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!

  • Rellzed wrote:

    After all the main iusse here is "ignoring unused unit choices and refusing to open doors while closing others"
    So there just needed to be some extra price decreases as well, is that the bottom line of the feedback here?

    (As implied by other comments about fun rather than balance etc)
    Being supportive & giving useful criticism aren't mutually exclusive.
    Are you supportive of the project? Do your posts reflect that?

    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
  • DanT wrote:

    Rellzed wrote:

    After all the main iusse here is "ignoring unused unit choices and refusing to open doors while closing others"
    So there just needed to be some extra price decreases as well, is that the bottom line of the feedback here?
    (As implied by other comments about fun rather than balance etc)
    Excluding your parentheses entirely and accepting that both nerfs were somehow a joint effort done in unison where all parties were moving towards a common goal in real time which we all know isn’t true, then yes, price decreases into somewhat meaningful units would place an ice pack onto the undue swelling caused elsewhere in the book.

    The book had been crippled externally (moreso than it’s similar tiered peers) and internally (no open doors, many closed ones). A little help with the internal bleeding always appreciated.
    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:

    Excluding your parentheses entirely and accepting that both nerfs were somehow a joint effort done in unison where all parties were moving towards a common goal in real time which we all know isn’t true,
    Calling the decision makers liars, in whatever roundabout way, is an interesting strategy.
    What is your goal with this approach?


    then yes, price decreases into somewhat meaningful units would place an ice pack onto the undue swelling caused elsewhere in the book.What counts as meaningful? Perhaps define a usage threshold for whether price reductions are considered meaningful?
    That at least would be a concrete thing that would fit with the data driven side of the update.



    The book had been crippled externally and internally. A little help with the internal bleeding always appreciated.
    I thought you were saying the project should stop worrying about balance?
    Being supportive & giving useful criticism aren't mutually exclusive.
    Are you supportive of the project? Do your posts reflect that?

    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
  • DanT wrote:

    eggsPR wrote:

    Excluding your parentheses entirely and accepting that both nerfs were somehow a joint effort done in unison where all parties were moving towards a common goal in real time which we all know isn’t true,
    Calling the decision makers liars, in whatever roundabout way, is an interesting strategy.
    What is your goal with this approach?


    Who's calling anybody a liar? Not I good sir! It's common knowledge the ACS didn't know what items would be double nerfed by RT. Heck, the RT didn't even know what they'd be doing until the 10 hours meeting ensued in real time (which will be recorded in the future for transparency/information/minutes purposes which can only help linking the project to the community)



    then yes, price decreases into somewhat meaningful units would place an ice pack onto the undue swelling caused elsewhere in the book.What counts as meaningful? Perhaps define a usage threshold for whether price reductions are considered meaningful?
    That at least would be a concrete thing that would fit with the data driven side of the update.


    Serious question: Are you serious, or trolling? Because if you're not serious, why would my definition of meaningful be meaningful in this discussion? If you're not serious it's meaningless to ask me this. Second question: Are you actually considering price reductions to help the VC book? Please don't answer with "I wouldn't be asking you if I wasn't... I know you to be honest and occasionally somewhat troll-ey (like me), so would like clarity.


    The book had been crippled externally and internally. A little help with the internal bleeding always appreciated.
    I thought you were saying the project should stop worrying about balance?

    I'm not saying to throw out balance completely like having THREE flying gigantic beasts 2 of which perform AUTO HITS and can come back to life to on a 3+... no no let's be serious... reasonable balance is reasonable in a couple ways, like not moving one army down multiple tiers while allowing same-tiered armies stay same (or move up). A famous businessman, Peter Drucker once said "People don't mind change... they mind BEING changed." This sums up the VC community I think. The 1st round of nerfs was a bit like the frog sitting a pot of water, slowly being heated up until it would eventually die without knowing it... but then the 2nd round of nerfs essentially increased the heat on us too fast, therefore noticed and jumped out of the pot. You're a scientist... I hope you get all this.

