Pinned Patch 2.2 Feedback

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!

  • eggsPR wrote:

    Hachiman Taro wrote:

    My point is the responses started vitriolic, and seemed to have remained so. That's not what the 'summary' I quoted would have you believe.

    Staff members consistently responding that such vitriol isn't possible to engage with constructively is a lot more reasonable in that context.

    There's little point engaging materially with the demands of someone who vitriollically insists you are part of some unreasonable conspiracy against them, because they've just demonstrated they don't wish to engage constructively.

    Volunteers who have limited time doing their best in good faith don't really have time to waste it like that. Nor is it reasonable to expect.
    Please, enough with the comments on vitriol. Those comments deemed so have been adequately removed, and we are all trying to move forward to an amicable solution.
    While the summary (supposed vitriol aside) accurately states the crux of this post in that data shows what happened to VC yet the project refuses to justify it an acceptable manner, and by bringing up the past in a vitriol sense has no bearing on what we’re discussing nor will it help anything or anybody.

    Please, again, I beg for civility.
    I believe I'm being perfectly civil here.

    Grouchy Badger wrote:

    Hachiman Taro wrote:

    Volunteers who have limited time
    Thats not an excuse.
    Whether it is or not, I don't owe you one.

    I'd be happy to explain what I understand of the process a bit better as I have time. But if the aim of the people I'm explaining it to seems to be only to find fault with it in order to support some pre-concieved (and IMHO very likely mistaken) conclusion they've already come to, that would seem to be a waste of time. Because at the end they'll just think what they already think anyway, and nothing will change (especially as I think the project will not make further changes to this update at this point, which is what you seem to be aiming at).

    Like, if you really think the project has got it in for you for some unknown to me reason, you won't credit anything I say anyway, so what's the point. Especially since it's a non trivial amount of work to trace back individual changes that had multiple points of input let alone the whole. if you're just gonna tell us it must be because we hate you, end of story that's a big waste of time. Does that make sense?

    Data Analysis

  • Hachiman Taro wrote:

    eggsPR wrote:

    Hachiman Taro wrote:

    My point is the responses started vitriolic, and seemed to have remained so. That's not what the 'summary' I quoted would have you believe.

    Staff members consistently responding that such vitriol isn't possible to engage with constructively is a lot more reasonable in that context.

    There's little point engaging materially with the demands of someone who vitriollically insists you are part of some unreasonable conspiracy against them, because they've just demonstrated they don't wish to engage constructively.

    Volunteers who have limited time doing their best in good faith don't really have time to waste it like that. Nor is it reasonable to expect.
    Please, enough with the comments on vitriol. Those comments deemed so have been adequately removed, and we are all trying to move forward to an amicable solution.While the summary (supposed vitriol aside) accurately states the crux of this post in that data shows what happened to VC yet the project refuses to justify it an acceptable manner, and by bringing up the past in a vitriol sense has no bearing on what we’re discussing nor will it help anything or anybody.

    Please, again, I beg for civility.
    I believe I'm being perfectly civil here.

    Grouchy Badger wrote:

    Hachiman Taro wrote:

    Volunteers who have limited time
    Thats not an excuse.
    Whether it is or not, I don't owe you one.
    I'd be happy to explain what I understand of the process a bit better as I have time. But if the aim of the people I'm explaining it to seems to be only to find fault with it in order to support some pre-concieved (and IMHO very likely mistaken) conclusion they've already come to, that would seem to be a waste of time. Because at the end they'll just think what they already think anyway, and nothing will change (especially as I think the project will not make further changes to this update at this point, which is what you seem to be aiming at).

    Like, if you really think the project has got it in for you for some unknown to me reason, you won't credit anything I say anyway, so what's the point. Especially since it's a non trivial amount of work to trace back individual changes that had multiple points of input let alone the whole. if you're just gonna tell us it must be because we hate you, end of story that's a big waste of time. Does that make sense?
    You put more work into your responses than the rule team does in explaining their changes and keeping a paper trail in order to more easily provide reasons for army changes, rule changes, and point changes.
    I am going to offend you. You are not going to like it. You will survive.

