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!

  • clorens wrote:

    the only way to see large infantry is to improve them, not just lower them 1 or 2 p
    Yes, but keep in mind that changes like those unfortunatly are for the full rework books. I do think VC could be really cool with some less legacy and more new stuff, since it all kinda hangs on a few threads of necromacy to keep the army together it seems.
  • Grouchy Badger wrote:

    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.
    Dude, calm down. You've asked for the justification for additional needs. You've got them from RT personally. As I said before, transparency is currently beimg discussed at the moment. It's all connected to our PR team running out of active members and so on.

    What do you want? To travel back in time to record what was said exactly when 5 points increases were decided for VC units? Man, it's a game. And were all doing our best here...

    Full Layout Coordinator

    Translation Team DE

    VC Community Support

    Supporter of Veil of the Ages

  • Krokz wrote:

    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:
    - 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
    No, its not. We want YOUR teams REASONING for CHANGES as you CHANGE them. And why bother changing prices to push infantry sizes when you can just increase the damn core requirement and quit jerking people around.
    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!
  • Why did it take almost 10 pages of posts just to get to this point? This could have all been circumvented if you had just done this in the first place.
    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:

    We want YOUR teams REASONING for CHANGES as you CHANGE them.
    If ExB will want to record meetings again and make it public, sure. But I think it would be smart not to. Because people will hang on to statements and 5 pts / 2-5% changes like its a not a game with toy soldiers made by volunteers but a million dollar stakeholders meeting.
  • Why did it take almost 10 pages of posts just to get to this point? This could have all been circumvented if you had just done this in the first place.

    Lich King wrote:

    Grouchy Badger wrote:

    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.
    Dude, calm down. You've asked for the justification for additional needs. You've got them from RT personally. As I said before, transparency is currently beimg discussed at the moment. It's all connected to our PR team running out of active members and so on.
    What do you want? To travel back in time to record what was said exactly when 5 points increases were decided for VC units? Man, it's a game. And were all doing our best here...
    Its no wonder you cant keep people on your team when you will remove them for not boot licking the other team members. Transparency was promised way back when this whole thing began, and the lack of it has been rustling feathers all over the forum in every army board. I don't want you to time travel, I want the team to do the basic things that should have been done in the first place.
    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!
  • @Blonde Beer

    Jan my friend, if you have other things in life going on do not worry yourself with you soliders. I am sure others can pick up the slack.

    @Krokz

    I feel the issues can be summed up as

    1. VC places in tier 2, while data that can be publicly seen suggests otherwise (see my post regarding ETC finishes of last 3 years where VC averaged 10,10 and 9pts/game - ranked 12th overall)

    2. If we accept VC have been placed in tier 2, then why has their nerfs been harder than nerfs of other armies in similar/higher army books? (See my post comparing VC to UD or chris talking about VS)

    3. if VC are tier 2 why have their buffs been smaller than those in similar/higher tiers (see same post)

    4. Why have the very few very small/insubquential buffs VC did get been rolled back in 2nd update (see my post regarding VK and Chris post regarding mounts)

    5. why has VC units that got a buff because underused been so small when other more powerful units that are OVERused in lower tier armies have got buffs - despite projects guideline that overused units in other armies would still get small nerfs (see my post regarding VK compared to SA Cuatl, EoS tank, HBE Rymas)

    Generally I think the community as a whole is very unhappy with how harshly the VC have been handled. And myself and Chris as two well known players / EE have tried to be a voice for that concern. - but unfortunately not been able to get anywhere just comments to data we aren’t allowed to see.

    Personally I don’t know who a lot of people on here are from username. But myself mince and furion I do know and are all top players in our own countries - and have all posted belief that the update overall has been very bad for VC.

    A lack of any kind of explanation/data to back up changes has not helped foster good will really.

    Neither has things like claiming update is all data driven, and then changing rules to 2 horrors 1 ZD (we can argue about how good that actually is as a list all day long) - when there has been no data to back up that it needs changing.

