Pinned HBE - 0.202 BETA hotfix - ACS response and AMA

  • 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 here! You can read all about it in the news.

  • Henrypmiller wrote:

    Sylvan elves had a hot fix (the original hot fix) to address internal balance issues when their book was royally shafted some time ago. Maybe HBE could get the same treatment.
    Do NOT count on it.

    Powers that be are VERY disinclined towards HE at the moment and probably even in general due to the riot that was brought about with resistence to such changes.


    As to the value of EE input...

    BLT member @Fnarrr stated that all feedback was taken into account (ACS, PT, EE) and that it was voted on and that it simply showed that BLT and EE stances were the most aligned ones, hence the predominant EE infuence on the end reault.

    From what is their (BLT) further reaction, I could not get a direct response to a question, but they do not see any issues with the end result being predominantly influenced by the EE since the BLT agrees with it and does not agree with the reat of the feedback it seems.

    They claim (or at least @Fnarrr does so directly) for this to not mean they are biased, just that their thoughts align with EE very much and, atated once again, they (he) see no problem with the end result.

    I will poke arround internally to try and see what further info and rationale on these changes can be brought about, but expect it to take a very long while if I get any answers at all.
    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!
  • This is again addressed to the people in charge of the latest hotfix.

    Please take your time to read my post and answer my questions. It will be a longer article, but I hope, it will be worth discussing it.

    I highly would appreciate everybody’s opinion on my results/questions that I will present in this post.

    This means: I really appreciate feedback from everybody because I am only a human being and there might be mistakes I made. Also, it is conceivable, that I made wrong conclusions by looking at things. I highly recommend you to be polite when discussing this post, as it took me a lot of work and time. So, I would appreciate to be treated with some respect as a human being, despite I am aware of the fact, that the general mood is heated atm :-).

    Blaming or insulting somebody is not at all, what is the intention of this article. It is about providing an opinion from an “outsiders view”, that is not part of the 9th Age project. Please keep this in mind! Thank you in advance.

    Introduction

    First things first: Here is a little introduction in terms to the data I will present below.

    • Please be aware, that this data was surveyed originally for myself in the context of the “hotfix” released yesterday. I wanted to get a more “fact-based opinion” before dealing out some criticism. As referred to in the HBE general discussion thread, people like me - loving their HBE army and being highly happy with the original state of 2.0 - might tend to get a blurred view on things, when discussing possible changes. That is why I said to myself: Ok, take a step back and try to gather some information before making yourself an opinion on the upcoming changes.
    • Following my explanations under point 1., this also means, the data I gathered WAS NEVER an “official source”! So, there might be minor mistakes in counting or things I couldn’t consider because of being not integrated in internal processes. Overall, I think, you can follow my further explanations even if there might be some “smaller bumps”. It is more about getting a view on the overall picture.
    • Keep in mind, that I used “reduced” variables to make my opinion. No one is drawing a geographic map in a 1:1 scale. This means: To get an overall view, it might be necessary to reduce complexity.
    You can find the data I gathered here (it's a part of what I did in the last days, it would go beyond the scope, if would try to fit in everything gathered).