    Now, take this insight and don't just say "Don't tell them about 2 stages of nerfs, therefore the frogs won't notice." Instead, include the ACS and RT. Design your process so that all teams are working in unison toward a common goal, but not just on paper like some charter, but actually and meaningfully in reality.




    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 2 times, last by eggsPR ().

  • eggsPR wrote:

    DanT wrote:

    eggsPR wrote:

    Who's calling anybody a liar? Not I good sir! It's common knowledge the ACS didn't know what items would be double nerfed by RT. Heck, the RT didn't even know what they'd be doing until the 10 hours meeting ensued in real time (which will be recorded in the future for transparency/information/minutes purposes which can only help linking the project to the community)



    Interesting, this response makes me realise I have no idea what you mean by "Excluding your parentheses entirely and accepting that both nerfs were somehow a joint effort done in unison where all parties were moving towards a common goal in real time", and hence what you referred to as "which we all know wasn't true".
    No worries, this is probably not a fruitful rabbit hole to go down.


    then yes, price decreases into somewhat meaningful units would place an ice pack onto the undue swelling caused elsewhere in the book.
    What counts as meaningful? Perhaps define a usage threshold for whether price reductions are considered meaningful?
    That at least would be a concrete thing that would fit with the data driven side of the update.


    Serious question: Are you serious, or trolling? Because if you're not serious, why would my definition of meaningful be meaningful in this discussion? If you're not serious it's meaningless to ask me this. Second question: Are you actually considering price reductions to help the VC book? Please don't answer with "I wouldn't be asking you if I wasn't... I know you to be honest and occasionally somewhat troll-ey (like me), so would like clarity.


    I'm not really sure what you are saying here. I've have not been staff for a while. None of these decisions are mine.

    I am merely pointing out that you want "price decreases on somewhat meaningful units".
    I presumed that by meaningful you meant "units that actually see some use".
    If this is not correct, what did you mean by meaningful?
    If this is correct, then a sensible course of action is to consider what an approximate usage threshold is at which you consider something to be "units that actually see some use", and therefore make your feedback to the project clearer, more quantitative, and easier to at upon.



    The book had been crippled externally and internally. A little help with the internal bleeding always appreciated.
    I thought you were saying the project should stop worrying about balance?

    I'm not saying to throw out balance completely like having THREE flying gigantic beasts 2 of which perform AUTO HITS and can come back to life to on a 3+... no no let's be serious... reasonable balance is reasonable in a couple ways, like not moving one army down multiple tiers while allowing same-tiered armies stay same (or move up). A famous businessman, Peter Drucker once said "People don't mind change... they mind BEING changed." This sums up the VC community I think. The 1st round of nerfs was a bit like the frog sitting a pot of water, slowly being heated up until it would eventually die without knowing it... but then the 2nd round of nerfs essentially increased the heat on us too fast, therefore noticed and jumped out of the pot. You're a scientist... I hope you get all this.

    Now, take this insight and don't just say "Don't tell them about 2 stages of nerfs, therefore the frogs won't notice." Instead, include the ACS and RT. Design your process so that all teams are working in unison toward a common goal, but not just on paper like some charter, but actually and meaningfully in reality.


    I'm not really sure how most of this is relevant, or why it is addressed to me.

    RT set the direction of the game, under EXB statements.
    If ACS don't agree with those, they can choose to contribute to the project anyway, or leave, or convince the project to put them on RT.
    The idea that all ACSes would ever work towards a common goal, where said goal required deciding which armies to nerf/buff is pretty ludicrous, as has been shown at multiple points over the past few years. Nor is it what ACS are recruited for.

    I'm afraid I still struggle to understand the totality of your comments.
    You are claiming the balance is bad and needs to be changed, but earlier said that everyone disagrees on balance and detailed balance shouldn't be a goal.

    Now you are saying that the balance changes to VC are too big? Such that everyone would agree on them? But it seems that this is manifestly not the case?

    Care to wager how far below the other 15 armies the combined data will show VC is, come Sept/Oct next year?



