Great work by Jan, and unsure if he's on the forums, so posting here:

https://www.pinksquadron.dk/2019/07/do-we-go-to-time/

quick question: does it matter?

Just now, nikk whyte said:

quick question: does it matter?

For most people, probably not. Does it matter that it doesn't matter?

1 minute ago, nikk whyte said:

quick question: does it matter?

Just now, LagJanson said:

For most people, probably not. Does it matter that it doesn't matter?

I mean, the answer is maybe/sort of.

If the increase in games goint to time means that more of those games feel "unresolved", then yes, it matters.

I'm defining that "unresolved" feeling in that although one person won, both players feel like even another few turns may have changed the game (either way).

So one person simply gets up slightly on points and wins at time. Like more games being 50-57, or really low MOV games (rather than the loser being more clear, and just not technically being completely annihilated yet).

6 minutes ago, LagJanson said:

For most people, probably not. Does it matter that it doesn't matter?

when you enter into a game of x-wing, you commit to playing a game that will take an hour and fifteen minutes. That you use it all or don't or play for 3 hours instead is irrelevant.

7 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

I mean, the answer is maybe/sort of.

If the increase in games goint to time means that more of those games feel "unresolved", then yes, it matters.

I'm defining that "unresolved" feeling in that although one person won, both players feel like even another few turns may have changed the game (either way).

So one person simply gets up slightly on points and wins at time. Like more games being 50-57, or really low MOV games (rather than the loser being more clear, and just not technically being completely annihilated yet).

That's the thing. the game did resolve. all games resolve. if you needed a few more turns to win, you should analyze your play and figure out why you couldnt meet your win conditions in under an hour and fifteen minutes.

6 minutes ago, nikk whyte said:

That's the thing. the game did resolve. all games resolve. if you needed a few more turns to win, you should analyze your play and figure out why you couldnt meet your win conditions in under an hour and fifteen minutes.

I think you're overly focusing on technicalities.

Yes, the game ended. But if more players are unsatisfied by the resolution, win or lose, that is an issue. I'm not even inherently alleging that they are - I'm posing that question. *The data itself is just neat.

But game rules and mechanics, ultimately, are there to serve to make a game enjoyable. Things that detract from that aren't good for the game (or sales).

Edit: *

16 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

But if more players are unsatisfied by the resolution

'unsatisfied' is WILDLY subjective though. If i enter a system open and go 9-0 and all my games go to time, do you know what i wont be?

Not if you don't play with a time limit.

2 minutes ago, nikk whyte said:

'unsatisfied' is WILDLY subjective though.

I mean, it is. I'm wondering if the majority of players feel this way.

3 minutes ago, nikk whyte said:

If i enter a system open and go 9-0 and all my games go to time, do you know what i wont be?

I mean, ok.

your win conditions should always have the clock in mind. if you don't think you can win a game in the allotted time, then you have to step back and figure out why that is.

Just now, nikk whyte said:

your win conditions should always have the clock in mind. if you don't think you can win a game in the allotted time, then you have to step back and figure out why that is.

That's not what I asked. I am fully aware of how win conditions work.

The question was aimed at "is this fun that more games go to time?" The answer is still allowed to be "yes - no worries!"

But it's not "hey, Travis - did you forget that the clock exists in X-Wing?!"

...no, I did not.

This is really interesting data. 🙂 While it's not something that's easily recorded, I think number of turns played in the game is a big factor as well. There's a big difference (to me, at least) between a game ending at time after say 6 turns of play, or after 10-12.

I've noticed this and yeah it's unsatisfying when a game is declared over but it feels like either player could have won if the game ended a round or so later. I ran into this often enough in 1.0 too though due to the sort of lists I would play (and probably my own pace of play). Universal partial points and a lack of good real-time scoring system adds frustration here. If the app had a timer + score function built in, it would feel less arbitrary. It's challenging for me to tell who is actually technically winning/what the win conditions for each player are on the fly with mental math while also trying to manage my decision trees. Trying to manage all of that in turn slows down play feeding into the problem. I'm not sure what the solution here is - I wouldn't want to push round times out since carving out time for tournaments is challenging enough. Power creep in the late 1.0 meta definitely shortened rounds but that wasn't very fun. Familiarity helps pace of play obviously but I suspect my limited play time with 2.0 plus the confusion of having to un-remember the 1.0 cards will be an ongoing issue.

I was new to X Wing with 2.0 and have had a long term struggle with the clock. Got an awful lot better with it now.

My 'problem' is that I prefer cagey, often squishy or variance prone, manoeuvre shenanigan lists that require quite in depth planning. So scratchy head, careful, careful....

But I'd never considered it a problem with the game, just a factor that I had to build and play towards more effectively. I did not enjoy the fact that my favoured play style would gravitate so hard towards low point scores and minimal engagements. I want to get in a favourable position early and keep pressure on but it's just not that easy.

I'd say that planning to try and beat the clock and score at least 100-120 before it runs out has helped me improve in all sorts of ways, quite dramatically.

My list building no longer ends up with a load of things that may do some real damage if they get the chance. My approaches have become much simpler and more refined, there isn't that much time for fannying around, waiting for the perfect opportunity.

All in all, it's part of the game, im happy to play to it. The vast majority of my to-time games feel, if not fully resolved, at least fair and satisfying. Often, it's just about getting your nose in front, which is a game in itself.

Setting the trap to gain that vital half points on something in the last few rounds is a challenge worth seeing the good side of.

