5 minutes ago, S4ul0 said:

Sorry but I quoted you because described very well the problems with this matchup.

You must fly better to win against swarms. You must engage because the clock is against you. You can't make mistakes. All of this is fine.

Where is the problem? Why we need another thread writing about the scoring system?

Can the Aces win this matchup?

There is at least one player forced to engage. Why all this effort to change who?

Aces can win the matchup but it’s hard, and if you make a single mistake you lose. When you add to that a 5-15 point penalty to them it seems... mean.

I don't like that solution too. Actually, I don't like any solution to this "issue".

1 hour ago, Estarriol said:

Because ace play is high risk high reward? It’s not easy mode. If you punish the archetype you’re just going to end up swarm vs swarm jousting as you’re rewarding extra guns on the table instead of better flying.

It isn't punishing the archetype. A player gets something for a bid. That's why they made one. Bid points should be able to be scored without destroying the entire list. Players get something for a bid the same way they get something for an upgrade or a higher cost pilot. 13 points spent on a bid should be able to be scored the same way 13 points spend on a proton torpedo can be scored. If a player spent points so they can move last and initiative kill ships without getting shot, they shouldn't also get to protect those points because they aren't on the table.

What about bid points being divided by the number of ships in the list? Highest cost ship gets any "odd" points (a 10 point bid in a three ship list would see the highest cost ship getting four of the bid points while the other get three each.) Bid points aren't on the table and they should be.

Tangentially what if the who gets the "move last decision" were decided by some value determined from the number of ships and the values of the infinitives of the pilots in the list. Points spend on a bid would then figure into that value as a boost to it. (Though those bid points would still need to be "on the table" the same way as an upgrade.)

9 minutes ago, Frimmel said:

It isn't punishing the archetype. A player gets something for a bid. That's why they made one. Bid points should be able to be scored without destroying the entire list. Players get something for a bid the same way they get something for an upgrade or a higher cost pilot. 13 points spent on a bid should be able to be scored the same way 13 points spend on a proton torpedo can be scored. If a player spent points so they can move last and initiative kill ships without getting shot, they shouldn't also get to protect those points because they aren't on the table.

Players don't spend points on bids. They play a more inefficient list because they can put more guns or bigger ships on the table instead.

Maybe there are players that desperately need their Aces move last, but the bid is wasted if all enemy ships have lower initiative.

And when a player defends his points, remember he scored by destroying/damaging more ships than his opponent. Also, a full victory scores 200, no matter the bid.

I don't like points bids and do think they "hide" points from their opponent. Anything to make then leas attractive is fine with me.

I feel that Aces are too popular a style and it becomes a ridiculous bidding war to get the initiative. I would be fine if it were determined by a coin flip. I feel that there is inherently too much power in an always go last aces list that is not good for the game. The attitude that you deserve to win unless you make a mistake is a bad one, in my mind. I see that mindset leads to two players each not making mistakes and average dice leans more in favor of the aces list winning.

On 10/24/2019 at 9:03 PM, Vontoothskie said:

This topic is why Im not sold on 2.0 as an improvement over 1st. we're seeing the exact same mechanical problems as 1.0 but with different specific pilots or upgrades triggering issues.

initiative has been a bordeline win condition for many lists since first edition launched. it needs to be random, alternating, or rendered less potent so people cant use it as a crutch. game balance cant be achieved without fixing this first, cuz othwrwise its trying to fix the walls when the roof is leaking, you know?

Well....tournament scoring isn't the best way to view if a game system has improved or not. 2nd Ed has improved the game hand over fist. It is almost like saying cars haven't improved in 100 years because they are still fundamentally driven the same way.

On 10/26/2019 at 11:07 PM, Pewpewpew BOOM said:

I am certainly behind objectives as a concept if they encourage players to actually fight. I am not sure what kind of objectives work for a space dogfighting game. I’ve played minis games with objectives like Rangers of Shadow Deep, earlier versions of Malifaux and Warmahordes, but XW is a very different setting.

