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.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:


That's not how balance works.

Obviously. Because that's how imbalance works.

Not it doesn't. Point value of individual units is completely irrelevant to both codex balance and global balance. Had you actually read my last response to you, you'd know that.

I am not talking about 40K, or codexes or GW sales atm.

Simple question: Can you use a point system to create imbalances? Is it possible?

Of course you can. You can also use a point system to create balance.

 Zweischneid wrote:
Simple question: Can you use a point system to create imbalances? Is it possible?

Sure, it's possible. But what would be the point?

If the true aim is to have a narrative-based game where players just throw forces on the table with no consideration for having an equal chance at winning, why bother with points costs at all? Just let people select however many units from their army list and have at it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zweischneid wrote:
If GW plc rules for 40K are developed for some form of illusionary "balanced" "standard" game.
Why do they include instructions for "Forging the Narrative" or "Spirit of the Game" that clearly state the above is not the intent?

Because having a balanced and functional ruleset does not prevent players from making 'pew pew' noises when they shoot, or from giving their characters a backstory and applying that backstory to the tactical choices they make with that character throughout the game.

Exactly, or just use the pretty pictures describing the marine companies to pick what to field.

 Jidmah wrote:
Of course you can. You can also use a point system to create balance.

Sure. A point system can be used to create both balance and imbalance.

If that is true, logic would seem to indicate that the mere existence of a point system does not inform us as to which purpose it serves in a given game.

Correct?

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Of course you can. You can also use a point system to create balance.

Sure. A point system can be used to create both balance and imbalance.

If that is true, logic would seem to indicate that the mere existence of a point system does not inform us as to which purpose it serves in a given game.

Correct?

....aaaaaannnnnddddd you twist that statement to your will. You are in the wrong job. You would make a fine politician.

Jidmah: Don't engage him. This is a game to him .Let him shout at the wall and tire himself out.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Of course you can. You can also use a point system to create balance.

Sure. A point system can be used to create both balance and imbalance.

If that is true, logic would seem to indicate that the mere existence of a point system does not inform us as to which purpose it serves in a given game.

Correct?

....aaaaaannnnnddddd you twist that statement to your will. You are in the wrong job. You would make a fine politician.

Jidmah: Don't engage him. This is a game to him .Let him shout at the wall and tire himself out.

How did I twist it? Why don't you answer the question instead of resorting to personal attacks once again?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

Lanrak wrote:
IF GW plc rules for 40k are developed for narrative co-operative games.
Why do they include point values for everything, including scenery?

The ONLY reason to include Point Values is to allow competitive play at set values.(EG 1500pts, 200pts etc.)

If GW are writing 40k JUST for narrative gaming, then drop the point values from the rules.
Then we shall see now many 'narrative 40k players' there really are.

Because competitive players would not buy it.

The opposite is equally true.

If GW plc rules for 40K are developed for some form of illusionary "balanced" "standard" game.
Why do they include instructions for "Forging the Narrative" or "Spirit of the Game" that clearly state the above is not the intent?

The ONLY reason to include instructions that points and rules are to serve as a loose framework, rather than written-in-stone law is to communicate just that.

If GW are writing 40K for balanced gameing, they could just drop those boxes from the rules.
Then we shall see how many "competitive 40k players' there really are.

Because narrative players would not buy it.

Infact, GW doesn't even have the to do that. We already know. Plenty of other wargames don't include the "Forge the Narrative"-style instructions. Guess which game is the most popular.

Interestingly, in 4th and 5th edition there wasn't any mention of "forging a narrative" and the section on points made specific mention of the fact that this was how the game was balanced. Also at that time, GW ran or sponsored a lot of competitions.

This has all changed under 6th edition, complaints from competitive gamers have shot up, and as far as we can tell from GW's interim report, sales and profits are down.

So it would seem that competitive players are deserting the system.

Correlation does not imply causation...

