Enough Self Entitlement

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.

  • Taki wrote:

    KeyserSoze wrote:

    Taki wrote:

    KeyserSoze wrote:

    Do you guys really think that the design team and the relevant boards try to destroy the game or make it worse than before?
    no I just don't think they understand their client base of its needs.
    The 9th age has no clients, and does not treat anyone like this.Besides, it does not work like this. Noone hired the 9th age staff with a specific order.Th 9th age founding members started this project from scratch, making clear its goals from the very first moment. In the process, the community has been an important part of this, and the poll results were respected.
    Perhaps you don't understand, the people who play this game are clients to the game, the term doesn't strictly have to do with monetary exchange. The people playing this game are clients because they use the goods and services on offer here. Honestly your argument is purposely ignoring my point to be pedantic.
    As to your statement that the founding members started from scratch, that's a lie. They started with an existing rules set that they cleaned up (and in my opinion could have done a better job). And while the polls may have been respected, I don't believe they were understood, either that or they were poorly executed; simply the reaction of the client base/community to what was given to it, based on the polls that they took, should be truth enough. Simply put, armies which should be legal, aren't. Promises made about comp, unit limits, and available army styles were not kept. And finally, issues that have been needing redress since before this game existed (magic, S being too good, the various problems with weapons and armor, steadfast being too good, cavalry not working properly, huge charge ranges, etc I could go on and on) were not even looked at, let alone fixed.

    I have no faith anymore.

    Giladis wrote:

    Taki wrote:

    And finally, issues that have been needing redress since before this game existed (magic, S being too good, the various problems with weapons and armor, steadfast being too good, cavalry not working properly, huge charge ranges, etc I could go on and on) were not even looked at, let alone fixed.
    They have been looked at and thoroughly discussed. It was just decided that some of the conclusions need further consideration before implementations and we did not overwhelm the community in one go. :)
    @Taki

    You claim that things are not done or discussed or thought of.

    And yet you have 0 (in words: ZERO) evidence to support your claim.

    Yet you feel comfortable claiming such things.

    That is not polite or fair or correct to put it mildly.

    The changes predented made a huge knee jerk reaction in the community, and all the things you (falsely) claim were not thought of or even discussed would be 3x (at least) the volume of current changes presented in 1.2.

    You have to pick a side, do you wish the change to come or not?

    The main problem I see here is that people expected various things changed, and when 1.2 showed that those changes are not there yet, people think (wrongly) that they have been cheated.

    I have said this multiple time on HE subforum and will repeat it here:

    T9A is still an ongoing process, and we are far from our (by this I mean the entire T9A team) desired goal.

    So much work is yet ahead of us.

    Yet, each and every day brings us closer to it, one rule tweak, one army book, one story, one artpiece at a time.

    We are moving, still on the road, and walking on foot.

    In our free time.

    Literally ripping time from our jobs, from our friends, from our family.

    So that ALL of us can play a game we love, a better game than before.

    And yes, there are tjose that do not like the direction this game is going sice they are firmly rooted in the WHFB, so much so that they despise change as they see it as an attack on a thing they love.

    And that is ok, they have the right.

    Just please, when you express yourselves, bear in mind that:

    a) It is normal to disagree with someone.

    b) It is perfectly ok to express your disagreement.

    c) It is NOT nor will it EVER be ok to attack someone on personal level because you disagree.

    In time, you might even grow to love the changes that transpired so far, as well as those that are yet to come.
    Used to be a Vampire ABC member... then an Elf lass bit me... nowadays I have this insatiable craving for cheese, whine and fancy dresses... 8| The Dawn Host of ArchangelusM

    Army Design Team

    Draecarion, may the Lord grant eternal peace to your soul, my Friend!
  • Taki wrote:

    Lagerlof wrote:

    Taki wrote:

    KeyserSoze wrote:

    Taki wrote:

    KeyserSoze wrote:

    Do you guys really think that the design team and the relevant boards try to destroy the game or make it worse than before?
    no I just don't think they understand their client base of its needs.
    The 9th age has no clients, and does not treat anyone like this.Besides, it does not work like this. Noone hired the 9th age staff with a specific order.Th 9th age founding members started this project from scratch, making clear its goals from the very first moment. In the process, the community has been an important part of this, and the poll results were respected.
    Perhaps you don't understand, the people who play this game are clients to the game, the term doesn't strictly have to do with monetary exchange. The people playing this game are clients because they use the goods and services on offer here. Honestly your argument is purposely ignoring my point to be pedantic.As to your statement that the founding members started from scratch, that's a lie. They started with an existing rules set that they cleaned up (and in my opinion could have done a better job). And while the polls may have been respected, I don't believe they were understood, either that or they were poorly executed; simply the reaction of the client base/community to what was given to it, based on the polls that they took, should be truth enough. Simply put, armies which should be legal, aren't. Promises made about comp, unit limits, and available army styles were not kept. And finally, issues that have been needing redress since before this game existed (magic, S being too good, the various problems with weapons and armor, steadfast being too good, cavalry not working properly, huge charge ranges, etc I could go on and on) were not even looked at, let alone fixed.

