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:

    DanT wrote:

    eggsPR wrote:

    What happened to VC was IMO a result of non-data-driven malice

    eggsPR wrote:

    Our issue is mainly with the RT who enacted the December double nerfs
    According to the current public list of RT members, 2 out of 6 of them are your countrymen, who I believe you know fairly well.One option might be to speak to them directly... although I guess they may be unimpressed with your claims that they are biased and making changes maliciously...

    It is very easy to claim malice on behalf of the decision makers... and very difficult (particularly given the number of possibilities, and breadth of views and context in the community) to come up with a system that will not result in such claims from at least one faction.
    Good morning Dan! Great suggestion if I was as good at Politics as perhaps you may be, but alas I am not.
    You see, when I say I I mean the collective “i” as in the VC community. “I” can’t contact RT members directly as it would a) be impossible unless here on this very forum and b) be exclusionary in PMs which is something we don’t want. We are all one big Vampire family and I’d prefer to have all out in the open as transparency is always a plus.

    Dan, you seem to know the RT member makeup - can you do us a huge favour and tag them? PerhAps if they know that we’re having a massive discussion relating to their opinions on EE opinions while seemingly discounting data and ACS Oct updates, they may help us out.

    If you tag them you can help them help us, thanks.
    Mate, if that's what you're truely looking for...there is a tab called 'members'. You can easily find it at the top of the forums. It'll show you everything you need, just like this:

    RT.jpg

    Full Layout Coordinator

    Translation Team DE

    VC Community Support

    Supporter of Veil of the Ages

  • irvingberlin wrote:

    Just_Flo wrote:

    When I get more I will give you more.
    First off I appreciate the fact that you are in here at least trying to have a dialogue. I've worked customer service in the past and its the worst. And you're not even getting paid for it.

    This last line from your last post is honestly the biggest issue I have with this whole update and the entire project in general. The fact that you have to go ask for more info on why things were changed is absurd. Every single time a change is made beyond aesthetic someone should be logging that as a patch note. If the powers that be are all having a discussion and then a vote on what changes need to be made then there should be a record that can be released with the patch. It will give everyone involved, be they staff or expert players or beer and pretzel guys, a starting point on the discussion. At least we will see the reasoning behind it. We may not like it but we may be able to understand it.

    If the people running the show want to keep their choices clandestine for some reason, which consistently seems to be the case, that does not bode well for this project.
    I agree. There is an absolute shutdown of communication, and at this point im even wondering why there is even ACS when the RT don't even listen to them.
    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!
  • Mate, thanks I didn’t know there was a search function like that! @DanT please stand down - no need to tag - Lich King helped me out!

    @Blonde Beer
    @fjugin
    @Krokz
    @Sir_Joker
    @Snarkhunter
    @thedoctor

    Greetings RT,

    Please read back if you’d like, but the summary is this:

    VC, while most of EE perceived as a tier 2 army, yet data supporting they were tier 3 were nerfed in October without any substantial buffs to promote different styles. Then, in December your team had a discussion which led to further nerfs (many on the same items (double nerfed) which were already nerfed without any tourny data to support changes), again without any buffs to offset.

    Part of the community has raised concerns regarding the perceived unfair treatment towards VC as RT seems to have thought them to be on par with UD given the nerf severity and lack of buffs. VC has been tested far harsher than its other counterparts of equal tier (OK, BH, VS, DL, WDG) as VC received the most (bay far) double nerfs by RT.

    The collective we the VC community would appreciate a response, either in part from each member or a joint-statement would suffice.

    The VC community is eager for your reasonings... please satisfy our requirements.
    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 ().

  • Vesemirus wrote:

    @Blonde Beer @fjugin @Krokz @thedoctor
    Apologies for summoning you here but @Just_Flo is not able (willing?) to help us clarify some issues.
    You can't be serious, mate. All @Just_Flo is doing is asking to gain access to the answers you've been asking for. It is our job (ACS) to forward the questions/issues you see to higher ups. And that's what we did. We can't give you answer untill we get answers ourselves. We have no direct power to decide anything nor are we part of the meetings when RT made these decisions. All we can do is being your contact persons who forward questions and answers them by quoting higher ups.

    Full Layout Coordinator

    Translation Team DE

    VC Community Support

    Supporter of Veil of the Ages

  • Krokz wrote:

    About monster cap changes in VC?
    No, it was funny but understandable (I know no sane person who would go to combat with horror, but there were some community concerns, so it's fine), I'm emotional part of community, @Mike newman and @eggsPR are factual ones, please read last few pages of their posts.