Some editions were worse than other, but 40K has always been unbalanced. Hence the need for comp-scoring.

Personally, I would suggest a much simple explanation. The shift to super-expensive hardcover books was the price-hike that finally catapulted Games Workshop over the edge. Many, myself included, has pointed this out for years - the customer-base has been shrinking for a long time and now it seems that we've finally gotten to the endgame. The customer base is now so small that it has begun eroding very rapidly. Just how bad this is though, won't be known until we see the full report this summer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
Simple question: Can you use a point system to create imbalances? Is it possible?

Sure, it's possible. But what would be the point?

If the true aim is to have a narrative-based game where players just throw forces on the table with no consideration for having an equal chance at winning, why bother with points costs at all? Just let people select however many units from their army list and have at it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zweischneid wrote:
If GW plc rules for 40K are developed for some form of illusionary "balanced" "standard" game.
Why do they include instructions for "Forging the Narrative" or "Spirit of the Game" that clearly state the above is not the intent?

Because having a balanced and functional ruleset does not prevent players from making 'pew pew' noises when they shoot, or from giving their characters a backstory and applying that backstory to the tactical choices they make with that character throughout the game.

One does not exclude the other. Just because you like to play casual narrative games does not imply that you don't care about balance.

A well-balanced game can be played both competitively and casually. A badly balanced game can only be played casually.

f2k wrote:

A well-balanced game can be played both competitively and casually. A badly balanced game can only be played casually.

An insufficiently imbalanced game can stifle creativity and create a false sense of "legalism" surrounding its rules. A sufficiently imbalanced game has an easier time avoiding this risk.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:


The point system, by its nature, attempts to establish balance. .

I have yet to see evidence for this ludicrous claim that "point values = balance"

Indeed, a point system works very well in establishing imbalances.

Give two equal units unequal point values ... ta-da ... imbalance.
Give two unequal units equal point values ... ta-da ... imbalance.

Works like a charm.

Implying imbalance is a good thing when it's rampant imbalance. Here's the thing and what you didn't notice from the previous thread. Perfect Imbalance is a form of balance. Contradictory and irritating to say because of their descriptions but it forms a sense of balance in the grand scheme of things. 40k has 3 seasons of trying to be more competitive. 3rd edition to 5th edition pushed more and more for it. Then season 6 dropped most of it yet kept rules. And the thing is, if it wanted to go for truly narrative, it could just toss aside the rules and create abstract ones and some themes to restrict it. Like 3 Leman Russ Variants were used in this skirmish so pick them or some of the other games mentioned in similar threads where war statistics are calculated and then divided for historicals.

Thing is, GW is just really really bad at using their point values even slightly properly.

Again, you're evading the question and "moving goal posts" as some people here like to call it.

Whether "perfect imbalance" is "balance" or not, is a different subject.
Whether "creating imbalance" is a valid goal or not, is a different subject.
Whether 40K subscribes to "perfect imbalance" or not, is a different subject.
Whether GW makes good games or not, is a different subject.

We can discuss all of them again, if you like.

But the point here is a different one.

Can you use a point system to create imbalances... yes or no?

Answer me that question.

Mate you spent an entire session moving the goalpost and the first post you have was repeating what somebody said but then changing it all in a minute manner before turning around to then say hey look points that are imbalanced mean that it isn't balanced. I never said it wasn't though. The question comes down to why though. If they didn't want balance, why keep points in? Why make certain terrain pieces purchasable? Why is it that buy buying those features they gain special rules? If this was narrative, that'd be tossed out, the FoC would be tossed out, and ally requirements would be tossed out along with the point system. That's a narrative game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

f2k wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

Lanrak wrote:
IF GW plc rules for 40k are developed for narrative co-operative games.
Why do they include point values for everything, including scenery?

The ONLY reason to include Point Values is to allow competitive play at set values.(EG 1500pts, 200pts etc.)

If GW are writing 40k JUST for narrative gaming, then drop the point values from the rules.
Then we shall see now many 'narrative 40k players' there really are.