    I have no faith anymore.
    Since you have already made up your mind regardless of what any one says, maybe it's better if you log out and leave it be instead of continuing to spread negativity around.
    Don't blame me when none of you ahve come up with a reasonable response. The reason I persist is ethics, I feel it's inappropriate not to say something

    Giladis wrote:

    Taki wrote:

    And finally, issues that have been needing redress since before this game existed (magic, S being too good, the various problems with weapons and armor, steadfast being too good, cavalry not working properly, huge charge ranges, etc I could go on and on) were not even looked at, let alone fixed.
    They have been looked at and thoroughly discussed. It was just decided that some of the conclusions need further consideration before implementations and we did not overwhelm the community in one go. :)
    Gil, I love you man, but every other place the rules team is saying core rules are done. I want to believe you, but I keep hearing otherwise. I want so bad to be wrong, but i don't really have faith.

    Everything is going to be ok! no need for fear and negativity!


    Taki you say you "don't really have faith"


    Taki ......here:



    or this







    You're welcome! :largegrin:
  • Giladis wrote:

    Taki wrote:

    And finally, issues that have been needing redress since before this game existed (magic, S being too good, the various problems with weapons and armor, steadfast being too good, cavalry not working properly, huge charge ranges, etc I could go on and on) were not even looked at, let alone fixed.
    They have been looked at and thoroughly discussed. It was just decided that some of the conclusions need further consideration before implementations and we did not overwhelm the community in one go. :)
    Maybe we just need additional information, what is the concrete aim from v1.3 to v2.0.

    I read different answers.

    Sometimes, I read it's minor changes.

    Sometimes I read it's "bigger" changes like from v1.1 to v1.2.

    Sometimes I read v1.2 created the frame, the development to v2.0 would be more concrete.

    Yes, v1.2 brought some big changes.
    But except for new paths of magic and a new miscast and several rather "minor" rules changes in detail (e.g. musician and skirmish formation), the real BIG change from v1.1 to v1.2 is NO rule change. It's the army organisation including new categories. This is no gameplay-rules, it's the meta for giving a frame for each army within which the army creation is allowed.


    So I currently see different groups of people.
    - some dont like changes at all. Every change creates more distance to 8th edition ruleset
    - some like changes but the changes they like didn't come (yet) and they maybe even dislike the current changes
    - some like the current changes although it's not the changes they hope would come
    - some like the changes
    - some will just go on playing no matter if and what changes. For them there is no alternative on the market, so they will arrange with whatever comes

    Quick Starter Team

    Playtester


  • I have been very critical of certain parts of the 1.2 changes, but let me just say that there is more going on here than has been adequately communicated. Yes, you should have faith.
    "An hour of wolves and shattered shields, when the age of men comes crashing down! But it is not this day! This day we fight! By all that you hold dear on this good Earth, I bid you *stand, Men of the West!*"

    -Aragorn, son of Arathorn
  • For what its worth I've played 3, v1.2 games now and will post them on my channel. (1 is already up)

    I'm not going to try to convince anyone of anything anymore. Beating that dead horse is now just abusive. :P

    However, I would encourage everyone to playtest the game no matter what they feel before just throwing in the towel or trotting off to do whatever.

    If you cant even bring yourself to do that, Fine. That's your choice and again, I'm not going to try to talk you out of it.

    Instead, I suggest you watch some of the v1.2 battle reports (Or read them, plenty of great Battle reports in written form in these very forums!) too see what has changed and how its affecting the game.

    You might be surprised, justified, and / or enlightened.

    All I'm saying is having an opinion is one thing, having an educated opinion is something much more respectable.

    Hope this helps!
  • DJWoodelf wrote:

    Maybe we just need additional information, what is the concrete aim from v1.3 to v2.0.
    We are working on a message with more reasoning why what was done in 1.2 to help up with understanding.

    As for what will be done afterwards I don't know. There is a number of discussions that are open on further changes, how many of these, if any, in the end get sufficiently developed, agreed upon and implemented it is yet to be seen.