    dropbox.com/sh/4zy7xctz4ge2rgl…2m9-hfXxNW-6hbZPU7sa?dl=0


    Explanation of my methodological approach:
    • Let me give you a short explanation of what I did, when “surveying” the data – and what was my basic consideration, when doing so. I will subsume this under the term of “methodological approach”, even if this isn’t a PHD-thesis :D Every child needs a name ;)
      • As you all know, there was an extensive discussion wether HBE are overpowered or not. Especially there was a focus on “game breaking things” (like enchants, banners, spells etc.). This discussion came up with the update of 2.0. Relatively fast after releasing the official beta there was an upcoming discussion about what to “hotfix”. I will refer in the following to the official statement that “hotfixing” is about to work on things that have a REALLY “game breaking” influence!
      • As said, it didn’t take a long time for parts of the community, to identify what is “obviously game breaking” because “reading it is enough to get an irrefutable proof, that things are OP." These things have been especially named as: WBoR, SotBD, 0-3 banners for HBE (pointing out the “great fear of spamming them on elite infantry; notably on SM recreating MSU-concepts with extremely strong elite units (including swift stride)), hereditary spell and MoCT. So, this was the point where I began to wonder and starting to ask myself: Might one be right with these assumptions? Are these items really that problematic?
    • So, I came to the following conclusion: If things would be “game breaking” like pointed out by a lot of people, then wouldn’t you expect professional tournament player to make them fit into their rosters? I think they would do so, as their main target is to win tournaments. The only logical consequence is, to make a roster the best you possibly can. Of course, I am aware due to the fact, that there is a difference between team and single tournaments. Also, we should keep in mind, that different people tend to prefer different playstyles. But overall, I would assume, that there should be a correlation between “game breaking events” and the rosters. This was the point, where I started checking tournament rosters for an evidence of my assumptions:
      • I gathered two main kinds of data during this process. First thing I checked was: Which units (including “problematic banners”) have been chosen by tournament players? I differentiated between two superordinate categories: "unit/charakter per list” - - > e. g there are 5 tournament lists out 25 in which a Prince MoCT was brought to the battlefield. 3 of these selected SotBD, when building their character. The idea behind this was, to see, if there is an overrepresentation of certain things.
      • The second category I made counted "total amount of units/characters in tournament lists” - > e. g in 25 lists watched, there have been 8 lists using CS with WBoR by using a total of 9 units with this combination. The idea behind this was a) to get to know if there is a “spam” of certain combinations (referring to the worries, that a new phase of WBoR-MSU might take place) b) to see, on which units our new tools are used on and c) to get to know, if there is new meta settling down (like more combat orientated lists, more infantry etc.).
    Findings (competitive play):

    I was really surprised when gathering more and more lists checking them, that there was a huge variety of playstyles brought to tournaments. In ~25 lists I checked (I had 5 more but lost the saved data, so I present only the 25 to which I copied the sources I took them from) there were:

    • 22 lists using a Prince (mainly as their general)
    • 4 playstyles admitted (5 MoCT, 4 QCav, 9 HWotF, 4 without title (generally using dragons))
    • “Only” 9 lists using HWotF which was named in diverse threads to be the OP-go to-nothing else makes sense-build.
    • This means, 36% of tournament lists used HWotF, which is an indicator of him working out better (or fitting better) as other characters. This is proven, when looking at the equipment of SotBD.
      • All the 9 HWotF used a combination including SotBD, which means to me, this is a powerful combination. Often the SotBD was combined with Rangers Boots from the BRB.
      • Overall 13 of 22 lists that had a High Prince in it went SotBD! That was an indicator to me, that the spear should be looked at!
    • Otherwise this also means, 60% of the tournament lists didn’t combine a [lexicon]Prince[/lexicon] with [lexicon]HWotF[/lexicon]!
    • Furthermore 9 lists where neither using [lexicon]HWotF[/lexicon] nor [lexicon]SotBD[/lexicon], which is an equal amount to the combination to deemed as too strong.


    • First conclusion: Very high usage of [lexicon]SotBD[/lexicon]. It is fair to say, that it was needed to look at this enchant, especially in combination with [lexicon]Rangers[/lexicon] Boots.
    • Is this an indicator for being “game breaking”? I think it is, if you define “game breaking” in the same way as “[lexicon]RH[/lexicon] [lexicon]lion chariot[/lexicon] [lexicon]prince[/lexicon]” or “Ancient [lexicon]Dragon[/lexicon] [lexicon]Prince[/lexicon]” have been seen.
    • Do I think this definition is problematic? Yes, I think it is. In my opinion there should be combinations, that are more competitive than others. I am not at all a fan of “cutting every powerful tool” to a point where it is not worth the paper it is written on.
      • To be fair: The point increase is fine for me, because of the further rules of the spear remained untouched. It is still playable in combination with protection of dorac and willows ward on a HWotF costing 595 pts atm. But let’s be honest: What do you expect a 600 points model on foot to do? Crying and dying off in the first round of combat? Come on… Keep in mind, that such an expensive model (ON FOOT!) should fulfill a decent role in an army, not just spending its discipline.
    Furthermore:

    • 8 lists out of 25 used MoCT as a commander. This is slightly higher than the usage of Queens Companion. Overall 23 Commanders have been used. I don’t think, MoCT is a huge deal to worry about.
    • The spread over Wizard Masters is even (5 Asfad Scholar, 5 OotFH, 5 without title).
    • Interesting is the following: 3 characters on griffon, 1 on young dragon, 6 on dragons, 3 on ancient dragons!
      • I think this shows, that there is much wider variety of builds, than just the “killy” HWotF with SotBD.