Because competitive players would not buy it.

The opposite is equally true.

If GW plc rules for 40K are developed for some form of illusionary "balanced" "standard" game.
Why do they include instructions for "Forging the Narrative" or "Spirit of the Game" that clearly state the above is not the intent?

The ONLY reason to include instructions that points and rules are to serve as a loose framework, rather than written-in-stone law is to communicate just that.

If GW are writing 40K for balanced gameing, they could just drop those boxes from the rules.
Then we shall see how many "competitive 40k players' there really are.

Because narrative players would not buy it.

Infact, GW doesn't even have the to do that. We already know. Plenty of other wargames don't include the "Forge the Narrative"-style instructions. Guess which game is the most popular.

Interestingly, in 4th and 5th edition there wasn't any mention of "forging a narrative" and the section on points made specific mention of the fact that this was how the game was balanced. Also at that time, GW ran or sponsored a lot of competitions.

This has all changed under 6th edition, complaints from competitive gamers have shot up, and as far as we can tell from GW's interim report, sales and profits are down.

So it would seem that competitive players are deserting the system.

Correlation does not imply causation...

Some editions were worse than other, but 40K has always been unbalanced. Hence the need for comp-scoring.

Personally, I would suggest a much simple explanation. The shift to super-expensive hardcover books was the price-hike that finally catapulted Games Workshop over the edge. Many, myself included, has pointed this out for years - the customer-base has been shrinking for a long time and now it seems that we've finally gotten to the endgame. The customer base is now so small that it has begun eroding very rapidly. Just how bad this is though, won't be known until we see the full report this summer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
Simple question: Can you use a point system to create imbalances? Is it possible?

Sure, it's possible. But what would be the point?

If the true aim is to have a narrative-based game where players just throw forces on the table with no consideration for having an equal chance at winning, why bother with points costs at all? Just let people select however many units from their army list and have at it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zweischneid wrote:
If GW plc rules for 40K are developed for some form of illusionary "balanced" "standard" game.
Why do they include instructions for "Forging the Narrative" or "Spirit of the Game" that clearly state the above is not the intent?

Because having a balanced and functional ruleset does not prevent players from making 'pew pew' noises when they shoot, or from giving their characters a backstory and applying that backstory to the tactical choices they make with that character throughout the game.

One does not exclude the other. Just because you like to play casual narrative games does not imply that you don't care about balance.

A well-balanced game can be played both competitively and casually. A badly balanced game can only be played casually.

Insaniak is arguing with Zwei because Zwei considers balance to be an abomination. He's also pointing out the fact that a well-balanced game hurts nobody whilst an imbalanced game hurts all but the people that are purposefully throwing out any real attempt to keep the battlefield fair.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zweischneid wrote:

f2k wrote:

A well-balanced game can be played both competitively and casually. A badly balanced game can only be played casually.

An insufficiently imbalanced game can stifle creativity and create a false sense of "legalism" surrounding its rules. A sufficiently imbalanced game has an easier time avoiding this risk.

In a game where everything was balanced everything would be a good choice thus making armies fielded diverse with hundreds of equal lists that could all fight on equal levels. Thus, creativity would be bigger than it is now where you just deploy a deathstar that is always the same. A sufficiently imbalanced game promotes the stifling of creativity. If you can play this game I can and point to how the bad balancing of the game has lead to.... what the competitive scene is right now.

 StarTrotter wrote:


Mate you spent an entire session moving the goalpost and the first post you have was repeating what somebody said but then changing it all in a minute manner before turning around to then say hey look points that are imbalanced mean that it isn't balanced. I never said it wasn't though. The question comes down to why though.

Again. You are evading. If you want to know "why", you would probably need to read more into the reasoning given by the game designers.

You never said it wasn't. Fine. A lot of people here claimed that the simple existence of a point system implies balance. That seems wrong to me.

