Pinned DE 2.1 Balance Patch

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!

  • noir wrote:

    @DanT I think what crafty means is that some entries get taken often even though they are not the most competitive.

    This is the Problem with data, they can not take that into account. Thus definitely could be the case with DR with xbows. As long as they’re not ridiculously overpriced. I mean most of us know it’d be sensible to take them without xbows pre 2.1. still the data Must have shown the xbows are taken extremely often. But the wide community is not a top player. I don’t think he means that units should be proved wrong, but priced right for their potential.
    Surprise surprise, no approach to balance is perfect... :)

    Aside:
    "some entries get taken often even though they are not the most competitive"
    Can you justify that this happens enough to have a meaningful skew to the data?


    Here is the problem in what you are saying:
    "but priced right for their potential"
    Who decides? How? Cause everyone will have a different number in mind when they say priced right for their potential.
    Maybe the new price for these guys is the right price for their potential. How would one tell?
    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
    Empire of Dannstahl HERE
  • SmithF wrote:


    I believe all of the changes were warranted, I was starting to believe that the oracles all come with a dragon and the familiar as base equipment.

    Just wondering whether it was purpose to forbid the foot-fighty occultism oracle (familiar, Destiny's, Moraec's).
    It was one of the "fluffier" elements so far which realy made fun playing infantry lists.

    I guess you experts did not consider the point rise of Destiny's Call :D no good job unfortunately
  • DanT wrote:

    noir wrote:

    @DanT I think what crafty means is that some entries get taken often even though they are not the most competitive.

    This is the Problem with data, they can not take that into account. Thus definitely could be the case with DR with xbows. As long as they’re not ridiculously overpriced. I mean most of us know it’d be sensible to take them without xbows pre 2.1. still the data Must have shown the xbows are taken extremely often. But the wide community is not a top player. I don’t think he means that units should be proved wrong, but priced right for their potential.
    Surprise surprise, no approach to balance is perfect... :)
    Aside:
    "some entries get taken often even though they are not the most competitive"
    Can you justify that this happens enough to have a meaningful skew to the data?


    Here is the problem in what you are saying:
    "but priced right for their potential"
    Who decides? How? Cause everyone will have a different number in mind when they say priced right for their potential.
    Maybe the new price for these guys is the right price for their potential. How would one tell?
    Because their shooting does not do much before they die. Would you take them as chaff with xbows now? I think not. In anyway at least I won’t. Just chaff is good enough. I think it was a mistake and even at 200 I was really thinking about it. Now I’ll just stay with the naked ones. The thing with data is that they are just data. People still have to check them. And until core tax is removed people will always take chaff out of core. The data wouldn’t show that either.
  • noir wrote:

    Because their shooting does not do much before they die. Would you take them as chaff with xbows now? I think not. In anyway at least I won’t. Just chaff is good enough. I think it was a mistake and even at 200 I was really thinking about it. Now I’ll just stay with the naked ones. The thing with data is that they are just data. People still have to check them. And until core tax is removed people will always take chaff out of core. The data wouldn’t show that either.
    So, to be clear, your argument is this:
    "I (noir) in my infinite wisdom think this is wrong".
    "The problem with data is that it is just data".

    I await your concrete proposal to the RT detailing an alternative method of points updates :)
    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
    Empire of Dannstahl HERE
  • Knight wrote:

    "The amount of options available is huge and even a 90 or 100 point increase to a list is actually a 2% change —> largely irrelevant."

    Said no GT winner, ever.
    Fun fact: GT winners will keep winning even if they played with 500 points less. Case in point: @DanT managing impressive results with every single list he's taken, even the ones that are considered weak. Or @Furion leading "5th tier" HBE to victory again and again. (disclaimer: I think that the tiers are so close together in T9A that we shouldn't even bother with this kind of differentiation)

    But what do I know about all that.

    da_griech wrote:

    Just wondering whether it was purpose to forbid the foot-fighty occultism oracle (familiar, Destiny's, Moraec's).
    It was one of the "fluffier" elements so far which realy made fun playing infantry lists.

    I guess you experts did not consider the point rise of Destiny's Call no good job unfortunately
    Just to point out that I had no influence on the outcome of the balance patch whatsoever: it was done by other people, I am just arguing that for once they almost aced it.