    I hope this helps summarise.
  • Krokz wrote:

    s like its a not a game with toy soldiers made by volunteers but a million dollar stakeholders meeting.
    I voice over for DnD stories and write them for youtube channels as well. Every day im in contact with the team and constantly trading information as well as keeping tabs in a word document of everything thats said. Its the correct thing TO DO.
    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!
  • Blonde Beer wrote:

    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.
    Thank you.
    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!
  • Mike newman wrote:

    and have all posted belief that the update overall has been very bad for VC.
    Was it not bad for UD, VC and WDG (HellMaw lists were targeted, personally I would hit them more) too?


    Mike newman wrote:

    If we accept VC have been placed in tier 2, then why has their nerfs been harder than nerfs of other armies in similar/higher army books? (See my post comparing VC to UD or chris talking about VS)
    Not according to our data. We looked at best tournament lists and point costed them with new points and external levels were pretty good. Example, average ETC UD lists went up by 175 pts, VS lists 150 pts, WDG lists 125 pts, VCs 100 pts and so on. Giving an example here, can't find our table. Can you give us a better and more unbiased method of valuating external power level changes?

    I cannot deny a possibility that VC got the worst update. One army will always get the worse update, all cannot be best and if we did that I can only apologize. Personally I still think VC is definitively not below average army. Is that the fear (VC being below average now) or just that others got candies and VC didn't?
  • Thanks. Initial reaction to recent posts is:

    Yes, would LOVE to have recordings of RT - not many may pay attention to it, but some folks would really really appreciate the transparency. It would also act as meeting minutes for your team to review prior to subsequent reviews. So, really, it’s a win-win for everybody.

    Rebuttal to ranges occultism is, what else can VC do against range? We don’t have shooting therefore we must rely on magic to compete. If players took more binding scrolls than this would not be an issue, but it seems your controlling the meta instead of letting it play out.

    On Coaches, we used them to zone with M8, since we cannot have flee reactions, it was the best piece to prevent armies running over crumbly VC units. Now at 460 it’s a bridge too far I think. 2 for 920 is... wow.

    Why were Alters (never taken) ignored?

    Why did Ghasts (bloodline only unit) ignored given your direction to increase infantry? Could’ve given them scoring at least (small effort in simply adding the flag graphic above the entry), and they’re infantry.

    Why were so many more units double nerfed than other armies in top 3 category?
    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
  • Mike newman wrote:

    [list=1][/list]

    Forum wrote:

    Top tier: UD, VS
    High Tier: WDG, VC, OK, BH, DL
    Mid Tier: KoE, OnG
    Low Tier: DE, DH, EoS, SA SE, ID
    Bottom tier: HE
    I’m fed up from reading this thread seeing people from the project hide behind comments such as “VC are a tier 2 army” and “it’s the data’s fault”.1)first let’s address VC position in tier 2.I accept this data comes from a variety of sources.ETC, like it or not, is the biggest collection of the best gamers from all around the world. It is the best cross gaming community data set.VC ranked 12th with average of 9pts a game. They also had the 3rd most games recorded - so it’s not like this is a small anomaly data set.The following armies were placed in a lower tier but ranked above themOnG, DH, KoE, DE, SEbut maybe that’s just teams impact? Let’s look at ESC, 101 players, big international tournament, VC ranked 10th, averaging 10pts game.Not results of tier 2 army to me. But ok.2) talking of points dropsWhat I do see in my own community. And bear in mind that I’ve been part of an ETC team for a long time, my inner circle is some of the best players around, I’m not just listening to any Tom, william and HarryVS players - happyWDG players - very happyOk players - happyBH players - very happyAnd why are they happy? It’s because their army list comes down in points or doesn’t change. You look at the likes of Craig’s centaur list gaining 150pts... it’s just crazy.And then the players of armies below that. Colin is over the moon with SA changes, Furion has someone start their own thread on this forum praising him because of how amazingly good the HBE reductions are and talking about how their double dragon list got an extra 450pts cheaper!3) There doesn’t seem to be a realisation that reducing one army by 200/300pts and increasing the other by the same does not balance the armies out. It swaps them over, because combined it is too big of a swing. It needed to be one or the other.4) this is compounded by the fact that it is plain to see that some armies are getting away with murder. Cuatl and Tank are perfect examples of this. Both are taken in virtually every single army. Yet both in this last update got points reductions. There is absolutely no justification for this is you are following the projects own guidelines that the lower tier armies “will get smaller points increases in their most taken units”. None.Meanwhile VC over here getting nerfed. And nerfed again.5) likewise project said no rules changes. Then changes rules for essence because it’s too strong. Then changes rules for Sun tablet because essence is not too strong for cuatl? - that makes no sense. Then reduces price of essence, then reduces price of suntablet, then reduces price of Cuatl. Do you take people for idiots not to see this?And 1 ZD 2 Tbat is too strong. So rules must be changed for that. There has been no data collected to prove it’s too strong. Only a lot of complaining on the forum to base this on. Yet project representatives continue to state that patch is not emotion based only data based. That is clearly just not true.No wonder there is so much outrage on here. Project can not stick to what it said it would do. Project can not justify what it has done. Comparably project has made a big mess.You have myself, mince and furion - 3 top and respected players, all previous ETC captains, all multiple tournament winners, all very experienced in this thread saying you made a mistake on this VC update and really damaged the army.
    1. Maybe it’s time you listen?