You go into a store. There are three wargames you don't know. The Red Wargame, the Blue Wargame and the Purple Wargame. All three use point systems. On the cover you read...

Red Wargame: This is a wargame. We use a point system to make it balanced for reason X.
Blue Wargame: This is a wargame, We use a point system to make it imbalanced for reason Y.
Purple Wargame: This is a wargame. We use a point system.

Does the mere existence of a point system give you any information on whether the Purple Wargame tries to be balanced or imbalanced (or any reasons why it might be going for one or the other)?

 Zweischneid wrote:

f2k wrote:

A well-balanced game can be played both competitively and casually. A badly balanced game can only be played casually.

An insufficiently imbalanced game can stifle creativity and create a false sense of "legalism" surrounding its rules. A sufficiently imbalanced game has an easier time avoiding this risk.

I just cannot see that being true.

Take the current debate on this site regarding Tactical Marines as an example. If the game was well-balanced then Tactical Marines were worth taking for those who wanted to do so while bikes and scouts remained options for those who want to play a more specialist army.

Point is, a game that's balanced allows you to take take whatever army that you want to play whereas an imbalanced game forces you to select from a narrow subset of viable armies if you want to have a chance at winning.


In other words, creativity is born from the players choices and when those choice are restricted, for example through imbalance, then creativity suffers.

 StarTrotter wrote:

Insaniak is arguing with Zwei because Zwei considers balance to be an abomination.

I don't think balance is an abomination. I own and play many balanced games.

I just happen to also like imbalanced games, which is the reason I also have Warhammer 40K on my cupboard.

They serve different purposes. They have different appeals.

 Zweischneid wrote:
If that is true, logic would seem to indicate that the mere existence of a point system does not inform us as to which purpose it serves in a given game.

A fire hydrant can be used to extinguish fires... and also to keep your street party cool. Logic would therefore seem to indicate that the mere existence of the fire hydrant does not inform us of its purpose...


No. Actually, logic does inform us of its purpose. A points system is completely unnecessary in a system designed to be purposefully imbalanced. So if your choices are that the system has points because it is intended to be imbalanced, or the system has points because it is intended to be balanced, logic tells us that the latter is the more likely scenario.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zweischneid wrote:
An insufficiently imbalanced game can stifle creativity ...

So you keep saying... and keep refusing to back up with an actual explanation as to how.

 Zweischneid wrote:

Can you use a point system to create imbalances... yes or no?

Answer me that question.

You first....

 Zweischneid wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:


Mate you spent an entire session moving the goalpost and the first post you have was repeating what somebody said but then changing it all in a minute manner before turning around to then say hey look points that are imbalanced mean that it isn't balanced. I never said it wasn't though. The question comes down to why though.

Again. You are evading. If you want to know "why", you would probably need to read more into the reasoning given by the game designers.

You never said it wasn't. Fine. A lot of people here claimed that the simple existence of a point system implies balance. That seems wrong to me.

You go into a store. There are three wargames you don't know. The Red Wargame, the Blue Wargame and the Purple Wargame. All three use point systems. On the cover you read...

Red Wargame: This is a wargame. We use a point system to make it balanced for reason X.
Blue Wargame: This is a wargame, We use a point system to make it imbalanced for reason Y.
Purple Wargame: This is a wargame. We use a point system.

Does the mere existence of a point system give you any information on whether the Purple Wargame tries to be balanced or imbalanced (or any reasons why it might be going for one or the other)?

But here comes a question. Why does Blue use it and why does purple use it? Why use Blue to create an imbalanced system? Would not the only reason to make a system that is inherently imbalanced in a way that does not promote perfect imbalance simply lead to restrictions upon what one can play and what one can not? As for Purple, nothing is used for an entire system just because. There is always some intention. And yes I've read about the game designer group's claims.

