Pinned Patch 2.2 Feedback

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 available! You can read all about it in the news.

The brand new army book for Infernal Dwarves is finally available, along with a small surprise! Remember that it is a beta version, and provide us your feedback!

  • Just_Flo wrote:

    Normally I would have locked in as contigency.

    But I did work 14 -15 hohes that day and so the Backup wasnt avaiable, too.
    Then you need more members and more redundancy
    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!
  • Blonde Beer wrote:



    Spectral Steed. Only 1 Feedback from EE about it (that it was to cheap). Most of the RT felt the same way though, but I wouldn't call it a change that originated from EE. So we changed it back to the original price.

    Here's one of my big problems. This entry is something I have never seen in a list. I can personally work with nerfs as they only make me stronger, but when you increase something that's totally nonexistent it makes me doubt the process :(



    Cadavar Wagon: Again, the only thing we can discuss how much points it needed to go down. I see it dropping more tbh.
    Weird. I'm actually happy this is recognized. Now I can stop playing it for data while I wait :)
    Thanks for writing this post :)

    eggsPR wrote:

    Thanks. Initial reaction to recent posts is:

    Yes, would LOVE to have recordings of RT - not many may pay attention to it, but some folks would really really appreciate the transparency. It would also act as meeting minutes for your team to review prior to subsequent reviews. So, really, it’s a win-win for everybody.

    Rebuttal to ranges occultism is, what else can VC do against range? We don’t have shooting therefore we must rely on magic to compete. If players took more binding scrolls than this would not be an issue, but it seems your controlling the meta instead of letting it play out.


    Well it wasn't removed, just made more expensive, which was a general design decision for increasing range on spells. So that's fine.... Problem is that I don't see for example Wandering Familiar going up in price.. @Krokz?

    On Coaches, we used them to zone with M8, since we cannot have flee reactions, it was the best piece to prevent armies running over crumbly VC units. Now at 460 it’s a bridge too far I think. 2 for 920 is... wow.

    Why were Alters (never taken) ignored?
    They couldn't agree that they were indeed overpriced. I think the problem here is the old "the potential is there" argument, and they are probably worth their points if you look at the total effect. The part that is ignored is that many a game is decided in the early turns and that units don't always have the luxury of surviving to the end.

    I sometimes think we should make it start at STR6 and go downwards instead... would be easier to price :)


    Why did Ghasts (bloodline only unit) ignored given your direction to increase infantry? Could’ve given them scoring at least (small effort in simply adding the flag graphic above the entry), and they’re infantry.

    Why were so many more units double nerfed than other armies in top 3 category?

    hugomac wrote:

    Mike newman wrote:

    Forum wrote:

    Top tier: UD, VS
    High Tier: WDG, VC, OK, BH, DL
    Mid Tier: KoE, OnG
    Low Tier: DE, DH, EoS, SA SE, ID
    Bottom tier: HE
    I’m fed up from reading this thread seeing people from the project hide behind comments such as “VC are a tier 2 army” and “it’s the data’s fault”.1)first let’s address VC position in tier 2.I accept this data comes from a variety of sources.ETC, like it or not, is the biggest collection of the best gamers from all around the world. It is the best cross gaming community data set.VC ranked 12th with average of 9pts a game. They also had the 3rd most games recorded - so it’s not like this is a small anomaly data set.The following armies were placed in a lower tier but ranked above themOnG, DH, KoE, DE, SEbut maybe that’s just teams impact? Let’s look at ESC, 101 players, big international tournament, VC ranked 10th, averaging 10pts game.Not results of tier 2 army to me. But ok.2) talking of points dropsWhat I do see in my own community. And bear in mind that I’ve been part of an ETC team for a long time, my inner circle is some of the best players around, I’m not just listening to any Tom, william and HarryVS players - happyWDG players - very happyOk players - happyBH players - very happyAnd why are they happy? It’s because their army list comes down in points or doesn’t change. You look at the likes of Craig’s centaur list gaining 150pts... it’s just crazy.And then the players of armies below that. Colin is over the moon with SA changes, Furion has someone start their own thread on this forum praising him because of how amazingly good the HBE reductions are and talking about how their double dragon list got an extra 450pts cheaper!3) There doesn’t seem to be a realisation that reducing one army by 200/300pts and increasing the other by the same does not balance the armies out. It swaps them over, because combined it is too big of a swing. It needed to be one or the other.4) this is compounded by the fact that it is plain to see that some armies are getting away with murder. Cuatl and Tank are perfect examples of this. Both are taken in virtually every single army. Yet both in this last update got points reductions. There is absolutely no justification for this is you are following the projects own guidelines that the lower tier armies “will get smaller points increases in their most taken units”. None.Meanwhile VC over here getting nerfed. And nerfed again.5) likewise project said no rules changes. Then changes rules for essence because it’s too strong. Then changes rules for Sun tablet because essence is not too strong for cuatl? - that makes no sense. Then reduces price of essence, then reduces price of suntablet, then reduces price of Cuatl. Do you take people for idiots not to see this?And 1 ZD 2 Tbat is too strong. So rules must be changed for that. There has been no data collected to prove it’s too strong. Only a lot of complaining on the forum to base this on. Yet project representatives continue to state that patch is not emotion based only data based. That is clearly just not true.No wonder there is so much outrage on here. Project can not stick to what it said it would do. Project can not justify what it has done. Comparably project has made a big mess.You have myself, mince and furion - 3 top and respected players, all previous ETC captains, all multiple tournament winners, all very experienced in this thread saying you made a mistake on this VC update and really damaged the army.[*]Maybe it’s time you listen?
    [/list]
    I think VC is now below average, yeah. Clearly, indeed. Not utterly destroyed like you (not personalizing krokus, but the whole the team) did with HBE in its time, but very, very hard hitted.
    Only time will tell, but i would bet my money in that most of the top ETC teams won't take them in their rosters, and that their tournament results (already quite mediocre) will show a significant drop. Is gonna be a rough 2020 for bloodsuckers, very rough...