    I think VC is now below average, yeah. Clearly, indeed. Not utterly destroyed like you (not personalizing krokus, but the whole the team) did with HBE in its time, but very, very hard hitted.

    Only time will tell, but i would bet my money in that most of the top ETC teams won't take them in their rosters, and that their tournament results (already quite mediocre) will show a significant drop. Is gonna be a rough 2020 for bloodsuckers, very rough...

    But, let's try em and be constructive. LAB will come someday, so thanks for your answers.
  • MalachitTheDark wrote:

    @Blonde Beer - thank you a lot for explanation from your side. Could you also clarify why Altars haven't been discussed? And why Varkolaks got price increase? Maybe I play different tournaments, but I haven't seen them both for quite a long time (maybe just in rare cases).

    Rellzed wrote:

    @Blonde Beer

    Thank you,

    When you have time, I'd like you to say also something about the Altar of undeath that didn't received any points drop despite being quite useless, and the varkolak that felt to be in the right spot at 335pts, because to be effective people have to take al least 2 units of them.
    For these two items mentioned above:

    Dark Altar - I recall seeing that a few EE mentioned it was too expensive, but during RT talks we were reluctant to reduce price given what we see as a current abundance of attacks (game wide, not necessarily faction specific) which ignores the to hit roll. I think only 1 RT wanted a small (5 pt) reduction in price, the rest said no. This reasoning is also evident in the updated Essence.

    Varkolak - We had a significant number of EE report it as too cheap, and none said too expensive ... with comments recommending a 15 pt increase. It was a close vote, but after our discussion we decided to listen to EE, but not do quite as large an increase. For me personally, the fact that pyromancy will likely see a reduction in popularity due to the Essence change was a factor in my decision.

    It appears that @Blonde Beer and @Krokz are answering the other concerns, but please let me know if there's something back in the last 16 pages that requires my specific attention.
  • Grouchy Badger wrote:

    I don't want you to time travel, I want the team to do the basic things that should have been done in the first place.
    Let me add a bit here. I don't want to come over to strong, but maybe it makes something a bit clear.

    1) Previous update I spend quite a bit of time with ACS to add explanations to everything to help them out. It was way more work than I thought it would take, but I tried to much as possible.
    2) After this update I told RT I would write out "a patch note" to make everyone's life easier.
    3) Day after I get a call that my father is dying and in the hospital. So I decided that that was a bit more important. I've spending most of my time on that the last 2 weeks.


    This has ripples in several places after. For example, @Wesser wrote a big piece of feedback and tagged me in, but I missed it. Since most ACS members are proparly now used to having communication go though me on this stuff I think a number of pieces fell off the chessboard.

