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!

  • DanT wrote:

    Herminard wrote:

    DanT wrote:

    In a comparison of ETC 2019 and the state of play as of 2.2, the choice of whether the increase the power of every book except the top one, or picking some middle level and taking some books up and some books down, are different only in terms of how much stuff can be included in a 4500pt list.
    False
    True, given the context and caveats as detailed in my post :P

    Not contextually. Practically.
    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:

    I personally know the original architects of T9A project as we discussed it's pre-origins in Hotel lobbies of Czech Republic circa 2016. Johan and Anders wouldn't stand for this if they were as involved as they were then. Or, at least they'd listen to the likes of community enthusiasts, as they once did in 2016.

    So fell Lord Perth...

    DanT wrote:

    No-one was talking about 2016.

    Page 6.
    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.
  • Herminard wrote:

    eggsPR wrote:

    I personally know the original architects of T9A project as we discussed it's pre-origins in Hotel lobbies of Czech Republic circa 2016. Johan and Anders wouldn't stand for this if they were as involved as they were then. Or, at least they'd listen to the likes of community enthusiasts, as they once did in 2016.

    So fell Lord Perth...

    DanT wrote:

    No-one was talking about 2016.
    Page 6.
    Lol.
    Yes, the discussion happening on page 28 definitely hadn't moved on at all.

    This is a wonderful example of why people asking for reasoning off the project is a trap: unless it is written in tongues, someone will pick a hole it :P
    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
    Empire of Dannstahl HERE
  • Herminard wrote:

    Krokz wrote:

    .. 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..




    ..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...
    Mhmm

    Can we start by agreeing that I am a multi-army player?

    Saying I play all armies in equal is not true, but all 3 Elves, both kinds of Dwarves, Vermins, OnG, Beasts, OK, DL, UD aaaaand VC are what I have played around with this fall.

    Then if we could focus on what mindset you feel gives the best game for the most?

    Im genuinely interested in yer answer.

    I will take @DanT as my witness that I care more of the nerds of the community than I care of the balance of the game. Or even the power level of the game.

    If you had to rate the 3 - what would your picking order be?

    Skåll!

    DanT wrote:

    The practical barriers are not very substantial or insurmountable.


    Nonetheless, we should probably leave this thread to the VC players now :P

    I am a VC player. I even tagged you in that post.
    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.
  • DanT wrote:

    Herminard wrote:

    eggsPR wrote:

    I personally know the original architects of T9A project as we discussed it's pre-origins in Hotel lobbies of Czech Republic circa 2016. Johan and Anders wouldn't stand for this if they were as involved as they were then. Or, at least they'd listen to the likes of community enthusiasts, as they once did in 2016.

    So fell Lord Perth...

    DanT wrote:

    No-one was talking about 2016.
    Page 6.
    Lol.Yes, the discussion happening on page 28 definitely hadn't moved on at all.

    This is a wonderful example of why people asking for reasoning off the project is a trap: unless it is written in tongues, someone will pick a hole it :P

    1. Try not talking in absolutes when your argument is on shaky grounds.

    2. Try to bring clarity to the core of the argument of others before trying to refute it.

    3. As a general rule it is common courtesy to write "not inclined to engage in intercourse" if you quote someone just to say "agree" when you have also liked their post. I know - we should have come further in 2019 but its where we are.
    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.
  • Herminard wrote:

    Wesser wrote:

    Herminard wrote:

    If you and the rest of the VC community are hardly evvvur using the Shrieker in close combat - then removing its capability to thunderstomp, its terror, its 4 s5 attacks and its capability to shriek into combat should not really affect its power at all.

    Not really, no


    And cost would remain unchanged.


    Ofc not

    But if an SH lacking all the above stuff cost say 440 points (50 points discount) then I think that would be a stronger choice


    And in a data driven nerfbased context - if that made it popular. It would soon cost 470. Then 480. Then?
    That's only assuming people starting spamming Shrieking Horror.

    And at least then it would be priced based on it's actual abilities rather than imaginary ones
  • Wesser wrote:

    Herminard wrote:

    And in a data driven nerfbased context - if that made it popular. It would soon cost 470. Then 480. Then?
    That's only assuming people starting spamming Shrieking Horror.
    And at least then it would be priced based on it's actual abilities rather than imaginary ones

    That is only the case if units are costed as per abilities. In the Data Driven approach units are costed per popularity. The reason is irrelevant. So unless the Shrieking Horror would become much _less_ popular - it would have a steady increase of cost well on to the other side of 500.

