Search Results

Search results 81-100 of 663.

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

  • 2.0 without core tax, please

    tiny - - General Discussion

    Post

    Quote from Adam: “@tiny, @Giladis I still think that you are having a lot of trouble with internal balance precisely because incentives to take core are skewed by the fact that it is mandatory ” Yes, that's surely the case. But I still don't see how dropping the core requirement would make the situation any better. My bet is that it would make the situation even worse. Quote from Adam: “Treat them as all other units and balance them as such - the T9A team has shown multiple times that they are g…

  • 2.0 without core tax, please

    tiny - - General Discussion

    Post

    Quote from Theorox: “Quote from tiny: “And the BLT will reply that if you point core in a way that "building a competitive army mostly out of core simply" it will push many current elite units out of the game. ” Not if they do things the core unit of the same book can't. Theo ” And than we are back at this point raised previously: Quote from tiny: “...some armies have so many unites with similar weapons and naturally overlapping roles, that you need the mechanic of core/none-core to separate the…

  • 2.0 without core tax, please

    tiny - - General Discussion

    Post

    Quote from Ulricpriest: “1. This is not a community based project, no matter how often people claim it is. There is an unelected, unaccountable Rules Team and they decide. ” Correct! We are not community lead, we are community driven. Design is done by the staff members trusted with their respective role and we are open for any community members to join the team and over time and with commitment they will be promoted to different positions within the staff structure according to their skill (and…

  • 2.0 without core tax, please

    tiny - - General Discussion

    Post

    And the BLT will reply that if you point core in a way that "building a competitive army mostly out of core simply" it will push many current elite units out of the game.

  • 2.0 without core tax, please

    tiny - - General Discussion

    Post

    I think I can't quite follow. Can you rephrase your statement?

  • 2.0 without core tax, please

    tiny - - General Discussion

    Post

    Quote from Adam: “If we have many units that overlap roles and are generally similar we would see more list variety, casual players would be happy with their themed armies, pro players would min max as usual. ” If you could perfectly price them that each of the option sees still regular play... But that's a BIG IF Because if you fail, one will outshine the other and you have a lot of dead wood in your armeebook, or as we called them in a previous game "fluff"-choices. I don't think that's design…

  • 2.0 without core tax, please

    tiny - - General Discussion

    Post

    Quote from CariadocThorne: “Some players will prefer the core, some will prefer the special. Why is this a problem? ” Because this is likely not the result. Assuming you remove core mechanic likely one will outshine the other and you will see either one or the other in 95% of army lists. Pointing unites perfectly equality in value is just very, very difficult. Quote from CariadocThorne: “Again, what is the problem with having both an elite and a non elite unit which both fill the same role and a…

  • 2.0 without core tax, please

    tiny - - General Discussion

    Post

    Quote from Adam: “really if the drive is to have iconic/mainstay units in the armies then just create incentives to have them instead of forcing them on players. ” Its design wise only one of the incentives to have core at all. The other is that some armies have so many unites with similar weapons and naturally overlapping roles, that you need the mechanic of core/none-core to separate them. As pointed out earlier the design wise easiest solution would be to drop some of those unites completely …

  • 2.0 without core tax, please

    tiny - - General Discussion

    Post

    Quote from Squirrelloid: “No. You can't do it ad hoc. BGT gives specific percentage ranges (Example: State Troops should compromise 6-12% of EoS armies overall), and the changes in price are fixed and automatic when that range isn't met. No committee review. No judgement calls. The playerbase is making the judgement calls with their army composition decisions - and that directly triggers price increases or decreases. Market dynamics don't involve or require central planners (central planners onl…

  • 2.0 without core tax, please

    tiny - - General Discussion

    Post

    Quote from Squirrelloid: “-Start from a guess at pricing (like now) -BGT defines the ratio we should see various units in, based upon world background. -Every 6 months, tournament lists are collated for each faction. Units which are overused go up 1ppm. Units which are underused go down 1ppm. (Units with few models can use a bigger adjustment). (Can weight by placement, as better placing armies in a faction may be considered more informative). -Those are relative internal balance values. Externa…