    Regarding banners:

    • The new elven banners are really popular. Nearly every list I checked had at least one of the new banners included.
    • This shows two things to me. First: The spread of elite choices is widespread. There are not only lists with SM, nor FW, nor LG. LG seems to have a slight edge, but the banners are spread even when using LG!
    • This proves, that ALL elite choices are viable to a tournament and also shows, that there is a turning away from the hated LG-brick.
    • Secound: The great fear of spamming WBoR all over elite units isn’t true. There was only one list! using more than one unit of SM with WBoR. As you can also see, there is no spam of other small elite units, recreating a “buffed msu”.

    So, what does this mean to me: First, I think, the idea behind creating the new banners was – as so communicated – to get away from the “shooty avoidance” and the “msu” to get back to a more infantry heavy playstyle using bigger blocks of units getting more cc orientated (someone said - don’t remember who it was exactly was - "The idea is, to have core units fighting side by side with an elite choice, supported by some shooting"). I think it’s fair to say, that this worked out really well – even in the context of competitive play.


    Fun Fact:

    • Seaguard Reaper has been chosen more often than Skysloop also outnumbering it in total!



    Conclusion:
    • Especially a closer look to SotBD is a fair deal in my opinion.
    • More than that I must say, that there is a much broader variety in lists and concepts than it has been in 1.3 in competitive play (I compared the date with all lists played by HBE in our TT-club, finding out, that mostly Lion Chariot Prince with brick of LG and firemage or mobile AD lists were dominating (with about 75 % in total of ~50 lists checked) This result is correlating with the changes made in these character builds from 1.3.4 to 2.0).

    • After checking the results of the tournaments there was no further prove, that HBE are domination (I think it was one tournament win, a 5th place and a lot of placements more in the middle of the armies competing).
    • Also, there is no overrepresentation of HBE lists in tournaments. From 330 participants in larger tournaments there have been ~25 HBE players. That is roughly 7,6 % which is nearly equal to the value spread over all races.
    So, data shows in my opinion: There are no concerning results of HBE players dominating international play. There is no overrepresentation of HBE armies in tournaments by now. There is no really concerning style (despite FW with hereditary spell, which might be discussable), that is correlating with the “fears” that were discussed in advance of this hotfix.


    Findings (casual play):

    After I concluded, that competitive play can’t be the real problem, I began to wonder again. So, I started checking, if there might be a problem with a larger variety of players (from competitive to casual players). So, what I did was, to check a larger variety of lists. My source for this was, the “show us your 2.0 lists”-thread, that can be found in this forum. I measured the lists in the same way I did before.

    Let’s have a look at the same points as above:

    • 56 out of 76 lists used a Prince (mainly as their general)
    • 4 “main” playstyles admitted (10 MoCT, 6 QCav, 16 HWotF, 21 without title (very often using dragons!))
    • Only 16 lists using HWotF!
    • This means, only 21% of lists used HWotF, which might be an indicator, that this kind of character isn’t that a big deal for a broader range of players not only looking at tournament placements.
    • Fun Fact: There are more lists to find, including characters on dragons, than lists including HWotF!
      • All the 16 HWotF used a combination including SotBD, which means to me, this is a powerful combination. Often the SotBD was combined with Rangers Boots from the BRB.
      • Overall 23 of 76 (~30 %) lists that had a High Prince in it went SotBD! That is again an indicator to me, that the spear should be looked at!
    • High usage of [lexicon]SotBD[/lexicon]. Not as high, as in tournament list, but higher than average I would tend to say. So another indicator of taking a closer look to it.
    • Is this an indicator for being “game breaking”? No, I don’t think so at all. I think it is a more popular build for casual gamers, but there are a lot of builds that are [lexicon]chosen[/lexicon] in an equal number (like [lexicon]OotFH[/lexicon], [lexicon]Prince[/lexicon] on [lexicon]Dragon[/lexicon], Princes with other titles.
    Furthermore:
    • 31 lists out of 76 used MoCT as a commander! This is much higher than I expected myself. While 75 lists used commanders, this means, that 41 % used MoCT. Seems to be a good choice! I think, a lot of people are classifying MoCT Commander as one of the most point-effective BSBs that you can play, as it combines a BSB with some “cheap” magic opportunities. Also, the interesting tool kit – coming from protean magic – might be a deal. MoCT seems to be the more used tool if you want to create an all corners lists.
    • That is a trend, I think to be watched at overall (not especially for casual gameplay but also for competitive gameplay).
    • Do I think this is an indicator for being “game breaking”? Not at all! I think it is – like the following part regarding banners – due to fact of being “a new tool (in the way it works)” a lot of people wanted to test. So, it was being put into their lists.
    Regarding banners:
    • The new elven banners are !really! popular in this thread.
      • 53 lists used CS, 39! of them using WBoR, 7 of them using BoB, 5 NB.
      • 49 lists used CA, 21 of them using no (elven) banner, 28! of them BoB.
      • 25 lists used SM with WBoR.
      • 23 lists used LG (2 WBoR, 19 NB).
      • 10 lists used FW (4 without (elven) banner; mostly rending banner; 3 WBoR; 3 NB).
    • There is a trend to a high amount of [lexicon]WBoR[/lexicon] (especially on CS and [lexicon]SM[/lexicon]).
    • There is a trend of using NB on [lexicon]LG[/lexicon].
    • Overall [lexicon]SM[/lexicon] are having a comeback, as they are the most [lexicon]chosen[/lexicon] elite unit.
    • Furthermore, the great fear of spamming [lexicon]WBoR[/lexicon] all over elite units isn’t seen in these lists either. There are only few lists using more than one unit of [lexicon]SM[/lexicon] with [lexicon]WBoR[/lexicon]. Some of the lists used two units of CS with [lexicon]WBoR[/lexicon]. As you can see, there is no spam of other small elite units, recreating a “buffed msu”.


    So, what does this mean to me: At first, I was a little bit shocked by the amount of WBoR I saw. Yes, they are much in numbers. And I think it is ok to have a look at it! But keep the following aspect in mind: The lists thread was a) to discuss new combinations, which might have led to an overrepresentation of WBoR, just because people wanted to share their thoughts. b) People were curious about the new toys and wanted to test them. C) The ACS highly recommend feedback from the players especially for the new tools. These might be aspects to be considered when looking at the numbers.

    Fun Fact2:

    • Seaguard Reaper has been chosen more often than Skysloop also outnumbering it again in total!


    So, what is my overall conclusion to this “hotfix”:

    First of all, I have a huge issue, how this entire procedure was “sold” to the players. It was addressed as a fix of “highly urgent” “game breaking” mechanics. In the end, it turned out to be a rework of more than half of the HBEs magic items, and nearly every new tool, that was set up in our new army book. I think, that this is a real problem, as there only have been a few weeks in testing and gathering data. I cannot understand, why it was necessary to swing the nerf bat like this. Furthermore, I don’t understand the entire procedure when taking into account, that there is no real meta that has settled by now.

    As you can see, tournament lists are evolving to new states considering more and more units that are available (the latest lists considered seaguard, reaver chariots and ancient dragons). A beta is by definition a phase of time, where players should have the chance to test new tools and provide feedback. This has been done immensely! We had an extensive poll, pointing out the most urgent issues. It is totally fine to look at more variables than the feedback given by the community. But I have to say, that none of it was considered! And that is, what bothers me the most, as I think, it’s the most precious usp this project has!

    Yes, there are some points to be considered in terms of balance. I think, it is okay, to have a look at SotBD. I don’t think it is necessarily “game breaking” but it seems to be quite strong. Was it necessary to nerf it by now? No, I don’t think so. It would have been better in my opinion to gather more information, before nerfing it. This is underpinned if you have a closer look at the tournaments lists. Particularly the first upcoming lists have been filled with HWotF, SotBD, SM with WBoR. As time proceeds (the later tournaments) you will find a lot of different builds including new stuff (there are cav only lists by now, double dragon, chariot lists!).

    Overall, I am fine with a correction in points to this enchant – due to fact that I can see the problem regarding swift stride.