    But what will be one of the focuses in the work going from 1.3 to 2.0 will be development of unique 9th Age Visual Identity without changing the mechanics beneath it.

    Background Team

    Rules Team

    Conceptual Design

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- :BH: :DL: :DE: :DH: :EoS: :HE: :ID: :KoE: :OK: :O&G: :SA: :SE_bw: :VS: :UD_bw: :VC: :WDG:
  • I like lord tremendous's comment. You can't say for sure how bad or good a game system as complex as this one is without at least giving it a try.

    That said, I have trouble believing that a template is less streamlined than figuring out how many ranks or files are in a unit and rolling a d3 for each of those to determine hits. Sounds much more complicated, math filled and prone to errors.

    I haven't yet had a chance to try the system out, but theres a chance I get a game in this weekend some time.

    On the subject of entitlement, I honestly feel like the people who are in charge of balancing the army books don't play either of the armies I do. (Saurians and high born)

    I will admit that I have nothing to base that theory on but it does often feel like I can look at the options in those books and then look at a similar option in almost any other book and it will be cheaper with very equivalent stats or the same cost with superior stats.

    I'm not angry, I'm not entitled, I just really want to be excited about my armies. Is that too much to ask for?
  • Darken wrote:

    I like lord tremendous's comment. You can't say for sure how bad or good a game system as complex as this one is without at least giving it a try.

    That said, I have trouble believing that a template is less streamlined than figuring out how many ranks or files are in a unit and rolling a d3 for each of those to determine hits. Sounds much more complicated, math filled and prone to errors.

    I haven't yet had a chance to try the system out, but theres a chance I get a game in this weekend some time.

    On the subject of entitlement, I honestly feel like the people who are in charge of balancing the army books don't play either of the armies I do. (Saurians and high born)

    I will admit that I have nothing to base that theory on but it does often feel like I can look at the options in those books and then look at a similar option in almost any other book and it will be cheaper with very equivalent stats or the same cost with superior stats.

    I'm not angry, I'm not entitled, I just really want to be excited about my armies. Is that too much to ask for?
    Each team does have players whom play that army balanced out with non players to even the pitch.

    You can't however compare one unit in one book to another unit in another book. Each will be priced to work in that army and hence they may come up with two different points values for all but the same thing.

    But what you can do is play games, report back and tell us how everything did so that we can see what needs tweaking. 1.2 is not perfect, help us to get 2.0

    Bugman
    http://www.bugmansbrewery.com - The largest most informative Fantasy Dwarf website on the net, covering every dwarfers needs from forum to tactics, balls to ships!

    Advisory Board

    Head of Public Relations

    Bugmans Brewery Owner (Dwarven Holds)

  • Eldan wrote:

    An Empire Fallen wrote:

    T9A gives the community an option, a choice.

    Yes, we maybe wrong in the direction the game is leading, and yes, it may also be the right direction. The truth is, there is no right or wrong choice. There is only choice.

    A player choosing this game over another or vice versa isn't a right or wrong choice. It's a person's decision. In comparison, the development team choosing to change the game the way they have as opposed to in another way, or not at all, is the development teams choice. Is it right or wrong? It doesn't matter. Its the choice made. Is the game one you will chose to play? Again, it is choice.

    Yes, feedback is vital. Yes it is important. But there is a line between feedback and expecting to get your way.
    As a business owner, it is essential to me to listen to the feedback from my staff and my customers. Whether good or bad. But it is my choice whether I chose to make changes based on them, and not the place of those giving feedback to expect that I have to.

    Similar concept. Although this game is for the community, it ISNT the community's. Its just driven by it.

    Although this game is inspired by many concepts and designs of another gaming system, it is not that gaming system. Version 1.0 was a PLASTER to an issue. Never a set thing, but a bridge to carry us over. Well now we are on the other side of that bridge, and I am sure there will be other bridges to come. But we chose to make the crossing over. regardless of what was on the other side. Is the grass greener? Well that is for every individual to decide for themselves.

    I used terms in my original post refering to "self-entitlement" and "throwing a tantrum". I used these terms in referal to the fact that it seems the moment anyone doesn't like something in these forums, they throw themselves to the keys and complain about it until they are black and blue in the face, expecting to get a positive result from it. Expecting to pack a tantrum and get a positive reaction from it, that is self entitlement. Not having patience when something changes, waiting to watch the dst settles and see the actual result of things, and expecting to get what you want all the time, that is self entitlement.