There are a lot of scenarios that can be done for a space game. Part of the challenge comes in with designing them for the same points per side. Shuttle Tydirium has done a lot of mission development and @Babaganoosh is pretty savvy on writing scenarios/missions. He has whole campaigns. If you are really interested, let me know.

On 10/24/2019 at 11:28 AM, ClassicalMoser said:

I'm 100% in favor of objective-based play. Rather than scoring points based on ship costs at all , your objective is to do A before your opponent does B. If your opponent does B, he wins. If you do A, you win. Very simple, but trickier I guess for establishing MoV. If MoV is really that important, you could divide the points up a little more like the Epic scenarios do. I don't like fortressing and I think straight-up deathmatches are boring and anti-thematic a bit.

Sorry for the double post, but I wanted to address this. Going just off objectives for points is not the best way. You get what we have called "suicide syndrome" that has you rushing to blow up the objectives with ordnance and it doesn't matter if your whole list dies. It isn't fun and makes for a bad game. By using objectives and destroying enemy ships you do get the best way to play things.

The real challenge is symmetrical missions with equal points. There are only so many mission ideas with equal point lists. I do think it would improve events if it was more than just death match.

It is also good to point out differences between scenarios and missions. Missions are games with objectives to score extra points. FFG seems to be creating scenarios that are still your standard death match, but with unique rules thrown in. Think about the asteroid shower one. It's still death match, but with unique rules for putting out more obstacles. I should also say that you can use scenarios in missions, too. It doesn't have to be just death match.

All I’m saying is if you’re going to screw players for taking a bid, you should look at the final salvo mechanics for tiebreaking. At the moment they massively reward players for putting quantity in the table over quality,

39 minutes ago, S4ul0 said:

Players don't spend points on bids. They play a more inefficient list because they can put more guns or bigger ships on the table instead.

Maybe there are players that desperately need their Aces move last, but the bid is wasted if all enemy ships have lower initiative.

And when a player defends his points, remember he scored by destroying/damaging more ships than his opponent. Also, a full victory scores 200, no matter the bid.

A bid is spending points on the better-chance-to-move-last upgrade. That upgrade should be able to be scored in whole or in part just like Supernatural Reflexes or Lone Wolf or Crack Shot. You don't have to destroy the entire list to get the extra points spent on Instinctive Aim or R2-D2 or Proton Torpedoes on Luke. Why should I have to destroy the entire list to score the better-chance-to-move-last upgrade on Soontir?

41 minutes ago, Frimmel said:

A bid is spending points on the better-chance-to-move-last upgrade. That upgrade should be able to be scored in whole or in part just like Supernatural Reflexes or Lone Wolf or Crack Shot. You don't have to destroy the entire list to get the extra points spent on Instinctive Aim or R2-D2 or Proton Torpedoes on Luke. Why should I have to destroy the entire list to score the better-chance-to-move-last upgrade on Soontir?

Your advantage is there is one less ship shooting at your squad because they spent the points on a bid and upgrades instead.

1 hour ago, heychadwick said:

Sorry for the double post, but I wanted to address this. Going just off objectives for points is not the best way. You get what we have called "suicide syndrome" that has you rushing to blow up the objectives with ordnance and it doesn't matter if your whole list dies. It isn't fun and makes for a bad game. By using objectives and destroying enemy ships you do get the best way to play things.

The real challenge is symmetrical missions with equal points. There are only so many mission ideas with equal point lists. I do think it would improve events if it was more than just death match.

It is also good to point out differences between scenarios and missions. Missions are games with objectives to score extra points. FFG seems to be creating scenarios that are still your standard death match, but with unique rules thrown in. Think about the asteroid shower one. It's still death match, but with unique rules for putting out more obstacles. I should also say that you can use scenarios in missions, too. It doesn't have to be just death match.