    But, let's try em and be constructive. LAB will come someday, so thanks for your answers.
    Good man.. gogo

    Snarkhunter wrote:

    MalachitTheDark wrote:

    @Blonde Beer - thank you a lot for explanation from your side. Could you also clarify why Altars haven't been discussed? And why Varkolaks got price increase? Maybe I play different tournaments, but I haven't seen them both for quite a long time (maybe just in rare cases).

    Rellzed wrote:

    @Blonde Beer

    Thank you,

    When you have time, I'd like you to say also something about the Altar of undeath that didn't received any points drop despite being quite useless, and the varkolak that felt to be in the right spot at 335pts, because to be effective people have to take al least 2 units of them.
    For these two items mentioned above:
    Dark Altar - I recall seeing that a few EE mentioned it was too expensive, but during RT talks we were reluctant to reduce price given what we see as a current abundance of attacks (game wide, not necessarily faction specific) which ignores the to hit roll. I think only 1 RT wanted a small (5 pt) reduction in price, the rest said no. This reasoning is also evident in the updated Essence.

    Varkolak - We had a significant number of EE report it as too cheap, and none said too expensive ... with comments recommending a 15 pt increase. It was a close vote, but after our discussion we decided to listen to EE, but not do quite as large an increase. For me personally, the fact that pyromancy will likely see a reduction in popularity due to the Essence change was a factor in my decision.

    It appears that @Blonde Beer and @Krokz are answering the other concerns, but please let me know if there's something back in the last 16 pages that requires my specific attention.
    That's good feedback. Thanks

    Especially about the Altar I agree too many things auto-hits, but it also sounds like RT officially park the Altar in the "to-do" pile, which is less than great with no FAB in sight for VC...
  • Blonde Beer wrote:

    Grouchy Badger wrote:

    I don't want you to time travel, I want the team to do the basic things that should have been done in the first place.
    Let me add a bit here. I don't want to come over to strong, but maybe it makes something a bit clear.
    1) Previous update I spend quite a bit of time with ACS to add explanations to everything to help them out. It was way more work than I thought it would take, but I tried to much as possible.
    2) After this update I told RT I would write out "a patch note" to make everyone's life easier.
    3) Day after I get a call that my father is dying and in the hospital. So I decided that that was a bit more important. I've spending most of my time on that the last 2 weeks.


    This has ripples in several places after. For example, @Wesser wrote a big piece of feedback and tagged me in, but I missed it. Since most ACS members are proparly now used to having communication go though me on this stuff I think a number of pieces fell off the chessboard.

    Now, this isn't meant as some excuse, just trying to make clear that not everything is as easy as everyone often assumes.
    I encorage you!!
  • You know, all points nerfs aside, the rules nerf to SH is frustrating because it reveals a total lack of creativity. Look at the HBE book, they can take two dragons, but only if they don't take any bolt throwers. Look at the OK book, Wildheart is unlocked by moving other things off the table. Then we have Teracotta army and whatnot. But instead of even trying something like that they just slapped a 0-1 on it. They cited the unintentional consequences of lowering the price of the ZD. Well I actually play many 5000 and 5500 point lists, where such a combo was possible. Now it is not. Does that count an unintended consequence? Oh right, if you don't play 4500 then beat it.