    Chaotic Neutral
    youtube.com/channel/UCJ9e5C1f26iuvhOA33rsFJQ

    Model Reviews with Twice the Brain Injuries!
  • Grouchy Badger wrote:

    You put more work into your responses than the rule team does in explaining their changes and keeping a paper trail in order to more easily provide reasons for army changes, rule changes, and point changes.

    Thank you, but I don't think that's actually true. They just have a lot more things to respond to, and probably a lot less willingness to engage with people yelling at them, since they get yelled at a lot about a lot of different things, some of them reasonable, many of them not.

    The current RT members I've directly engaged with have seemed very capable, reasonable, hard working, knowledgeable and fair to me. I've not always thought that in the past, and I understand it might not look like that from your perspective right now. I've found over time that when I express any disagreement I have with them civilly, supported with good facts and good reasoning, and actually listen when they have something reasonable to say back that I get better long term results with them, though not even approaching everything I would like.

    Hopefully some answers will be forthcoming that at least help you understand some of the changes better, if not agree with them. Sometimes it takes a little time to get all the right people / information all together for a reasonably well put together explanation.

    Data Analysis

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

  • It shouldn't take any time at all. This is something that ought to have been done in the first place; designer notes are not so unheard of in the industry that it's a novel concept to explain why something was changed. Even if it's just a sentence or two it's an important step being taken to offer up a reasoning for why certain decisions were made and breaks down the wall of silence that separates players from designers.

    When people ask for an explanation, the answer they get should not be radio silence nor should it be 'just trust us'.

    If the excuse for not engaging is because some people might have been a little terse in a thread, then I shudder to think of how they might react in an argument with real weight to it not about a board game.
  • Pigtails wrote:

    It shouldn't take any time at all. This is something that ought to have been done in the first place; designer notes are not so unheard of in the industry that it's a novel concept to explain why something was changed. Even if it's just a sentence or two it's an important step being taken to offer up a reasoning for why certain decisions were made and breaks down the wall of silence that separates players from designers.
    the sad thing is this very thing was raised well over two years ago internally, and the project clearly has no intention of taking such a simple step. Instead, the community has to cause a scene to get explanations for anything, and based on past performance, the most likely answer you will get when tree project finally answers is...
    "We don't remember" XD
    “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.
  • Hachiman Taro wrote:

    ometimes it takes a little time to get all the right people / information all together for a reasonably well put together explanation.
    I do not agree. If the people are together in order to make the changes, they are also together to compile those reasons via a meeting scribe and then have something to produce when the community calls upon it. Not to mention, they would avoid the screaming if they did the correct thing, and simply produce those reasons for changes automatically in a thread for the community to look at. Instead, they want to lazily play phone tag, and waste the ACS time by requesting "5 things you want to know".
    I am going to offend you. You are not going to like it. You will survive.

    Chaotic Neutral
    youtube.com/channel/UCJ9e5C1f26iuvhOA33rsFJQ

    Model Reviews with Twice the Brain Injuries!
  • I posted a rather extensive recap of all the VC nerfs in the past 2 updates complete with starting/finishing/percentage changes sorted by what I believe to be priority taken.

    I posted this on my time, as an outsider of the project.... a completely and utterly volunteer effort due to my love for the army and its hopeful viability.

    Nobody on the project thanked me nor attempted to engage with me over those details as I laid out as best I could.

    This saddens and disappoints me greatly, not for thanking me (though we are expected to continually thank the project team) but for avoiding engagement when confronted with concrete evidence of double nerfing a non-tier 1 army.

    And the RT still remains deafeningly silent.
    2012 ETC Eire - WDG
    2013 ETC Eire - VC
    2014 ETC Wales - DE
    2015 ETC USA - WDG
    2016 ETC USA (c) - VC
    2017 ETC USA (c) - VC
    2018 ETC USA (c) - VC
    2019 ETC USA - VC

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

  • eggsPR wrote:

    I posted a rather extensive recap of all the VC nerfs in the past 2 updates complete with starting/finishing/percentage changes sorted by what I believe to be priority taken.
    I saw a post with screenshots of excel tables with stuff like "DO YOUR JOB" scrawled over it in maybe MS paint.

