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!

  • New

    cptcosmic wrote:

    Shako wrote:

    To show how the concept works, I'm going to take an extreme. Like in economics, it's a model not the reality.
    Sticking with your examples:
    Army X is bottom tier.
    90% are using unit A
    10% are using the worse unit B.
    Now let's say unit B is only 75% as good as unit A.

    The price for A gets increased by 5%
    The price for B gets cut by 50%.

    Now tell me this wouldn't have an influence on external balance aswell as internal balance.
    yes you have change external balance but not as you think. you have exactly described whats wrong, in your example you have made the bottom tier choice A externally AND internally 5% weaker! well done!

    again, think about which choice contributed to the bottom tier rating in your example and what your point increase is doing with it.

    yes, this example is a bit extreme but this applies to the less extreme real values aswell.
    If I understand your argument correctly @cptcosmic, you are saying that if an army belongs to the bottom tier, then its best units (which make up most of the army lists since most players try to select things they believe will help them win the game) are strictly worse than the units of all other armies.

    However that's not necessarily true. A unit from a bottom tier army can be a very good unit but not enough to compensate how bad the other units are. Obviously if an army is bottom tier it means it has more bad or mediocre than good units, or its units are medium but don't work together very well.

    In the example, units A and B are not externally strong or weak. External balance is measured for whole armies, and individual army lists if played very often can be influential in the external balance of an army.

    It may very well be that the 50% price decrease in B more than compensates the 5% price increase in A, and the army ends up being externally better than it was before.
    It can happen at the same time that now B overshadows A completely, which is to be avoided (internal imbalance).

    Now I would personally hand very few price increases (or not as all) like this to the army in the bottom tier, because it has more bad/mediocre than good units, but small price increases to correct internal imbalances are ok as long as external balance is improved at the same time.
    'He opened the battered book. Bits of paper and string indicated his many bookmarks.
    "In fact, men, the general has this to say about ensuring against defeat when outnumbered, out–weaponed and outpositioned. It is..." he turned the page, "Don't Have a Battle."
    "Sounds like a clever man," said Jenkins.'
    Terry Pratchett, Jingo!
  • New

    Let us make an hypothetic example with points.

    Unit A cost 100 points, it is worth 105 points.
    Unit B cost 150 points it is worth 135 points.
    Both units fullfill exactly the same role.


    I belive we agree that taking Unit A instead of Unit B makes an army better.

    Now an Update hits. It increases Unit A by 10%. Now Unit A cost 110 and is still worth 105.

    The same Update reduces Unit B by 10%. Now it Costs 135 and is still worth 135.

    Both units are nearer to their worth. But I guess now if I take Unit B my list is slightly stronger than before.

    Advisary Board Member

    Workfields: Tournament Analysis, Army Community Support, Playtesting, Community Engagement, Translation/ United Nations Blog: Inside TA. Admin of the biggest german Tabletop Board: tabletopwelt.de We want you to join the project and apply to staff.
  • New

    all those responses have nothing to do with what I said =D

    from the beginning:
    -there is pool of data.

    -in this pool of data there is the share of the most used of choices, which have the biggest share. those are the most competetive because they work the best for the majority and are naturally taken the most.

    -on the other side you have the least used units inside the data pool, they have the lowest share because they are taken less.

    -now you have taken the average of the whole data pool, where the most used choices have the highest share (as such also the biggest effect on the rating itself), and deducted an army rating

    -but on the other you have taken the individual shares of each unit to adjust cost


    in short:
    overall average of the complete data pool was mixed with data of individual units. this means you brought B units up to A units externally and internally but A is where it was previously, just like in the theoretic examples above.

    anyway I will cross fingers and observe what is happening next.
  • New

    I always get a kick out of people calling something a crutch, then saying it has to be removed. This goes for many genres, not just this game. Like, what is a crutch for? Do you see someone with a crutch then kick it our from under them and say, "fix the root problems of your leg pain!" Like, yeah, I'm sure they will given the choice, but they aren't going to spring up and exclaim "right you are!"

