What... Is Your Favorite Ticket?

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.

  • nolamik123 wrote:

    any hints what tickets were adressed in may hotfix?
    Afaik it's the ones in the OP, as it is said:

    "tickets: (..) basically the idea is TT can ask for (design) changes, and RT will get through as many as they have time for."
    We haven't heard that RT didn't have time for them all - so I expect some (positive) alterations in the Ancient Dragon, Daemon's Bane, Elein Reavers, Elu's Heartwood, Favour of Meladys, Ring of the Pearl Throne, Banner of Becalming, Warden's Bond ..
    ^^
    For the some rest price changes may take place (hopefully something like Sea Guard -3 pts, RH -20, Phoenix -20 and such).

    Unless @PapaG or @Vespacian have more news about this?
    This forum need polls!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - Playing/painting: SA, DE & HbE ..
  • To be clear and HE ACS not give wrong expectations:

    This thread is in no way related to HE ADT submitted or RT approved tickets. This is an ACS thread with possible suggestions gathered by community for ADT and in what priority the community feels the need of it to get looked at by ADT. ADT take these suggestions into account, if they feel the need to redesign. There could be slight hints here and there.

    Army Design Team Coordinator


    "Great things in business are never done by one person.
    They're done by a team of people."

    – Steve Jobs
  • Emgies wrote:

    This is an ACS thread with possible suggestions gathered by community for ADT and in what priority the community feels the need of it to get looked at by ADT. ADT take these suggestions into account, if they feel the need to redesign.
    This was thoroughly and very well done by @Calcathin before christmas. He and the HBE ACS team did such a great work, really they went over and beyond. <3

    But for what purpose? Only to see their work demolished merely a month after.

    How are we to believe that anything we say or try to work on is taken into account, when other stronger powers are at work? :(
  • ramesses2 wrote:

    Masamune88 wrote:

    Personally I've taken quite a break from t9a as funnily enough I find TWW2 to be significantly more balanced than what we have and a lot more fun without the internal politicking but Marko is certainly the best port of call for BGT or maybe @Scottish Knight
    ...TWWH is a game designed with a completely different mindset, on a wholy different scale. I'd absolutely love a 10 mm version of ninth age.
    we did an article in the 9th scroll about 10mm 9th age. I think it was named minihammer. Check issue 4 or 5 or around that.
    Ammertime Podcast Host
    soundcloud.com/ammertime-podcast
    VC von Karlstein Army Blog
    The Von Karlsteins
  • marlab wrote:

    Emgies wrote:

    This is an ACS thread with possible suggestions gathered by community for ADT and in what priority the community feels the need of it to get looked at by ADT. ADT take these suggestions into account, if they feel the need to redesign.
    This was thoroughly and very well done by @Calcathin before christmas. He and the HBE ACS team did such a great work, really they went over and beyond. <3
    But for what purpose? Only to see their work demolished merely a month after.

    How are we to believe that anything we say or try to work on is taken into account, when other stronger powers are at work? :(
    I think ACS and ADT in all forums get a lot of inspiration from the community and most changes are community driven, in fact sometimes even 1 on 1 copied. Problem here is you also can get changes that the wide community didn't ask for, but RT, ADT or BLT felt needed to do because of a wider design or balance issue.

    For example @Furion his book is taken and looked at with the same effort as any suggestion made here, it's only filtered down the line to the most necessary OR most effective change in the eyes of ADT in the short period of time they had before May. This topic is to hear about the community their priority after 0.203, not before christmas.

    If you want to see demolished work, I can give you discussions of 15 pages about a single item or rule of a TT. Instead this thread is 17 pages about all rules and entries of a book. Bear in mind TT's don't demolish work, they do all the work together with one of these simple suggestions from the community, but sometimes it takes 15 pages of TT discussion to realise the initial design or suggestion was wrong all along for example.

    Instead of critiquing TT's about demolishing designs, think about that, TT's discussing most of the items in a book on multiple pages instead of 1 comment.

    Army Design Team Coordinator


    "Great things in business are never done by one person.
    They're done by a team of people."

    – Steve Jobs
  • Emgies wrote:


    For example @Furion his book is taken and looked at with the same effort as any suggestion made here, it's only filtered down the line to the most necessary OR most effective change in the eyes of ADT in the short period of time they had before May. This topic is to hear about the community their priority after 0.203, not before christmas.

    If you want to see demolished work, I can give you discussions of 15 pages about a single item or rule of a TT. Instead this thread is 17 pages about all rules and entries of a book. Bear in mind TT's don't demolish work, they do all the work together with one of these simple suggestions from the community, but sometimes it takes 15 pages of TT discussion to realise the initial design or suggestion was wrong all along for example.

