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!

  • MalachitTheDark wrote:

    Hachiman Taro wrote:

    For example I believe from a quick look:

    Altar of Undeath (claimed as useless / never used etc) was used 43 times in 295 tournament lists collected.

    Units used that much didn't tend to get price drops in even lower tier armies, AFAIK.
    295 lists means 295 people. As far as I know Altars basically are taken in pair, so 43 times means like it was taken by 22 people. +-. So 22 out of 295, it is less then 10%. Or maybe I'm wrong and they were taken always by one in each list? Maybe this should be also considered, not only total amount?
    Indeed it is recorded, and you're not too far wrong it was taken in 26 lists, supporting your observation. There's a fair amount of complicating factors like that in determining what are reasonable pick rates (for example expensive things get taken less often naturally, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are less powerful). The one you mentioned does get taken into account, though it's not the whole story either.

    Data Analysis

  • Hachiman Taro wrote:

    Some of the questions being asked here might be answered by a quick look at the publicly available data linked a few times already here:

    the-ninth-age.com/community/in…used-for-the-2019-update/

    Or taking a little time to understand the scope of the update.

    For example I believe from a quick look:

    Altar of Undeath (claimed as useless / never used etc) was used 43 times in 295 tournament lists collected.

    Units used that much didn't tend to get price drops in even lower tier armies, AFAIK.

    Varkolaks - used 159 times in 295 tournament lists collected.

    It doesn't seem unreasonable for units that popular to get reasonable price rises in better performing armies, esp if feedback agrees.

    Stuff like adding scoring to Infantry units is outside the scope of the update, which was points only unless something was deemed 'gamebreaking', with the occasional availability change where RT deemed it absolutely necessary.

    Some people demanding more information don't appear to look at the information that is already openly available to them, pinned at the top of the general forum and linked several times, but some still demand more IN CAPS. It's easy to demand other people do more work for you, you can always do some yourself though. How about the people demanding more info and insisting it would take no work join the project in PR and provide it to everyone themselves?
    Alter was taken in 26/295 lists-that's 9% of lists. If my mental math works at all that means 17 lists took double alter and 9 lists took single altar. Seems like it's on the verge of 2 balance issues.

    I will say that overall, the ACS and higher up staff have been amazing in responding to this thread. I don't think we've been the calmest bunch and I was amazed that people who frequent the VC forum were not aware of the tournament data analysis thread.

    Wishing you the best @Blonde Beer with whatever you may be dealing with.
  • Grouchy Badger wrote:

    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.

    Grouchy Badger wrote:

    Just_Flo wrote:

    Normally I would have locked in as contigency.

    But I did work 14 -15 hohes that day and so the Backup wasnt avaiable, too.
    Then you need more members and more redundancy
    You’re not wrong.

    But I work for a company that in 2018 made $3.7Bn in revenue, and this is a problem for us.

    Perhaps adjust your expectations.
    Probably the Least Useless Player in the World - International Herminard Poll 2018
  • @Krokz

    “Was it not bad for UD, VC and WDG (HellMaw lists were targeted, personally I would hit them more) too?“


    UD are tier 1 (with VS) surely they shouldn’t be compared with VC/WDG


    “average ETC UD lists went up by 175 pts, VS lists 150 pts, WDG lists 125 pts, VCs 100 pts and so on“

    The idea that you can summarise all these armies into one average list is ill conceived imo.

    Tbh I’m not going to work out the averages of every list because I need a life. So I will accept your word for it.

    However it should surely be thought of about how much other stuff went down. My VC list went up 117pts. I have seen Craig’s BH come done 156, his VS over 100. I also look at the top few lists at the ETC last and see them coming down in points... I think comparing it to an estimation of a tournament average is a....worrying.

    VC was considered number #4 army....After update VC were considered top 3 army”

    I appreciate your tiering takes in a lot of data we can’t see. But that data we can see (for instance ETC results) show this not to be anywhere near the case.

    Indeed I definitely don’t think that after the update VC have gone up in power? I’m not sure how that assumption could possibly have been made.

    @Nicreap post on this subject I think sums up
    Community feel well.


    “Of course the most taken things are up and majority of most played lists went up in price. But that is true for almost all the books.“

    can you clarify this statement as it certainly doesn’t appear to be true when you look at things like Cuatl, Steam Tank, etc going down in points. - especially when mission statement was presented as “overused units in weaker books will get smaller price rises” not go down in points.
  • It could have also been avoided had RT not deemed VC a 3/16 army despite contradictory *evidence* of tourney data and contradictory EE feedback.

    Krocks even stated that VC probably nerfed the hardest out of all the armies, but apparently there must be 1 army deemed the sacrificial lamb in an update (of which I dispute vis-a-vie how about you aim for 0 lambs?).

    @Blonde Beer hope you pops is OK and well wishes to him, you and yours.
    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:

    I appreciate your tiering takes in a lot of data we can’t see. But that data we can see (for instance ETC results) show this not to be anywhere near the case.
    Wasn't analysis data from singles and group tournaments made public, @Just_Flo ?