    In this analogy the HBE would be a hobbled war veteran, who's awaiting surgery but it won't be coming for a few years yet (the FAB), and people are advocating for snapping the guys crutch in front of him and telling him to walk straight.
  • New

    Calcathin wrote:

    @cptcosmic There is nothing bad in taking into consideration unit usage. It actually is the right way to do it (in my opinion).

    What is added on top of there, is the external balance factor. So, for example, if HbE:
    • Top choices receive 2% discount
    • Less used choices receive 10% discount
    You achieve both a better internal balance and an improved external power.
    This isn't what happened though. Of the top choices, a number went up, a number stayed the same, a few went down. The average here was closer to 1%, for me it was 0. Of the potentially competitive lesser used options, discounts were more like 2-4%.
  • New

    this is a very interesting topic, and i think some data visualisation could be helpful. can i access the raw data? something like a spreadsheet with three columns:

    - name of unit or option
    - frequency of occurrence
    - point change after update

    is this data available to the general public, and if so where can i find it?


    click the logo and reach the KickStarter page!
  • New

    piteglio wrote:

    this is a very interesting topic, and i think some data visualisation could be helpful. can i access the raw data? something like a spreadsheet with three columns:

    - name of unit or option
    - frequency of occurrence
    - point change after update

    is this data available to the general public, and if so where can i find it?
    this is almost what you are looking for, I think:

    Shako wrote:

    Hello there,

    I've done a couple of armies myself, collected the informations about the others and thought I present them here combined.
    Those changes do not include the point changes to the generic special items from the AC.

    To make just reading the numbers easier, a highest decrease of -7 means that the list got 7 points cheaper. So I'll still add the minus, and am not implying a double negative.


    ArmyAverage increasehighest increasehighest decreasemedian increasestandard deviation
    BH11415941 (increase)11233
    DLnot in scopenot in scopenot in scopenot in scopenot in scope
    DE65120-76939
    DH-11 (decrease)53-76-0,538
    EoS2494-903445
    HE-76 (decrease)-7 (decrease)-160-58 (decrease)52
    ID-34 (ETC)-47 (WTC)
    -42 (combined)
    all decreases
    30 (ETC)30 (WTC)
    30 (combined)
    -101 (ETC)-110 (WTC)
    -110 (combined)
    -27 ETC-65 (WTC)
    -32 (combined)
    all decreases
    78 (ETC)106 (WTC)
    95 (combined)
    KOE-0,6 (decrease)15-22714
    OK5391-436038
    O&G374-62-2,5 (decrease)31
    SA2883-723635
    SE-67 (decrease)-40 (decrease)-99-65 (decrease)16
    UD277344160 (increase)27545
    VC58105-246834
    VS16223013 (increase!)16556
    WDG75187-4977,561


    Filling out the other standard deviations in the next couple of hours in my spare time.


    BH
    Display Spoiler

    139Argentina
    150Belarus
    91Bulgaria
    135Croatia
    59Czech Republic
    100Denmark
    41France
    156Germany
    105Ireland
    140Luxembourg
    115Mexico
    102Montenegro
    159Norway
    112Portugal
    90Scotland
    81Slovenia
    157Spain
    138Ukraine
    87United Nations



    DE
    Display Spoiler

    -7Pascal "SmithF" Sidiras
    25Tomasz "Laik" Gęgotek
    34Jake "Motherfuckin" Murphy
    38Christian „Sperber“ Brau
    46Aleksey "Akniles" Slinka
    69Henrik “Groudon” Sühr
    81Jakob Nygren
    91Juan José “Alex Hungar” Guerriri,
    103Sylvain "Cocofreeze" Jaber
    111Jorge "Orombi" García -
    120Charly Romero



