Pinned 2.1 Questions regarding the update

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!

  • I assume most changes were made based off of the observation of regular use in posted lists, but I'm curious if there is additional insight on any of the following:
    • Why was blacksteel's price increased when death warrant also went up?
    • Was imperial seal on BSB having negative impacts to warrant its price increase?
    • Why does the wizard's mount version of arcane engine upgrade costs differ from the standalone model's? If the price discrepancy is a mistake which upgrade is supposed to be the more expensive one? Is the free option genuinely felt to be weaker than the alternative?
    • Why were state militia and flagellant prices lowered? Is it for external balancing or for not being taken as often?
    • Was there any consideration taken to lower mantle of Ullor's price by 5pts to continue to allow its interaction with potion of swiftness and Death Warrant to support a Heavy Infantry spearmen unit?
  • Gentlemen, first answers to your questions from the Rules Team(in blue), more is to come soon:


    IIRC it was rated quite high by external experts. And I believe this is supported by ETC lists where great tacticians were quite common.

    And there is also some weird stuff with cost decrease if you thiunk about external balance:
    Reduce volley gun and artificer ? This artillery combo could wipe out an unit of 700pts in one turn of shoot with magic help. Does it really need a cost reduction ?
    Reduce ranger cost ? Why ? With 90pts they was already a pretty cheap chaff, and with 2 shot, they are better than some elves.
    etc..


    This is a drawback with data driven balance. It is blind to nuances like this. It just sees that something is not used very much and decreases cost.
    I'll add this to our disucssion list. Might be a good idea to move some of these points decreases to different units that are more in-line with how we want to see EoS be used.




    ctpcosmic:feedback from a non EoS player:from my POV DeathWarrant+Blacksteel combo looked like an integral part of the army, why would you nerf that on a low tier army?

    Death warrant is an overused weapon for sure. And the combo with Blacksteel is very common. Looking at just data this seems rather clear case to me. Forces EoS players to try some different builds for their characters. Can't have them all with 1+ save and all the buffs.


    I mean we already have the feedback from very many players on the tank. Here's mine on synergy: It's the sole reason why I chose EoS as second army. A bunch of mediocre dudes, weak alone, but quite devastating by being parent/support unit and buffed up by characters and stuff. If the snyergy elements of the army are doing what they are supposed to (I mean it's the #1 theme of the army), then a data driven approach will continously nerf them, until… I don't know, when the non-synergistic elements become comparably so strong, that the synergy isn't worth the investment anymore?

    Sounds like "Don't raise price of syngery stuff, it's EoS' main theme".

    T9A has always said that we refuse to take such things into consideration when balancing. In our view, an army's theme should not enable them to have more points effective stuff. A major theme should be about having more options and higher eliteness on the things that are related to the theme. For EoS that should mean more synergy-providing units and synergies with higher impact. These will allow the army to be built around the concepts better.




    imperialengineer wrote:

    What does the steam tank compete with from a role standpoint? Just curious what entries could have been considered for point reductions instead of another steam tank point increase. Also, why was a steam tank increase prioritized in the algorithm over point reductions in competing units?



    Steam tank fills many roles (shooting, tarpit, burst damage), and afaik there is no unit in EoS that can fill all of them. The most important role is perhaps the tarpit one, where stank can hold units for a long time, without the need of being close to general/BSB and without enemies being able to runt past it. I guess the closest one would be flagellants (which got cheaper iirc).

    For deciding what gets price increase, we compare the unit to all other units in the same category, where the categories are character - core - rest. Steam tank was overused compared to all other non-core and non-character choices.


    Fjugin
    - Head of Rules Team -
    - Assistant Head of Rules Clarity Team-
    favourite quote:
    Kruber wrote:
    Imperial Rangers burn the woods ---> Sylvan Elves go cry in the corner.

    My armies:
    :EoS: :O&G: :KoE: :OK:
  • Phosphorus:How do these changes/point adjustements turn the Tier 4 army into a Tier 3 ? --- that is, were do you see the little "buff up(s)" which a Tier 4 army should get in regards to external balance?

    The way tiers were taken into account when updating pricing is the following (in broad strokes)

    1. All entries in the book are rated internally. On a scale from 1 - 6, where 1 is strong and 6 is weak (i.e. 3.5 is perfectly internally balanced). Three data sources were used; tournament armylists, community survey, top players ("external experts") surveys. The weighted average between these sources gives the final score.