I would counter that it is possible to create all kinds of different missions with different kinds of squad requirements. For example, "rushing to blow up the objectives with ordnance and it doesn't matter if your whole list dies" would be a pretty good description of the battle of Yavin. The Rebels won that battle even though they came away with less than half their list. That's okay as long as there are other objectives that require a different type of play. For example, an escort mission, some kind of area control, etc. are all things that would make you want to keep your ships alive as long as possible.

It would be disingenuous to think that all objectives would lead to the same type of play. On the contrary, all deathmatches lead to mostly the same kind of play, and getting an objective that plays toward your list a little better would be part of the strategy. It would also push for more list diversity if players don't know what they're actually trying to do until they hit the mat. You have to build a list that can hurt stuff fast, can stay alive, and can move fast, depending on the situation.

Edit: I should clarify – Death matches don't lead all lists to the same kind of play, but they do generally lead any given list to play the same way against most other lists, whether that's a joust, an alpha strike, a flank, turtling in the corner, or running to time. If your list is depending too much on running to time, maybe it won't do that well at blowing stuff up? If it's really good at blowing stuff up, how will it do at staying alive? I'd like to see hard-ish counters based less on list matchup than a combination of list matchup and scenario.

It actually wouldn't be very hard, and not involve much math, to make bid points available for scoring without having to table your opponent.

It seems like you could simply take the bid, divide by the number of ships, and then front load any remainder onto the first ships destroyed.

For example, an ace bid might have three ships, and a 14 point bid. fourteen divided by three is four, with a remainder of two.

The first ship destroyed is worth its points plus (4+1).

The second ship destroyed is worth it points plus (4+1).

The last ship destroyed is worth its points plus (4).

The quad vipers typically have a four point bid.

So you simply divide those four points over four ships.

I believe PhilGC runs Guri/Fenn, with a 22 point bid.

That's 11 points per ship, so as soon as one or the other gets destroyed, his opponent earns 11 of those 22 points back.

When the bid is less than or equal to the number of ships, one point extra per ship is lost when a ship is destroyed, up to the number of ships.

I don't know that I'm for or against calculating victory points this way or not, but it does seem like it's doable fairly easily, without hiding the entire bid.

8 minutes ago, underling said:

It actually wouldn't be very hard, and not involve much math, to make bid points available for scoring without having to table your opponent.

It seems like you could simply take the bid, divide by the number of ships, and then front load any remainder onto the first ships destroyed.

Oh please, not more math...

But while we're on it, why not divide it by another two and award half (rounded down) when you score half-points on that ship? Because current play already rewards just running with a ship once it's on half health, and this would even more so if half of your bid is at stake.

Arithmetic-wing is the least fun way to play with toy spaceships.

2 minutes ago, ClassicalMoser said:

I would counter that it is possible to create all kinds of different missions with different kinds of squad requirements. For example, "rushing to blow up the objectives with ordnance and it doesn't matter if your whole list dies" would be a pretty good description of the battle of Yavin. The Rebels won that battle even though they came away with less than half their list. That's okay as long as there are other objectives that require a different type of play. For example, an escort mission, some kind of area control, etc. are all things that would make you want to keep your ships alive as long as possible. It would be disingenuous to think that all objectives would lead to the same type of play. On the contrary, all deathmatches lead to mostly the same kind of play, and getting an objective that plays toward your list a little better would be part of the strategy. It would also push for more list diversity if players don't know what they're actually trying to do until they hit the mat. You have to build a list that can hurt stuff fast, can stay alive, and can move fast, depending on the situation.

Two thoughts for me from this:

1) Having a mission where the only thing is one objective to be destroyed and you don't lose points for having your ships destroyed is not good mission design. Shuttle Tydirium podcast did a segment on it a while ago. Phil goes into much detail on why it's bad. Short answer is you only news one fast ship with ordnance to zip up and blast it too easily. I have actually played a lot of missions like this. What you need to improve it (if you didn't want to lose points for ships destroyed) is have either multiple objectives or some sort if mechanism in place that is a requirement before you can blow it. Destroy the Shield Generator before you can hurt the objective.