    If I think this is sensible? No. I am arguing a No New Nerfs policy instead. Not because of my love of the Shrieker, but out of my care for the stability of the metagame. I think that bad things come from killing so many army builds.

    On a personal note I also feel like I am being ripped of the opportunity to find builds that would have made the untamed ETC 2019 UD / ETC 2016 EoS / Et al shiver&sweat in fear.
    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.
  • Wesser wrote:

    berti wrote:

    Everything that thunderstomps is a combat monster against Infantry that needs 6es to wound it.


    I quite disagree. The Horror isn't effective in that role almost no matter what it fight.

    If you take Marksmen with DH are they then charging all over the place just because they get +1STR when they do so?


    Sometimes it is better to charge something and scream in close combat, risking one hit less, than be outside of combat and be target of magic and shooting in oponents turn. You can still heal the terror if necessary.

    Again.. very rare. The Horror is not a good fighter and multicombat is generally not where it wants to be


    And all this huge whinefest in Vampire forum because it was by accident possible to use 2 terrors and a vampire dragon for some weeks?
    Nothing changed compared to before the patch, but some point adjustment on the dragon. (becoming cheaper).


    Most... (or at least me) was purely miffed because of how it was done. In a panic to combat an imagined problem. The build itself was weak

    Herminard wrote:

    If you and the rest of the VC community are hardly evvvur using the Shrieker in close combat - then removing its capability to thunderstomp, its terror, its 4 s5 attacks and its capability to shriek into combat should not really affect its power at all.

    Not really, no


    And cost would remain unchanged.


    Ofc not

    But if an SH lacking all the above stuff cost say 440 points (50 points discount) then I think that would be a stronger choice

    @Wesser is correct imo. sure, theres a good matchup for almost everything. If this matchup is handed to you to take it. Most of the time it wont be. But SH is not a combat monster. If it was, how does it do against other "combat" units?

    Let's also remember that res 6 does not protect against ranks and banners auto wounding after combat.
  • Herminard wrote:

    Hachiman Taro wrote:

    Then the factions with the biggest player bases would steadily more powerful.

    It's more or less nonsensical anyway. There were far more point reductions in this patch than rises, so the project is doing what is asked anyway. People just focus on the fewer rises / nerfs for various reasons (some understandable).

    If nothing was able to be nerfed then everything would have to be raised to the power level of the most powerful thing, meaning everything bar one in the whole game would need a point drop. Then, because nothing is ever perfect, there would be a new most powerful thing, and you'd have to do it again, ad infinitum, until things cost so little it's impossible to make granular enough price changes.
    Mhm

    1. Project is not doing what is asked. For instance - my central quell is that builds are being killed. This patch killed its share. 2.1 too.

    2. We dont have to aim for power equilibrium of the strongest unit/book. Aiming for fair contest suffice. Ie dont touch tier 1 - buff stuff up to tier 2. That includes unplayed units in tier 1 books.

    3. Plz use quote.
    1. It depends what you mean by 'killed'. That's an emotive and literally inaccurate word here with an imprecise metaphoric meaning that feels bad largely because of the literal meaning that has nothing to do with what happened in this update. No one and nothing died, even if you think the project in the past has been somewhat nerf happy. Generally, people can still play a very similar list, just with a few less models, if they already played a list that was statistically near the strongest so went up in points. Conversely, a greater variety of other lists should be closer to viable competitively, since the worse stuff got a little better and the better stuff got a little worse. That's making more builds viable ( or 'raising from the dead' seems appropriate if you prefer metaphoric language ;) ), without taking away the ability to take lists similar to what was taken before.

    2. If you were even able to leave alone tier 1 and effectively bring everything else to tier 2 then the strongest books would be the strongest forever, and their strongest builds would never change (since you don't touch the best stuff, but only bring the rest up to the level below them). You'd 'kill' build variety that way even more, because the few best builds in the few best factions would stay that way forever. That's objectively not a good result for better balance or for play variety.

    In general, this idea is a bit like saying instead of hammering down a nail that sticks up, you should only ever move the wall into it.