    DH
    Display Spoiler
    Austria +21
    Bulgaria -76
    Czech Republic -5
    England -22
    Finalnd -10
    France +15
    Italy -5
    Luxembourg -5
    Netherlands +4
    New Zealand -50
    Portugal +53
    Sctoland -36
    Serbia -42
    Switzerland +25
    Turkey 0
    Ukraine -40


    EoS
    Display Spoiler

    Belarus34
    Bulgaria-90
    Croatia94
    Czech Republic-19
    Denmark-2
    England3
    Finland58
    France-6
    Italy-3
    Luxembourg18
    Russia89
    Slovenia35
    Sweden52
    Ukraine45
    United Nations45




    HE
    Display Spoiler

    Pablo “Serwin” Ahumada, Highborn Elves1453.22
    Hallvard "Fairhair" Haugen - Highborn Elves751.67
    Thomas "Artur" Jacobs - Highborn Elves9 [7]0.2
    Hristo Nikolov - Highborn Elves66 [65]1.47
    Filip "Nolamik" Blokar - Highborn Elves163 [160]3.62
    Henrypmiller - Highborn Elves380.84
    Giulio "Falanor" Gatti - Highborn Elves33 [32]0.73
    Mehmet Çamuroğlu - Highborn Elves150 [146]3.33
    Nikita Volkov - Highborn Elves55 [51]1.22
    Jerzy "Furion" Brzozowski - HbE48 [43]1.07



    ID ETC
    Display Spoiler
    Austria: -11 points (and Vizier build is now no longer possible)
    Belgium: -46 points
    Finland -19 points
    Ireland: +30 points
    Mexico: -81 points
    Monenegro: -101 points
    Norway: -32 points
    Scotland: -9 points
    Serbia: -36 points
    USA: +8 points
    UN: -92 points (although illegal list BEFORE the update, now it would be legal)
    Wales: -23 points (and Vizier build is now no longer possible)

    ID WTC
    Display Spoiler
    Oriol Ardevol “Baron” = -65
    Alexander “Streifenkarl” Bartz = -86
    Joachim « Keya » Gossiaux = -69
    Dennis "Shako" Holstein = -92
    Daniel Hazel = +4
    Sune Van Der Loo = -110 (Icon/Talisman combo; drastic point reduction for using lots of Hobgoblins)
    Marco-Pascal "Ruebezahl" Hess = -89
    Michal "Beowulf" Bouša = +15 (the only one playing GW Taurukhs thus suffering the increase, also using Icon/Talisman combo)
    Alexander „Sargarn“ Hackenberg = +30
    Christoph „Aureon“ Stiller = +28
    Ruben "Da_Gobbo" Rimkus = -68
    Dusan Zivkovic = -102 (3x4 Incarnates, 2 Rocket Battery)
    Handełek = -85 (Icon/Talisman combo)
    Francesco Guidi = -24
    Paździoch = -20
    Adam "duke" Lewański = -79
    Janus = +10


    KoE
    Display Spoiler

    -19Jamie Payne
    -22Lubart
    15Jake Corteen
    10Yannic Titgemeyer
    -5David Bowes
    10Francesco "Lord Ulric" Di Bonaventura
    7Hugh "Dr Love" Scarlin



    OK
    Display Spoiler

    Argentina45004560+60
    Australia44974577+80
    Belarus44954452-43
    Belgium45004565+65
    Bulgaria44984504+6
    Czech Republic44994559+60
    Denmark45004555+55
    England44904571+81
    Germany45004575+75
    Italy44974557+60
    Latvia44964581+85
    Luxembourg44994498-1
    Mexico45004568+68
    Netherlands44994543+44
    New Zealand44964556+60
    Norway45004489-11
    Poland44994569+70
    Portugal44964530+34
    Scotland44954581+86
    Slovenia45004562+62
    Spain44994571+72
    Sweden45004591+91
    USA45004560+60