I really can find that episode as we went into a lot of detail about it. It would sound better than what I can type up.

2) How did you get the idea that I am against objectives in tournament play? I have been an advocate for that style for.... at least 5 years. I do a whole podcast about non-death match Xwing. We host variant games throughout GenCon, including a couple of campaigns that are full of missions. I have played tested quite a few missions in my time, but realize I am not as good as others in making missions. I'm not bad, but not great.

5 minutes ago, heychadwick said:

How did you get the idea that I am against objectives in tournament play?

From this:

1 hour ago, heychadwick said:

Going just off objectives for points is not the best way.

If I understand you correctly, you're suggesting that objective points should be balanced by squad points. I'm saying if the objectives are well-constructed, they can be the sole source of points, and that will reduce the mental strain for new competitive (or even non-competitive) players.

5 minutes ago, heychadwick said:

What you need to improve it (if you didn't want to lose points for ships destroyed) is have either multiple objectives or some sort if mechanism in place that is a requirement before you can blow it. Destroy the Shield Generator before you can hurt the objective.

I think we're largely in agreement here. I like complex objectives. But I don't think squad points necessarily have to be a part of that.

13 minutes ago, ClassicalMoser said:

Oh please, not more math...

But while we're on it, why not divide it by another two and award half (rounded down) when you score half-points on that ship? Because current play already rewards just running with a ship once it's on half health, and this would even more so if half of your bid is at stake.

Arithmetic-wing is the least fun way to play with toy spaceships.

Hey, I'm a retired engineer, so I only think so far into things anymore...

I don't know that there's currently a problem, anyway.

But...

On the one hand you've got players that think a bid should be protected until a force is totally destroyed.

On the other hand you've got players that think a bid should immediately be victory points to the opponent.

I'm not sure what a good compromise should be, or even if there should be any change at this point.

3 minutes ago, ClassicalMoser said:

From this:

<stuff>

If I understand you correctly, you're suggesting that objective points should be balanced by squad points. I'm saying if the objectives are well-constructed, they can be the sole source of points, and that will reduce the mental strain for new competitive (or even non-competitive) players.

I think we're largely in agreement here. I like complex objectives. But I don't think squad points necessarily have to be a part of that.

I think we are in agreement. It can be tough to write a good mission that is to destroy a single objective and not award points for destroyed ships. It is possible, but would be hard. Much easier to have both destroyed ships and objective points.

21 minutes ago, Estarriol said:

Your advantage is there is one less ship shooting at your squad because they spent the points on a bid and upgrades instead.

At the disadvantage of not being able to shoot at ships because they can dodge arcs since they move last. Players play one less ship to play ships that are harder to gets shots on. Players get something for a bid. Moving last is valuable. It is so valuable that several upgrades scale significantly in cost when placed on ships that move last.

25 minutes ago, ClassicalMoser said:

But while we're on it, why not divide it by another two and award half (rounded down) when you score half-points on that ship? Because current play already rewards just running with a ship once it's on half health, and this would even more so if half of your bid is at stake.

Yes. Better-chance-to-move-last upgrade points aka "a bid" should be available in whole or in half just like points spent on other upgrades and pilots. I do not know how far that goes to helping with any sort of stalling issue. Moving last is valuable. Points spent to move last should be available in whole or in half without killing an entire list just like points spent on ships and upgrades are.

Does Soontir cost X points instead of Y points that are greater than X because he needs to have points for a bid? If so, then either bid points need to be available in whole or in half or the determination of initiative needs handled differently.

2 hours ago, S4ul0 said:

but the bid is wasted if all enemy ships have lower initiative.

I see you have never met Point Fortress Kylo Ren.

Honestly, it can be better to NOT have 20-30 points of ship on the board, and just bank those points on a high-init ship that can dodge all day long until time.

