Pinned HE General and News - Discussion

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.

Our beta phase is finally over. Download The Ninth Age: Fantasy Battles, 2nd Edition now!

  • AlexCat wrote:

    But thats not what Giladis said. And you did not formulate it clear enough too, how much does team tournies data weight in external balance analysis.For me its important because as far as I know team tournies totally dominate the scene, contributing to the vast majority of results. Am I wrong in this assumption?

    AlexCat wrote:

    No, he did not. I'll repeat my question: how much does team tournies data weight in external balance analysis? Compared to singles?
    Why are you asking me for such specifics? You know that I have had nothing to do with the last update. I have literally no idea what tournament data was used and exactly how it was weighted. Maybe you should volunteer to help the data team by providing a public summary of what was done and why?

    I was just talking generally from my previous experience, because the constant arguments over whether or not the project should use team data are tiresome and fundamentally stem from most people not actually listening to what the project says it does.

    To my recollection, from the times I was involved, there wasn't a "singles count for 60% and teams count for 40%" or any such thing (this is ultimately not that much different from just throwing all the data in one pot to start with, which is certainly against what I've always advocated).
    It depended on each update, exactly what the goals were, and what datasets were available.

    Speaking as a scientist, one should never blindly combine datasets without understanding their properties first.
    This is why I have always advocated performing separate and combined analyses and examining the similarities and differences, before best deciding how to proceed.
    Being supportive & giving useful criticism aren't mutually exclusive.
    Are you supportive of the project? Do your posts reflect that?

    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE

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

  • DanT wrote:

    Why are you asking me for such specifics? You know that I have had nothing to do with the last update. I have literally no idea what tournament data was used or how. Maybe you should volunteer to help the data team by providing a public summary of what was done and why?
    Because you were so kind to explain what Giladis said in the first place and to my understanding your explanation kinda contradicted his words.
    I dont know, why you're proposing to me (not for the first time) to help the data team if I'm interested of how data is processed by the project. I'm just a player and active user on the forum. I want to understand how the project works without having to perform task I dont want to.
    I want to have a clear vision of what 'Data Driven Balance Process' means.
    What data is used, what parts of it have what significance?
    Does it serve as just a reference points for RT to make their decisions or does it have the power to dictate what should be done?
    If these questions can be answered in the clear and concise manner - I'd be happy to hear answers. If not - so be it, it never hurts to ask.
  • AlexCat wrote:

    Because you were so kind to explain what Giladis said in the first place and to my understanding your explanation kinda contradicted his words.I dont know, why you're proposing to me (not for the first time) to help the data team if I'm interested of how data is processed by the project. I'm just a player and active user on the forum. I want to understand how the project works without having to perform task I dont want to.
    I want to have a clear vision of what 'Data Driven Balance Process' means.
    What data is used, what parts of it have what significance?
    Does it serve as just a reference points for RT to make their decisions or does it have the power to dictate what should be done?
    If these questions can be answered in the clear and concise manner - I'd be happy to hear answers. If not - so be it, it never hurts to ask.
    The data team would release proper public statements and explanations if they had enough people...
    They are understaffed as it is: the work they do for the project is frankly astounding, superhuman, and massively under-appreciated.

    Regardless, did you not read the post the fjugin made on this very sub-forum about this?
    the-ninth-age.com/index.php?th…ostID=1209923#post1209923
    the-ninth-age.com/index.php?th…ostID=1211204#post1211204
    And an extra couple of comments from just_flo
    the-ninth-age.com/index.php?th…ostID=1211441#post1211441

    I would suggest starting these, and if you still have questions left afterwards, either tag these people or direct your questions to your ACSes to go dig around internally.
    That said though, I don't think people realise the effort required to both do the work for the project, and then communicate it.
    Doubly so when the slightest slip-up, typo, or poor phrasing is jumped on by forum members like a pack of rabid dogs.
    Sadly its lose-lose from the project's perspective, because people are also very happy to latch onto rumours and half-truths, and use them to attack the project, without ever really trying to really understand what was done and why. Indeed, many seem far more interested in latching onto juicy rumours that sound like good ammunition than in giving the decision makers the benefit of the doubt and trying to understand why a reasonable human being may have made those decisions and where "chinese whispers" may have distorted the message (I know it might sound astonishing, but most of the decision makers genuinely care, and put a lot of effort into trying to make sensible decisions in the face of vast arrays of pros and cons).