    OnG
    Display Spoiler

    25Austria
    74Belgium
    -15Bulgaria
    -40Croatia
    0Denmark
    -13France
    2Italy
    -30Latvia
    -12Mexico
    -5Netherlands
    32New Zealand
    46Norway
    22Russia
    -10Scotland
    42Serbia
    13Slovenia
    -9Sweden
    -18Switzerland
    23Ukraine
    -62United Nations



    SA
    Display Spoiler
    Australia: 4500 +43
    Belarus: 4497 +36
    Bulgaria: 4495 +45
    Croatia: 4499 +67
    England: 4500 -10
    Ireland: 4495 -72
    Italy: 4500 +19
    Latvia: 4493 +47
    Luxembourg: 4496 +21
    Montenegro: 4500 +83
    Netherlands: 4493 +4
    Russia: 4498 +24
    Serbia: 4497 +19
    Slovenia: 4496 +37
    Turkey: 4498 -1
    UN: 4498 +41
    Wales: 4500 +66


    SE

    UD
    Display Spoiler

    Australia322
    Belgium324
    Croatia210
    Czech Republic331
    Denmark208Assuming the 3x Sphinx are all Warsphinxes (otherwise 148)
    England274
    Finland260
    France270
    Germany318
    Ireland223
    Italy344
    Latvia317
    Luxembourg160
    Montenegro269
    Netherlands312
    New Zealand267
    Norway289
    Poland296
    Portugal202
    Russia290
    Serbia337
    Slovenia275
    Spain257
    Sweden324
    Switzerland317
    Turkey248
    Ukraine266
    USA238
    Wales281
    Average277


    VC
    Display Spoiler

    -24Akhter Khan
    84Bigfish
    62Michal "Houba" Malý
    55Kaare Siesing
    55Rafael Harbinson
    21Julius Castren
    79Benjamin Nardelli
    -13Sergejs "Medved" Medvedevs
    90Đorđe "Warhamster" Ratković
    93Denny Harsono
    34Gareth Barton
    81Marek Gmyrek
    76Antonio "Montxo"
    94Stanislav "Ananas" Vitozhents
    8Andrew “LostCause” Lind
    66Filip "Cofius" Stojkovid
    105Kaj "Chosen of Sigmar" Geenen
    76Pablo "Turtle" Vega
    68Christian Wennberg
    68Filip “Pulps” Grebac
    24Mesut Gültepe
    47Chris “eggsPR” Mince
    85Marcos "MCS" Chozas



    VS
    Display Spoiler

    Argentina+164VPD, no catapults
    Australia+205Two Towers, 2 DM, 2 PC
    Austria+150Pendulum, 2 DM, 2 PC
    Belgium+45Other, 2 PC
    Bulgaria+160VPD, no catapults
    Croatia+230VPD
    Czech Republic+168VD, 2 DM, 2 PC
    Denmark+230VPD
    Finland+195VPD, no catapults
    Germany+165Two Towers, 2 DM, 2 PC
    Ireland+210VPD
    Italy+214VPD
    Luxembourg+199VPD
    Mexico+60Two Towers, 2 DM, 1 PC, 2 Thunder Hulks
    Montenegro+160VPD, no catapults
    New Zealand+230VPD
    Norway+150Two Towers, 2 DM, 2 PC
    Portugal+175VPD, no catapults
    Scotland+115Two Towers, 2 DM
    Serbia+205Two Towers, 2 DM, 2 PC
    Spain+170VPD, no catapults
    Sweden+110VPD, no catapults, 2 Thunder Hulks
    Switzerland+13Other (no towers, no catapults)
    Ukraine+110Two Towers, 2 DM, 2 PC
    USA+220VPD
    UN+140Doom Bell, 2 DM, 2 PC
    Wales+170Two Towers, 1 DM, 2 PC