    What if this list was only unlocked by taking the ZD on a BotD general, and disallowing necromancers. Or you know what, you want to get extreme/ what if by taking this option you cannot cast the hereditary spell at all? That seems super punishing, but at least it leaves the option open.

    Maybe we'll do something about it in the FAB, I can hear the staff say. When is that going to be? Eight years? Ten? The project can't just keep putting things off until the FABs, when all signs are pointing to things being done on average one a year. But even worse than that, is how we were told that there was no room for rules changes, only points changes (something I did not agree with, but accepted). Then it turns out, there IS room for rule changes provided they are nerfs or restrictions.

    I can get over points nerfs, as punishing as they may be for the competitive crowd. But the slowly constricting coils of 0-X limitations really strangles a lot of my enthusiasm for things. Which is a shame, because I had felt some of that lifting over the past year or so.
  • Persedious wrote:

    You know, all points nerfs aside, the rules nerf to SH is frustrating because it reveals a total lack of creativity. Look at the HBE book, they can take two dragons, but only if they don't take any bolt throwers. Look at the OK book, Wildheart is unlocked by moving other things off the table. Then we have Teracotta army and whatnot.
    Those were done years ago. Not sure why these things have any effect in the current version.

    But I can tell you that those 'options' may not be as good as you think. Terracotta and barrow has been a torn in the side of the UD book for a Looooong time.
    They have only created discontent, not made more lists viable.
    Many players have bemoaned how useless those options were or on the few occasions they weren't, how they overshadowed the standard UD list.
    Typically the end result was that effectively the UD book ended up being more limited, not having more options.

    For example, in the last ETC only 1/32 lists used terracotta or barrow.

    Persedious wrote:

    Maybe we'll do something about it in the FAB, I can hear the staff say. When is that going to be? Eight years? Ten? The project can't just keep putting things off until the FABs, when all signs are pointing to things being done on average one a year. But even worse than that, is how we were told that there was no room for rules changes, only points changes (something I did not agree with, but accepted). Then it turns out, there IS room for rule changes provided they are nerfs or restrictions.
    You can see how it is different, right?
    All armies want elements in their books to be changed/made cooler.
    If they open the door to add redesigns for VC, then all factions will (rightfully) ask for a similar (or greater) level of change to be implemented in their current book. If 2 entries are redesigned for VC, then 30 other entries would required to be redesigned, which is more work than making a full LAB.

    If you add nerfs/limitations, no other faction asks for them, so this minimizes the impact.
    This is why the UD attribute was just a straight nerf and not a redesigned.
  • Some of the questions being asked here might be answered by a quick look at the publicly available data linked a few times already here:

    the-ninth-age.com/community/in…used-for-the-2019-update/

    Or taking a little time to understand the scope of the update.

    For example I believe from a quick look:

    Altar of Undeath (claimed as useless / never used etc) was used 43 times in 295 tournament lists collected.

    Units used that much didn't tend to get price drops in even lower tier armies, AFAIK.

    Varkolaks - used 159 times in 295 tournament lists collected.

    It doesn't seem unreasonable for units that popular to get reasonable price rises in better performing armies, esp if feedback agrees.

    Stuff like adding scoring to Infantry units is outside the scope of the update, which was points only unless something was deemed 'gamebreaking', with the occasional availability change where RT deemed it absolutely necessary.

    Some people demanding more information don't appear to look at the information that is already openly available to them, pinned at the top of the general forum and linked several times, but some still demand more IN CAPS. It's easy to demand other people do more work for you, you can always do some yourself though. How about the people demanding more info and insisting it would take no work join the project in PR and provide it to everyone themselves?

    Data Analysis

    The post was edited 3 times, last by Hachiman Taro ().

  • Hachiman Taro wrote:

    Altar of Undeath (claimed as useless / never used etc) was used 43 times in 295 tournament lists collected.
    .... thats barely taken.



    How can the team look at this and not think something is very wrong? If my math isnt donuted Dark coach makes up 70% of all chariots taken, while alter of undeath is only 16%. That is indeed BARELY taken, while the rest, mathematically, are RARELY taken.
    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!
  • Trying to understand these data. So Number of usages is the total number of times it appears? E.g. If I have 2 counts in my army the total Number of Usages is 2, while Number of armies taking this at least once would be 1 (if only my army). Can you please confirm that I understand this correctly?
    Need some inspiration? Check out my plog: Sam's Painting Saga
  • Grouchy Badger wrote:

    Hachiman Taro wrote:

    Altar of Undeath (claimed as useless / never used etc) was used 43 times in 295 tournament lists collected.
    .... thats barely taken.


