Pinned Important News! Freezing the Rules!

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

We have just released T9A: Quick Starter Edition. Check it out now in the news or on the Rules page!

  • Giladis wrote:

    Also where possible we plan to include the wider community in the work that is going to be happening in the next 8-10 months for those who are willing to help out hammer and fine tune certain aspects of the game we will be seeking input on :)
    So... more fractures in an already fractured community of fantasy wargamers. Now in addition to KOW, AOS, WarmaHordes, 8th ed, and god know what else we have to contend with simultaneous versions of 9th age? That's going to go super well.
    8=D
    @Dan 's Roomate
    Epic Poster
    8,000th and 9,000th forum member
  • Omarcomin wrote:

    People who have not yet adopted 9th won't now suddenly begin to play it because it's "Stable-but-notstable" for the next 8 months. For developers of a strategy game you guys seems to to be at least a little bit deficient in strategic thinking where people and their motivations are concerned.... But that probably makes sense given the key demographic.
    There is a component of overall strategy you are not taking into account and that is conserving the resources that we have. There would be little good in pushing at the current pace if it meant people burning out trying to meet the deadlines. Certain things happened since the general structure and design cycles have been established until now which have caused delays and problems. What we are doing now is adapting to the existing situation and distributing the available resources onto the highest priority matters, leaving less important things on ice until more important issues are dealt with.

    Background Team

    Conceptual Design

    Rules Advisors

    The Saucy Quill Inn - First Batch of info from the Survey - 1886/95
  • Omarcomin wrote:

    we have to contend with simultaneous versions of 9th age? That's going to go super well.
    It is for things like potentially testing out new versions of the magic system to see what people like the most or other similar things. You don't have to participate in the beta test if you don't want to, and the current version is what tournaments are going to be using. I don't see how a beta test of new stuff is going to fracture the community.
  • Omarcomin wrote:

    Giladis wrote:

    Also where possible we plan to include the wider community in the work that is going to be happening in the next 8-10 months for those who are willing to help out hammer and fine tune certain aspects of the game we will be seeking input on :)
    So... more fractures in an already fractured community of fantasy wargamers. Now in addition to KOW, AOS, WarmaHordes, 8th ed, and god know what else we have to contend with simultaneous versions of 9th age? That's going to go super well.
    If we will be seeking input or beta something(its a big if nothing is decided) It will be on very specific rule areas not on a lot of little stuff. I agree we dont need more fractions.

    Rules Team

    Balance Team

  • blonde beer wrote:

    Omarcomin wrote:

    By trying to please everyone you please no one. @KeyserSoze

    People who have not yet adopted 9th won't now suddenly begin to play it because it's "Stable-but-notstable" for the next 8 months. For developers of a strategy game you guys seems to to be at least a little bit deficient in strategic thinking where people and their motivations are concerned.... But that's probably makes sense given the key demographic for these games.
    I know several people who stopped playing in my own Circle of friends untill we had another freeze. Other who were waiting to try it out untill we had a freeze.
    Anecdotal evidence ofcourse, but thats the basis of much wargaming discussion. Reactions outside this forum are also way more positive then the average off this topic, but that is not really a suprise tbh.

    Groefte wrote:

    nicreap wrote:

    suuuure, just like they didn't rush out a faux 1.0 for the ETC.
    No totally different in fact.We used ETC as a hard deadline for 1.0 its not a secret :)
    everything i have heard had been requests for a stable rule set.

    A rules freeze IS NOT a stable rule set, it simply extends the period of instability, because come August army books and the rule book will all start changing again, so you still lose those people come August when everything starts changing again.
  • nicreap wrote:

    A rules freeze IS NOT a stable rule set, it simply extends the period of instability, because come August army books and the rule book will all start changing again, so you still lose those people come August when everything starts changing again.
    The rulebook has just two more iterations to go before it stays unchanged for several years.

    1.99 (this is a provisional number) which will be the finished rules set presented to the community for a global proofreading and noticing any potential issues and 2.0 when any typos and issues are removed and the document is ready to be professionaly printed by anyone interested.

    Background Team

    Conceptual Design

    Rules Advisors

    The Saucy Quill Inn - First Batch of info from the Survey - 1886/95
  • Giladis wrote:

    nicreap wrote:

    A rules freeze IS NOT a stable rule set, it simply extends the period of instability, because come August army books and the rule book will all start changing again, so you still lose those people come August when everything starts changing again.
    The rulebook has just two more iterations to go before it stays unchanged for several years.
    1.99 (this is a provisional number) which will be the finished rules set presented to the community for a global proofreading and noticing any potential issues and 2.0 when any typos and issues are removed and the document is ready to be professionaly printed by anyone interested.
    except based on the version number we are 3 updates past a stable release. And based on update history I'm not convinced it will really be stable in 2 versions, and that completely ignores the fact the rules still won't be stable because army books will spend what now looks to be 4 years being changed
  • nicreap wrote:

    everything i have heard had been requests for a stable rule set.

    A rules freeze IS NOT a stable rule set, it simply extends the period of instability, because come August army books and the rule book will all start changing again, so you still lose those people come August when everything starts changing again
    I think it is more relevant to talk about pace rather than if 8-10 months is stable or not. We are never going to be stable like monopoly but we can adjust the pace.

