Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
The Blood Bowl tier system does more than go "this team isn't as innately easy to win with as that team" but serves as the core of how teams are designed and how the allotment system works.

This sentence is doing a lot of work and needs backing up. Halflings are straight up not as easy to win with as most teams in the game.

Hecaton wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Hecatron, you're telling me to prove a negative. How about you stop employing an unfalsifiable argument and prove it can work.

Maybe you shouldn't have made that claim then if it can't be proven.

You made the claim that points can solve all problems, I disagreed. You then asked me to prove a negative. So you don't understand game design or how to debate ideas.

Wait, aren't you talking about Strategy Ratings from. . . 3rd I think?

Hecaton wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
The Blood Bowl tier system does more than go "this team isn't as innately easy to win with as that team" but serves as the core of how teams are designed and how the allotment system works.

This sentence is doing a lot of work and needs backing up. Halflings are straight up not as easy to win with as most teams in the game.

And that's why Halflings are tier 3 and get more allotments when against higher tier teams who have innately higher TVs. Like are you even paying attention to the full point being made, or are you just getting lost because I don't say "points changes fix everything?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blndmage wrote:
Wait, aren't you talking about Strategy Ratings from. . . 3rd I think?

You know, it's very possible that I am, though I'm less familiar with Strategy Ratings.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
The Bloodbowl tier system has no impact on allotments/inducements. Players have a gold cost, supportstaff/rerolls have a gold cost, skills/stat advancements have a gold cost equivalance. Combined these create an overall team value - that is what impacts inducements.

The tier system doesn't add any levers for balance at all. In fact the whole thing is literally GW/the community accepting it isn't balanced.

We already have some community effort to create tiers in 40k. You can look up any army and get a tier ranking for their units for example.

A tier system doesn't add anything, it's an acknowledgement of failure to balance.

Tiers are used for design balancing as well as for influencing Team Values. It's not a direct lever but it does a lot to work to create clear design guidelines which do give us levers to work with.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

And that's why Halflings are tier 3 and get more allotments when against higher tier teams who have innately higher TVs.

That's just straight up not true though.
Halflings start at the same 1000k gold as everyone else. That means they don't get any additional inducements. They're just worse for that money. That's what tier 3 means.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
The reason I'm being really specific on what Bloodbowl's system is is because I'm not sure what you want.

You keep talking about wanting a system "like Bloodbowl", but the system you seem to be describing is completely different to the system Bloodbowl has.
So I'm genuinely not sure what you want.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

You made the claim that points can solve all problems, I disagreed.

Link to the post where I made that claim lol


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yeah it seems that ClockworkZion is not really aware of how Blood Bowl actually works.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
Wait, aren't you talking about Strategy Ratings from. . . 3rd I think?

You know, it's very possible that I am, though I'm less familiar with Strategy Ratings.

IIRC Strategy Ratings were only used for determining who got the first turn and who got choose scenarios. Less of a "you need to be this many Sun Tzus to win with this faction" and more of an army-wide Initiative stat.

 waefre_1 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
Wait, aren't you talking about Strategy Ratings from. . . 3rd I think?

You know, it's very possible that I am, though I'm less familiar with Strategy Ratings.

IIRC Strategy Ratings were only used for determining who got the first turn and who got choose scenarios. Less of a "you need to be this many Sun Tzus to win with this faction" and more of an army-wide Initiative stat.

Yeah, and less of a "handicap" for weaker/higher skill cap armies, and more like "Marines and Eldar are better than everyone else, and Goodguy Marines and Eldar are even better than Badguy Marines and Eldar".

 ClockworkZion wrote:


Also, war games don't have to be "fair". Asymmetrical design can work if it's intentionally designed for.

yeah, 100% and it can be a better game. Itd be very simple to say that if you have an elite army, you can only win if you beat your opponent by 10%. So they score 70 vp, and if you don't score 77 or over it's considered a draw. That's super common in sports, to have a handicap or a spread. You know one team is way better than another, so you don't say which team will win, you say Marlins win by 8; if you were betting and the Marlins won by 5, you'd lose the bet.

Some players hate to lose a single unit, the take even losing a model pretty hard, or retreating when retreating existed. That's a large reason the rule ATSKNF was invented. Great, those players can have factions that are super tough, barely use a unit, and can massacre the enemy. They just have a little personal goal, a mini game, a single player mode, where they need some extra points.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Guard do not need to be as cheap as or cheaper than Grits. They need their core mechanics to be better instead.

I don't know who else here has played WFB towards its end but that game raced to the bottom to the point where you had models worth half a point. 100 Skaven Slaves for 50 points. It was ridiculous and only served to hurt the game by letting things continue to trend down. If anything more things need to trend up instead.

yeah i don't want to fill up the whole board and I don't want to buy or paint that many infantry. I want the 8 infantry squads i already use to do more useful stuff.