It doesn't work though. It doesn't give a sense of fluff and ends up screwing you over or making the money you spent less worth it because why bother with the rules if I'm going to just rebuild them anyways? The rules are about having fun but how can something be fun when the balance is so horrendous the game punishes you unless you create more rules?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:

Insaniak is arguing with Zwei because Zwei considers balance to be an abomination.

I don't think balance is an abomination. I own and play many balanced games.

I just happen to also like imbalanced games, which is the reason I also have Warhammer 40K on my cupboard.

They serve different purposes. They have different appeals.

So did you dislike 4th and 5th edition and slightly dislike 3rd edition? If yes, well at least you are being consistent and I'll give you credit for that (not that I won't continue to disagree)

 insaniak wrote:

No. Actually, logic does inform us of its purpose. A points system is completely unnecessary in a system designed to be purposefully imbalanced. So if your choices are that the system has points because it is designed to be imbalanced, or the system has points because it is designed to be balanced, logic tells us that the latter is the more likely scenario.

Well, you need some ways to imbalance a system. There might be other ways to do, possibly better ways to do it, but I thought we established that it is possible to achieve imbalance with point system? No?

Likewise, a scenario is equally just a tool. You can use a scenario to create an imbalanced game, you could equally well create a scenario that is balanced. No?

I don't see any correlation between the method on the one hand, and the intention on the other.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

No. Actually, logic does inform us of its purpose. A points system is completely unnecessary in a system designed to be purposefully imbalanced. So if your choices are that the system has points because it is designed to be imbalanced, or the system has points because it is designed to be balanced, logic tells us that the latter is the more likely scenario.

Well, you need some ways to imbalance a system. There might be other ways to do, possibly better ways to do it, but I thought we established that it is possible to achieve imbalance with point system? No?

Likewise, a scenario is equally just a tool. You can use a scenario to create an imbalanced game, you could equally well create a scenario that is balanced. No?

I don't see any correlation between the method on the one hand, and the intention on the other.

Actually you don't. There's actually been posts that just have rules for models and then recommend you compare them to actual real world wars then divide the size of the soldiers on both side to make it a manageable size and then play it. Bam, there's your imbalanced game that is truly narrative and appealing. What's the point of a point system if you are just going to break it? Along with that, it then makes these imbalances restricted thus stagnant and static the thing you keep on complaining balance would supposedly do.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Of course you can. You can also use a point system to create balance.

Sure. A point system can be used to create both balance and imbalance.

If that is true, logic would seem to indicate that the mere existence of a point system does not inform us as to which purpose it serves in a given game.

Correct?

Wrong. I can even prove your logic wrong:

A school bus can be used to both transport and run over children. The purpose of a school bus is utilized to transport children, not run down children.

The purpose of a point system is to create balance. Creating imbalance using a point system is a trivial task that does not require the presence of a point system at all. In fact, a point system is a hindrance to creating imbalance, since you could accidently create balance, which wouldn't be possible without.

For this reason, logic dictates your last statement to be wrong on all accounts.

 StarTrotter wrote:


Actually you don't. There's actually been posts that just have rules for models and then recommend you compare them to actual real world wars then divide the size of the soldiers on both side to make it a manageable size and then play it. Bam, there's your imbalanced game that is truly narrative and appealing. What's the point of a point system if you are just going to break it? Along with that, it then makes these imbalances restricted thus stagnant and static the thing you keep on complaining balance would supposedly do.

Yes. That is another way to do it.

Again, can you use a point system to create an imbalanced game? Is it possible? Possibly for one of the many reasons in game-design you obviously view with nothing but scorn and contempt?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:


A school bus can be used to both transport and run over children. The purpose of a school bus is utilized to transport children, not run down children..

A school bus is more than just the engineering principles of its engine though. Actually, they tend to have "School Bus" written on the site very clearly.

If you buy a School Bus for competitive Formula 1 racing, because it has an internal combustion engine and you mistakenly believe that internal combustion engines can only ever be used for competitive racing, you might be disappointed.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:


A school bus can be used to both transport and run over children. The purpose of a school bus is utilized to transport children, not run down children..