    Everything in the lower tier books would need a (more) substantial buff. And then some things would over shoot the mark, meaning almost everything that didn't would need to be buffed again. If one item (eg Essence) is countering a faction so hard it's kept at a lower tier, and you can't nerf that item, you have to buff basically everything in the entire faction it's holding down. But hold on, then the faction you buffed is very strong against anything not using that item, so you have to buff everything but that one item. But then something else you buffed slightly too much is the most powerful thing. So you have to do another round of buffing. Ad infinitum. If you do that with point drops, people can generally afford more models for points. Until the amount of models that did make up a 5000 point game is now a 4500 game, and so on. The scale of the game gets bigger, the game takes longer. Which is what danT was saying.

    Incrementally nudging both ends towards the middle is a more effective approach, and still ends up with more buffs than nerfs. In general, getting the best things in each faction to around the median desired strength for cost (whether that's up or down), then bringing everything up around them up to around the same strength incrementally seems the only realistic method the project has to continually improve balance, and therefore improve (or 'give life to') better build variety, without inflating the general size of the game. Plus the opportunity of trying different and now better lists keeps the game from getting stale.

    3. Sometimes quoting isn't the best. It ends up with these long chain conversations between two people on a public forum that tends to exclude others, and focus in on ever more detail and ever less broad context. If you can address a posts concerns in a way that doesn't do that, I think it works better

    Data Analysis

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

  • 3. If so you please. I prefer to be quoted.

    --

    1. I also use the term obsolete. Killed is to tangent the real sense of loss to the nerds. Very similar is often not true. Forcing nerds to rebuild is unsexy. A very similar list is not a problem to me. It never was. Look at my ETC record. I always bring something out of the box. Its not my loss I mourn.

    If it was past it was past - I forgive easily. Its 2.1 and 2.2 doing the same thing again. Its malign to the nerds.

    I am not at all adversary to buffing the lesser used stuff. I am all in favour of broadening the metagame infact. I dont think a reductionist approach to the power level of the game is the best approach for broadening the metagame. A reduction in peak power also means a reduction in design space.

    --

    2. The idea that bringing all the sub-tier 2 stuff up to tier 2 would not affect the metagame for the armies in tier 1 seems ill thought through.

    In the next cycle the gap would ofc lessen again. The gap between the tier 1 and tier 2 would slowly converge. Lest new army books made a splash.

    --

    Yer analogy presumes equal end result. So not the case. Very similar suffice not.

    I think its pretty clear that in order to create a stabile environment its better to adjust less parametres. I think cutting nerfs off is a more solid scientific approach.

    Yer ad infinitum argument presumes uncontrolled buffs. Mistakes happen. If there is clear overshoot, then yes - it would have ripple effects. I dont mind risking that the power level of the game being something similar to that of the ETC 2017.

    While I have not presented it here - I have elsewhere postulated that my presumption of No New Nerfs is based on 3 ETCs / 36+ months. I would concur that issues of the metagame that are unsolvable by 3 attempts of ETC should be considered for a soft touch of nerf :)

    Yer inflative argument ad 5k resides on the premise of design fail within the current scope of power.
    If that is at all a supported view of the RT et ExB I would really like them to come clear about what power level they feel this game should have.
    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.
  • Herminard wrote:

    3. If so you please. I prefer to be quoted.

    2. The idea that bringing all the sub-tier 2 stuff up to tier 2 would not affect the metagame for the armies in tier 1 seems ill thought through.


    In the next cycle the gap would ofc lessen again. The gap between the tier 1 and tier 2 would slowly converge.
    That might be true. You don't know it though, you're not presenting evidence for it, you're just saying it. Perhaps it's just what you convince yourself is true because you hope it is true.

    Herminard wrote:

    I think its pretty clear that in order to create a stabile environment its better to adjust less parametres. I think cutting nerfs off is a more solid scientific approach.
    It depends what you mean exactly by "parametres". Adjusting one thing down because it is stronger than the rest is adjusting less things than adjusting everything else up to meet it though, with less potential error, and less potential for broadly unintended effect. The project has moved on from doing the former as much (with good reason), even then just doing things because they feel immediately good rather than are most effective and correct for long term effect isn't always for the best result.

    As to a more scientific approach. A more scientific approach requires evidence. You haven't shown any, so what you think is more scientific without any evidence isn't more scientific, only your opinion. On the other hand, this update relied heavily on evidence, and made more buffs than nerfs as a consequence. That's an improved result.