    Is that the one you mean?

    Could you do me a favour and post or link to it again for reference?

    Data Analysis

  • Hachiman Taro wrote:

    eggsPR wrote:

    I posted a rather extensive recap of all the VC nerfs in the past 2 updates complete with starting/finishing/percentage changes sorted by what I believe to be priority taken.
    I saw a post with screenshots of excel tables with stuff like "DO YOUR JOB" scrawled over it in maybe MS paint.
    Is that the one you mean?

    Could you do me a favour and post or link to it again for reference?
    I think it’s still up - no need to link. I’ve since apologised for my passion.

    And you keep trying to highlight vitriol.

    Please, Again, for the 3rd time I believe, please try not to focus on the vitriol. I beg you, we are one team.
    2012 ETC Eire - WDG
    2013 ETC Eire - VC
    2014 ETC Wales - DE
    2015 ETC USA - WDG
    2016 ETC USA (c) - VC
    2017 ETC USA (c) - VC
    2018 ETC USA (c) - VC
    2019 ETC USA - VC

  • eggsPR wrote:

    I want explanations on every back-to-back hike and the Zero Changes, and why did you leave Untouched Units untouched despite them never being used.

    @Just_Flo feel free to label any of all that into your 1-5... chunk them if necessary.

    Overall VC updates consisted of reducing prices of obscure mundane weapon options and mounts nobody takes while nerfing most things most players take, twice over.

    Many doors are shutting while no doors are opening. That’s not balance.

    #doyourjob
    #RtGate

    eggsPR wrote:

    Hachiman Taro wrote:

    eggsPR wrote:

    I posted a rather extensive recap of all the VC nerfs in the past 2 updates complete with starting/finishing/percentage changes sorted by what I believe to be priority taken.
    I saw a post with screenshots of excel tables with stuff like "DO YOUR JOB" scrawled over it in maybe MS paint.Is that the one you mean?

    Could you do me a favour and post or link to it again for reference?
    I think it’s still up - no need to link. I’ve since apologised for my passion.
    And you keep trying to highlight vitriol.

    Please, Again, for the 3rd time I believe, please try not to focus on the vitriol. I beg you, we are one team.
    So these are the posts you mean? i'm not trying to highlight anything particularly, that's just the thing that stood out to me about it to describe it by (the fact that those sort of things are distracting is kind of the problem with them, but not what I'm trying to focus on particularly, but also not my fault).

    Can I ask you some questions about it though.

    Where did the popularity rating you included come from? Is that your own impression, or data based in some way?

    You keep saying "double nerfed". Just to clarify - you mean by this getting point rises in both rounds of the update, rather than something getting nerfed in two different ways at once - is that correct?

    Thirdly, do you think these figures (summaries I guess) prove something in particular, or just highlight things you think are problematic?

    These are genuine questions to help understand where you are coming from. I'm not trying to debate you on it with them in any way.

    Data Analysis

  • Yes I mean this information.

    The popularity comes from my own observations with VC lists. My observations include every tournament played everywhere (North America, all Europe/Asia, Aussie/NZ). I get this data through sources outside the website here. Play well throughout the world, drink with the best of them at ETC and back channels of information arises. There isn’t a tourney that I don’t see VC lists and translators are used where applicable. Please feel free to debate any of my rankings.

    Correct, double nerfed with the same category (base and base, or additional and additional).

    I think these figures prove that RT had a discussion amongst each other and someone may have said “Ok, so I know that ACS nerfed them already, but you know what, maybe we (the RT) need to go further because I think that (insert unsubstantiated opinion here) justifies them needing a nerf.” Combine that with some RT members preferring to avoid confrontation or don’t want to seem combative and just kinda going with the flow and accepting said double nerfs.