    Swift stride has been discussed a lot in the last months and it was pointed out clearly by the RT, that it is not a rule one wants to have on units, that aren’t designed around it. So, I am ok with an adaption of WBoR. But not in the way it has been done by now! There were, as @Calcathin pointed out, a lot of compromises on the table (like +1Adv./+1S/+1AP). The cutting in all this tends to lead back to the shooty avoidance playstyle that we had in 1.3.

    +1S/+1 AP can be easily obtained by MoCT/Cosmology Wizard Master so there is no real benefit in including WBoR longer in our armies for 50 pts (because it is totally situational). The real deal was making infantry more viable. This is over by now with the nerf of WBoR I think. I cannot understand this development as it is diametrical opposing the goals, that were wanted to be achieved (more core units, more infantry, less shooty avoidance etc.).

    I am not attached to swift stride at all, as I see some problems with it just like RT and BLT do. But I have to say, that it is unnecessary to “have a look if the playstyle resets to shooty avoidance” like @Giladis pointed out.

    What is the goal of this? Everyone was aware after 1.3, that this isn’t the go-to-way. Do we really need another phase of prove, that this playstyle is boring for everybody? Wasn’t there enough feedback of the community, that WE as players don’t want this at all?

    I by myself love playing shooty avoidance. So, it is not a big deal for me, because I am benefiting from it, as it refers more to my strengths as a player. But I really would have loved to set sail to new shores.

    Looking at the dominance of BoB on core units I can understand the point getting it out of there. I highly share @Arrahed s view of not thinking, it is a wise decision, to shift costs for wizards into core. The downside of this will be, that BoB no longer will play a decent role in most HBE armies as I think. There are simply no slots (despite maybe QG à which is creating the problem of filling your queens bows slot with 75 points of banners…).

    Regarding HWotF I have to say, that I can’t support the changes at all. The honor is 140 pts. The discount of 10 points is not nearly enough to justify the loss of divine attacks. Considering, that a HWotF Prince with SotBD is 600 pts. ON FOOT this nerf is not helpful at all. A model costing 600 pts and being on foot (now without opportunity to get swift stride) is supposed to be a real thread to other characters. I cannot agree, that it was necessary to cut of this threat by a pointcostreduction of 10 pts.

    Last but not least our hereditary spell. To be fair: The data above says nothing about this spell, so I will present my own opinion. I think, the original spell (casting on an effective 7+) was ridiculously strong and needed a nerf. I am saying this as a HBE player. The poll showed, that I am not alone with my opinion, as there were lots of votes from HBE players to up the value to 10+ (what I think, would have been fair). It should be a cast, that can reliably cast on 3 dice in the magic phase I think. Maybe with the nerf, only generating one token (so there would be some potential for tactical moves like saving up some tokens).

    But what was done here is… let’s be polite… a nonsense times 10. The spell is utterly useless after all of the nerfs. Really guys. Can someone explain what happened, when discussing this rework? I can’t see any point, where this is justified.

    So overall I have to say, that the “hotfix” – for me – is made really poorly, as it looks like it isn’t taking into account a lot of points that were considered and discussed in the weeks before. I can share some perspectives, but there would have been a dozen better ways to do this, than it has been done by now. Data seems to be underpinnig this.

    So maybe someone responsible can provide some feedback to my thoughts and to my assumptions based on the data I gathered. If I am wrong with everything I had been spreading out, than I am fine with it. But please be so kind and take your time, to show me, why I am that wrong. I also desperately would like some explanations, how this all could have happened in the manner it did. So guys, it is up to you cause I made my point.

    Kind regards
    Celegil

    Edit: Please be aware of the fact, that I can't write down everything I thougth about things regarding the data in this one post. It would be way to much information drawing out this post to a lenght, that no one wants to read anymore. There are a lot more points that can be made in a further discussion. :)

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

  • Henrypmiller wrote:

    Sylvan elves had a hot fix (the original hot fix) to address internal balance issues when their book was royally shafted some time ago. Maybe HBE could get the same treatment.
    I was just stating my personal opinion here, that I do not believe that this will (be allowed to) happen for the HbE army in this current situation
    Always a Highborn Elf, here or somewhere else
    The HbE Hotfix- My view
  • @LordCeridan Thank you for your feedback.

    I am really interesting in helping out with my thoughts trying to present a calm and rational based opinion. Maybe it will help to cool down the mood a little bit.

