Homogenization

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

The latest issue of the 9th Scroll is here! You can read all about it in the news.

Our beta phase is finally over. Download The Ninth Age: Fantasy Battles, 2nd Edition now!

  • Homogenization

    Theres gotta be some way to break up the cookie cutter crap we are seeing in a lot of lists. The Barrow King BSB for instance is 99% identical in almost every list that has the character. Its almost worth the trouble of adding an "originality" section to tournament scoring.
    I am going to offend you. You are not going to like it. You will survive.

    Chaotic Neutral
    youtube.com/channel/UCJ9e5C1f26iuvhOA33rsFJQ

    Model Reviews with Twice the Brain Injuries!
  • I think it just might be human nature. I'm not a pro player, so take from this what you want, but I find it an interesting notion that the choices taken the most might not always be the most op things out there. Maybe more due to most players copying a few with original ideas and success, thus creating meta.
    E.g. with the barrow king BSB I have vague memories from occasionally visiting the VC forums that not too long ago somebody mentioned this cowboy and nearly getting stoned to death because it's stupid and would never work because of crumble. Probably someone just tried it (sucessfully) and voilà.
    Maybe there are plenty other things out there waiting to be found by bold players (and waiting to get copied).
    ...or maybe not lolllz.
    doing the Lorenzo Lupo Workout everyday till Iron Crowns AB is released
  • I have to agree with ToDD on this. Going with the VC cowboy example, there were no major changes that suddenly made this viable. Someone came up with the idea one day and it just stuck. As more people used it, there became more examples of how to use it well, and so even more people jump on the bandwagon.

    Now every VC player is using it, So other, non VC players build lists to counter it. Suddenly it no longer does well, so everyone changes to the next fad. Round and round goes the meta.

    Its human nature to follow what everyone else does and what the 'few' say is op/best pick. Till someone comes out with another idea.
  • Kiwi wrote:

    I have to agree with ToDD on this. Going with the VC cowboy example, there were no major changes that suddenly made this viable. Someone came up with the idea one day and it just stuck. As more people used it, there became more examples of how to use it well, and so even more people jump on the bandwagon.

    Now every VC player is using it, So other, non VC players build lists to counter it. Suddenly it no longer does well, so everyone changes to the next fad. Round and round goes the meta.

    Its human nature to follow what everyone else does and what the 'few' say is op/best pick. Till someone comes out with another idea.
    Can you really use that example when entire lists have almost zero deviation except for some small special troop choices?
    I am going to offend you. You are not going to like it. You will survive.

    Chaotic Neutral
    youtube.com/channel/UCJ9e5C1f26iuvhOA33rsFJQ

    Model Reviews with Twice the Brain Injuries!
  • Grouchy Badger wrote:

    Kiwi wrote:

    I have to agree with ToDD on this. Going with the VC cowboy example, there were no major changes that suddenly made this viable. Someone came up with the idea one day and it just stuck. As more people used it, there became more examples of how to use it well, and so even more people jump on the bandwagon.

    Now every VC player is using it, So other, non VC players build lists to counter it. Suddenly it no longer does well, so everyone changes to the next fad. Round and round goes the meta.

    Its human nature to follow what everyone else does and what the 'few' say is op/best pick. Till someone comes out with another idea.
    Can you really use that example when entire lists have almost zero deviation except for some small special troop choices?
    Yeah, of course. You know, we had a time when literally everyone used an alchemy master to handle, if he just had access to it. Meta shifted and so other Paths became more interesting - like Occultism.

    No Alchemy Spam meant no more Flaming Banner Spam -> Strigoi became more interesting. Furthermore to handle the lack in AP Shrieking Horrors became more interesting, too while no one as fielded it several month ago.

    Layout Team

    Translation Team DE

    VC Community Support

    Supporter of Veil of the Ages

  • (I just commented in the ETC list thread, but it's relevant here too)

    I am increasingly convinced that list usage (generally, and doubly so for teams) is not an unbiased estimator of the internal balance curve of a book.
    Being supportive & giving useful criticism aren't mutually exclusive.
    Are you supportive of the project? Do your posts reflect that?