    WDG
    Display Spoiler
    Argentina -> up 60 points
    Australia -> up 3 points
    Austria -> up 34 points
    Belarus -> up 87 points
    Czech -> up 76 points
    England -> up 10 points
    Finland -> up 157 points
    France -> up 111 points
    Latvia -> up 79 points
    Mexico -> up 87 points
    Netherland -> down 20 points
    New Zealand -> down 49 points
    Norway -> up 56 points
    Poland -> up 164 points
    Portugal -> up 69 points
    Russia -> up 103 points
    Scotland -> up 60 points
    Serbia -> down 39 points
    Slovenia -> up 180 points
    Spain -> up 187 points
    Sweden -> up 113 points
    Switzerland -> up 119 points
    Turkey -> up 83 points
    Ukraine -> up 130 points
    USA -> up 41 points
    Wales -> up 45 points




    cptcosmic wrote:

    all those responses have nothing to do with what I said =D

    from the beginning:
    -there is pool of data.

    -in this pool of data there is the share of the most used of choices, which have the biggest share. those are the most competetive because they work the best for the majority and are naturally taken the most.

    -on the other side you have the least used units inside the data pool, they have the lowest share because they are taken less.

    -now you have taken the average of the whole data pool, where the most used choices have the highest share (as such also the biggest effect on the rating itself), and deducted an army rating

    -but on the other you have taken the individual shares of each unit to adjust cost


    in short:
    overall average of the complete data pool was mixed with data of individual units. this means you brought B units up to A units externally and internally but A is where it was previously, just like in the theoretic examples above.

    anyway I will cross fingers and observe what is happening next.
    But that is clearly not what was done.

    You can disagree with the amount of adjustments, or with the 'only points' nature of adjustments. But making false claims will not make people listen to you.
  • New

    piteglio wrote:

    this is a very interesting topic, and i think some data visualisation could be helpful. can i access the raw data? something like a spreadsheet with three columns:

    - name of unit or option
    - frequency of occurrence
    - point change after update

    is this data available to the general public, and if so where can i find it?
    Please send me a PM. almost everything is already free avaiable. Will react after
    playing my first Tourney with HE today. (First with HE not first at all. will be games 4 -6 with the army

    Advisary Board Member

    Workfields: Tournament Analysis, Army Community Support, Playtesting, Community Engagement, Translation/ United Nations Blog: Inside TA. Admin of the biggest german Tabletop Board: tabletopwelt.de We want you to join the project and apply to staff.
  • New

    Just_Flo wrote:

    piteglio wrote:

    this is a very interesting topic, and i think some data visualisation could be helpful. can i access the raw data? something like a spreadsheet with three columns:

    - name of unit or option
    - frequency of occurrence
    - point change after update

    is this data available to the general public, and if so where can i find it?
    Please send me a PM. almost everything is already free avaiable. Will react afterplaying my first Tourney with HE today. (First with HE not first at all. will be games 4 -6 with the army
    Let us know how the games went.
    Good luck!
  • New

    cptcosmic wrote:

    Arrahed wrote:

    But that is clearly not what was done.
    You can disagree with the amount of adjustments, or with the 'only points' nature of adjustments. But making false claims will not make people listen to you.
    that is what the article is saying though and what has been told here aswell :)
    I think you are really misreading it: Armies got a budget of points based on their tier (UD got a large negative one, HBE got a positive one) this budget was distibuted among the army roughly proportionally to how often entries were taken. Such move should improve both internal (due to proportionality of usage) and external balance (due to different budgets)
    My gallery: Adam painting stuff (HbE, VC and lots of terrain)
    My battle reports: Adam Battle reports
  • New

    cptcosmic wrote:

    Arrahed wrote:

    But that is clearly not what was done.
    You can disagree with the amount of adjustments, or with the 'only points' nature of adjustments. But making false claims will not make people listen to you.
    that is what the article is saying though and what has been told here aswell :)
    The referenced article does not support your claim though. It states that external performance informed each army's point adjustments.