    Regarding the foot-fighty occultism oracle, you can get a cheaper version using Essence of Mithril. Or, even better, go for Cosmology and just ignore the whole familiar issue. Lots of options, still available! ;)
  • noir wrote:

    This is not a tone i care to discuss in dan. This is spiteful. i don’t see where this is necessary having various good chats with you in mind.
    Ah, it seems I have come across badly.

    There was no intended tone from my side other than academic exploration of the issue.

    Perhaps you can show me how to present my post in a more neutral way if it has come across badly?
    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
    Empire of Dannstahl HERE
  • I am surprised by all the negativity honestly. EVERY subforum complains, that "their" strongest entries get nerfed. Well duh, that's the point of making the books better balanced internally. Just head over to any other subforum and everybody will pick the nerfs to the best five entries and claim they overshadow all the buffs. Our book had 43 point buffs and only 15 point nerfs and reading this thread you get the feeling DE got axed hard, because initial 15 Legionnaires got 5 pts more expensive.

    So you've been playing the most optimized min-maxed list? Are you really surprised that your stuff got nerfed? I mean, I see complaints about the Legionnaire changes. They got: 5 pts more expensive for min-sized, equal for 20, and cheaper for everything else. Design-wise they are the meant to be the most numerous unit (hence the starting of 15 and capability to play 50 models in one unit). And you still complain, because the abusive min-sized-15-man-unit is nerfed? Why not applaud the team for making larger units more viable?

    On the topic of list validity: Classic topic of "You can't have your cake and eat it, too". Everything should change, imbalances be eliminated BUT MY LIST SHOULD NOT CHANGE. Reminds me of a post I read here once, where a DE player complained, that Corsairs and Legionnaires are now viable, because his collection only contained GW Witch Elves and Dark Rider models.

    The one thing that bothers me is the obvious focus on ETC which quite apparentley dominates the thinking and balancing process of the involved team. We keep being told, that balance is made for singles tournaments, but obviously the metric for internal balance is ETC lists. It's to be expected and understandable, I still don't like it.

    Tool Support Battle Scribe

    Community Engagement


    My blog with battle reports and painting gallery: bleaklegion.wordpress.com/
  • @DanT
    So, to be clear, your argument is this:
    "I (noir) in my infinite wisdom think this is wrong".
    "The problem with data is that it is just data".

    your argument is that you would not take them would. How can this be a fact? And how does it speak for all DE players? It may be possible that this is too much but how can you know already now, 1 day after the update?

    I await your concrete proposal to the RTdetailing an alternative method of points updates


    something like this?
  • DarkSky wrote:

    The one thing that bothers me is the obvious focus on ETC which quite apparentley dominates the thinking and balancing process of the involved team. We keep being told, that balance is made for singles tournaments, but obviously the metric for internal balance is ETC lists. It's to be expected and understandable, I still don't like it.
    Can you explain this obvious focus and how you came to this conclusion please?
    Have you compared ETC data vs complete aggregated data?
    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
    Empire of Dannstahl HERE
  • noir wrote:

    @DanT
    So, to be clear, your argument is this:
    "I (noir) in my infinite wisdom think this is wrong".
    "The problem with data is that it is just data".

    your argument is that you would not take them would. How can this be a fact? And how does it speak for all DE players? It may be possible that this is too much but how can you know already now, 1 day after the update?

    I await your concrete proposal to the RTdetailing an alternative method of points updates


    something like this?
    Interesting. That reads worse me to me. How curious.

    Ok then, ignore my previous post, and tell me if this is any better:

    Do I understand correctly that your argument is that you (specific, not third person) would not take them?
    What if other players (DE or otherwise) think differently? How should that tension be resolved?
    How else would you handle the data? Or would you not use it at all?
    Do you have a concrete alternative proposal that the project can use for points updates? (Because ultimately it isn't about finding the perfect methodology, but merely the best one proposed so far)
    Does said methodology involve more work than the current approach? From whom?
    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
    Empire of Dannstahl HERE
  • DarkSky wrote:

    I am surprised by all the negativity honestly. EVERY subforum complains, that "their" strongest entries get nerfed. Well duh, that's the point of making the books better balanced internally. Just head over to any other subforum and everybody will pick the nerfs to the best five entries and claim they overshadow all the buffs. Our book had 43 point buffs and only 15 point nerfs and reading this thread you get the feeling DE got axed hard, because initial 15 Legionnaires got 5 pts more expensive.
    Haha well spoken! :D and good one :D
  • DanT wrote:

    DarkSky wrote:

    The one thing that bothers me is the obvious focus on ETC which quite apparentley dominates the thinking and balancing process of the involved team. We keep being told, that balance is made for singles tournaments, but obviously the metric for internal balance is ETC lists. It's to be expected and understandable, I still don't like it.
    Can you explain this obvious focus and how you came to this conclusion please?Have you compared ETC data vs complete aggregated data?
    Well:
    1. First thing posted is comparison of ETC lists against balance patch changes. Although these are Team lists. We do have a lot of lists of single tournaments not being compared. (Disclaimer: I know the intention was to present point changes of competitive lists and the ETC lists are a good place to start looking for that and I was interested in that data as well.)
    2. A lot of team members come from ETC teams. Seeing how much preparation goes into this (e.g. Ninth Scroll interview with German Team member), the members look more towards that event (it's basically impossible for a human being to be objective on this matter, if somebody is involved in literally several games a week for over a year to prepare for exactly that event and be completely impartial on the balancing of the game and balance it for singles instead of teams). I also seem to recall that most "external experts" being asked come from the ETC teams.
    3. I did not a full compare, but did read DE lists quite a lot. I have not seen, e.g. multiple Hydras in single tournament lists (the Kraken was more present in lists), but qute often in team tournament lists, Hydra got three point nerfs between 0.201 and now (nearly 10% more expensive now), Kraken remained roughly the same (only one nerf in 0.202).
    4. Another data point might be the Oracle Dragon (didn't observe this enough). My impression was that Oracle Dragons are played successfully in a lot of singles lists, yet the Dragon mount was made cheaper quite a bit. But I am not sure on this.

    Tool Support Battle Scribe

    Community Engagement


    My blog with battle reports and painting gallery: bleaklegion.wordpress.com/
  • Just an advice to the DE community

    So, we got an point update, in the old Warhammer world considered as a new army book. I remember receving a new army book as the most exciting times within our gaming world, some like Bretonnia having to wait for years. I also remember the collective response: CREATIVITY.

    As soon as the new book was out, people did not complain about the discredited builds or said: OK, now I stop playing with DE until a better book comes out. I am not sure if this is the result from a autocratic rules provider to a democratic rules provider and if this says something about power of the people/democracy. Nevertheless, it is not a positive approach.

    What used to happen was: accept, analyse, start becoming creative/finding combos'. Why is this not happening at the moment? We can not change the update, accept it, and find ways how to still play your cool list (we have 4500 points) or invent new ones.

    Although I agree with @Willzilla that certain DE items are just so characteristic that they will always be taken, such as Midnight Cloak, Familiar and now also Moreac Reaping, or the whole core tax, and thus increasing their price on data is not the good approach, maybe their current price was not yet the ideal price compared to our other items.

    I like the general concept the creators are taking. For example the Dark Raiders. Due to the amazing close range shooting with Cadaron, they want to create a distinction between cheap redirectors (5 raiders without RXB), and mobile shooting units (10 raiders with RXB). As @SmithF showed, Dark Raiders are movement miracles, but are never taken in 10 man units. This change could change that.
    Follow the adventures of Lord Drakon with his deadly Spartans at: XIII Legion Spartans
  • DarkSky wrote:

    Well:
    1. First thing posted is comparison of ETC lists against balance patch changes. Although these are Team lists. We do have a lot of lists of single tournaments not being compared. (Disclaimer: I know the intention was to present point changes of competitive lists and the ETC lists are a good place to start looking for that and I was interested in that data as well.)
    2. A lot of team members come from ETC teams. Seeing how much preparation goes into this (e.g. Ninth Scroll interview with German Team member), the members look more towards that event (it's basically impossible for a human being to be objective on this matter, if somebody is involved in literally several games a week for over a year to prepare for exactly that event and be completely impartial on the balancing of the game and balance it for singles instead of teams). I also seem to recall that most "external experts" being asked come from the ETC teams.
    3. I did not a full compare, but did read DE lists quite a lot. I have not seen, e.g. multiple Hydras in single tournament lists (the Kraken was more present in lists), but qute often in team tournament lists, Hydra got three point nerfs between 0.201 and now (nearly 10% more expensive now), Kraken remained roughly the same (only one nerf in 0.202).
    4. Another data point might be the Oracle Dragon (didn't observe this enough). My impression was that Oracle Dragons are played successfully in a lot of singles lists, yet the Dragon mount was made cheaper quite a bit. But I am not sure on this.