    Mike newman wrote:

    can you clarify this statement as it certainly doesn’t appear to be true when you look at things like Cuatl, Steam Tank, etc going down in points.
    I sad "almost all", not "all".
    Both SA and EoS were considered below average armies. Overall price changes reflect that.
    Like I said, you have to look at this update as a full 2.1 to 2.2. and Steam Tank points did not change.


    eggsPR wrote:

    Krocks even stated that VC probably nerfed the hardest out of all the armies, but apparently there must be 1 army deemed the sacrificial lamb in an update (of which I dispute vis-a-vie how about you aim for 0 lambs?).
    Where did I say that and what do you want to achieve with this lie?

    I think no one can claim who was hit hardest, because no quantitative data on 2.2 exists.

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

  • Krokz wrote:

    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?

    Krokz wrote:



    eggsPR wrote:

    Krocks even stated that VC probably nerfed the hardest out of all the armies, but apparently there must be 1 army deemed the sacrificial lamb in an update (of which I dispute vis-a-vie how about you aim for 0 lambs?).
    Where did I say that and what do you want to achieve with this lie?
    I think no one can claim who was hit hardest, because no quantitative data on 2.2 exists
  • Worst is not the same as nerfed the most. Best is not the same as being buffed the most. Maybe you as players think of it this way because all you see is your army and don't care about the rest. We must NOT think in that mindset if we want a good game. Our goal is that all armies are average, so if VC went from above average to average army (what I think we achieved), then from external point of view VC got a perfect update. But I would still say it did not get good update because VC still has internal balance problems, I believe we fixed internal balance better in some other armies :( And I also mentioned that internal balance is far easier to fix in a below average army then on a above average army, probably all top5 armies did not get a proper internal balance patch.

    Balancing is an iteration, maybe if we freeze all the books we would achieve somewhat close to perfect balance in 3 years, but due to new army books that shift metas this is impossible and perfect balance will never be achieved. All as you as a player can do is to play more armies and have more fun, because if you play only one army you play only 1/16 of the game.
  • I have understood what you wanted to said it, I don not understand why you give more thought to the matter, your explanations have been heard and we may or may not agree. You or the team will not change your mind and you should not.
    I do not think there is a special interest in destroying VC, but the truth is that the army have problems not now, long time ago.
    Time will prove us right. You just have to play some competitive games with them to see that in most games you are in disadventage, only saves the master ocultism sometimes.. Lack of movility ( play in bubble no flee etc) with no range threat with the exception of master ocultism is a problem in this game

    The post was edited 2 times, last by Martins9thAge ().

  • The initial design of the army IS a bubble of undead slowly walking forward, eating up ranged damage and reach combat in full strength due to healing. Worthless mass units that still can´t be ignored accompanied by some hard hitters (charakters, special models/units)

    There are some things that break up the bubble. Black coach as an additional Mini bubble. Varkolaks and vampire knights. Some vampire abilites, easy access to movement spells...


    In my opinion (not VC player myself, but we discuss all the books in our group together and try to "optimize" builds for tournaments) there are some RPS elements in vampire army, that make it super hard for some lists to play against VC, on the other hand other lists have a rather easy life.
    Meta changed somewhat due to point adjustments or just the design of new books.


    Performance of VC at tournaments like ETC have to be taken with some caution. In the years 2017 and 2018 our goal with VC was to pair them into the VC of the oponent. And it seems to me, that a lot of countrys did the same...with the result that the obvious result, no matter it realy was on the table was a 10:10 for VC in total. Very much the same was true for vermins....pair them against each other.
  • berti wrote:

    The initial design of the army IS a bubble of undead slowly walking forward, eating up ranged damage and reach combat in full strength due to healing. Worthless mass units that still can´t be ignored accompanied by some hard hitters (charakters, special models/units)
    This sounds good in theory, but in the game its a predictable game of infantery, the enemy is going to focus ranged and combat in your key units that are difficult to heal then later kill the main block that was easy avoided
  • In 2018 ETC there was only 1 VC mirror

    USA VC vs Poland VC, 10-10


    Krokz on the 2.1/2.2 VC Nerfing wrote:

    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.
    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
  • @Krokz

    “Like I said, you have to look at this update as a full 2.1 to 2.2. and Steam Tank points did not change.”


    Tank was taken in 100 of 213 lists (47%) over two updates 0 point increase (despite algorithm suggesting a 15pt / 3% increase)

    Coach was taken in 109 of 295 lists (40%) over two updates 30 point increase (despite algorithm suggesting a 20pt / 5% increase)

    Project initial statement was - high tiers, bigger increase on overused. Lower tiers smaller increase on overused.


    EoS are low tier. VC are high tier.

    I would say that initial data led decision that

    low tier, more popular unit gets smaller % increase than higher tier, less popular unit was very much spot on the money both in terms of tier level and projects stated intent.

    And that second update which resulted in 7% increase for coach and 0% increase for steam tank overall is where this all fell apart. And why comparably to other armies VC players feel particularly hard done by.




    Barrow king skeletal steed was taken in 71 of 295 armies (24%) and data suggested a 10 point / 22% price increase

    overall second update turned this into a 44% increase. Again this second update, none data led update is what seems particularly harsh on a not widely popular choice.