Balance Update 2.1 beta - Summary and 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!

  • Oh, I don't choose a side.


    I am a side. The ACS side. (I will always be the shield standing infront of my ACS when they get attacked. And I will allways be the hammer falling down on them behind the curtain, if they do something severe wrong or are attacked with reason.)


    That means if there are sides.


    What WhammeWhamme did was to transport what we got from RT and to explain what take is more likely to be able to get a positive reaction from RT and what not.

    ACS often present the projects take on things while their personal one might be very different from it. It is easy to project not liking the message on the messenger.

    If you aren't just upset but really belive, any ACS has an agenda to hurt an army, than pm me, HR or an AvB with your proof and it will be looked at and if you are right the person will be removed from my staff. I guess you by now spot, that accusing someone of a crusade is in my eyes a severe accusation which I don't take lightly. (Hi @Zamo, Hi @Cuendae) OF course I investigate, but in this case I did not find a proof.
  • Can you take this to a pm? Adding more off topic aggression from staff isn't productive.

    If you have this much free time where is that data report? ;)
    “You can never know everything, and part of what you know is always wrong. Perhaps even the most important part. A portion of wisdom lies in knowing that. A portion of courage lies in going on anyways.” -Lan Mandragoran, EotW


    Dovie’andi se tovya sagain.
  • i don t think There is a personal agenda involved.
    There is an somewhat agressive way to communicate, and there is no responce to arguments or proposals or even questions, but only the mantra of " RT was right" over and over.
    I know how RT decided, it is in the book. I even know what they wanted to accomplish, and I know it is necessary to reach that goal.
    But I Do think the chosen way was wrong, so I say so and even make proposals how the goal could be reached better - IMO of course.
    While even RT members tell us to produce critics and ideas, and try to help with the update, there is some ignorance in the response we are talking about, like he does his job, but he doesn't really care about it.
    That is a little annoying, so he was asked to stop doing that.
    If that is what ACS is supposed to do, just enforce a decission without caring about responces, you should really redefine what ACS should Do.
  • rolan wrote:

    i don t think There is a personal agenda involved.
    There is an somewhat agressive way to communicate, and there is no responce to arguments or proposals or even questions, but only the mantra of " RT was right" over and over.
    I know how RT decided, it is in the book. I even know what they wanted to accomplish, and I know it is necessary to reach that goal.
    But I Do think the chosen way was wrong, so I say so and even make proposals how the goal could be reached better - IMO of course.
    While even RT members tell us to produce critics and ideas, and try to help with the update, there is some ignorance in the response we are talking about, like he does his job, but he doesn't really care about it.
    That is a little annoying, so he was asked to stop doing that.
    If that is what ACS is supposed to do, just enforce a decission without caring about responces, you should really redefine what ACS should Do.

    Like I don't care? I took a lot time out from doing other things to try and correct people where they misunderstood things. Precisely because I care.

    Guess there's still a lot of need for that.

    - I don't think you're clear on what the RT objectives were. I think you're making assumptions, and I think a lot of people have been making assumptions, and I think those assumptions contradict what you've been flat-out told. Three-fold objective: fix UD external balance, bring the UD magic phase in-line with general principles of the game, keep the changes minimal. That's not per me, that's just me paraphrasing the Giladis quote someone dug up.

    - The RT welcomes criticism and ideas. So do I. But they need to be ideas aimed at the RT's goals. Which, if you don't realize that the goals include more than just "adjust UD's external balance", you're going to miss the target on.

    This is yet another part of what the ACS job is: to correct the community when they misunderstand things and try to help them focus their energies in constructive ways.




    Like, can we do a little role play here?

    Imagine you're the staff member. You read a thread where the community is misunderstanding something fairly major and they don't realize it.

    What should you do? How should you tell them that? Should you just let the misconception pass uncorrected? Kick back, relax, don't try to help?

    What should you then do when people get angry at being corrected?

    I welcome feedback on that. Remember: no contradicting the stated parameters. I want advice on what to do when the community *is* misunderstanding something.

    Background Team

  • Let's end the discussion about ACS here.
    It goes in circles and helps no one.