    So you haven't actually done a systematic comparison?
    And you haven't asked internally about the details of the process?

    Here is my gut feeling: I think ETC lists aren't given any really meaningful extra special attention in terms of the data that is fed into the process.
    Maybe you can find out internally which of our guesses is more correct?
    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
    Empire of Dannstahl HERE
  • Cough Cough.

    The data we used was a mix of community feedback (remember the surveys?), EE feedback, a load of events (yes also ETC but also single events) and stuff Im proparly forgetting since I didnt handle this.

    I do think we could get better Singles data, if people/TOs actually passed those on better, but as it stands, yeah single event data is actively being used.
  • POLLO&POLPI PICCANTE
    ++ Dread Elves (Dread Elves 2.1) [4,500pts] ++

    + Characters +

    Captain [425pts]: Battle Standard Bearer, Beast Master, Heavy Armour, Lance, Shield
    . Elven Horse
    . Special Equipment: Death Cheater

    Dread Prince [645pts]: Army General, Great Weapon, Heavy Armour
    . Cult of Nabh
    . Manticore
    . Special Equipment: Basalt Infusion, Blessed Inscriptions, Lucky Charm, Pendant of Disdain

    + Core +

    Corsairs [200pts]: 10x Corsair, Musician, Paired Weapons

    Dark Raiders [165pts]: 5x Dark Raider

    Dark Raiders [165pts]: 5x Dark Raider

    Dark Raiders [165pts]: 5x Dark Raider

    Dread Legionnaires [220pts]: 15x Dread Legionnaire, Musician, Spears

    Dread Legionnaires [220pts]: 15x Dread Legionnaire, Musician, Spears

    + Special +

    Dark Acolytes [390pts]: Champion, Cult of Yema, 5x Dark Acolyte

    Dark Acolytes [355pts]: Champion, 5x Dark Acolyte

    Divine Altar [380pts]: Paired Weapons

    + The Menagerie +

    Kraken [390pts]

    Kraken [390pts]

    Kraken [390pts]

    ++ Total: [4,500pts] ++

    Created with BattleScribe

    look guys, it may not be a top tier list, and ATM i’m more about the launch of Black Desert Mobile so i’m not very aware of the meta, but looks like super funny and even quite effective. I can’t blame. All the heavy sh*t i like is unleashed.

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

  • Funny how the names with colours are all jumping to conclusions about the "complaining" from players.
    ....this is a beta update. The "complaining" is rather light. It's literally people just asking "what's up with these point changes that don't make sense?".

    Instead of shouting at the players to "stop complaining", just keep in mind that many of us give feedback in a neutral tone that could be read as complaining but it's not really.

    ----------------------
    @DanT ...I'm pretty sure you understand that concept of "iconic units". I swear we had this conversation over on the EoS forums last year? It might have been someone else.

    Anyway, for those who don't know - many armies have iconic units which people will always take because that's the reason they play the army. If that unit or group of units is unplayable, the players merely switch armies instead of trying out other combos because they literally lose interest in the army when they favorite cool unit is no longer viable.
    So when you keep increasing points of an iconic unit, you get an inflation zone where players will still take the unit even though it's slightly over-costed. Then eventually it becomes over-costed and it stops being used, and then you'll see a random comment by a new player to the army who says "why is this unit like a 100pts more than it should be?, am i using it wrong or something?".

    HighBorn Elves is a perfect example. Die hard players using their army until it was in a bottom tier of it's own.
  • Peacemaker wrote:

    Instead of shouting at the players to "stop complaining", just keep in mind that many of us give feedback in a neutral tone that could be read as complaining but it's not really.
    Actually me and ACS are quite happy with any and all feedback. We asked for it with a reason. I might read posts that are.. lets say more expressive with their language with a bit more bias, but hey thats human nature.