    Being supportive & giving useful criticism aren't mutually exclusive.
    Are you supportive of the project? Do your posts reflect that?

    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
  • >I'm not saying to throw out balance completely like having THREE flying gigantic beasts 2 of which perform AUTO HITS and can come back to life to on a 3+... no no let's be serious...

    [Quiet Chuckling]
    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!
  • @eggsPR, I see, thanks for sharing.
    I think your analysis is missing some crucial details.

    For example. court mount base price was reduced 20 points. You have this marked as "who cares". The price for 4++ upgrade was increased by 20 points. You do not have this marked as "who cares". Not very unbiased analysis then perhaps..

    In truth, this change cannot possible be seen as a nerf. Nothing has become more expensive. Some builds are cheaper. Some are unchanged.


    Also, barrow king skeletal steed cost did not use to be 10.
    - Head of Rules Team -
    - Assistant Head of Rules Clarity Team-
  • @fjugin

    How can you say that nothing is more expensive ?!

    10 Wraiths for 410pts isn't expensive ?

    If you want to kill ethereal builds. Well done, we will never play 2 spells move and Wraiths so ... Maybe you will say that conclave cost decreased. Yeah so play nosferatu ? Oh no, you just nerf Arcane knowledge ... 80pts for just an extra range on spell ? Second blood power is useless and never changed.

    Do you ever play CV ? Maybe try it before coming here...
    Sorry for my bad English
  • Every consecutive patch has effectively reduced options and the variety of models we can bring to the table. 10 wraiths have gone from 360 (last time i used them) to 410 points, Varkolaks are up, VKnights are up, Spawn are up, Coach is way up, and on and on. I, for one, would be happy to have the whole book nerfed via stats/abilities and the prices all lowered so we would be able to field a diverse and interesting list. In the meantime I’d settle for a nice Christmas gift of a rollback to 2.1
  • Aenarion43 wrote:

    Vamp87 wrote:

    These are not really comparable situations as Hbe were quite overpowered when the beta first came out and VC were considered above average but not top tier.

    You *do* realize that literally the only "proof" that they were overpowered was opinions, right? There were like TWO tournament results from before they started getting massively overcorrected, and NEITHER of them showed HbE dominating (in fact they had a pretty average spread for the army).

    "Highborn elves were massively overpowered" was the narrative that got pushed at the time. The same people who pushed that narrative stated publicly that the final 2.0 book for HbE was "excellently designed, middle of the pack, balanced". So yeah . . . when we actually bothered to check, we found out that people were GROSSLY wrong about the book's power level after correcting it. So is it REALLY a stretch that it's entirely possible the original form of the 2.0 book was actually NOT broken/OP like people said?

    Bear in mind, people in the general forum were calling me an idiot and wishlisting power gaming jerk two weeks before the first half of this update for DARING to state that the HbE book needed to be buffed because, despite being Tier 5, "elves get so many advantages, and HbE even more so". So there MAY be some bias against the 3 elven armies, who all got flak on that thread despite being T4 and T5 pre-update.


    My biggest concern about this update is that it may of flipped the tier list. An ETC UD list got hit with point nerfs on the order of 300pts (as well as significant rule nerfs), and an Hbe ETC lists got a buff that could total over 400pts. I'm not saying that this was a fair matchup pre-update but I doubt the difference was 700pts.


    The "over 400 point drop" was me after the second update. That list is DEFINITELY not being taken at ETC or anything similar. I'm pretty sure most ETC players would rather not go to the tournament than take that list for a run. According to people who actually did the analysis:
    Influence of the 2.1 update (beta) on the ETC lists of all armies
    The highest drop for a HbE ETC list was 160. Granted, this is the 2.1 patch, but nothing in the 2.2 section that changed would add over 240 points to it.

    So more like, UD got bumped up 275pt on average, with HbE dropping on average 60 or so points. So about a 330 point difference, not a 700 point difference. My opinion is that if HbE don't go to Tier 3 at this point, it'll be because of the army's negative skill modifier outside of top level play rather than being underpowered.