    If the project had more volunteers, it would be substantially easier to keep the community informed without putting extra strain on already busy members of staff.
    Being supportive & giving useful criticism aren't mutually exclusive.
    Are you supportive of the project? Do your posts reflect that?

    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
  • Calcathin wrote:

    Feaynnewedd wrote:

    Where do you get your data? How unbiased and correct are the "Report your Results threads"? If I get everyone to report a lot of 0-20's, will we get buffed?
    Make sure you don’t report games against another HbE, otherwise it’d be a worthless attempt!
    Now seriously: Lol, no ^^

    Without getting in too much detail, gameplay data comes primarily from tournament results which the Tournament Analysis team gathers. There is some other inputs of data such as Experts feedback.

    As far as I am aware, the “report your results” thread is not used for such purpose or at least not to a comparable extent. @Archeron may be able to confirm
    Not realy. Atm we playtest team is mainley to test changes but only until beta book went out to community. If wished i can prepare an questionary about results , used units and so on and let it run for a longer time but here i would have to ask acs if wished. Data outside of the team i don´t collect atm.

    Head of Playtesting

    Lord of Chaos , Duke of Equitaine , Cuatl of the Golden City , Herold of the Empire , Summoner of Pestilence , Lord of the Sea WotdG,KoE,SA,EoS, and DL and new HE but with Dragon Empire Ordo Sanctae Mariae Teutonicorum
  • AlexCat wrote:

    Can you elaborate please?

    Sure thing :)


    This is also a reminder that it might be best not to post on the forums while doing 2 or 3 other things in real life :D


    Giladis wrote:

    Except it is not highly relevant qualitative data since team tournaments are not used to balance the game externally but to evaluate focused builds within individual armies.

    The T9A has been, is and will be balanced primarily for individual play.
    So the proper way this sentence should have been written is as follows.


    "Except it is not highly relevant qualitative data since team tournaments are not used to balance the game externally to the same extent as singles tournaments or at least that has been the way of doing things in the past. What will be the exact approach later this year is yet to be seen. The main points of interest for the Project in the team tournaments data are potentially skewed or extreme builds that we as a project might not want to exist in our game. Furthermore team tournaments as well as single tournaments are used to indicate trends which then raise flags for certain issues and warrant the project to take a closer look.

    The T9A has been, is and will balanced primarily for individual play, but the Project will strive to ensure as much balance as possible in other modes of play as long as it does not imbalance individual play."


    For example the situation for the Spain, Poland and ETC is one such trend which might result with the Project taking a closer look at HE compared to an army that has no such flags. But as with many things in this Project things are unfortunately rarely simple and the trend in S/P/ETC needs to be compared to existing situation in for example France where the trend is not present.

    I hope either way in 5 months from now we will have clearer picture

    Advisory Board

    Background Team

    Art Team Coordinator

    Team Croatia ETC 2019 Captain ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ HEROES AND VILLEINS OF THE 9TH AGE
  • @Archeron @Giladis

    Anyway, speaking from a scientific pov, the data you are using is not significant.
    The method is wrong.
    Retire you research from peer reviews.

    The right method is takink the SAME group of players, make them play with different armies several scheduled games, and after all this done in controlled situation, you gather and analyse data by the parameter of your choice.

    What you do is statistically valuable, maybe, but the method is wrong and the "research" is wasted
    "Le donne, i cavallier, l'arme, gli amori,
    le cortesie, l'audaci imprese io canto"

    Ludovico Ariosto
  • Ganon wrote:

    @Archeron @Giladis

    Anyway, speaking from a scientific pov, the data you are using is not significant.
    The method is wrong.
    Retire you research from peer reviews.

    The right method is takink the SAME group of players, make them play with different armies several scheduled games, and after all this done in controlled situation, you gather and analyse data by the parameter of your choice.

    What you do is statistically valuable, maybe, but the method is wrong and the "research" is wasted
    I´m the wrong person i don´t take data from community atm. Maybe this will change but atm i only gather data out of playtesting team.

    BTW if you think we do it wrong , join data team to change it.