    Freezing the game for 8 months is sloving down the pace and that will IMO make the game seem more stable

    Rules Team

    Balance Team

  • Groefte wrote:

    Freezing the game for 8 months is sloving down the pace and that will IMO make the game seem more stable
    It probably will. And if you think, it is the best to do, for the game and the staff members, then by all means ...

    But if you have not discussed this, with all of your staff, I could imagine some of them, will feel a little annoyed. Because they think, that some minor changes in their army books, and probably also the magic (call it a 1.4 update or something), is part of, what they have been working for, for the last months :)

    Christoffer
    Banned for posting memes - twice :D

    Herminard wrote:

    *nerfs are so 2016
  • Kpl.blutch wrote:

    Pellegrim wrote:

    Maybe T9A can actually level the tiers (hi BH, OK, WotDG who haul in over 50% of podiums on large tournies).
    Minimum 8-9 months more :thumbsup:
    Christoffer
    The time will tell, but I am worried. I am one of those advocating stability, but not at the cost of balance.

    I listened to @Mr.Owl with Oncebitten and he said that 1.2 was somehow better balanced than 1.1 and thet 1.3 is even better.

    I think 1.2 offset the balance of 1.1, and 1.3 did some improvement in that respect, but things are still offset, not balanced well enough.

    Somewhere, internal balance is damaged trough some changes, pushing armies into problematic streamlined builds to stay competitive.
    Some are, like @Pellegrim noted, currently OTT.
    I get a die-hard player of one of those giving thumbs up to such a decision, but I do not think 1.3 is a freezing material.

    This would be the basic complaint. Using ETC as a reason to freeze it here,while ETC needs best possible balance ...
    Please, reconsider. Perhaps BRB can be frozen, but some Army Books might be put under revision by April, to have the time needed to gather some data, give it a repair work, and still have the time for Tournament players to adjust in time for ETC.

    JMHO
    ex-ABC-DH
    ex-AS-DH
  • Groefte wrote:

    Pace of change is to many players the number one complaint about 9. age - at least the one we as staff have heard most often.
    Among active members on this forum the change of pace is much wider accepted than overall.

    I think all players will have an opinion on the Freeze. But I can try to explain the upside to the freeze from a designers viewpoint.

    First of there is newer a good time to freeze the rules - there wont be a time where freezing the rules for a period of time is not delaying something you would like to do right away. The Good thing about doing it now from my viewpoint is that it gives us a more stable platform to evaluate and base 2.0 on

    Speaking as a balance team member the biggest problem right now is that the frequent changes is constantly blowing up the meta.
    IMO we have been on the brink of traveling down the wrong road when it comes to balancing.

    If we want 9. age to be a very complex an immersive game we cant solve all balance issues with point tweaks an streamlining.
    We need a working and evolving metagame to do part of the heavy lifting when it comes to balance. Balancing the game in the long run should be just as much securing that an AB have the inner capabilities to evolve and is not left behind when the meta changes as getting the scales on some balance problem just right.

    From a balance perspective we need to give the meta time to evolve.

    From a rules design perspective a freeze until after ETC gives us time to take a step back and address some issues in a more rounded way.

    A couple of posters in this thread complained about freezing the game now when the past couple of updates had only been quickfixes and it was a long time since we had real changes. But that is the thing, if we had done a 1.4 in april together with working on full books and 2.0 - 1.4 was bound to be another round of quick fixes.

    Cheers

    Actually, I'm complaining about the delay on the books.

    The four rewrites have been ongoing since what, December? Sooner? If they're not going to be done until September at the earliest, that's a long design time frame, given twelve more rewrites then need to follow.


    Also, just a really clever and in fact genius thought on the AB schedule: the next four (or whatever number) should enter preliminary fact-finding before the current four release. (Because getting good community data is the ACS job, and we aren't involved in the re-writes unless it's our book, so there's no productivity lost there)

    Announcing a deadline for when the next four lucky winners get picked would go a long way to giving people something to look forwards to with breathless anticipation. And argue about. ;)
  • WhammeWhamme wrote:

    Actually, I'm complaining about the delay on the books.

    The four rewrites have been ongoing since what, December? Sooner? If they're not going to be done until September at the earliest, that's a long design time frame, given twelve more rewrites then need to follow.
    We honestly just don't have the resources. We need to put together v2.0 AND those books. These aren't full time jobs for anyone. We really want to get everything done, but we also want everything to be done right.
  • This is the terrible application of a good intention.

    Too many changes is an issue and keeps player away: true.
    Freezing the game after the worst-received update (1.3) and delaying for months or years what most players were waiting for, the full army books: very bad idea. Potentially catastrophic.

    At least this time you admitted that there is an issue. Perhaps sometime soon you'll also realise what that really is.
  • Omarcomin wrote:

    should have kept the old ABC structure.
    Not possible if we wanted a unified approach to design and as impartial designers as possible. Also it would put even more pressure on the RT to manage all those teams.

    Background Team

    Conceptual Design

    Rules Advisors

    The Saucy Quill Inn - First Batch of info from the Survey - 1886/95