    Now, this isn't meant as some excuse, just trying to make clear that not everything is as easy as everyone often assumes.
  • Snarkhunter wrote:

    Dark Altar - I recall seeing that a few EE mentioned it was too expensive, but during RT talks we were reluctant to reduce price given what we see as a current abundance of attacks (game wide, not necessarily faction specific) which ignores the to hit roll. I think only 1 RT wanted a small (5 pt) reduction in price, the rest said no. This reasoning is also evident in the updated Essence.
    The thing is only worth while at turn 4 when it can wound core units on a 3+. for 3 turns its more or less a "lemme see some sixes" kind of unit. Only really comes into its own on turn 5 and 6, and it has to be in the right place to really be of use, which is hard when its actually quite fragile.
    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!
  • Blonde Beer wrote:

    Grouchy Badger wrote:

    I don't want you to time travel, I want the team to do the basic things that should have been done in the first place.
    Let me add a bit here. I don't want to come over to strong, but maybe it makes something a bit clear.
    1) Previous update I spend quite a bit of time with ACS to add explanations to everything to help them out. It was way more work than I thought it would take, but I tried to much as possible.
    2) After this update I told RT I would write out "a patch note" to make everyone's life easier.
    3) Day after I get a call that my father is dying and in the hospital. So I decided that that was a bit more important. I've spending most of my time on that the last 2 weeks.


    This has ripples in several places after. For example, @Wesser wrote a big piece of feedback and tagged me in, but I missed it. Since most ACS members are proparly now used to having communication go though me on this stuff I think a number of pieces fell off the chessboard.

    Now, this isn't meant as some excuse, just trying to make clear that not everything is as easy as everyone often assumes.
    The team should be able to revolve and shape itself around issues and problems that come up with other members. If it can not, then the team needs to be reconfigured.
    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!
  • Just_Flo wrote:

    @Nicreap any feedback or results from the data you were given some time ago?
    Nope, haven't done anything with it. That's a byproduct of getting it 3 days before the feedback on the updates ended. Had I gotten it two months earlier when I had initially asked for it, I would have had plenty of time to go in and work on that analysis, but with no time to do the analysis, and no incentive for doing it (the feedback would be over before I had time to do it right), I saw no reason to work on it over RL projects. Additionally, with the feedback period over, posting that kind of analysis to the forums would only cause an even bigger community outcry as units that were actually worse/better than assumed got changes deemed too/not enough. And while I do enjoy reading threads like these, doing it across all the forums would mean we would NEVER see the data report :P

    Krokz wrote:

    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 is why in latest point changes VC did not get as much reductions as other armies.
    I think this is what is sticking in everyone's craw, despite not knowing exactly why something felt wrong. VC was originally rated a tier 2 army (not ranked #4, the project specifically stated they made tiers of equal armies not ranks, so shifting the rating system from tiers to ranks is already a rather large deviation from what the public was informed), so the community rightly expected that they would receive fewer nerfs than tier 1 armies, roughly the same as tier 2 armies and less than tier 3 armies (as outlined in public news posts), and for the first pass of the update that seemed pretty accurate, and the community seems to have accepted that for the most part.

    But then, despite this being a heavily "data driven" update an entirely subjective methods were used on a 2 month sample of the beta update to classify VC as a top 3 army and nerf it again. That process, wasn't driven by any objective data, nor was it long enough for the changes in metas from the initial point changes to shake out, it was a completely subjective decision, and nothing in the public news updates gave any indication it was going to happen. There was no mention of new tier lists being based off of public opinion were going to be generated and applied, so the second heavier nerf to VC seemingly came out of the blue.

    So when the VC community says they feel like they got bait and switched, they are correct. They did, they without any information ever presented to indicate it could happen, got upgraded from a tier 2 army to a top 3 army halfway through an update and then got nerfed because of it. Was it as malicious as some claim? No, I doubt it is, but it is definitely not the process the community was informed of, and definitely wasn't change driven by objective data.
    “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.