    Head of Playtesting

    Lord of Chaos , Duke of Equitaine , Cuatl of the Golden City , Herold of the Empire , Summoner of Pestilence , Lord of the Sea WotdG,KoE,SA,EoS, and DL and new HE but with Dragon Empire Ordo Sanctae Mariae Teutonicorum
  • AlexCat wrote:

    @DanT thank you very much, I havent read this thread. Got some new info. But the question that @Giladis raised from me by his remark about team tournaments data usage stands. I do hope I dont come as rabid dog growling trying to figure out the weight of team tournies data.
    Haha, that was me getting on my soapbox again; it was a general comment.
    You seem happy with Giladis' answer so I won't comment further.

    Ganon wrote:

    @Archeron @Giladis

    Anyway, speaking from a scientific pov, the data you are using is not significant.
    The method is wrong.
    Retire you research from peer reviews.

    The right method is takink the SAME group of players, make them play with different armies several scheduled games, and after all this done in controlled situation, you gather and analyse data by the parameter of your choice.

    What you do is statistically valuable, maybe, but the method is wrong and the "research" is wasted
    Hahahaha. Incredibly bold statements here. I am intrigued by your "scientific POV" particularly, because it doesn't match mine at all. What field are you in?
    Regardless...
    (A) Feel free to arrange this.
    (B) Have a good think about the number of different players you will need and the possible systematic biases in such a survey.
    (C) I did this to the best of my ability by personally taking 10 different armies to events in 2018. We all know how much my conclusions are listened to ;)
    Being supportive & giving useful criticism aren't mutually exclusive.
    Are you supportive of the project? Do your posts reflect that?

    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
  • I made some lab working on neuroscience and neuroethics.
    I explain my thoughts about your data:
    1. The point of experimental activity is driving the experiments in a controlled environment.
    2. If you test the rule system, then the "machine" testing (humans) it should be the same or mostly the same people taken into different game situations, say with different armies.
    3. You should be able to be reasonably confident that the data you are gathering is "clean" and it comes from the same environment.

    I'm not a proper scientist anyway, just suggestions from a logic point of view, supported by some experience.

    The point is: you can't claim any "scientifics" here, your "scientific" method is full of flaws and therefore, not relevant

    Your "tone" is often relevant anyway, and is not proper

    DanT wrote:

    (C) I did this to the best of my ability by personally taking 10 different armies to events in 2018. We all know how much my conclusions are listened to ;)

    So you had a vision on how to do it. Add 15 testers like you, lot of scheduled work, do ot again, and you have science
    "Le donne, i cavallier, l'arme, gli amori,
    le cortesie, l'audaci imprese io canto"

    Ludovico Ariosto

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

  • @Ganon
    Hmmm... I think me and you disagree about what the words science and scientific mean.
    As a theoretical and observational cosmologist, your definition would rule out my entire field, and I'm pretty sure I'm a scientist (I have a PhD saying so and everything ;) :P :D ).
    Whereas, by other definitions of science, espoused by people closer to my field, your entire field might not be mathematically or statistically rigorous enough...
    So let us not go down this rabbit hole... as Feynman said, “philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds”.
    I think defining things in terms of "done well and meaningful" and "not done well and/or not meaningful" is a far more sensible approach than the philosophers' centuries long wild goose chase for their "demarcation criteria" between science and not science.


    Simply put, there is a lot of data naturally produced by the community due to existing tournaments.
    Those data contain some information.
    With the resource constraints that the project has, attempting to extract this information and use it to inform updates is a very reasonable and sensible approach.
    Does it have to be done sensitively and in a nuanced way, that isn't blind to the potential systematic biases in the data? Of course... but that doesn't mean it can't be done or has no value.


    That said, I would personally welcome you setting up and carrying out what you are proposing.
    Or joining the project and making it happen that way.
    If you do it, maybe I would even volunteer to help you :)


    Or perhaps you have alternative proposals for how the project should proceed with these things?
    Ones that are sensible given the existing resources the project has and which you are prepared to join the project and help implement?
    Being supportive & giving useful criticism aren't mutually exclusive.
    Are you supportive of the project? Do your posts reflect that?

    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
  • Vespacian wrote:

    @My_Kin this is exactly the kind of hyperbole this sub forum gets a bad name for. Dan already pointed out why WDG got an update at this stage, but it is very much a mixed bag as far as nerfs vs buffs. How about coming with, “what do ppl think of the WDG update?” first before we denounce the project.

