we have to go down the rabbit hole of determining what constitutes slow play which is impossible to enforce, your scoring system is completely FUBAR.

Premise #1 : There exists a scenario that is relatively common in tournament play, in which Player #1 is almost certain to win if the game were to finish to completion, but if the game round length gets cut "short", then Player #2 is 100% guaranteed to win instead due to how the scoring system at time functions.

Premise #2 : Player #2 is being encouraged by the scoring rules to cut the game length short, since this is his best (and possibly only) chance of winning.

Fact #1 : Slow play is against the tournament rules.

Fact #2 : Slow play is fundamentally impossible to define in real-time, and by extension is unenforceable at the tournament level.*

Conclusion : The scoring system above directly encourages competitive players to regularly violate the tournament rules in order to win, since a) it is frequently their only way to win, and b) violating this rule has no repercussion.

* Many examples exist. If you need convincing, do your own poll of high level TO's and how often they punish slow play, vs how often it actually happens. The empirical evidence for this point is so high that refusing to acknowledge this point indicates an unwillingness to engage in meaningful conversation, so I'm not even going to bother trying to defend this point.

That's all that I'll say about scoring in this thread to keep it from going even further off-topic.

Cheating is a separate issue from half-MoV. The only thing the two subjects have in common is the game itself.

For example, imagine if your dream of implementing fully-broken down incremental MoV were realized.

Someone could argue that such an arithmetic-heavy method of scoring would "encourage" people to make lots and lots of "mistakes" in their math when turning in their scoring slips. After all, if caught, they could just say, "Oops."

But if a person made that argument, it would be absurd, because cheating is a separate issue from calculating MoV. The only thing the two subjects have in common is the game itself.

lol

2 hours ago, MajorJuggler said:

Fact #2 : Slow play is fundamentally impossible to define in real-time, and by extension is unenforceable at the tournament level.*

* Many examples exist. If you need convincing, do your own poll of high level TO's and how often they punish slow play, vs how often it actually happens. The empirical evidence for this point is so high that refusing to acknowledge this point indicates an unwillingness to engage in meaningful conversation, so I'm not even going to bother trying to defend this point.

The lack of floor rules is not an argument against implementation of floor rules.

Slow play is solvable.

How to balance regen? Floor rules!

I had a guy from Austin once complain I was playing too quickly after he started slow playing - even as the game ended he had a hard time understanding that his slowing down was the inappropriate thing...

5 hours ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Cheating is a separate issue from half-MoV. The only thing the two subjects have in common is the game itself.

For example, imagine if your dream of implementing fully-broken down incremental MoV were realized.

Someone could argue that such an arithmetic-heavy method of scoring would "encourage" people to make lots and lots of "mistakes" in their math when turning in their scoring slips. After all, if caught, they could just say, "Oops."

But if a person made that argument, it would be absurd, because cheating is a separate issue from calculating MoV. The only thing the two subjects have in common is the game itself.

While you are technically correct, it is arguable that in game design, it is preferable to design games and systems in which cheating is disincentivised, and the easier it would be to cheat, the less helpful it would be to do so.

A game like Love Letter can simply demand players be honest about what cards they have in their hand at any one time, and simply declare in the rule manual "And if you can't trust your players to do so, just don't play with them any more", but it can do so because the game takes thirty seconds to teach and fifteen minutes to play.

A game like X-wing, in which the stakes are measured in hundreds of dollars of kit, hours of gameplay, and entire days worth of effort in a competitive setting? Is maybe not a game in which you should be, say, rolling your dice in secret and telling your opponent the results.

Oddly enough, they expect you to roll them in the open instead... almost like it's a good idea to design your game to be harder to cheat at. Slow-play is a greyer area, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to have a system that discourages it.

In streamed games lately I've seen people slow play themselves into losses. Slow play is an issue & tournament structure is interconnected with the issue. Infinite regen is a larger issue & deserves immediate FAQ treatment.

5 hours ago, kris40k said:

Slow play is solvable.

Ummmmm... how? My initial reaction to the question is a chess clock or some other similar method but upon further reflection X-wing opportunities for action alternate back and forth multiple times per ship activation which makes it just not feasible

The reality is that how long someone takes to make a decision, even in the best and most virtuous of circumstance, tends to scale not only with how complex but also with how important that decision is. Which just so happens to coincide with close end game situations which also maximize the incentive to slow play. So trying to prove whether someone is taking longer so that they can fully think through an important move or because they have rationally evaluated that, due to the scoring system, their best chance of winning the game is not to actually finish the game is virtually impossible.