    I really hope, we all will find a way, that is suitable for HBE players like it is for RT, ACS, RBT.
  • Masamune88 wrote:

    RT considered and reverted to BLT to readjust some of the glaring issues that ACS and TTs had with the process as well as apply buffs where they could foresee little to no impact on the power level of the book as a whole.
    BLT action was not instigated by the RT.

    Background Team

    Conceptual Design

    Rules Advisors

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- :BH: :DL: :DE: :DH: :EoS: :HE: :ID: :KoE: :OK: :O&G: :SA: :SE_bw: :VS: :UD_bw: :VC: :WDG:
  • Excellent post, @Celegil!

    As for the initial thread, I'm just baffled by BLTs comments. Popularity is not the same thing as overpowered. It MAY be, but it may also be a sign of shiny newness, of underpowered other options, or just of a preferred playstyles. Other reasons aren't really given. I don't know if this means they don't have other reasons or if they just don't want to share their other reasons, but either option strikes me as peculiar.
  • @Celegil :thumbsup:
    Very nice post and I very much agree.
    I think what you data shows the best is why the 0.201 BETA version was the most fun book we have had during 9th age. Look at that diversity given. For me personally diversity, new lists changes to playstiles is the reason to play and that was what the 0.201 version brought than any other book; diversity
  • ArchangelusM wrote:

    Powers that be are VERY disinclined towards HE at the moment and probably even in general due to the riot that was brought about with resistence to such changes.
    I thought this project was from the community to the community?
    Essentially what you are saying is that HbE is not a desired community. Why?
    Because we "riot"? because of our ACS? or do they see us as spoiled kids?
  • @Celegil, that's an interesting compilation. A specific question though. How many of those 25 tournament lists used at least one WBoR? Do you have statistics on the performance of the lists, those with and without WBoR? It would be interesting to look at some hard numbers and, particularly, compute some confidence intervals to see if those with WBoR overperform by a statistically significant amount.
    Sunna is not with the big battalions, but with the ones whose parts move with the best coordination.
  • ArchangelusM wrote:


    As to the value of EE input...

    BLT member @Fnarrr stated that all feedback was taken into account (ACS, PT, EE) and that it was voted on and that it simply showed that BLT and EE stances were the most aligned ones, hence the predominant EE infuence on the end reault.

    From what is their (BLT) further reaction, I could not get a direct response to a question, but they do not see any issues with the end result being predominantly influenced by the EE since the BLT agrees with it and does not agree with the reat of the feedback it seems.

    They claim (or at least @Fnarrr does so directly) for this to not mean they are biased, just that their thoughts align with EE very much and, atated once again, they (he) see no problem with the end result.
    So...they went with what this eee eee group says because it agreed with their own preconceived notions and that's NOT bias? Lol. Ha ha ha ha ha! I'm laughing because this is a joke and that is what you are supposed to do when jokes are funny.
  • matrim wrote:

    @Masamune88 are blt always this curt in their communication? If they see it below themselves to answer to your questions what good is it to further push?

    All of their responses could be summarized by "because we could".

    20phoenix wrote:

    It is disconcerting that the justification provided for magic item changes and sloop/phoenix repricing is a faceless entity with little to no reasoning. Perhaps you can correct me but the magic item justification reads like it is just one person who highlighted this.
    In our Q&A thread, our appointed BLT members did not once respond. There was a singular member who responded who I believe served as a mouthpiece. I think that answers both questions.

    Henrypmiller wrote:

    To me it seems like the BLT did not even consider the proposals of the community and ACS and just pursued their own agenda. Its very weird and I dont quite get it.

    ArchangelusM wrote:

    As to the value of EE input...

    BLT member @Fnarrr stated that all feedback was taken into account (ACS, PT, EE) and that it was voted on and that it simply showed that BLT and EE stances were the most aligned ones, hence the predominant EE infuence on the end reault.

    From what is their (BLT) further reaction, I could not get a direct response to a question, but they do not see any issues with the end result being predominantly influenced by the EE since the BLT agrees with it and does not agree with the reat of the feedback it seems.