    Take a look around guys and gals, there's people complaining in every forum after this. The catch is, they have been finding things to complain about that they don't like from day one. That, is called toxicity.
    Is being spectacularly condescending your hobby or are you a professional?
    Professional ;)
    The Beast Herds have heard the Call. The Blood Hunt is coming to Play.
    Run and Hide, Run and Hide. For come the Break of Day,
    Blood will run as we catch our Prey.....

    anempirefallen.blogspot.com
    facebook.com/anempirefallen

    T9A Armies: Beast Herds, Empire of Sonnstahl, Warriors of the Dark Gods, Dread Elves, Orcs & Goblins
  • An Empire Fallen wrote:

    I read one post today of a person complaining that in the KoE book, units were removed, and how its "super not cool" s people have paid money and put in the effort to paint those miniatures and now they are redundant.
    it's a little harsh to pick on KoE! We have less options in our army book that pretty much everyone else. It hits harder when we have something removed even if it is for good reason.

    I also think that a lot of the "toy throwing" has come about from odd changes. Brigands in particular is a good example. We're they overpowered? No, so why remove them? We still haven't got a sensible answer to this. Having said that some of the reactions have been a bit much - you can still use the models as skirmishing archers.

    They may not have fitted into the long term vision for the KoE army but we are constantly told that we have to wait for our rework to add units - why should this be different for removing them? This feels like a bit of a double standard.

    1.2 has seen quite drastic changes, quickly implemented and mistakes have been made. But they are generally good ideas and I'm confident the team will sort out the general mechanics.

    The anger on the KoE forums has nothing to do with brigands but it gave us an opportunity to complain. Mainly the anger is over the increase in points for cavalry and the idea that apparently 1 horse (for a duke) is worth 5 yeomen!

    Also lance for KoE Duke = 30 points, flaming lance = 20 points...... Why is gaining flaming attacks worth -10 points?
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
  • Pirao wrote:

    Sir_Sully wrote:

    Also lance for KoE Duke = 30 points, flaming lance = 20 points...... Why is gaining flaming attacks worth -10 points?
    Because that way the enemy doesn't get fireborn 2++ against you, duh :charge:
    True. But a Paladin only pays 12 points for a lance so is charged 8 points for flaming attacks.


    You also cause fear to cavalry and war beasts with flaming attacks. A useful rule, if situational.

    EDIT: No regen either from flaming attacks.
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

    The post was edited 2 times, last by Sir_Sully ().

  • Pirao wrote:

    Sir_Sully wrote:

    Also lance for KoE Duke = 30 points, flaming lance = 20 points...... Why is gaining flaming attacks worth -10 points?
    Because that way the enemy doesn't get fireborn 2++ against you, duh :charge:
    More relevantly, the regular lance doesn't come out of your magical item allotment!
    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

  • Sir_Sully wrote:



    You also cause fear to cavalry and war beasts with flaming attacks. A useful rule, if situational.

    Say what now? Are you stuck in 8th edition or am I missing something here?
    Rules Questions?

    ETC 2016 - Referee
    ETC 2017 Warm-up Herford - Head Judge
    ETC 2017 Salamanca - Head Judge
    ETC 2018 - Team Sweden - Ogre Khans (ETC HYPE - CLICK ME!)
  • Giladis wrote:

    We are working on a message with more reasoning why what was done in 1.2 to help up with understanding.
    Waiting for justification on:
    a) sky sloop bound / bow costing the same
    b) prince queen companion being not an option
    c) spear of blazing dawn being not an option

    I think the entire community would benefit if they would get an answer.
  • Furion wrote:

    Giladis wrote:

    We are working on a message with more reasoning why what was done in 1.2 to help up with understanding.
    Waiting for justification on:a) sky sloop bound / bow costing the same
    b) prince queen companion being not an option
    c) spear of blazing dawn being not an option

    I think the entire community would benefit if they would get an answer.
    if that's your biggest complaints about 1.2, that would seem to be a ringing endorsement. Those are all pretty minor things.

    (I can't give you an official answer, but when an AB magic weapon being subpar is one of your top 3 problems, you're scraping the bottom of the barrel).
    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

  • galadros wrote:

    All of my thumbs are up for this post, @An Empire Fallen.
    Thanks @galadros, I am glad there is one person on the forums I didn't p!ss off :D
    The Beast Herds have heard the Call. The Blood Hunt is coming to Play.
    Run and Hide, Run and Hide. For come the Break of Day,
    Blood will run as we catch our Prey.....

    anempirefallen.blogspot.com
    facebook.com/anempirefallen

    T9A Armies: Beast Herds, Empire of Sonnstahl, Warriors of the Dark Gods, Dread Elves, Orcs & Goblins