    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
  • DanT wrote:

    I am increasingly convinced that list usage (generally, and doubly so for teams) is not an unbiased estimator of the internal balance curve of a book.
    This is a very good point and is especially for team events like the ETC. Some options become better when you have some degree of control over your matchups - e.g. the KoE monster killer lists to directly counter a monster mash.

    This doesn't mean that those options are necessarily unbalanced just that KoE have options that are very good at a specific role.

    That being said; if certain options are pretty much never taken or always taken over a longer period of time there is an indication that those options could be better than the other options available. List usage is a useful tool for the team to examine what might (or might not) need adjustments.
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
  • Sir_Sully wrote:

    DanT wrote:

    I am increasingly convinced that list usage (generally, and doubly so for teams) is not an unbiased estimator of the internal balance curve of a book.
    This is a very good point and is especially for team events like the ETC. Some options become better when you have some degree of control over your matchups - e.g. the KoE monster killer lists to directly counter a monster mash.
    This doesn't mean that those options are necessarily unbalanced just that KoE have options that are very good at a specific role.

    That being said; if certain options are pretty much never taken or always taken over a longer period of time there is an indication that those options could be better than the other options available. List usage is a useful tool for the team to examine what might (or might not) need adjustments.
    Matchup processes, metas, etc etc have been discussed ad infinitum.
    I've done some tests on the data myself.
    I think these are all sort of controllable, for example by examining singles and teams together and separately.

    What I am now becoming more and more convinced of is that sociology is the biggest systematic.
    I think this is a much bigger problem, in both singles and teams (although it is perhaps more pronounced in teams).
    Being supportive & giving useful criticism aren't mutually exclusive.
    Are you supportive of the project? Do your posts reflect that?

    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
  • DanT wrote:

    Sir_Sully wrote:

    DanT wrote:

    I am increasingly convinced that list usage (generally, and doubly so for teams) is not an unbiased estimator of the internal balance curve of a book.
    This is a very good point and is especially for team events like the ETC. Some options become better when you have some degree of control over your matchups - e.g. the KoE monster killer lists to directly counter a monster mash.This doesn't mean that those options are necessarily unbalanced just that KoE have options that are very good at a specific role.

    That being said; if certain options are pretty much never taken or always taken over a longer period of time there is an indication that those options could be better than the other options available. List usage is a useful tool for the team to examine what might (or might not) need adjustments.
    Matchup processes, metas, etc etc have been discussed ad infinitum.I've done some tests on the data myself.
    I think these are all sort of controllable, for example by examining singles and teams together and separately.

    What I am now becoming more and more convinced of is that sociology is the biggest systematic.
    I think this is a much bigger problem, in both singles and teams (although it is perhaps more pronounced in teams).
    I'd also contend your work with ID blunderbusses is also a strong indicator that is the case as well. Blunderbusses were "unplayable"...until you did well with them and suddenly they are being seen in lists. The unit hasn't really changed, but people's perception has simply because you took them and showed they can be used to good effect.
    “You can never know everything, and part of what you know is always wrong. Perhaps even the most important part. A portion of wisdom lies in knowing that. A portion of courage lies in going on anyways.” -Lan Mandragoran, EotW


    Dovie’andi se tovya sagain.
  • ToDD wrote:

    Fun idea:

    Official competition/call to use certain units which don't see any use and are seen as "unplayable" (competetively) to use on tournaments and rank high.
    Like the painting competitions with small prizes and big fame to be earned :astounded:
    Some of us have been doing this (unofficially) anyway :P

    All we get for it is grief, and told we are lucky or that *mitigating circumstance*, or somehow our opinion doesn't count.
    Being supportive & giving useful criticism aren't mutually exclusive.
    Are you supportive of the project? Do your posts reflect that?