Not including 'can I just speed off, boost/roll and regen ftw', because that's some shady BS right there

I have been feeling that 2.0 goes to time way more than 1.0 since the beginning regardless of what I fly. (I like to fly all sorts of lists, aces, swarms, beef, janky with Rebels accounting for about 40% of my lists across the 1st 5 factions, will be a few months before I have the cash for the 2 new factions). It is very interesting to see my feeling backed up by numbers.

Thanks for posting. @Tlfj200

1 hour ago, nikk whyte said:

quick question: does it matter?

Absolutely because the game is about blowing up spaceships, not a bunch of spaceships shifting in space, turning around a few times, then winning or losing based on who lost their shields or not. The root cause is ship count compounded with a lack of negative incentives for playing said high ship count lists. Besides being so-called "hard to fly" * citation needed there are essentially no downsides in any way for a player that brings six ship tie swarm. They are incentivized to make the game go as slow as humanly possible because their list is an early game list with no late game plan besides "cri every time". So now we end up with really unpleasant and awkward situations where players are clearly slow playing and players are forced to turn their leisure activity into an actual, real life conflict, which most people aren't fans of in their free time. Simply switch to a set number of rounds and ditch the timer altogether (and TOs could more easily be policing slow play by simply comparing round numbers between tables) or switch to a chess clock. I'm sure there are some good Tie swarm players out there, but thanks to all of my last hyperspace experiences, I just assume that TIE swarm players only win because of slow play. Either that or impose a rule, specifically for high ship count lists that nerfs their ability to game the system. I know this is going to trigger people, but every Inferno Swarm I play against may as well just be a fortress because it is just as much fun and engaging as a fortress is.

So "completion" per the article = 1 of the 2 players' squads getting wiped from the table... I think the issue is people need to re-evaluate what they value in the game if this is the only end state for a match that they find acceptable/enjoyable...

6 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

So "completion" per the article = 1 of the 2 players' squads getting wiped from the table... I think the issue is people need to re-evaluate what they value in the game if this is the only end state for a match that they find acceptable/enjoyable...

So, i'm not sure that's what most people would actually define it as, but rather the more nebulous 'the game didn't like it was fully resolved' or something, which is far harder to even try and quantify.

All we know, right now, is that more games go to time, and that's about it, from a data standpoint.

A lot of my tournament games seem to go to time, which then adds more stress for me during the tournament because I have no time to decompress and often feel rushed going into the next game. That said, I do feel games are resolved at time and don't have a problem in that regard.

I prefer games going to time every day over playing nymranda, both surviving with a single hp and not giving any points...

Based on my own experience, I would say games go to time more often in 2.0. But, I don’t see that as a problem. I have both benefited and experienced loss from the timer, thus can’t really complain. Some of my regular opponents and myself have said things like “if I had just one more turn...”, but when you get down to it, that’s the same kind of complaint with us as “if my dice hadn’t crapped out on me.” It’s part of the game because it is a game.

I do think that while the half points rules can be a little clunky, time with it has show it has value. Keeping track of it during game can be difficult, but some of the 2nd party apps allow for list sharing and half point calculators for those who want it.

I also think the “winning on points” is viable thematically as well. “In 75 minutes, reinforcements arrive and we have to bug out” and the like. Half points still mostly make sense because a ship you've done significant damage to (arbitrary signified by half points) might have escaped, but it’s going to have to have major repairs or get scrapped.

I personally agree with @nikk whyte that games going to time isn’t a problem. I can understand if someone feels unsatisfied by going to time, but I have not really experienced that myself.

if I have a criticism of going to time more, it’s to echo @gennataos ’s of not having some down time between rounds in tournaments, but i also see that as just part of the game.

56 minutes ago, ThinkingB said:

Absolutely because the game is about blowing up spaceships, not a bunch of spaceships shifting in space, turning around a few times, then winning or losing based on who lost their shields or not. The root cause is ship count compounded with a lack of negative incentives for playing said high ship count lists. Besides being so-called "hard to fly" * citation needed there are essentially no downsides in any way for a player that brings six ship tie swarm. They are incentivized to make the game go as slow as humanly possible because their list is an early game list with no late game plan besides "cri every time". So now we end up with really unpleasant and awkward situations where players are clearly slow playing and players are forced to turn their leisure activity into an actual, real life conflict, which most people aren't fans of in their free time. Simply switch to a set number of rounds and ditch the timer altogether (and TOs could more easily be policing slow play by simply comparing round numbers between tables) or switch to a chess clock. I'm sure there are some good Tie swarm players out there, but thanks to all of my last hyperspace experiences, I just assume that TIE swarm players only win because of slow play. Either that or impose a rule, specifically for high ship count lists that nerfs their ability to game the system. I know this is going to trigger people, but every Inferno Swarm I play against may as well just be a fortress because it is just as much fun and engaging as a fortress is.

lol.

"scissors op, rock is fine" - paper.

Lets see. Every ship now gives half points. With a few contradicting edge cases, guaranteed/nearly guaranteed hits and evades are less likely. Average ship count is up (similarly the average hp pool). Meta "resets" every 3 months (hard resets at points changes every 6 months, soft resets with mid points wave drops). MoV still has an influence on making cut (ties in with every ship being able to grant half points).

2.0 is a different game and people are trying to force its heptagonal shape into the old 1.0 triangular/pentagonal hole that they're familiar with. Of course it feels "off"...

1 minute ago, nikk whyte said:

lol.

"scissors op, rock is fine" - paper.

Yeah I forget that 6 rounds of activation followed by time being called is fUn AnD eNgAgInG