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

  • Lich King wrote:

    Vesemirus wrote:

    @Blonde Beer @fjugin @Krokz @thedoctor
    Apologies for summoning you here but @Just_Flo is not able (willing?) to help us clarify some issues.
    You can't be serious, mate. All @Just_Flo is doing is asking to gain access to the answers you've been asking for. It is our job (ACS) to forward the questions/issues you see to higher ups. And that's what we did. We can't give you answer untill we get answers ourselves. We have no direct power to decide anything nor are we part of the meetings when RT made these decisions. All we can do is being your contact persons who forward questions and answers them by quoting higher ups.
    RT are people like you and me, right? I do not want to speak with gods, just few mates who play game I play.
  • If someone can summarise btw that would help. Dont want to be a pain in the a@@ but I have real life drama the last 2 weeks so Ive been afk from t9a for a bit and missed most of the update and the feedback from that.
  • Blonde Beer wrote:

    If someone can summarise btw that would help. Dont want to be a pain in the a@@ but I have real life drama the last 2 weeks so Ive been afk from t9a for a bit and missed most of the update and the feedback from that.
    Jan it’s summarised (post 302) on this same page. Begins with “Dear RT

    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
  • @Blonde Beer

    I find this is a quick digest and a fair representation of the issues at hand.

    Display Spoiler

    eggsPR wrote:

    Mate, thanks I didn’t know there was a search function like that! @DanT please stand down - no need to tag - Lich King helped me out!

    @Blonde Beer
    @fjugin
    @Krokz
    @Sir_Joker
    @Snarkhunter
    @thedoctor

    Greetings RT,

    Please read back if you’d like, but the summary is this:

    VC, while most of EE perceived as a tier 2 army, yet data supporting they were tier 3 were nerfed in October without any substantial buffs to promote different styles. Then, in December your team had a discussion which led to further nerfs (many on the same items (double nerfed) which were already nerfed without any tourny data to support changes), again without any buffs to offset.

    Part of the community has raised concerns regarding the perceived unfair treatment towards VC as RT seems to have thought them to be on par with UD given the nerf severity and lack of buffs. VC has been tested far harsher than its other counterparts of equal tier (OK, BH, VS, DL, WDG).

    The collective we the VC community would appreciate a response, either in part from each member or a joint-statement would suffice.

    The VC community is eager for your reasonings... please satisfy our requirements.


    It has also been raised a much deeper question of whether T9A is navigating in the direction promised in a Czech hotel lobby way back when The Great Schism was upon the Nerds.

    Skàll, and may the promise of solstice a mere dozen nights away uplift yer spirit.
    Hermund Vigerust Endressòn Furu - Savage Sage of the Norse
    Faux-pro player and ETC vagabond.
    Enjoys the company of deluded nerds and women of unquestionably low morale.

    Do not fall to the folly of the best laid of plans - for the mind of man is fickle in the face of the dice gods.
    Give yer high fives where yer opponents dice have been blessed, and in equal give yer handshakes when dice fall in malicious ways.
  • eggsPR wrote:

    Blonde Beer wrote:

    If someone can summarise btw that would help. Dont want to be a pain in the a@@ but I have real life drama the last 2 weeks so Ive been afk from t9a for a bit and missed most of the update and the feedback from that.
    Jan it’s summarised (post 302) on this same page. Begins with “Dear RT
    Thanks

    Thats just one person, I assumed more people had something to say :). Don't want to dig in, and then find out there is a ton of different stuff being asked. It's also a bit vague, what are the key issues? That stuff got more expensive?

    Let me summarize to be certain, Issue 1 is that VC community feels they got hit harder than others on their tier (and if there is an RT bias?), and that the VC book doesn't have enough play styles currently (and do the VC community feel that this is a result of points per model, or lack of options?).

    I want to give clear answers, but I also want to make certain I'm answering the right questions :).
  • @Blonde Beer you are always over stretching :)

    Let me be the punching bag.
    VC was considered #4 army (by our models which include EE data, single tournaments data, team tournaments data) before first point update and after point updates we still considered VC to be top3 army. This was based on our observations and EE feedback. This is why in latest point changes VC did not get as much reductions as other armies.
    This last update we were doing changes based more on macro outlook, which way RT wants armies to evolve its playstyles, especially in the form of promoting bigger Infantry units in the grand scheme of T9A game. This is easier to do in armies that are below average in external balance, as a combat Infantry wide price drop is not so dangerous to external power level of the book as it would be if doing that on above average external power level book like we perceive VC and WDG are.
  • Krokz wrote:

    @Blonde Beer you are always over stretching :)