10 hours ago, Makaze said:

Ummmmm... how? My initial reaction to the question is a chess clock or some other similar method but upon further reflection X-wing opportunities for action alternate back and forth multiple times per ship activation which makes it just not feasible

The reality is that how long someone takes to make a decision, even in the best and most virtuous of circumstance, tends to scale not only with how complex but also with how important that decision is. Which just so happens to coincide with close end game situations which also maximize the incentive to slow play. So trying to prove whether someone is taking longer so that they can fully think through an important move or because they have rationally evaluated that, due to the scoring system, their best chance of winning the game is not to actually finish the game is virtually impossible.

By (1) setting a standardized amount of acceptable time to place dials that is understood by a players and (2) enforcing it.

Step 1 is done by FFG and worked into the Tournament rules. These are just arbitrary numbers from a couple years experience and debatable, adjustable, etc. but for right now lets say 120 second limits on the Planning phase. 30 Seconds to decide an Action, a Combat target, etc. After one player lodges a complaint, a judge gives warning, adds time to the round, and then via observation determines if a timer is required or if the player has corrected their behavior.

Set it in the regs.

As far as the complexity of or importance of, that is irrelevant. Once its in the regs, players need to stick to them , and I don't care that someone feels the need to overthink every possibility of opponents choices and work up the probabilities to determine the best possible course of action.

"But I'm flying 8 TIE's ..." - I don't care

" But this next turn could determine the game ..." - I don't care

" But I have PtL + AdvSensors + BR + Boost and a bad case of decision paralysis ..." - I don't care

Get faster or get penalized. I'm sure that would determine the game a lot more than you agonizing over whether to take a TL or Focus this turn.

Step 2 is actually the harder one due to the human factor and the laid back, informal nature of the X-Wing community. Judges just interpret rules, and many are very RAW focused, so if its not in the regs, they suffer paralysis. By giving them something in writing , they can then act. Also, may good Judges make horrible Marshals.

Marshals are responsible for enforcing unsportsmanlike conduct, which is more about intention which is really where slow-play currently falls (is someone intending to slow play to run out the clock or are they just "legitimately" planning) and why RAW focused judges are weak at enforcing it. As well, many Judges don't want to be the "bad guy" and stick to the rules as written which protects them from seeming like a bad guy or lacking impartiality when making intuitive decisions that negatively impact a player because they can fall back on The Book to protect themselves from negativity.

They need to get over that. People inevitably will get their feelings hurt in any competitive setting where a ruling go against them. If you've ever talked to a ref for professional sports, or even amateur, they can attest to this.

Also, I suspect putting one or two players heads on metaphorical pikes by assigning a game loss at a premier event will suddenly see an increase in the average speed of play.

Or do what Armada does, and games end after X turns not X minutes.

21 minutes ago, kris40k said:

Set it in the regs.

What you've described is completely unworkable, I mean just laughably so.

It both places a ridiculous administrative burden on players/judges to try to time and police every single interaction and it actually makes the problem even worse to boot. If there is suddenly a codified set in stone time that I can take for every single opportunity then you've just effectively legalized slow play. All I need to do is take the max allowable time for each interaction and I can drag the game to a screeching halt all while fitting completely within the rules.

6 minutes ago, Makaze said:

It both places a ridiculous administrative burden on players/judges to try to time and police every single interaction...

No. It only requires additional input by a judge upon a complaint by a player. If no one complains, play moves along nicely without any additional work upon the Judges or Marshal.

6 minutes ago, Makaze said:

...and it actually makes the problem even worse to boot. If there is suddenly a codified set in stone time that I can take for every single opportunity then you've just effectively legalized slow play. All I need to do is take the max allowable time for each interaction and I can drag the game to a screeching halt all while fitting completely within the rules.

Which is why the actual times mentioned in my post are arbitrary and completely up for debate about what is a reasonable amount of time to play. Even if someone uses up every available second, it will be an improvement because we have already established that doing exactly that is an acceptable amount of time to be used.

30 second shot clocks/ play clocks didn't ruin sports. Sure, people run them down to the wire all the time, but they are proven over many years to objectively improve the speed of play.

31 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

Or do what Armada does, and games end after X turns not X minutes.

That's what X-Wing Vassal games to a lot of the time too. I don't have any objection to it from a rules or effect on gameplay perspective but since individual turns can vary immensely in length I'm not sure it's realistic for an event trying to fit 6+ games of X-Wing into a single day. With all games in a round starting simultaneously you're constrained by your slowest game each round.

I'd say Armada's lack of typically going to time has more to do with what I've seen of its meta with each side only having a few important ships (flying your 5 flotillas around on the other side of the board doesn't take long...). And more importantly it's scoring system caring only about tournament points as opposed to wins. Which makes situations where you would barely outpoint your opponent at time a marginal victory at best as opposed to X-Wing where it is supremely important.