    This is something we’re humbly awaiting RT to either confirm or deny.

    The ACS will not be able to help us on this, @Just_Flo can perhaps do us a favour and escalate our concerns if RT isn’t watching this thread? Please and thanks.
    2012 ETC Eire - WDG
    2013 ETC Eire - VC
    2014 ETC Wales - DE
    2015 ETC USA - WDG
    2016 ETC USA (c) - VC
    2017 ETC USA (c) - VC
    2018 ETC USA (c) - VC
    2019 ETC USA - VC

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

  • I put only the double nerfs, in nov have many Price rises
    gortach 20 + 5,
    5 + 5 base centaurs,
    chariot beastlord 20 + 20
    core mongrels + 1p spears and +10 wild banner, +15 base cost -1 additional model

    units are overused because unused units need rule changes rather than a small rebate

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

  • eggsPR wrote:

    Yes I mean this information.

    The popularity comes from my own observations with VC lists. My observations include every tournament played everywhere (North America, all Europe/Asia, Aussie/NZ). I get this data through sources outside the website here. Play well throughout the world, drink with the best of them at ETC and back channels of information arises. There isn’t a tourney that I don’t see VC lists and translators are used where applicable. Please feel free to debate any of my rankings.

    Correct, double nerfed with the same category (base and base, or additional and additional).

    I think these figures prove that RT had a discussion amongst each other and someone may have said “Ok, so I know that ACS nerfed them already, but you know what, maybe we (the RT) need to go further because I think that (insert unsubstantiated opinion here) justifies them needing a nerf.” Combine that with some RT members preferring to avoid confrontation or don’t want to seem combative and just kinda going with the flow and accepting said double nerfs.

    This is something we’re humbly awaiting RT to either confirm or deny.

    The ACS will not be able to help us on this, @Just_Flo can perhaps do us a favour and escalate our concerns if RT isn’t watching this thread? Please and thanks.

    You mentioned ACS nerving VC? How should they have done it? (I have already explained the procedere used for both Patches several times to you in the PM we had and in this thread so I am puzzled how and why the ACS
    should have done that.) Just in case it was drowned in this very thread the ACS did collect input from the VC community and forwarded it to RT.

    So claiming the ACS did nerf VC is like claiming the VC community did ask for nerfs of VC.

    Yes, claims and fallacies like that make it incredible hard to identify where the Hyperbol ends and where the thing which might have a point start.

    The usage analysis which is publi avaiable lists every Tourney from which the lists are used and numbers the lists used. Also it uses a given and explained sorting in grades. Can you explain your sorting?

    The scource material and the raw Tourney per Tourney data is avaiable for it. Also it regards entries and units at a total different scope (= it differencates options and size).

    So how should we compare or validate your "input"?

    All lists TA analysed are linked to and can be checked. How is that with the lists you used?
  • I now share with you what I did share with the ACS a few minutes ago.

    Just_Flo wrote:

    Here is what I got regarding actions on ACS and EE feedback regarding VC:

    Just_Flo wrote:

    Here one can look up the Tourney and the results EggsPR mentioned somewhere above
    Grail Quest -> warscore.net/event/848/20191209044725



    Bloodline Von Karstein - ACS said overpriced. RT listened and lowered price.

    Stormcaller - ACS said overpriced. RT listened and lowered price.

    Ghoul Lord - EE said too cheap. RT listened and raised price.

    Arcane Knowledge - EE said too cheap. RT listened and raised price.

    Nights Crown - ACS said overpriced. RT listened and lowered price.

    Count Spectral Steed - EE said too cheap. RT disagreed, did not increase price.

    Zombie Dragon / Shrieking Horrors - EE in majority said triple flying monster should not be allowed. ACS wanted to keep it and offered a minimum collateral solution if RT belived it should go. RT agreed with the majority of EE and used ACS suggestion to add restriction to Horrors instead of increasing prices.

    Courtier Spectral Steed - EE said too cheap. RT listened and raised price.