    Let me be the punching bag.
    VC was considered #4 army (by our models which include EE data, single tournaments data, team tournaments data) before first point update and after point updates we still considered VC to be top3 army. This was based on our observations and EE feedback. This is why in latest point changes VC did not get as much reductions as other armies.
    This last update we were doing changes based more on macro outlook, which way RT wants armies to evolve its playstyles, especially in the form of promoting bigger Infantry units in the grand scheme of T9A game. This is easier to do in armies that are below average in external balance, as a combat Infantry wide price drop is not so dangerous to external power level of the book as it would be if doing that on above average external power level book like we perceive VC and WDG are.
    Ya'll are missing the point. We want TRANSPARENCY. Have a scribe during meetings where points are changed, WRITE DOWN the reasons why things are changed, and then share that with the community.
    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!
  • With pricing there is very little reasoning apart from:
    - where in the external power level is the army
    - where in internal power level is the unit

    So we just feed this two data points in our Python code and we get point costs. This is how we avoid bias. Of course you can be biased about external and internal power level, this is why we are transparent and made Tier list for external power level public. As for internal power levlel data we used publicly available data that is here: the-ninth-age.com/community/in…eylist-analysis/&pageNo=1 plus a community survey that was public.
    So most data points that go into our Python code are public, that is pretty transparable if you ask me.

    As for things that changed outside data RT ventures into bias territory very seldom and when it does, it is for macro reasons like mentioned in my post and how we did last weeks point changes. I can think of two changes outside data for VC that were agreed upon by RT:
    - all spell range increasing mechanics price must go up, especially in armies that has access to Occultism. We voted that Occultism The Grave Calls will not get higher casting value, but items that increase range will be priced higher, especially the ones that are taken a lot
    - Shrieking horror change that was not a change based on power level but how much extreme RPS matchups we want in this game

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

  • I can write down my own reasonings for the point changes for transperency mate. One of the things I do want to work on the future is just to record the discussions.
    This might make it a bit more clear why RT went certain ways, or else atleast help showcase how it goes.


    Von karstein bloodline. Clear feedback from ACS, none from EE. I felt that it wasn't worth the points as is, with data backup, so I went for a steep decrease in points. There was some discussion about the 18 inch leadership march, but I didn't see that as enough of reason to keep the current price.

    Storm Caller: ACS feedback and data feedback made clear it needed to go down. I personally agreed, and went for big discount.

    Ghoul Lord: I love this guy :) and dont like nerfing him. And while I don't think it's an issue on higher level play, I do see the game as intented for everyone, and the Ghoulstar isn't that fun for those. EE feedback agreed, so I went for another small increase (10 in total from before)

    Bestial Bulk: Nobody from ACS or EE commented on it, but I found it to expensive as is, and I think making it more available would help different builds. Went for a decrease, but didn't get a consensus to change.

    Arcane Knowledge: One of the things we looked at this update were effects similair like this and went for a bit more pointwise on those over the different armies. There was some discussion about the points, but the end result was the consensus with a close vote.

    Spectral Steed. Only 1 Feedback from EE about it (that it was to cheap). Most of the RT felt the same way though, but I wouldn't call it a change that originated from EE. So we changed it back to the original price.

    Night Crown: ACS said it wasn't usefull as before with the split in S/AP. Data didn't back this up afaik, but we followed ACS suggestion.


    Barrow King Steed: No ACS suggsestion, but very strong and several feedback from EE. I would have prefered to make the price increase a bit lower when thinking back.

    Banshee: I think everyone agreed it was to expensive right? I wanted to go lower even but there is an issue with chaff etc.

    Zombies: This was one of the thoughest ones. We had a bit of a vote lock on this one. We had several EE and RT feedback about the costs.
    I voted for an small increase in the end.This is one of those changes where I think it isn't perfect at all, but that's also linked to a more overall core issue with VC.

    Barrow Guard: Lowering Halberd. I was the only one against lowering it :). Barrow Guard had a ton of conflicting feedback from EE, Data didn't really give any indication besides lowering base cost (which we did before) so didn't see the point.

    Barrow Knights: I wanted to drop them quite a bit more since well data, personal experience and ACS feedback.

    Cadavar Wagon: Again, the only thing we can discuss how much points it needed to go down. I see it dropping more tbh.

    Dark Coach: Quite a bit of EE feedback ranging from 1 it's to expensive to a couple of it's to cheap. I wanted the extra length to be free (yes it's extra range for being in spells) and a slight increase in points.

    Wraiths/Hosts: I wanted to increase points a bit, and decrease champions. There was some feedback for it to support, but again I do also try to keep an eye on stuff for the more average player (like myself). This is proparly the pick with the most personal gutfeeling from myself.

    The change to the big flying stuff.

    We got a lot of feedback (also from different communities). I found it a hard pick, since it also opens up playstyles. I also really didn't want to increase points on the big monster stuff, because again I want to keep them open as options and not just make them expensive to block a combo. ACS suggestion was followed as a result.