A school bus is more than just the engineering principles of its engine though. Actually, they tend to have "School Bus" written on the site very clearly.

If you buy a School Bus for competitive Formula 1 racing, because it has an internal combustion engine and you mistakenly believe that internal combustion engines can only ever be used for competitive racing, you might be disappointed.

Conclusive proof, ladies and gentlemen, if any more were needed, that Zwei wouldn't recognise logic if it hit him in the face.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:


Actually you don't. There's actually been posts that just have rules for models and then recommend you compare them to actual real world wars then divide the size of the soldiers on both side to make it a manageable size and then play it. Bam, there's your imbalanced game that is truly narrative and appealing. What's the point of a point system if you are just going to break it? Along with that, it then makes these imbalances restricted thus stagnant and static the thing you keep on complaining balance would supposedly do.

Yes. That is another way to do it.

Again, can you use a point system to create an imbalanced game? Is it possible? Possibly for one of the many reasons in game-design you obviously view with nothing but scorn and contempt?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:


A school bus can be used to both transport and run over children. The purpose of a school bus is utilized to transport children, not run down children..

A school bus is more than just the engineering principles of its engine though. Actually, they tend to have "School Bus" written on the site very clearly.

If you buy a School Bus for competitive Formula 1 racing, because it has an internal combustion engine and you mistakenly believe that internal combustion engines can only ever be used for competitive racing, you might be disappointed.

But what is the point of making a point based system to only use it to create imbalance?

Also the logic in your next response is madness. I suppose this means I should go and buy a bus to go drive over children. Trust me, I made sure that it said School Bus on the side.

 StarTrotter wrote:


But what is the point of making a point based system to only use it to create imbalance?

Also the logic in your next response is madness. I suppose this means I should go and buy a bus to go drive over children. Trust me, I made sure that it said School Bus on the side.

Imbalance is the point.

And something as broad and general, used for many different purposes as a point system, is a bad comparison to something as specific as a School Bus.

I think "It has 4 wheels and an engine" is a more apt analogy. Just me.

I never heard of an imbalanced game ever killing any children.

But you are evading the central question again. The question of "why?" can never be fully answered. No human, not me, not you, could possibly ever guess all the million reasons of all game designers ever creating a game. There are likely as many answers to "why?" as there are games in this world.

The question is, is it possible (for whatever reasons, many of which you obviously disagree with), that a point system can be used to create imbalance?

 Zweischneid wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:


But what is the point of making a point based system to only use it to create imbalance?

Also the logic in your next response is madness. I suppose this means I should go and buy a bus to go drive over children. Trust me, I made sure that it said School Bus on the side.

Imbalance is the point.

And something as broad and general, used for many different purposes as a point system, is a bad comparison to something as specific as a School Bus.

I think "It has 4 wheels and an engine" is a more apt analogy. Just me.

I never heard of an imbalanced game ever killing any children.

Oh god I never implied that an imbalanced game killed children. (Silly Zwei only card games do that)

But how can imbalance be the point? If it was for narrative, wouldn't the fluff be represented in rules? Wouldn't KSons be like the fluff says rather than not alike? Wouldn't fear be more effective due to their shear terror they exude?

A point system doesn't promote anything positive if it is left to be imbalanced. It will support a regimented and static competitive environment with unequal armies that punish players for trying to have fun. A truly narrative game would cast aside points to be truly free to be imbalanced and promote narrative gameplay in its entirity. That is all.

 StarTrotter wrote:

A point system doesn't promote anything positive if it is left to be imbalanced. It will support a regimented and static competitive environment with unequal armies that punish players for trying to have fun. A truly narrative game would cast aside points to be truly free to be imbalanced and promote narrative gameplay in its entirity. That is all.

I disagree, but even so. "Narrative" is but one of a million reasons why you might want imbalance.