    Barrow King Steed - EE said too cheap. RT listened and raised price.

    Banshee - EE said overpriced. RT listened and lowered price.

    Zombie starting price - EE said too cheap. RT listened and raised price.

    Barrow Guard starting price - EE had mixed response, RT made no change to unit but reduced cost of Halberd option.

    Barrow Knights - ACS said overpriced. RT listened and lowered price.

    Cadaver Wagon - EE said overpriced. RT listened and lowered price.

    Court of the Damned - EE said overpriced. RT listened and lowered price.

    Altar - EE said overpriced. RT disagreed and did not lower price.

    Coach - EE said too cheap. RT listened and raised base price, but also lowered price for extended chassis.

    Phantom Host - EE said too cheap. RT listened and raised price.

    Wraiths - No feedback from ACS/EE, but RT determined they were too cheap and raised price, but reduced conclave price.

    Spectral Hunters - EE said overpriced. RT listened and lowered price.

    Vampire Knights - EE said too cheap. RT listened and raised price.

    Varkolak - EE said too cheap. RT listened and raised price.

    Vampire Spawn - EE said too cheap. RT listened and raised starting price but lowered additional model price.

    ==>In the majority of these pricings, RT reduced price more and raised price less than any numbers suggested in the feedback.
    When EE was asked to provide an expected Tier list after 2.1 beta changes, their combined Feedback did put VC as #1.
    EE said means the majority of EE writing something on the topic.
    Info from 1 RT which I did let check from 2 other RT (and as a result slightly modified to match their feedback on it)
  • eggsPR wrote:

    Guy please, I beg you, let’s all be civil. We all need to calm down. Remember, we are all one single team.

    @Masamune88 the VC ACS @Wesser already stated in prior pages that they were blindsided by the RT move to further nerf.

    @Just_Flo just seems to be running interference at this point... the community issue is not with the ACS (though we can argue why you spent time reducing points for a Barrow Kind Halberd by 5pts instead of dropping never-taken Alters by 20pts, that’s a whole other issue).

    Our issue is mainly with the RT who enacted the December double nerfs (we should have had zero double nerfs since VC not tier 1), nor any other buffs to encourage other unused units. It is the ACS who should be communicating to RT about this blindsiding and reporting back to the community.

    But instead, the community is getting stonewalled by the ACS which to me makes zero sense.

    I get that the project team is a tight-knit community but this feels more than that.

    Please all, we need to be civil.
    Blindsided? Remember again that ACS have virtually no power. I'm basically just a postman in this process

    I tried to get some answers before the patch went live, but maybe my communication skills weren't up to it.. or maybe people were busy, because I didn't get any answer that made sense to me (the best was "EE said it was too strong"). I didn't really think I needed to make a post with that sort of feedback...

    eggsPR wrote:

    I posted a rather extensive recap of all the VC nerfs in the past 2 updates complete with starting/finishing/percentage changes sorted by what I believe to be priority taken.

    I posted this on my time, as an outsider of the project.... a completely and utterly volunteer effort due to my love for the army and its hopeful viability.

    Nobody on the project thanked me nor attempted to engage with me over those details as I laid out as best I could.

    This saddens and disappoints me greatly, not for thanking me (though we are expected to continually thank the project team) but for avoiding engagement when confronted with concrete evidence of double nerfing a non-tier 1 army.

    And the RT still remains deafeningly silent.
    I'll be happy to talk, when we've cooled down a bit maybe had a game or two for perspective. The odds of changing anything is slim to nothing, but worst-case scenario is that we gather feedback for next patch or considerations for FAB.

    Later today I'll make a post where we can decide on the top issues we'll like a more thorough explanation for. Don't get your hopes up though. With 16 armies and FAB developments chances are that RT don't remember their reasoning no more

    Just_Flo wrote:

    I now share with you what I did share with the ACS a few minutes ago.