    Instead of critiquing TT's about demolishing designs, think about that, TT's discussing most of the items in a book on multiple pages instead of 1 comment.
    By average my predictions as to solutions will be FAR more accurate than those of not as acomplished players.

    Gosu or Bonjwa will always get more accurate predictions than Chobo or Hasu Obs.
    This statement is true for any game.

    So the statement that "all suggestions are equally valid" is a beautiful line of socialist propaganda for the mases.
    Because the reality of things is, that they are not equal.
  • Furion wrote:

    Emgies wrote:

    For example @Furion his book is taken and looked at with the same effort as any suggestion made here, it's only filtered down the line to the most necessary OR most effective change in the eyes of ADT in the short period of time they had before May. This topic is to hear about the community their priority after 0.203, not before christmas.

    If you want to see demolished work, I can give you discussions of 15 pages about a single item or rule of a TT. Instead this thread is 17 pages about all rules and entries of a book. Bear in mind TT's don't demolish work, they do all the work together with one of these simple suggestions from the community, but sometimes it takes 15 pages of TT discussion to realise the initial design or suggestion was wrong all along for example.

    Instead of critiquing TT's about demolishing designs, think about that, TT's discussing most of the items in a book on multiple pages instead of 1 comment.
    By average my predictions as to solutions will be FAR more accurate than those of not as acomplished players.
    Gosu or Bonjwa will always get more accurate predictions than Chobo or Hasu Obs.
    This statement is true for any game.

    So the statement that "all suggestions are equally valid" is a beautiful line of socialist propaganda for the mases.
    Because the reality of things is, that they are not equal.
    Bear with me, Furion, as I don't know you personally, but I think you're overestimating what high skill contributes to design. I think there are definitely places where being quite good at the game does assist in decision-making, but I also think there are points where it can blind you.

    I mean, I'm willing to grant that, faced with a specific situation, you'll arrive at the optimal play in that situation far faster than less skilled players. But there's a huge gulf between that and quality game design. And further, just because skill is an asset doesn't mean it's the only asset, or is enough by itself. Now, you personally may well have other skills beyond skill at playing T9A which makes you better at game design.

    It seems to me that highly skilled players
    -Are no better at avoiding tunnel vision than other players
    -Are not necessarily better at assessing the frequency of different situations in game, even if they're better at analyzing those situations when they do occur.
    -Are more inclined to trust gut feelings, even when those gut feelings are wrong. 'Mastery' makes it harder to objectively analyze results. (Edit: this is a general problem with expertise, not something specific to T9A or games in general).
    -Are more inclined to be committed to things similar to the status quo, and distrust radically new designs more. (Because the more radically different things are, the less their mastery translates). There's probably some overlap on gut feelings here - their gut is telling them inaccurate things because they ignore some aspects of the design to fit the design into a box it doesn't belong in in their mental heuristics.

    And that's probably not even a complete list.

    Starcraft is probably the premier example of a balanced asymmetric competitive game. As far as I'm aware, none of the designers were top tier players. Clearly there are other skills which are necessary for good game design, and those do not rely on game mastery. And if you have some of these skills, they're independent of you being good at the game.

    And I think the project is undervaluing these other skills in this misguided notion that people who are good at mastering a given system are the same people who would be good at building that system.
    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

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

  • Furion wrote:

    Emgies wrote:

    For example @Furion his book is taken and looked at with the same effort as any suggestion made here, it's only filtered down the line to the most necessary OR most effective change in the eyes of ADT in the short period of time they had before May. This topic is to hear about the community their priority after 0.203, not before christmas.

    If you want to see demolished work, I can give you discussions of 15 pages about a single item or rule of a TT. Instead this thread is 17 pages about all rules and entries of a book. Bear in mind TT's don't demolish work, they do all the work together with one of these simple suggestions from the community, but sometimes it takes 15 pages of TT discussion to realise the initial design or suggestion was wrong all along for example.

    Instead of critiquing TT's about demolishing designs, think about that, TT's discussing most of the items in a book on multiple pages instead of 1 comment.
    By average my predictions as to solutions will be FAR more accurate than those of not as acomplished players.
    Gosu or Bonjwa will always get more accurate predictions than Chobo or Hasu Obs.
    This statement is true for any game.

    So the statement that "all suggestions are equally valid" is a beautiful line of socialist propaganda for the mases.
    Because the reality of things is, that they are not equal.
    More accurate predictions as to solutions, in your eyes, you may have.
    The best solution, in other people their eyes, you may have not.