    Let's focus on doing what we can to salvage what we can from the book and show RT they made the wrong decision.
    We have tried with reason and with numbers, both failed.
    The only option left is to play and to report on how the healing is.

    I only ask for a bit of common sense and understanding from everybody. If it would seem everything is ok, the discussion should stop. If it would seem things are not ok, the H will be changed again?
    Pharaoh's Unite!

    ETC Team Belgium 2018 - Undying Dynasties
    ETC Team Belgium 2019 - Undying Dynasties
  • IHDarklord wrote:

    Let's end the discussion about ACS here.
    It goes in circles and helps no one.

    Let's focus on doing what we can to salvage what we can from the book and show RT they made the wrong decision.
    We have tried with reason and with numbers, both failed.
    The only option left is to play and to report on how the healing is.

    I only ask for a bit of common sense and understanding from everybody. If it would seem everything is ok, the discussion should stop. If it would seem things are not ok, the H will be changed again?
    Funny or sad?

    WhammeWhamme and Blond Beer both gave you concrete infos and instructions on that topic.

    I can repeat them for you in blunt words.

    a) The feedback, that in UD Communities perception, the doubling of H Spell change and big point rise is to much reached RT.
    If the case you did build using reason and numbers convinces RT, than one or the other or potential both will be changed.

    b) The chance for concrete suggestions for changes which follow the


    Three-fold objective: fix UD external balance, bring the UD magic phase in-line with general principles of the game, keep the changes minimal
    are more likely to be used than an addition here, another one there and number changes everywhere.

    That is the frame in which work and thoughts have a higher chance to become reality than outside.


    No matter if I, WhammeWhamme or the whole ACS staff likes that or not, that is the frame. Working within it takes the chance to influence. Working outside of it has a high risk of being fruitless and leading to disappointment.


    That said, my personal prediction would be either another change on the H spell or a change on the pricing of certain units. But that is what I
    Yes, sometimes you won't like what we have to tell you, but that doesn't mean we like that or that we hate your army.
  • TofuD2 wrote:

    Interesting that UD got a fairly considerable nerf, and VS barely got touched. I thought they were both in "uber" tier? Just an outsiders opinion ...

    That is for example a thing which might be adjusted one or the other way. In the final update.
  • Nicreap wrote:

    Can you take this to a pm? Adding more off topic aggression from staff isn't productive.

    If you have this much free time where is that data report? ;)

    Well I now have 2 hours less to do that, as I had to take a look if my ACS act okay and are treated okay. That time was reserved for something to do before I finish a blog post about the update procedure. After that in parallel I with prepareing adjustments for next years update I will continue to work on the report. It is still meant to hit around the date of the Update. (The final version).


    Oh, by the way about if that "off topic aggression from staff" existed, if off topic aggression from community members exists or if good intentions were mistaken, most of this page and several pms was about.
  • You come accross a bit angry, I hope you're still breathing alright?

    My post was not meant as funny or sad, I just would prefer talking about stuff that matters instead of talking about personal feelings and 'who's the bad guy'.

    Also, yes I can read, thank you!
    Pharaoh's Unite!

    ETC Team Belgium 2018 - Undying Dynasties
    ETC Team Belgium 2019 - Undying Dynasties
  • The only option left is to play and to report on how the healing is.
    This one came over as if you had missed some of the things people wanted to transport to your community. That would have been sad. It also sounded as if the numbers and reason which were provided had already failed. But the time to evaluate them still lies in the future. I belived that info to be relevant, too.

    I am not angry. That would express by me handing the scource of anger over to be solved by someone eIse as anger seldom is a good advisor. I more feel like a broken record.
  • Just_Flo wrote:

    It is still meant to hit around the date of the Update. (The final version).
    Just to be clear, you are asking us to demonstrate before the beta ends something should be reconsidered but aren't going to release the data the project is working on until after the beta is finished?

    The later makes the former rather challenging, wouldn't you agree?
    “You can never know everything, and part of what you know is always wrong. Perhaps even the most important part. A portion of wisdom lies in knowing that. A portion of courage lies in going on anyways.” -Lan Mandragoran, EotW


    Dovie’andi se tovya sagain.
  • The overall goal that we were told about was to improve external and internal balance. So the part about bringing the UD magic phase in line with T9A principles came as a shock. It also isn't strictly speaking necessary to balance, though it may achieve that. So it feels like going into the balance work with a solution in mind to me, but then I'm not in the RT meetings so I don't know how that work statement came to be and can only tell you how it feels to me after the fact.