    @Fnarrr is this the same Fnarr that was proud of trolling this sub forum for being a bunch of Whiney sore-losers a year ago? Didn’t take long to break you! ;)

    Joking aside, I am very eager to see the results of the HBE tourney data this year, anecdotally, it looks like at least prevalence is down, should be interesting. Having had a view of the internal process last year, I have a lot of faith that if the data is there, we will get the right treatment in the fall.
    My opinion hasn't changed much - I feel like 95% of the complaints are unreasonable ;)

    If I genuinely believed the army to be trash, I wouldn't be persevering with it or taking to ETC...
  • the Army isn´t trash , there are some problems but nothing that can´t be fixed. And nearly all armys have problems in one or another way. KoE suffering under bad pray rule and AP discount for example.

    If this army would be trash it wouldn´t be the army i play and have most fun with since long time.

    I would stop playing the army like i did on Warriors and KoE cause booth armys are atm no fun for me.

    Head of Playtesting

    Lord of Chaos , Duke of Equitaine , Cuatl of the Golden City , Herold of the Empire , Summoner of Pestilence , Lord of the Sea WotdG,KoE,SA,EoS, and DL and new HE but with Dragon Empire Ordo Sanctae Mariae Teutonicorum
  • cptcosmic wrote:

    Archeron wrote:

    KoE suffering under bad pray rule and AP discount for example.
    I think everyone suffers from AP at the moment and high resilence armies still have some layer of protection
    at this point armors ranging from ligh to heavy and light plus shield is just decoration most of the time. either AP needs to be reduced or another mechanic has to replace it.
    Yes but if your T3 Knights pay for a 2+AS and only have 4+/5+ most time realy hurts. Or your Warriors with 4+ only have a 5+/6+. That´s why i love HBE they don´t havethat much AS i can lose :) makes games more fun. Also i like the general direction of HBE. There are some problems but problems which can be fixed.

    Head of Playtesting

    Lord of Chaos , Duke of Equitaine , Cuatl of the Golden City , Herold of the Empire , Summoner of Pestilence , Lord of the Sea WotdG,KoE,SA,EoS, and DL and new HE but with Dragon Empire Ordo Sanctae Mariae Teutonicorum
  • Archeron wrote:

    cptcosmic wrote:

    Archeron wrote:

    KoE suffering under bad pray rule and AP discount for example.
    I think everyone suffers from AP at the moment and high resilence armies still have some layer of protectionat this point armors ranging from ligh to heavy and light plus shield is just decoration most of the time. either AP needs to be reduced or another mechanic has to replace it.
    Yes but if your T3 Knights pay for a 2+AS and only have 4+/5+ most time realy hurts. Or your Warriors with 4+ only have a 5+/6+. That´s why i love HBE they don´t havethat much AS i can lose :) makes games more fun. Also i like the general direction of HBE. There are some problems but problems which can be fixed.
    Yeah but the counterpoint to that is you don't have to worry about goblin shooting, or plague monks, or pyromancy, or the myriad of dirt cheap things that can seriously damage expensive elf units.

    I don't think the books a total disaster, but it has real problems, and personally I don't think they're fun to play right now, they're very stressful if anything. One failed charge, or fluffed to hit rolls or save rolls, or your opponent getting even a small amount of luck can easily cost you the game. Also there are too many things opponents can put down to which we don't really have an answer (multiple big fast relatively cheap T6 monsters mostly).
  • Marcos24 wrote:

    @My_Kin look man I get it... but hearing an elf player complaining about “fluffed to hit rolls” is like... hearing a EoS player complain when his opponent rolls above average 6’s to wound on the few that got through his 1+ armor save on an unbreakable tank...
    I understand what you're saying but that the army is extremely vulnerable to dice swings, more so than other armies has been a common observation of the book, even by players just trying it out for a while (far better players than myself at that).

    Also frankly it's not quite the same, because you can build redundancy into an EoS list that helps mitigate these swings, it's extremely hard to do so in a HBE list.

    The comparison I would have made is a KoE lance messing up it's to hit rolls on the charge, a low number of rolls with great significance (I don't know the proper statistical term), if they do mess up it's a disaster, they were so vulnerable to this that the hereditary was designed to directly mitigate it.

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