    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
  • DanT wrote:

    ToDD wrote:

    Fun idea:

    Official competition/call to use certain units which don't see any use and are seen as "unplayable" (competetively) to use on tournaments and rank high.
    Like the painting competitions with small prizes and big fame to be earned :astounded:
    Some of us have been doing this (unofficially) anyway :P
    All we get for it is grief, and told we are lucky or that *mitigating circumstance*, or somehow our opinion doesn't count.
    Your opinion doesn't count because you're imba. 8o
    doing the Lorenzo Lupo Workout everyday till Iron Crowns AB is released
  • DanT wrote:

    ToDD wrote:

    Fun idea:

    Official competition/call to use certain units which don't see any use and are seen as "unplayable" (competetively) to use on tournaments and rank high.
    Like the painting competitions with small prizes and big fame to be earned :astounded:
    Some of us have been doing this (unofficially) anyway :P
    All we get for it is grief, and told we are lucky or that *mitigating circumstance*, or somehow our opinion doesn't count.
    I think that's just part of the nature of online forums, people are more likely to pop on to tell you how it didn't work for them and find a way to justify it as not their fault rather than tell you about how great of an idea it was.

    I built a list incorporating the ark of ages and did quite well with it, and now on UB I have noticed the number of Ud players trying the ark out has become very distinctly non zero. Same thing with you and the blunderbusses, i began seeing a lot more ID lists playing with blunderbusses randomly and someone mentioned you had done well with them and that was why they were playing around with it.

    And that's only observations from UB, I'm sure your list has sparked a lot of testing and experimenting in smaller metas that you just never hear about. Very rarely do people take the time to hunt down old posts to explain how great your idea worked out for them, but they love telling you all about how it failed XD
    “You can never know everything, and part of what you know is always wrong. Perhaps even the most important part. A portion of wisdom lies in knowing that. A portion of courage lies in going on anyways.” -Lan Mandragoran, EotW


    Dovie’andi se tovya sagain.
  • Grouchy Badger wrote:

    Kiwi wrote:

    I have to agree with ToDD on this. Going with the VC cowboy example, there were no major changes that suddenly made this viable. Someone came up with the idea one day and it just stuck. As more people used it, there became more examples of how to use it well, and so even more people jump on the bandwagon.

    Now every VC player is using it, So other, non VC players build lists to counter it. Suddenly it no longer does well, so everyone changes to the next fad. Round and round goes the meta.

    Its human nature to follow what everyone else does and what the 'few' say is op/best pick. Till someone comes out with another idea.
    Can you really use that example when entire lists have almost zero deviation except for some small special troop choices?
    Well, look at it this way.
    Most armies have only a few core choices. there's ~ 25% of the army that cant change much.
    The units or combo's in question that are taken so often come usually from Characters or whatever dedicated list section belong to that army (swift death, tunnel gunners, etc...) so there is another ~70%.
    Which only leaves a few points left to shift. Thats IMO why most lists look the same.

    I strongly believe there is a silent majority who don't follow the trends at all but you don't see them on here and so they get left out of the discussions.

    Just an example, we have 4 regular VC players in my neck of the woods.
    One who runs that exact cowboy but also runs 2 Shrieking Horror's and a Monstrous Revenant.
    Two who favor necromancer spam and maxing out ethereal units
    and my favored Strigoi list which had seen some success until my regular opponents caught wind of my tactics and started countering it :killed:
  • Kiwi wrote:

    I strongly believe there is a silent majority who don't follow the trends at all but you don't see them on here and so they get left out of the discussions.
    I think this is the case too. The ETC by definition does not represent a majority of the playerbase.
    However, tournament players are both vocal and prevalent on the forum.

    The important thing is that other players make sure their voices are heard on the forum.
    One of my two reasons for posting on the forum these days is because tournaments do not drive my hobby, and I do not wish that voice to be lost.
    Being supportive & giving useful criticism aren't mutually exclusive.
    Are you supportive of the project? Do your posts reflect that?

    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
  • Nicreap wrote:

    And that's only observations from UB, I'm sure your list has sparked a lot of testing and experimenting in smaller metas that you just never hear about. Very rarely do people take the time to hunt down old posts to explain how great your idea worked out for them, but they love telling you all about how it failed XD

    DanT wrote:

    Kiwi wrote:

    I strongly believe there is a silent majority who don't follow the trends at all but you don't see them on here and so they get left out of the discussions.
    I think this is the case too. The ETC by definition does not represent a majority of the playerbase.However, tournament players are both vocal and prevalent on the forum.

    The important thing is that other players make sure their voices are heard on the forum.
    One of my two reasons for posting on the forum these days is because tournaments do not drive my hobby, and I do not wish that voice to be lost.
    You have no idea of how much I support every word of the above posts.