    Herminard wrote:

    I dont think a reductionist approach to the power level of the game is the best approach for broadening the metagame.
    What do you mean by reductionist? Do you mean analysing and describing a complex phenomenon in terms of its simple or fundamental constituents. Or do you mean just 'making things less'? We're all doing the former to some extent, but by gathering and analysing data more effectively, we're doing it less, and doing balance better.

    Herminard wrote:

    A reduction in peak power also means a reduction in design space.
    This is a good point [edit] It probably also means a reduction in the likelyhood of skewed or RPS matchups though, which aren't fun. But as you also point out, it's also really up to RT / EXB where they want the peak power level to sit. It's sort of a hard thing to quantify, but they basically already did by giving us a tier list with a tier that represents it.

    Data Analysis

    The post was edited 5 times, last by Hachiman Taro ().

  • I should answer this. But now I will bed my missus.
    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.
  • PETREOPATROKLOS wrote:

    Still don´t understand why VC character needs to pay 25p to be a general.

    So VC players really play with 4475p instead 4500p. (Choose a general is NOT an option).

    If yoy want a penalty give 125 extra victory points (instead 100) for kill VC general.
    UD are paying 45 points to make the Death Cult Hierarch become the Hierophant. I don't see a problem here. Just as @Izomov said, it is an upgrade since you gain a pretty good bound spell in reverse without touching your item budget. We could also make every single Vampire Count, Vampire Courtier and Necromancer become 25 points more expensive, because they COULD become the General (and gain Dead Arise bound spell therefore) and make the General upgrade for free instead. Would this be more of your flavour? :D

    Full Layout Coordinator

    Translation Team DE

    VC Community Support

    Supporter of Veil of the Ages

  • Wow, there are some really interesting debates springing here, fueled by Herminard.
    You guys are doing a good job debating the important stuff regarding the whole project and I wanted to say that I do enjoy reading it.

    I'm late to the debate but will try to jump in with a few one-liners.
    - there is no winner of this debate; both sides are correct and the matter is such that there is no correct answer to any problem, since the problems are in a constant state of flux. More data is collected every day, as is the anecdotal evidence and public opinion, new interactions are theory hammered and tested. Game evolves all the time. Maybe today it is best to use data to blanket boost/ nerf all the army books but tomorrow that will no longer be the case since someone will have to use intuition and further correct things.
    - we are playing a system in which scientific methods (data mining) actually come second to anecdotal evidence (playtesting). Experience is the most important thing when it comes to balancing the game and creating new stuff for it.
    - people often forget the difference between what should be done and what can be done. Project leaders have a set amount of resources and restrains, they have to use them in the best possible way, even if it means that they use the 2nd best method for making the game better- because they will still make the game better.
    - to all the VC players that cannot help themselves and have to whine- find a better way to further your cause. This is aimed especially at one of the best VC players in the world, Chris (Eggs). Dude, after all this years you are still being a whiny nerd. I strongly suggest you go and learn from the likes of Furion on the HBE forum; his campaign 'HBE are a very bad army and I'm proving it every time I win with them in a tournament' is really working.


    And a personal note/ rant, even with all the people involved, time and thought given to the game, there are always collateral victims to things that are almost impossible to predict. I am one of those victims, been on a steady vector to exit this hobby and are only gaining momentum in the last year or so.
    No, real life has little to do with it; one will find time if they really want to, for what ever they want in their life.
    I've been playing from 6th edition, stayed through several 'game exiting events' that have seen exodus of a large number of players from this hobby. From Games Workshops public statements 'We don't give a FAQ' and community having to write the actual rulebook and army rules (I was one of them and it took soo much time and effort to do so), 7ed spikes with 'every army has to become no1. seller of miniatures and rules have to make that possible' where again insane amount of time was needed to write army comps. Then the 8ed 'dumbing down the game', making it simpler so more players can enjoy it, but after a few months everything was as it always was... Then the End Times and the death of the game, Rise of 9th age and all it brought.
    In the end what kills this game for me is the time needed to play a 4.500pts game. Both friendly and in tournaments. New game length is 3,5h for a tournament and 4h for a friendly game. I could write a paper explaining why this is bad and all the things leading to it and all the things coming from it; however the simple conclusion is- game is on the other side of the line /fine as it is/unplayable/.