    Off topic, Looking back, my opinion is that the massive outcry from the 2.0 release for the HbE book came from two major factors:
    1) The update opened up more aggressive playstyles for the army that were being requested (I don't think any other book actually looked at shifting the army's dynamic and opening up playstyles), and
    2) it significantly reduced the army's negative skill modifier. So I would guess a lot of people suddenly found themselves taking a beating because the people who were playing HbE (which had (and may still have) a severe negative skill modifier for average players) suddenly had an army that didn't punish you for being an average player. A lot of the 2.0 updates, ON TOP of decreasing the power level of the army, restored that negative skill modifier.


    I think you are questioning the same part of the balancing process that VC players are questioning (expert opinions as a data point vs. tournament data). I think respectful critique of the process is more appropriate than a competition about who had it worse. If you understand the frustration of having a book overcorrected than you can relate to some of the people who have posted on this thread.

    Also, as a neutral, non-UD player I can say that the nerf to Death is only the Beginning was more significant than any point changes. It's really hard to guess where UD is now imo
  • Glakthag wrote:

    Every consecutive patch has effectively reduced options and the variety of models we can bring to the table. 10 wraiths have gone from 360 (last time i used them) to 410 points, Varkolaks are up, VKnights are up, Spawn are up, Coach is way up, and on and on. I, for one, would be happy to have the whole book nerfed via stats/abilities and the prices all lowered so we would be able to field a diverse and interesting list. In the meantime I’d settle for a nice Christmas gift of a rollback to 2.1
    Yeah, but keep the banshee at 155, the Night Crown at 55 and the Barrow guard Halberd at 3 pts if you can pls :thumbsup:

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

  • Not quite. I think EE *as a whole* (not just 1 or 2 people) can be useful as a source of information for the people making the update, when supported by data (as this update was) taking into account community feedback (as this update was). I'm not questioning the process. I understand it, believe the reasoning the RT provided, and believe that they are doing what they believe is best for the game as a whole.

    The part that sticks in my craw is comments like "the book has been crippled into unplayability internally and externally". Like, really? That's what you're going to go with as an overview of this update? When a book that was overcorrected FAR more was still playable to success by great/top level players despite being the worst book in the game?

    Even *IF* the HbE book would have been Tier 1 when 2.0 dropped (and that is something that we will never know because of how that whole scenario was handled), my argument still stands. Are VC players REALLY claiming with a straight face that some points increases to them are WORSE than a huge number of design nerfs AND point increases that turned a book they believe was Tier 1 into Tier 5?

    While I can sympathize with them because of my experience, I can also point out that *there is a strong possibility they are wrong*. At this point, the next step is to collect data because we need to see where everyone ended up after all of the changes. Saying "ignore your data and informational sources, do what we are asking" is ABSOLUTELY the wrong approach. The last time it happened, the HbE overcorrection happened (back then it was the other 15 armies clamoring for our army book on a plate).

    PS. My opinion is that the situation with HbE was DEFINITELY worse than this. If you'd like, we can continue to discuss it in a PM, and I can explain why I believe that without derailing things.
  • I think the point is that obvious hyperbole or factually wrong claims stated in highly emotionally charged ways ('crippled into unplayability', 'the purge' etc to describe a moderate point patch, 'double nerf' when that's been noted as not accurate etc) and stubbornly repeated even after being corrected, clearly untrue conspiracy theories, reliance on cherry picked evidence (like 1 to 1 comparisons in other factions ignoring the context of a whole different ecosystem, or using only measures of 'balance' that suit your argument) and dismissal of anything or anyone who disagrees etc etc only really harms the credibility of the arguer and their argument. 'Passion' like that can kick up a loud noise for a little while, but ultimately to people who look at these things soberly it just serves to mask any valid points there might be behind it because the most obviously reasonable thing to do about someone making clearly unsubstantiated claims is to dismiss their point of view as unreasonable.

    Which is a pity, because if there are genuine improvements that could be made (which the project is interested in) from a core truth more accurately founded and stated, all the above makes it much harder to see.