    I am a Club Player who plays the odd Tourny. In last 3 years I have played 2 x 2 Day Tournys and 3 x 1 Day Tournys.

    On ALL OCCASIONS I have fielded armies that do not conform to the expected norm. My last 2 Day Tourny I fielded a UD Army with 56 UD Cav in it.
    Yes, thats right 56 UD Cav. In my defence I won 2, lost 3. 43 VPs out of 100. Having said that my 3 losses were to Ciaran Dunne, Colin Power and Leggy so to be honest I dont think it would really have mattered what I fielded with those match ups. IE, the draw could not of been worse for me.
    Highlight of the Weekend, Getting 7pts off Leggy, and only then winning the other 2 games.

    The point being that you can run with an non conformist list, win the Odd game and still have fun, Which, at the end of the day, SHOULD be the reason we ALL play the game.
  • Nicreap wrote:

    DanT wrote:

    Sir_Sully wrote:

    DanT wrote:

    I am increasingly convinced that list usage (generally, and doubly so for teams) is not an unbiased estimator of the internal balance curve of a book.
    This is a very good point and is especially for team events like the ETC. Some options become better when you have some degree of control over your matchups - e.g. the KoE monster killer lists to directly counter a monster mash.This doesn't mean that those options are necessarily unbalanced just that KoE have options that are very good at a specific role.
    That being said; if certain options are pretty much never taken or always taken over a longer period of time there is an indication that those options could be better than the other options available. List usage is a useful tool for the team to examine what might (or might not) need adjustments.
    Matchup processes, metas, etc etc have been discussed ad infinitum.I've done some tests on the data myself.I think these are all sort of controllable, for example by examining singles and teams together and separately.

    What I am now becoming more and more convinced of is that sociology is the biggest systematic.
    I think this is a much bigger problem, in both singles and teams (although it is perhaps more pronounced in teams).
    I'd also contend your work with ID blunderbusses is also a strong indicator that is the case as well. Blunderbusses were "unplayable"...until you did well with them and suddenly they are being seen in lists. The unit hasn't really changed, but people's perception has simply because you took them and showed they can be used to good effect.
    Well, they also dropped some points too. It wasn't just @DanT using them.
    Just because I'm on the Legal Team doesn't mean I know anything about rules or background in development, and if/when I do, I won't be posting about it. All opinions and speculation are my own - treat them as such.

    Legal

    Playtester

    Chariot Command HQ

  • i think it s a combination of factor, as an EoS/UD player i can see that all EoS book is usable, some combinations can be stronger for a specific strategy than others but that doesnt justify that this year almost all the ETC EoS lists are super-defensive gunlines with many flaggies. This is just the role they are playing for the team and we cannot use it to claim "EoS gunlines are anyoing".

    With UD there are mayor issues, because 4 units of the book are never used (NEVER): cavalry, scarabs, necroguard, colossus...and the necrosphix i think just once, when the UD is the most played army. Here there is a problem I do understand the healing/buffing works better in big units, and I also undersstand that charriost are the best core option, and that shabties/cataphracts are great, but almost all the lists looks the same and they all have the "same strategy".

    So in my opinion, sometimes is just a trend but sometimes there is an issue.
  • Litoperez wrote:

    With UD there are mayor issues, because 4 units of the book are never used (NEVER): cavalry, scarabs, necroguard, colossus...and the necrosphix i think just once, when the UD is the most played army. Here there is a problem I do understand the healing/buffing works better in big units, and I also undersstand that charriost are the best core option, and that shabties/cataphracts are great, but almost all the lists looks the same and they all have the "same strategy".
    There could be more to it than that though. Chariots are what UD was all about back before the Great Withdrawal and so you'd expect some bias towards chariots. There is the same thing for KoE - some players won't take infantry regardless of how good it gets because the faction is about cavalry.

    I'm not up to date on UD lists but what exactly do you mean by these units are never used? Have you got the data? If you're referring to the ETC lists, then that's hardly surprising. Most lists do one thing very well and most teams will ask that list to do that thing for them. You even said that when talking about EoS.
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.