Again. Is it possible to create imbalance with a point system (even if point-less systems can also create imbalance)?

 Zweischneid wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:

A point system doesn't promote anything positive if it is left to be imbalanced. It will support a regimented and static competitive environment with unequal armies that punish players for trying to have fun. A truly narrative game would cast aside points to be truly free to be imbalanced and promote narrative gameplay in its entirity. That is all.

I disagree, but even so. "Narrative" is but one of a million reasons why you might want imbalance.

Again. Is it possible to create imbalance with a point system (even if point-less systems can also create imbalance)?

Actually even a narrative doesn't necessarily mean imbalance being a necessity. Narrative could be an even battle or an uneven battle. Thing is, a point based game that promotes imbalance doesn't make sense. Why do it? It only punishes players that try to follow the rules. There is not a single person that gains from them as the people that want fluffy battles would be just as fine without them at all so it ends up only punishing individuals.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:


A school bus can be used to both transport and run over children. The purpose of a school bus is utilized to transport children, not run down children..

A school bus is more than just the engineering principles of its engine though. Actually, they tend to have "School Bus" written on the site very clearly.

If you buy a School Bus for competitive Formula 1 racing, because it has an internal combustion engine and you mistakenly believe that internal combustion engines can only ever be used for competitive racing, you might be disappointed.

Uh, maybe pick up a book on logic before using it as an argument?

A single counter-example suffices to prove a logic flawed, no matter how many positive examples you find.

Your argument was "If X can be used for A and B, it is impossible to determine if A or B is the purpose for X". I have proven that wrong.

Your new argument is "If X is used for C, because it fulfills condition N, it might not perform well as other things that fulfill condition N when those are used for C". Which literally has absolutely nothing to do with the above, considering we are discussing A in this thread.

Going back from school busses to children-murdering balancing systems, your logic translates to:

"If a point system is used to make a cake, it might not perform as well as a cooking book when it is used to make cakes."

So, while completely irrelevant to the thread, I think we have agreed that point systems don't have the purpose of making cake.

 Jidmah wrote:

Uh, maybe pick up a book on logic before using it as an argument?

A single counter-example suffices to prove a logic flawed, no matter how many positive examples you find.

Your argument was "If X can be used for A and B, it is impossible to determine if A or B is the purpose for X". I have proven that wrong.

I think you are using the principle of falsification wrong.

A single counter-example cannot disprove the existence of something. It can only counter the "non-existence" of something. Or a universal claim.

To use the classic example: A single black swan is enough to falsify the claim of "All swans are white".
A single black swan, on the other hand, does not disprove the existence of white swans as such.

Correct?



If we can agree on that, you will find that there are many things that serve multiple purposes.

Milk can be used to make both butter and cheese.
Water can be used for both drinking and bathing.
Etc...

Finding a single-purpose item does not disprove the existence of multi-purpose items.

Correct?



Applied to the game example, this would mean that the statement of "All point systems are used to create balance" can be disproven with a single counter example.

Said example would not disprove that many/some/a lot/the majority of point systems might be used to create balance. It would, however, prove that not all point systems are used to create balance.

Correct?


If it can be shown that not all point systems are used to create balance - by virtue of a single counter-example - the inverse deduction, that the existence of a point system necessarily means an attempt to balance things, is logically flawed.

Again, you are claiming that all games strive for balance. (e.g. that all swans are white)
I am claiming that not "all" (only some) games strive for balance. (e.g. that black swans exist, along with white swans)

The principle of falsification works in my favour.

 Jidmah wrote:


Your argument was "If X can be used for A and B, it is impossible to determine if A or B is the purpose for X". I have proven that wrong.

But yes. That is almost my argument.

I would formulate it as "If X can be used for A and B, it would be foolish to assume that A is the purpose of X in all cases and without exception."

In what table top system do points not work as a balancing factor?

Makumba wrote:
In what table top system do points not work as a balancing factor?

Warhammer 40K