    How can the team look at this and not think something is very wrong? If my math isnt donuted Dark coach makes up 70% of all chariots taken, while alter of undeath is only 16%. That is indeed BARELY taken, while the rest, mathematically, are RARELY taken.
    Is it? it's close to 15% of lists. Generally I wouldn't consider something "barely taken" unless it was under 5% or at least under 10%. For example I argued for price drops on things that were taken 3 times in 192 lists in a lower tier army(and didn't get it). Previously, less than 5% has been used as a breakpoint, though I think that's a bit harsh personally, especially if it doesn't account for what category of thing it is. But that's not something that's different for other armies particularly, AFAIK.

    That's not to say something might not get a points drop at that level of use (the occasional thing did, probably due to EE feedback etc) but it wouldn't be something I expected.

    huitzilopochtli wrote:

    Trying to understand these data. So Number of usages is the total number of times it appears? E.g. If I have 2 counts in my army the total Number of Usages is 2, while Number of armies taking this at least once would be 1 (if only my army). Can you please confirm that I understand this correctly?
    I believe so, yes.

    Data Analysis

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Hachiman Taro ().

  • I will take alook at it. Which numbers compared to the average take were considered as taken so little that it gets a price discount is written about in a blogpost.
  • huitzilopochtli wrote:

    Thank you. There appears to be an error for the Collosal Zombie dragon - taken 3 times in 1 army.

    Just_Flo wrote:

    I will take alook at it. Which numbers compared to the average take were considered as taken so little that it gets a price discount is written about in a blogpost.


    The early files had some errors as the field for stuff which could only be taken once per army where greyed out (so most magic items or the colossal zombie dragon for example) and thus not filled out when entering the data. This leads to the wrong total being done for those cases in a couple of files.

    However, this visual mistake didn't had any influence on the update.
  • Persedious wrote:

    Then it turns out, there IS room for rule changes provided they are nerfs or restrictions.
    Yes and that was said in public news posts -> that design changes will be instated where we assess that price changes alone will not fix the identified problem. In this last patch we identified both VC Dragons and Essence as an RPS issue we want to fix. Then we voted if fixing is going to be price (price Essence so high no one is going to take it, price VC Horrors so high you can't make the combo) or a design change, we opted for as minor as possible rules change to not price the things out of existance.
    0-X restrictions or restrictions that affect only list building side of the game are not a design change as the game still plays the same - at least in my eyes. Basically only Essence was a rule change and even there we voted for a change that is as minor as possible and would have the effect we wanted. So we added one sentence that lowers RPS factor of the item, after a lengthy discussion we had like 7 options to vote on (condorcet as always).

    And much more things were voted to not be so big of an issue (that price changes can still fix them) to make a design change, you just don't know about them :) we really try to be as conservative as possible here.

    Nicreap wrote:

    so the second heavier nerf to VC seemingly came out of the blue.
    Most of price entries went down. Of course the most taken things are up and majority of most played lists went up in price. But that is true for almost all the books. So by those standards even average tier books were nerfed. We tried to see the change from 2.1 to 2.2 as the final product and we repeatedly asked ourselves if our beta prices do achieve what we want because as you've said, we had no data but 2.1 data. This patch used old 2.1 data, because we were double checking if price changes are justified and where it failed to do what we wanted. This is why it was beta and ACS and EE gave input.

    As for communication, PR is lacking and that is easy to fix: apply for the job :) it is not just giving information to the community, it is also in representation of that information and constantly copy paste it on the board before things escalate.
  • Hachiman Taro wrote:



    For example I believe from a quick look:

    Altar of Undeath (claimed as useless / never used etc) was used 43 times in 295 tournament lists collected.

    Units used that much didn't tend to get price drops in even lower tier armies, AFAIK.
    295 lists means 295 people. As far as I know Altars basically are taken in pair, so 43 times means like it was taken by 22 people. +-. So 22 out of 295, it is less then 10%. Or maybe I'm wrong and they were taken always by one in each list? Maybe this should be also considered, not only total amount?
  • MalachitTheDark wrote:

    Hachiman Taro wrote:

    For example I believe from a quick look:

    Altar of Undeath (claimed as useless / never used etc) was used 43 times in 295 tournament lists collected.

    Units used that much didn't tend to get price drops in even lower tier armies, AFAIK.
    295 lists means 295 people. As far as I know Altars basically are taken in pair, so 43 times means like it was taken by 22 people. +-. So 22 out of 295, it is less then 10%. Or maybe I'm wrong and they were taken always by one in each list? Maybe this should be also considered, not only total amount?
    43 alters in 26 lists.
    Need some inspiration? Check out my plog: Sam's Painting Saga