    Looking forward to seeing how it all turns out.
  • Nicreap wrote:

    Just_Flo wrote:

    It is still meant to hit around the date of the Update. (The final version).
    Just to be clear, you are asking us to demonstrate before the beta ends something should be reconsidered but aren't going to release the data the project is working on until after the beta is finished?
    The later makes the former rather challenging, wouldn't you agree?
    Is it possible that we both speak about different reports?

    I mean the performance data of the armies.

    What your post seems to indicate is the usage data. Which both in every armyboard, in the Tournament board and the general board is accessible or linked from.

    If you mean additonal explanations to those that is exactly the blogarticle scheduled after what was my planed work for yesterday night.
  • WhammeWhamme wrote:

    rolan wrote:

    i don t think There is a personal agenda involved.
    There is an somewhat agressive way to communicate, and there is no responce to arguments or proposals or even questions, but only the mantra of " RT was right" over and over.
    I know how RT decided, it is in the book. I even know what they wanted to accomplish, and I know it is necessary to reach that goal.
    But I Do think the chosen way was wrong, so I say so and even make proposals how the goal could be reached better - IMO of course.
    While even RT members tell us to produce critics and ideas, and try to help with the update, there is some ignorance in the response we are talking about, like he does his job, but he doesn't really care about it.
    That is a little annoying, so he was asked to stop doing that.
    If that is what ACS is supposed to do, just enforce a decission without caring about responces, you should really redefine what ACS should Do.
    Like I don't care? I took a lot time out from doing other things to try and correct people where they misunderstood things. Precisely because I care.

    Guess there's still a lot of need for that.

    - I don't think you're clear on what the RT objectives were. I think you're making assumptions, and I think a lot of people have been making assumptions, and I think those assumptions contradict what you've been flat-out told. Three-fold objective: fix UD external balance, bring the UD magic phase in-line with general principles of the game, keep the changes minimal. That's not per me, that's just me paraphrasing the Giladis quote someone dug up.

    - The RT welcomes criticism and ideas. So do I. But they need to be ideas aimed at the RT's goals. Which, if you don't realize that the goals include more than just "adjust UD's external balance", you're going to miss the target on.

    This is yet another part of what the ACS job is: to correct the community when they misunderstand things and try to help them focus their energies in constructive ways.




    Like, can we do a little role play here?

    Imagine you're the staff member. You read a thread where the community is misunderstanding something fairly major and they don't realize it.

    What should you do? How should you tell them that? Should you just let the misconception pass uncorrected? Kick back, relax, don't try to help?

    What should you then do when people get angry at being corrected?

    I welcome feedback on that. Remember: no contradicting the stated parameters. I want advice on what to do when the community *is* misunderstanding something.
    the green colored part helped a lot to understand what is going on and why the+ 2 CV was chosen.
    This is what helps understanding decissions, insight in the ideas and goals that led to the decission.
    With this knowledge, critics can be a lot more constructive, and the seemingly unwanted additional effect of the decission Now makes sense.
    So My appologies for coming over harsh, and just a little advice: please be as open with the reasoning behind decissions as possible.
    It will not calm everybody, but it will help many people to answer constructively, and it will minimize missunderstandings between what was done and why.
    Knowing the goals, critism and proposals will be more to the point, making everybodys day easier.
    So thank you for your time, in this discussion and in the developement of this game. :)

    I still hope another way to reach the goals here is chosen in the end, but If not I have less problems accepting that, knowing the reasoning behind.
  • Seriously are we talking about UD changes in a topic called balance update 2.1 beta - summary and discussion ? or are we discussing of pro/con ACS ?

    If you really want to continue the discution pro/con ACS, could you please open another topic ?

    Could we continue to make and discuss proposals about the rules changes and try to find a good deal ? having people from other armies is interesting to make a consensus and be sure to have something which is accepted by a large part of the community.

    UD Community Support