Army book freeze and communication

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

Wanting to catch up on all the latest army gossip as it happens? Our Army Community Support team shares glimpses of the incoming army books!

  • Army book freeze and communication

    I have. I issue with a rules freeze. My only concern is that there is not enough communication between the Devs and the community.

    If the dev team does not start doing a better job of communicating with the community I'm worried the 9th age will slowly suffocate. So far it's felt like there has been little no effort by the devs to really engage with the community and from what I've seen there's been a visible drop in activity on the forums I follow. Worse yet they may come out with a books next year that only reflects the tiny bubble that represents the devs and heir local metas.

    To keep 9th alive and interactive we need some kind of weekly or at least monthly update that summarizes what the devs are thinking and talking about.
  • Korpacz wrote:

    My only concern is that there is not enough communication between the Devs and the community.
    I agree. The dates and the rules freeze isn't really prominent enough. If you're new you might not realise. I think there should be a thing on the rules webpage to say that the rules are frozen until at least August 2017.

    We need more interaction from the Devs back to the community. There are loads of discussion threads all over the place about what could be done (some feasible, some not, some genius, some I want my army to smash face) and very little reason why they weren't considered, a lot of the time it's rumour as to why something did or did not get implemented.

    There are 2 main issues at the moment with the T9A Team's communication. The first is that the community doesn't feel heard by the Team (regardless of the truth) and so people stop posting ideas - this means you can miss out on a fantastic idea because the person behind it thinks "whats the point, they never listen".

    What I think we should have to solve this is a list of ideas - with links to the appropriate thread / post - maintained by the Army co-ordinators (or whatever they are called). What needs to change is that the responses by the devs should be included and shared with the community whenever a new version is released.

    You can implement something perfect as is, adapt and implement the good stuff, investigate further other stuff and refuse outright the my infantry need S10 and T10 to be competitive.

    Yes you will have people who disagree with you but most people understand how that we cant have S10 and T10 on core infantry. The communication back to the community will be appreciated and encourage people to post more ideas / help fine tune others / tone down overpowered suggestions.


    Issue number 2 is that the team haven't set out their vision for the game. All we know is that this will be a mass battle, fantasy war game with 16 factions (maybe more) and will be as balanced as possible. You could describe a number of games along these lines and most of them aren't the sort of game that I enjoy playing.

    I believe that the vision includes using D6 but there is huge discussion on that atm in The Return of Polyhedral dices? thread. We need to know what is in scope for change and what isn't. This is so that we don't waste our time (and the Devs time) writing about things that will not be changed.

    This is why so many people felt let down ("betrayed" is a strong word) by version 1.2. Version 1.3 was better communicated in regard to what can and can't change and overall was received much better.

    Korpacz wrote:

    To keep 9th alive and interactive we need some kind of weekly or at least monthly update that summarizes what the devs are thinking and talking about.
    I don't agree with this. The issue is that there are too many people who will just have a go. Its something about the internet which makes people think it's ok. If the Devs put up a thought, there will be someone on the forum who won't like it and kick up a fuss so it'll get binned. Repeat for next thought.

    We'd never make any progress as there would be someone having a go! Even if the idea is perfect, someone will not like it because it isn't what we have now. People dislike change - unless they advocate it - which is why I fully expect my comments above to be ignored. :D
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
  • Sir_Sully wrote:

    Issue number 2 is that the team haven't set out their vision for the game.
    This should be consulted with community before any work started. I guess that it is "community" project or I am wrong?
    About freeze, changes and lack of communication.
    I will use my avatar as example - I don't know if staff realise that they cut strings that keep this some part of community here. These strings are/were similarities to old game. Do you really listen community? Or you use some arguments/requests as excuse when they are comfortable for you?
    And using visualisation from Version 1.2 - Why Change From Version 1.1? - "We feel like a mouse sitting in the room with a gorilla who could squish us as easily as looking at us.", I would say that there are more mice in that room (yes, there are other games - each mistake here is chance that few players will go look for another game). I don't think that if 'Gorilla' will feel unsafe/uncomfortable that moving away from it will keep you safe. Just simply return of old game (don't say that it is impossible - people in companies come and go) would be brutal hit that you won't be able to withstand without any scratch.
    I just wonder if the reason of changes/lack of communication isn't more likely unhealthy mix of negative emotions (against 'Gorilla') with ambitions than fear about project.

    And for my defence I just worry about current situation - I was in heavens when there came out 1.0/1.1, big and great job of staff and community, but then there came 1.2 and ruined that feeling.
  • Puppet wrote:

    This should be consulted with community before any work started. I guess that it is "community" project or I am wrong?
    You are both right and wrong.

    The project is community driven:
    • The 9th Age is a game made for players by players - we are not a for-profit company, all staff time is voluntary
    • Changes are made with two communities in mind; the competitive tournament players, and the casual weekend players
    • Current collections are respected during design


    But it is not community-led:
    • The internal staff is organized into teams to break down the mammoth amounts of work into manageable bite sizes
    • Specialists are responsible for delivering the highest quality we have available in their respective fields
    • Anyone is welcome to apply to join in, but not everyone can be a designer or balancer unfortunately


    It takes all sorts of people to make this work, and yes communication does need to improve - it's main the reason I was promoted to AvB, and I need to do better, but I'm just getting warmed up - so be patient please. ;)

    Puppet wrote:

    I would say that there are more mice in that room (yes, there are other games - each mistake here is chance that few players will go look for another game). I don't think that if 'Gorilla' will feel unsafe/uncomfortable that moving away from it will keep you safe.
    You are welcome to your opinion, but we have decided to take the advice of people who are specifically knowledgeable in this area as part of their day to day job. This is not to belittle dissenting opinion, more to explain why we choose not to accept it.

    If you click on my signature below you will see my first blog post about how things are going internally.