    Just_Flo wrote:

    Here is what I got regarding actions on ACS and EE feedback regarding VC:

    Just_Flo wrote:

    Here one can look up the Tourney and the results EggsPR mentioned somewhere above
    Grail Quest -> warscore.net/event/848/20191209044725



    Bloodline Von Karstein - ACS said overpriced. RT listened and lowered price.

    Stormcaller - ACS said overpriced. RT listened and lowered price.

    Ghoul Lord - EE said too cheap. RT listened and raised price.

    Arcane Knowledge - EE said too cheap. RT listened and raised price.

    Nights Crown - ACS said overpriced. RT listened and lowered price.

    Count Spectral Steed - EE said too cheap. RT disagreed, did not increase price.

    Zombie Dragon / Shrieking Horrors - EE in majority said triple flying monster should not be allowed. ACS wanted to keep it and offered a minimum collateral solution if RT belived it should go. RT agreed with the majority of EE and used ACS suggestion to add restriction to Horrors instead of increasing prices.

    Courtier Spectral Steed - EE said too cheap. RT listened and raised price.

    Barrow King Steed - EE said too cheap. RT listened and raised price.

    Banshee - EE said overpriced. RT listened and lowered price.

    Zombie starting price - EE said too cheap. RT listened and raised price.

    Barrow Guard starting price - EE had mixed response, RT made no change to unit but reduced cost of Halberd option.

    Barrow Knights - ACS said overpriced. RT listened and lowered price.

    Cadaver Wagon - EE said overpriced. RT listened and lowered price.

    Court of the Damned - EE said overpriced. RT listened and lowered price.

    Altar - EE said overpriced. RT disagreed and did not lower price.

    Coach - EE said too cheap. RT listened and raised base price, but also lowered price for extended chassis.

    Phantom Host - EE said too cheap. RT listened and raised price.

    Wraiths - No feedback from ACS/EE, but RT determined they were too cheap and raised price, but reduced conclave price.

    Spectral Hunters - EE said overpriced. RT listened and lowered price.

    Vampire Knights - EE said too cheap. RT listened and raised price.

    Varkolak - EE said too cheap. RT listened and raised price.

    Vampire Spawn - EE said too cheap. RT listened and raised starting price but lowered additional model price.

    ==>In the majority of these pricings, RT reduced price more and raised price less than any numbers suggested in the feedback.
    When EE was asked to provide an expected Tier list after 2.1 beta changes, their combined Feedback did put VC as #1.
    EE said means the majority of EE writing something on the topic.
    Info from 1 RT which I did let check from 2 other RT (and as a result slightly modified to match their feedback on it)
    I wish you hadn't shared that list....
  • eggsPR wrote:

    Yes I mean this information.

    The popularity comes from my own observations with VC lists. My observations include every tournament played everywhere (North America, all Europe/Asia, Aussie/NZ). I get this data through sources outside the website here. Play well throughout the world, drink with the best of them at ETC and back channels of information arises. There isn’t a tourney that I don’t see VC lists and translators are used where applicable. Please feel free to debate any of my rankings.

    Correct, double nerfed with the same category (base and base, or additional and additional).

    I think these figures prove that RT had a discussion amongst each other and someone may have said “Ok, so I know that ACS nerfed them already, but you know what, maybe we (the RT) need to go further because I think that (insert unsubstantiated opinion here) justifies them needing a nerf.” Combine that with some RT members preferring to avoid confrontation or don’t want to seem combative and just kinda going with the flow and accepting said double nerfs.

    This is something we’re humbly awaiting RT to either confirm or deny.

    The ACS will not be able to help us on this, @Just_Flo can perhaps do us a favour and escalate our concerns if RT isn’t watching this thread? Please and thanks.
    So you're right in that ACS like myself can't answer directly for RT (though Just_Flo can provide some answers from them sometimes, as he did above). But what I can do is hope help clarify the process somewhat, to clear up some misconceptions there may be. And I gather there may be a few.