    Data Analysis

  • @Aenarion43 thanks for the offer but I'm not really looking for a debate about who was the most hard done by or an explanation of your opinion since it's neither here nor there to me.

    So much has been discussed in this thread that it's easy to miss stuff, depending on where you entered the convo. I have already agreed with you in stating that we need to see what happens now, in terms of power levels, after the recent changes. I do think that we should have had more objective measures to analyze the impact of the first set of recent changes but we are where we are so let's get those objective measures now instead of more changes based on opinions. Likewise, I missed where in the thread VC players explicitly said this nerf was worse than the HBE nerf you speak of.
  • VampsinMD wrote:

    I do think that we should have had more objective measures to analyze the impact of the first set of recent changes but we are where we are so let's get those objective measures now instead of more changes based on opinions.
    Out of interest, do you have any concrete suggestions?
    (Apologies if you've already proposed them and I've missed them)


    To be honest, I feel quite sorry for the project on this one.
    During the early stage of the patch, a lot of people (perhaps not in the VC forum) were saying that the initial beta changes were a good start, but the data driven approach needed more human oversight and intervention (and hence were glad that the project had said a second part would be carried out).
    I wish those people would come here and debate with the VC players who seem to want a more strict adherence to the data driven process.
    As usual the project is caught in the middle; perhaps a poll of the community to see whether a 1 or 2 stage process should be followed next time would be interesting...
    Being supportive & giving useful criticism aren't mutually exclusive.
    Are you supportive of the project? Do your posts reflect that?

    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
  • DanT wrote:

    VampsinMD wrote:

    I do think that we should have had more objective measures to analyze the impact of the first set of recent changes but we are where we are so let's get those objective measures now instead of more changes based on opinions.
    Out of interest, do you have any concrete suggestions?(Apologies if you've already proposed them and I've missed them)


    To be honest, I feel quite sorry for the project on this one.
    During the early stage of the patch, a lot of people (perhaps not in the VC forum) were saying that the initial beta changes were a good start, but the data driven approach needed more human oversight and intervention (and hence were glad that the project had said a second part would be carried out).
    I wish those people would come here and debate with the VC players who seem to want a more strict adherence to the data driven process.
    As usual the project is caught in the middle; perhaps a poll of the community to see whether a 1 or 2 stage process should be followed next time would be interesting...
    Personally, I like the comprehensive approach to data changes but it's my understanding that the first update included all forms of data collection whilst the second part of the update was based only on conjecture. I could be wrong there about the first part of the update (maybe it was only driven by tournament data?) but I'm speaking to what I understand about the process as of now.

    I did not make any concrete suggestions, only that we could have gathered data before the second part of the patch. Expert opinions are valuable but perhaps more informed by data. Opinions can corroborate or potentially refute data points (perhaps identifying certain circumstances that cause data to be misleading). However, kind of seems like instead of being used to corroborate, opinion data was cumulative with objective data causing certain entries to get hit twice when perhaps once was sufficient.

    I also sympathize with the project. They are doing a great job and while we crave more transparency, I don't think anyone can name a similar game where there as much transparency with regard to direction, rules, etc. than what we have with T9A.
  • fjugin wrote:

    @eggsPR, I see, thanks for sharing.
    I think your analysis is missing some crucial details.

    For example. court mount base price was reduced 20 points. You have this marked as "who cares". The price for 4++ upgrade was increased by 20 points. You do not have this marked as "who cares". Not very unbiased analysis then perhaps..

    In truth, this change cannot possible be seen as a nerf. Nothing has become more expensive. Some builds are cheaper. Some are unchanged.


    Also, barrow king skeletal steed cost did not use to be 10.
    Agreed, that list should have been sorted - notice it was a 7 priority. My “who cares” was mainly around popularity 9-10. I noticed your critique stopped there so let’s assume that the other 98% of analysis was accurate enough and not so bad for an outsider looking in (the priority stuff... anybody can view what was nerfed/buffed and not).
    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