  • 2.0 without core tax, please

    tiny - - General Discussion

    Post

    Quote from DanT: “There is something that all of you could do to help the balance of the project, something that is very easy to do and could make a fair difference. Whenever you go to a tournament, speak to the tournament organiser and ask that they submit the results to the 9th age project. I think a lot of tournaments do not get submitted. Everyone talking about algorithms or the importance of balance should insist that any events they attend get submitted to the project. ” Very true! Thank y…

  • 2.0 without core tax, please

    tiny - - General Discussion

    Post

    Quote from PapaG: “With the assumption that the reason for a "core tax" existing on certain units being said units competing with similar units outside of core (i.e. Citizen Spears compete with Flame Wardens and so are taxed, if HBE had no elite infantry they would not be taxed) 1. Is it agreed that it is better (as in healthier for the game, player choice and enjoyment etc) to have an internally balanced book without any core taxes than an internally balanced book utilizing core taxes 2. I am n…

  • 2.0 without core tax, please

    tiny - - General Discussion

    Post

    Quote from Nicreap: “Quote from tiny: “But that's not necessarily an falt of the BLT, but a sign that an armybook redesign is more than over due. ” There are internal discussion that say otherwise, so you might want to double check your statements ” We now take conversations between random staff members in the coffee corner as evidence for or against an argument? I find that rather odd...

  • 2.0 without core tax, please

    tiny - - General Discussion

    Post

    Quote from Nicreap: “Quote from tiny: “Really? All things considered I find the current balance between the armies - based on the tournament results we see - quite good. ” and I find the fact that DE are at the bottom of the barrel for a second year in a row a sign of a serious flaw in the system. They performed poorly, they got "fixed" and they still perform poorly. So something isn't working, whether that is poorly formed guidelines, or biases on those choosing prices. But it would definitely …

  • 2.0 without core tax, please

    tiny - - General Discussion

    Post

    Quote from JimMorr: “People know the true value ” do they? The BLT obviously doesn't ... Quote from Sambazorcopter: “was to move away from the current 'balance' because it doesn't sit right... ” Really? All things considered I find the current balance between the armies - based on the tournament results we see - quite good.

  • 2.0 without core tax, please

    tiny - - General Discussion

    Post

    Regarding the OT, here the response of one of the BLT members: Quote from Frederick: “i stated this several times before: a general core-tax is a myth! we at no point during game-design and balancing slapped a flat %-tax on core to overcome the positive effet of being a core unit. This is all a case-by-case based pricing we did based on the context of the army and to make sure Eilte-equivalents will be taken still (without this effect nobody would ever bring chosen in the WDG-book or towe-guard …

  • 2.0 without core tax, please

    tiny - - General Discussion

    Post

    We can always run it on a previous rule iteration and compare your tool results against the internal collected Tournament results we have collected and see how well your tool performance. Sure!

  • 2.0 without core tax, please

    tiny - - General Discussion

    Post

    Quote from DaveRaven: “Anyone can build it, but will you come and use it? That is the right question. ” If it can predict/score the power level of the armies/units for a given rules iteration, before we have the tournament results to show us our mistakes HELL YA! But if its predictions are not also confirmed by the quantitative tournament results (and lists-played)... not so much...

  • 2.0 without core tax, please

    tiny - - General Discussion

    Post

    Quote from DaveRaven: “But seriously, IMO, any tool that can make a better product should not be ignored. ” Please build it! Quote from tiny: “With the questions above I tried to lead you to the point to see how difficult of a task you are trying to solve. You have multiple states, each of which has a none-linear value scaling and further more is heavily interlinked with other states and multiple special rules, each of which somehow also influence the value of the statline. Since you don't know …

  • 2.0 without core tax, please

    tiny - - General Discussion

    Post

    Quote from Toomuchmodels: “And btw, i'm not sure that experienced 8th ETC players are able to provide fresh ideas to a game that wants to take distance from its predecessor ” Fair point. Although to be honest (seeing the internal discussions - as well as the ideas floating around in the suggestion forum) I don't think fresh ideas is what is missing. More often than not its a balance act of how many fresh ideas can/should be implemented without off putting big parts of the community and the balan…