    1) Firstly, the first round of changes in the update were largely data based. Along with army performance data which is ongoing, list data was collected from 70+ tournaments (something like 295 VC lists) all over the world (this collected list data is publically available BTW here: the-ninth-age.com/community/in…used-for-the-2019-update/ and also here on your own forum the-ninth-age.com/community/in…eylist-analysis/&pageNo=1). Your 'popularity rating' could therefore be determined from the objective data here rather than your own play impressions if you'd like to look at it (it's probably not too far off anyway). Also if you looked at this data I think you might discover for yourself some reasons some things went up or down (basically, more used things tended to go up, less used ones tended to go down). In the end this as I understand it this data is fed into an algorithm that rates the popularity of each entry on a scale of 1-5 (to somewhat match the survey scores that follow).

    Also External Experts (or 'EE' I gather like yourself) were also surveyed as to their view on the effectiveness of each entry in a book, as were the community in general on a scale of 1-5 (with 1 being strongest and 5 being weakest).

    RT were informed by all this data in making the first round of changes. They compared usage rates to the overall assessment of how strong each entry was in the context of the armies tier ranking (determined by overall ongoing performance data), and came up with changes they deemed reasonable. By and large, I think they were.

    You noted things that were less used tended to get price drops, this is true and I believe intentional. Rather than 'irrelevant' drops the aim here is to make those things more relevant. The most used / most powerful things tended not to get price drops, and in fact often got price rises - especially for armies in the upper tiers. This also was intentional, to both improve internal and external balance. The less used things will tend to get used more when they get cheaper and the strongest things get more expensive. Note that even armies in lower tiers (such as SE) tended to get their best / most used things go up in cost (eg the SE Wild Hunter Elk Lord got "double nerfed" as you put it).

    2) Then there was a Beta playtesting stage to somewhat test the changes. I don't believe a significant amount of actual data was collected during this period, nor was there really the time or number of events to. Essentially the project relied on staff, external experts and the community to provide feedback here, especially on any major problems, to see if the data based changes were essentially ok.

    3) At the end of the beta playtesting phase, both army communities via ACS and EE I believe were invited to submit feedback on the changes. For various reasons, community feedback via ACS is almost invariably for points drops and buffs for their own armies (go figure). So likely feedback for further point raises came from EE feedback (which you can see is basically true from Just_Flo's response from RT above). I don't know if RT added any of their own further changes after reflection on playtesting / feedback here, but I gather generally not they just mainly considered the feedback.

    I believe there are some significant improvements we can make to this process, but also it's a significant improvement on previous processes where balance updates were more or less determined through an average of 'expert' opinions on RT and / or BLT. A lot more objective data gathering analysis and comprehensive feedback thought goes into it than previously I believe. And there are plans in action to improve the process further for next time. Having said that, I actually agree with you that there were some processes still that are prone to produce human error in there, and not just for VC, you're not alone.

    One thing the process raises to me about the idea of a 'double nerf' is that I don't think that's a particularly good description. It gives the impression, supported by some of your arguments about data pick rates etc in the playtesting phase etc, that the entry in question was doubly harmed, when that's not really what is important. Really it just matters if the entry reaches the most balanced point we can determine for it at the end of the process. The second round of changes were really adjustments to the first, based on feedback, not a whole new balance update based on new data. An entry that jumps 100% in one round of changes is still more nerfed than an entry that jumps 10% twice in two rounds of changes, even though the latter was "double nerfed".

    I don't think it's especially relevant, except for the fact that the second round of changes (especially those based on feedback from External Experts) wasn't especially based on data AFAIK, or able to be broadly play tested, and that's a source of potential error - which VC certainly aren't alone in, but possibly hits higher tier armies harder (since they are likely to receive more nerfs overall). That is somewhat a source of concern when the changes become more subjective and less tested. Overall, I still think the process is pretty good compared to the past.

    I hope that clarifies some things. Bear in mind this is not really an official project response, but me just sharing what I know and my thoughts about it openly. I don't know enough about VC to address your more specific concerns in a well informed manner. Hope that helps though.

    Data Analysis

    The post was edited 4 times, last by Hachiman Taro ().