    They claim (or at least @Fnarrr does so directly) for this to not mean they are biased, just that their thoughts align with EE very much and, atated once again, they (he) see no problem with the end result.
    Something worth noting is that there seems to be little value in sources

    I specifically recall a member of BLT state that they "didn't even read if the feedback was from EE or ACS"

    As all EE sources are anonymous, an EE member that specializes in HBE had the same "weight" as someone who does not

    I believe EE feedback was critically over-weighed because of this. Personally, I believe that the community as a whole should massively outweigh any EE member's opinion (who does not play HBE). I also believe that a EE member who specializes in HBE should also outweigh one who does not. I think not lending the proper weight in sources lead to a favoritism of pre-existing agreeing opinions. Thus, while the goal of EE is to diversify opinions and viewpoints, I think it ultimately served to give fuel to double down on existing opinions and viewpoints.

    Also, I feel it is my responsibility to communicate that 90+% of feedback pointing out a problem (SG) from the community in the community feedback poll is seen by the current process as "another data point". Consistent playtesting feedback, 90+% of community feedback, and ACS recommendation, alongside a BLT public move to add buffs resulted in a 1ppm model decrease for our Sea Guard.

    Adam wrote:

    Honest question: do you really think we should bother?
    Honest answer:

    That's for you to decide.

    Personally? I do think it's worth trying. I think if the community really lets their voices be heard, in a civil manner, and chooses to get down in the nitty gritty of why this hotfix missed the mark so badly, then there's a chance for change.

    If after all this there aren't serious recognition and changes by the May update, both to internals and our book, then in my opinion if you're not happy with T9A now then that is not going to change.

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

  • Konrad von Richtmark wrote:

    @Celegil, that's an interesting compilation. A specific question though. How many of those 25 tournament lists used at least one WBoR? Do you have statistics on the performance of the lists, those with and without WBoR? It would be interesting to look at some hard numbers and, particularly, compute some confidence intervals to see if those with WBoR overperform by a statistically significant amount.
    @Konrad von Richtmark: No, this isn't data I have gathered specifically. But it is no big deal to find out how many tournament lists used how many WBoR. I think, I can provide this data till sunday evening (as todays evening is time for my family and tomorrow we have our weekly tabletop club meeting :) ). Researching, which list performed in which way would take longer (and I think - if I am right - some tournaments haven't been taken place by now but provided the rosters).

    ArchangelusM wrote:

    Powers that be are VERY disinclined towards HE at the moment and probably even in general due to the riot that was brought about with resistence to such changes.
    Unfortunately, this is a statement, I find very problematic. I know, we all are humans an being confronted with a sh*tstorm like the one taking place today/yesterday is hard. But I have to say, that this shouldn't be wondering in fact of what has happened. Tbh: No one really belived in the community being happy after this hotfix, did you? So me as a person - I am not that type of guy running around crying and insulting someone - is more interested in a mature debate, than in a riot. But I will try my best to be the hardest resistence, that you can imagine, as long as I am not proven to be wrong. One can convince me with good arguments/data/logical discussions etc., but not with "power, that is desinclined" because of my point of view. I don't care about this kind of position neither in my personal life nor in my hobby. :) So you have to convince me by debating with me :) I think, this is the least I can ask for as a member of this community.

    ArchangelusM wrote:

    BLT member @Fnarrr stated that all feedback was taken into account (ACS, PT, EE) and that it was voted on and that it simply showed that BLT and EE stances were the most aligned ones, hence the predominant EE infuence on the end reault.

    From what is their (BLT) further reaction, I could not get a direct response to a question, but they do not see any issues with the end result being predominantly influenced by the EE since the BLT agrees with it and does not agree with the reat of the feedback it seems.

    They claim (or at least @Fnarrr does so directly) for this to not mean they are biased, just that their thoughts align with EE very much and, atated once again, they (he) see no problem with the end result.

    I will poke arround internally to try and see what further info and rationale on these changes can be brought about, but expect it to take a very long while if I get any answers at all.
    I really would like to point out, that this approach (the least) has some problematic issues, that might be obvious in terms of bias don't you think?