    Army Design Team Coordinator


    "Great things in business are never done by one person.
    They're done by a team of people."

    – Steve Jobs
  • marlab wrote:

    Emgies wrote:

    This is an ACS thread with possible suggestions gathered by community for ADT and in what priority the community feels the need of it to get looked at by ADT. ADT take these suggestions into account, if they feel the need to redesign.
    This was thoroughly and very well done by @Calcathin before christmas. He and the HBE ACS team did such a great work, really they went over and beyond. <3
    But for what purpose? Only to see their work demolished merely a month after.

    How are we to believe that anything we say or try to work on is taken into account, when other stronger powers are at work? :(
    Any specific suggestion is unlikely to make it through, because there's a million and one factors that come into play when choosing a design (external design space, internal role/design space, degree of change, lore, to name a few). I've tried to be explicit with this, though I don't blame anyone for being frustrated

    However, in terms of taking into account, and genuinely taking to heart what the community has wanted? This thread served that purpose for ACS throughout the entire process, and ACS was very well respected by our Task Team. In terms of tickets resulting from this thread, a lot of inspiration for entries to discuss came from here. Many of those entries didn't make it to ticket proposals (either because there were issues making rejection likely, or a price change was deemed the preferable/appropriate route), but others did. Knowing how much the community does or doesn't want a change is also very useful, for knowing how much to push and prioritize. Looking at the ticket proposals, the vast majority make me think "the community wanted this to change"

    In the end, the results will speak for themselves as to how well the community's desires made it through. Not necessarily through direct sourcing of design, but hopefully it will be shown through the quality and direction

    As for their work being demolished, this very process is a step to improve the project after that
  • Emgies wrote:

    More accurate predictions as to solutions, in your eyes, you may have.The best solution, in other people their eyes, you may have not.
    I talk about objective truth.

    There is some solution (or even some solutions, but that doesn't matter for the argument) that grants optimal balance.
    In any game (be it SC2, or DotA or T9A) if you decide to include the best players in providing solutions, then this is the quickest path to achieving balance. SC2 and DotA developers do that. For some reason for T9A enthustiasts this is hard to understand. I have some thoughts about why is that so, but that's another story for another time.

    Now, I'd like to share with you one more thing. T9A players on average VASTLY underestimate the skill difference. The international top players (which is a group about 10 players strong) have stupndendously better insight into the game that the very good players. And with true Faux-Pro there is often no link of communication. So they will just nod their heads and accept the pity excuses of their opponents as to why they lost.

    I play a lot of SC2. In SC2 I ended in 1% of players, being ranked Top3 Master. This is still a hell of a long way to go to Grandmaster status. So although I enjoyed the game and had thoughts of my own regarding balance, I know that they are most likely not accurate.
  • I am talking about design, not objective truth or balance. Top players can provide solutions to designs affecting balance.
    They are far from great designers, mediocre at most, most of them lack the creativity a designer needs.
    1. Most designers are not top players, but come with inventive solutions or even bring new great designs that sometimes give even more problems than before. This is not bad design if it gave way more flavour. The task of a game designer is not to make a balanced game, look for design problems (not balance problems) and come with a solution.
    2. Top players on the other hand are great to analyse designs, use them optimal into their extent, know the limits and possibilities of the design. They don't see design problems, they see balance problems. Which designs don't work optimal or are over.
    In my ideal world these creative brains and analyst work together to get the best results.
    So I don't disagree with you and I want participation from top players too. What is the next step in your eyes then to let players like you participate?

    P.s. I played a lot of CoD and Fifa, at one time top 10 of Europe, that's probably top 0.001%. Don't know what this has to do with my T9a skillset, but I know all the high power combinations, mistakes, strategies in the game etc. like a pro player knows in T9a perhaps.
    But playing with off-meta and fun combinations and still win is way more fun than taking the most favourable or OP combinations, football players or tactics.

    Army Design Team Coordinator


    "Great things in business are never done by one person.
    They're done by a team of people."

    – Steve Jobs
  • Furion wrote:

    I play a lot of SC2. In SC2 I ended in 1% of players, being ranked Top3 Master. This is still a hell of a long way to go to Grandmaster status. So although I enjoyed the game and had thoughts of my own regarding balance, I know that they are most likely not accurate
    So, I followed SC back in the day, but haven't followed SC2 at all. Does it appear to be a balanced and healthy competitive environment at the top levels? How many top-ranked competitive players are on the game design/balance team?
    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