17 minutes ago, kris40k said:

I see you have never met Point Fortress Kylo Ren.

Honestly, it can be better to NOT have 20-30 points of ship on the board, and just bank those points on a high-init ship that can dodge all day long until time.

I play Kylo Ren a lot and I know how to defend my score. And yes, some squads works better with fewer ships.

But if you don't destroy Kylo Ren you don't deserve his points. If a player wants to point fortress, first needs to destroy something (with fewer an expensive ships)

Why is better for the game that you gain points only for put the ships on the table against a strong bid squad?

17 minutes ago, S4ul0 said:

I play Kylo Ren a lot and I know how to defend my score. And yes, some squads works better with fewer ships.

But if you don't destroy Kylo Ren you don't deserve his points. If a player wants to point fortress, first needs to destroy something (with fewer an expensive ships)

Why is better for the game that you gain points only for put the ships on the table against a strong bid squad?

So if a player takes Kylo and doesn't need a bunch of other ships is Kylo in point of fact correctly costed? If you kill Kylo but not the whole list the opponent is shorted all those points Kylo let's a player not use.

scenario cards or objectives chosen by each player prior to the game could be one solution. These are essentially objectives which would determine how you would build your squad. Initiative rules and bidding would be one of the things considered for specific objectives. This would shake up the game a lot and I suspect no t be to everyone's taste but there could be a middle ground where you can choose 'zero' objectives and have not restrictions or benefits from objectives?

6 minutes ago, Outer_Rim_Smuggler said:

scenario cards or objectives chosen by each player prior to the game could be one solution. These are essentially objectives which would determine how you would build your squad. Initiative rules and bidding would be one of the things considered for specific objectives. This would shake up the game a lot and I suspect no t be to everyone's taste but there could be a middle ground where you can choose 'zero' objectives and have not restrictions or benefits from objectives?

I think you can build your list to give you too much of an advantage over another person if your scenario was picked and theirs not. I think the organizers can pick one scenario/mission and everyone plays that one for the round. Either that or randomly determine which one.

3 minutes ago, heychadwick said:

I think you can build your list to give you too much of an advantage over another person if your scenario was picked and theirs not. I think the organizers can pick one scenario/mission and everyone plays that one for the round. Either that or randomly determine which one.

Random selection would likely be best, much like other games that use scenarios for tournament games.

While some competitive players may dislike introducing another RNG element into games, it would help to prevent people building for a single scenario possibility if there was enough random options that could show and occasionally punting was not feasible way to win.

1 hour ago, Frimmel said:

So if a player takes Kylo and doesn't need a bunch of other ships is Kylo in point of fact correctly costed? If you kill Kylo but not the whole list the opponent is shorted all those points Kylo let's a player not use.

I think Kylo Ren is one of the best pilots in the game but is a 5 and is very expensive. He suffers against another Aces and the faction don't have a lot of tools. If Kylo Ren is destroyed, we probably know the match result.

We are already paying the high initiative of the Aces. Why we need to pay again? If an high initiative pilot have a lot of reposition cappabilities is more expensive than another without it.

I don't understand your doble tax.

2 minutes ago, S4ul0 said:

I think Kylo Ren is one of the best pilots in the game but is a 5 and is very expensive. He suffers against another Aces and the faction don't have a lot of tools. If Kylo Ren is destroyed, we probably know the match result.

We are already paying the high initiative of the Aces. Why we need to pay again? If an high initiative pilot have a lot of reposition cappabilities is more expensive than another without it.

I don't understand your doble tax.

It isn't a double tax. You get something for a bid a better-chance-at-moving-last upgrade. Moving last is valuable. (Being able to move your ships that want to move first first is valuable.) You leave points off the list because the chance of moving at your choice is more valuable than more upgrades. You get something for those points while not risking giving them to your opponent if the match goes to time. That's not how upgrades should work.

Reposition actions are better when you move last right? So a bid is a better-chance-at-moving-last upgrade to your reposition actions.