    No offense to anybody, this is just what I am feeling about processes happing atm. We all make mistakes. This is nothing to blame somebody for! But it would be kind to have a look at it and maybe rethink some of the things happened in the last two days :)

    Kind regards,
    Celegil


    Edit:

    PapaG wrote:

    Something worth noting is that there seems to be little value in sources

    I specifically recall a member of BLT state that they "didn't even read if the feedback was from EE or ACS"

    As all EE sources are anonymous, an EE member that specializes in HBE had the same "weight" as someone who does not

    I believe EE feedback was critically over-weighed because of this. Personally, I believe that the community as a whole should massively outweigh any EE member's opinion (who does not play HBE). I also believe that a EE member who specializes in HBE should also outweigh one who does not. I think not lending the proper weight in sources lead to a favoritism of pre-existing agreeing opinions. Thus, while the goal of EE is to diversify opinions and viewpoints, I think it ultimately served to give fuel to double down on existing opinions and viewpoints.

    Also, I feel it is my responsibility to communicate that 90+% of feedback pointing out a problem (SG) from the community in the community feedback poll is seen by the current process as "another data point". Consistent playtesting feedback, 90+% of community feedback, and ACS recommendation, alongside a BLT public move to add buffs resulted in a 1ppm model decrease for our Sea Guard.

    Thanks for some clarification. This really lessen my criticism written above.

    The post was edited 3 times, last by Celegil: edited my quote to reflect updated post, very minor change of word choices is all ().

  • guys, i read any explanation, but what i hear is "bla bla bla".

    This because are now many years that HE book must wait.
    Wait, not the moment, now we reach internal balance, now we have minor fixes, now is not the moment...
    Are years that this army is badly designed, with a pre-written list and few ways to play. And this doesnt matters to anyone in t9a project rulers.

    I play se and de in solo tournaments, but i dislike being forced to do it because i cant use units i like in hbe cause the book design.

    Honestly i am bored to wait, wait, wait. Wait gw times, wait t9a times, wait...
    If i will not see any significant change here, i probably will sell my army. Maybe this don't bother anyone of you all... But i think that with HBE t9a project heavily failed. You can still feel better, but the project surely will loose a fan
  • So 2 simple questions that I would consider very difficult to answer it is directed to BLT / RT ( I cannot really find head and tail in the organization). As I cannot summon them i'll summon @Masamune88 will you be able to get an answer from BLT/RT?
    • How do you see the MMU going forward in relation to competitive play for HbE?
    Bonus info (My personal opinion so if time is short skip it). This, I believe, is the most desired and biggest identity of a lot of HbE players. I started playing during 7th ed. with Sword masters, lion guard and Phoenix guard being the back bone of my army. Ever since this have been my preferred play style and one that I relate the most to on the fluff side.
    Currently the biggest problem is low damage output, lower surviveability and low mobility put into a character is not really a good combo. The infantry is not doing great either and being able to zone just a little with units was what suddenly made mass infantry exiting. I'm one of the guy's describing that I have littlerally never had as much fun list building as I did in 0.201 as most normal units would be viable. That was hard and fun choices.
    • What play styles do you currently consider viable for competitive play for HbE?
    Currently shooting with counter charge and possibly high mobbility cav/dragon armies I think could be viable. This is ofc not based on any testing of the new book.
  • @Celegil thats a great analysis and thanks for your work.

    There is an underlying assumption that people play the most optional choice, which a lot of people just use the models they have or try and test builds. You can't really track that, its just good to note.

    Its also good to note player skill has a huge impact on wins. Especially in 9th age where all the lists are more ballanced then they have ever been.

    I hope someone can do something similar in a month or so. I suspect there is a gut reaction to how dramatic this nerf is affecting the list, similar to the gut reaction for nerfing it. It would be really interesting to see the list analysis post and pre-hot fix. I think that would be could data to see.

    I attended 1 tourney with the pre-hot fix lists. 16 players, 4 were High born. 2 Cav-Dragon lists. Every list had archers holding the becalming banner. And all the other banners were heavily present (each army used the hereditary spell). One of the dragon lists won, and he is a very good player. My issue was that all those banners make the all Cav armies even better, even though they were intented to mainly boost infantry.

    Also FYI, I do own a hign born army, all lovingly painted by myself, but my "Gut" feeling with the new list was that it was just too strong, and did not intereste me to play (or maybe too much pressure to win HAHA),so I have focused on playing with other armes and/or a new project.
    Keeper of the Zoo
    Images of Ma Stuff
    My Warriors of Ind/Sagarikadesha Painting blog

    In Northern CA? Give me a buzz or visit our FB Group: Norcal 9th Age