    This is also in agreement with the observation that on average, HbE etc lists got the biggest discounts.
  • New

    Arrahed wrote:

    cptcosmic wrote:

    It states that external performance informed each army's point adjustments.
    This is also in agreement with the observation that on average, HbE etc lists got the biggest discounts.
    .. and funny enough DE etc lists actually got a significant increase (almost as big as WDG), even though they are next to bottom tier.
    + :WDG_bw: :HE: :SA: + This forum need polls!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • New

    Arrahed wrote:

    The referenced article does not support your claim though. It states that external performance informed each army's point adjustments.

    it literally states exactly that right in the middle, army tier rating has been determined by taking all data with different weightenings and internal balance changes by unit usage from the "once or more often per army" dataset and then combined with data from survey and tournaments

    yeah, lets say it does not support my claim :D
  • New

    cptcosmic wrote:

    Arrahed wrote:

    The referenced article does not support your claim though. It states that external performance informed each army's point adjustments.
    it literally states exactly that right in the middle, army tier rating has been determined by taking all data with different weightenings and internal balance changes by unit usage from the "once or more often per army" dataset and then combined with data from survey and tournaments

    yeah, lets say it does not support my claim :D
    C'mon, you can't just look at one or two sentences and ignore the rest. If I'd selectively cite pieces of your last 50 posts, I'm sure I could tie you to the murder of JFK.
  • New

    Arrahed wrote:

    cptcosmic wrote:

    Arrahed wrote:

    The referenced article does not support your claim though. It states that external performance informed each army's point adjustments.
    it literally states exactly that right in the middle, army tier rating has been determined by taking all data with different weightenings and internal balance changes by unit usage from the "once or more often per army" dataset and then combined with data from survey and tournaments
    yeah, lets say it does not support my claim :D
    C'mon, you can't just look at one or two sentences and ignore the rest. If I'd selectively cite pieces of your last 50 posts, I'm sure I could tie you to the murder of JFK.
    it is what the internal and external part of article the says in a few words, I havent picked anything out specifically :huh:

    anyway, could have misunderstood something but I dont think the gap between bottom, low and mid tier have decreased much the way it was done. we will see how it will turn out ^^

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

  • New

    Teowulff wrote:

    .. and funny enough DE etc lists actually got a significant increase (almost as big as WDG), even though they are next to bottom tier.
    DE are a prime example of the points algorithm failing.
    It also broke item builds that were popular in casual games. (so not competitive).
  • New

    Yes, the system isn't perfect. It's SIGNIFICANTLY better than what we had before. This is literally the first time using this methodology, and it is probably one of the best updates the game has had. We can improve this methodology moving forward. However, I honestly cannot fathom people complaining and wanting to go back to "Feels of a small group of people". . .
  • New

    cptcosmic wrote:

    it literally states exactly that right in the middle, army tier rating has been determined by taking all data with different weightenings and internal balance changes by unit usage from the "once or more often per army" dataset and then combined with data from survey and tournaments

    yeah, lets say it does not support my claim :D

    If that is what you understood, than I did Express myself badly. I am sorry, I will edit the article tonight to make it clearer that adjustments According to both External and internal balance happened.


    Riismanden wrote:

    Just_Flo wrote:

    Please send me a PM. almost everything is already free avaiable. Will react afterplaying my first Tourney with HE today. (First with HE not first at all. will be games 4 -6 with the army
    Let us know how the games went.Good luck!
    14:6 vs DL
    13:7 vs HE
    4:16 vs DL piloted by a member of this years ETC Team

    10. from 20. For game 4 -6 with the army that I am okay with it.

    Again I learned alot and will do slight adjustments to the list.

    Advisary Board Member

    Workfields: Tournament Analysis, Army Community Support, Playtesting, Community Engagement, Translation/ United Nations Blog: Inside TA. Admin of the biggest german Tabletop Board: tabletopwelt.de We want you to join the project and apply to staff.