    2. We define thresholds for this rating, how high and low score does an entry need to be imbalanced enough to get a price change. This threshold is decided based on tier placement.
      • A top tier army could for example get "below 3.3 -> price increase" and "above 5 -> price decrease" (not centered around 3.5).

      • A bottom tier could get get "below 2.5 -> price increase" and "above 3.6 -> price decrease".

      • And mid tier armies something in between

    3. The size of changes was also affected by tier placement. Low tier armies got bigger sized buffs and smaller sized nerfs than top tier armies.
    Above procedure can give good result, but there is no guarantee that it will. A bottom tier army with very bad internal balance (i.e. many entries which score very low on the internal balance ranking) would be nerfed more than it should compared to a better internally balanced low tier army.

    Finding these problems is one of the major reasons we are doing this short beta-phase thing. We are asking for help to identify which armies were nerfed too much. The two main ways we are doing this is to have top players predict which armies will be top and bottom tier after the update (EoS is not predicted to be either top nor bottom) and to check how the update affects ETC lists (where some argue that EoS is looking like it was hit harden than other armies in similar tier ranking).


    Nerocrossius:assume most changes were made based off of the observation of regular use in posted lists, but I'm curious if there is additional insight on any of the following:


    Why was blacksteel's price increased when death warrant also went up?

    Was imperial seal on BSB having negative impacts to warrant its price increase?

    Deathwarrant, blacksteel and imperial seal are the three most used items in EoS book.


    Data driven balance is blind to combos, and blind to lack of options. It just sees something is used more than it "should" and ups price. RT has recieved feedback that some feel the killing of blacksteel+death warrant and imperial seal on BSB was unjustified. We will look into it.

    Why does the wizard's mount version of arcane engine upgrade costs differ from the standalone model's? If the price discrepancy is a mistake which upgrade is supposed to be the more expensive one? Is the free option genuinely felt to be weaker than the alternative?

    I have honestly no idea what happened here. But it
    has been noted and I suspect it won't stay like this.

    Why were state militia and flagellant prices lowered? Is it for external balancing or for not being taken as often?
    See above answer. It's a combination of both. They were internally weak in an externally weak army.

    Was there any consideration taken to lower mantle of Ullor's price by 5pts to continue to allow its interaction with potion of swiftness and Death Warrant to support a Heavy Infantry spearmen unit?

    It was not.
    Potion of swiftness was specially increased to block a lot of current combos with it, to force people to make an active actual choice to include it or not. And of they really want it, maybe something needs to be sacrificed.

    Mirdynn:Why IG with great weapons which is generally fiabilized by a cabalistic machine tax, have a higher price than shield + razor banner version?
    Data didn't support making great weapons cheaper simply.
    Their price sort of makes sense when you consider their interactions with all the buff stacking EoS can do (hatred, battle focus, lightning reflexes, fight in extra ranks). These get a higher value when combined with higher quality base attacks. Extra s6ap3 attacks from battle focus is of course better than extra s4ap2 attacks.


    Fjugin
    - Head of Rules Team -
    - Assistant Head of Rules Clarity Team-
    favourite quote:
    Kruber wrote:
    Imperial Rangers burn the woods ---> Sylvan Elves go cry in the corner.

    My armies:
    :EoS: :O&G: :KoE: :OK:
  • Mirdynn:Why IG with great weapons which is generally fiabilized by a cabalistic machine tax, have a higher price than shield + razor banner version?
    Data didn't support making great weapons cheaper simply.
    Their price sort of makes sense when you consider their interactions with all the buff stacking EoS can do (hatred, battle focus, lightning reflexes, fight in extra ranks). These get a higher value when combined with higher quality base attacks. Extra s6ap3 attacks from battle focus is of course better than extra s4ap2 attacks.
    That doesn´t make sense to a certain degree or better said: is inconsistent.

    As per data (if I read them right) IG are far less taken with great weapon (2:1). Now they decision to not make them cheaper is based heavily on further thinking /analysis. This is inconsistent..we all know that IG with great weapons have a potential higher damage output, but still most prefer IG with handweapon /shield for better protection, more grinding power /staying power...and above 3 pts cheaper each model.
    Veteran of the Chaff Wars