Pinned DE General Discussion

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

  • Babnik Kalenina wrote:

    Nico wrote:

    SmithF wrote:

    I personally interact with what can be considered the most successful DE generals in the international scene (Spain, Russia, Germany, USA, Belgium, France, Australia are all represented, to state a few), all of whom have played dozens of games with the book and have been giving constant feedback about it. We've also had four major international tournaments since the release of the original Alpha (NYR, W8MW, WTC and WLTDO) as well as a handful of local ones played on UB.
    Spanish team championships played this weekend, enough DE players and some in the top teams.86+67+66+59+57+52+42+40+37+35 = average 54.1 with alpha 3, the 86 points man saved the day!

    Maaaan give us the demons designers. Just the guy with 86 points makes a really good weekend, and he is very experienced international player, Charlie Romero, and the 67-66 guys are in the top teams too...

    No one played Manticore, even res5 LoL, No one played Pegasus. Only 1 guy played Judicators, the rest played obsidian guard.
    In the french qualifs, the winning team had a DE player, and apparently he has the worst scoring level of his team...
    What I still struggle to swallow in this new version, is that for months, some players here have complained, whinned about the harpies, 8 size for 160, and DE team have explained why it's legit and balanced game wise.
    And now, the same team has hugely nerfed this unit.
    I happily painted 8 harpies and played them extensively this year. Now this unit will be back in a case.

    Really bad work guys on that version.
    Perhaps you can further explain why having 15 str 4 attacks from a flying unit for 170 is really bad. Does the extra 5 attacks offer nothing. What would cost would you play them at? It sounds like you have not even tried them. Feedback regardless to correct points in an alpha cycle is what public playtesting is all about. Have you never played in a video game, for instance a WoW beta where tuning was off but community feedback on the design direction helped fine tune the small details like points or mana cost of a spell etc?
    “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” - Henry Ford
  • msu117 wrote:

    Perhaps you all can share lists used from 9.3 and show how changes in 9.4 have affected them. Certainly using data means having data input from multiple sources, player submissions, tournament data, panels of experts, etc.

    Why would we bother analysing and submitting this data if you are just going to ignore the trends and decide to use individual performances, as explained by SmithF, anyways?

    Here a few example so far that illustrate how minor changes really do not effect the playstyle of ability of list to function.
    Below dropping down to 10 Warlock acolytes and one OG should fix things no? list should still play the same right?

    Is this sort of change so egregious that we can't through trial and error raise prices and drop prices 5, 10 points here and there. We are after the fair price after all no?

    If you expect that raising or dropping prices here and there will overall have no effect on how lists play, then why bother making changes at all? Clearly you expect it to have effects on how lists play.



    The book is in alpha moving towards beta we appreciate well grounded illustration of errors we feel we made. Does any point change drastically alter build due to restrictions caps that sort of thing but during alpha and beta I would expect minor point fluxuations.

    I would expect actual design concepts to change during alpha testing, which you have been extremely reluctant to do. Minor points adjustments should be a beta design goal after functional design principles have been established and tested. This feels like a beta, where you've already decided all the background and designs are final.



    The base Kraken went up 15 pts to 380 the old slim Kraken was 390 are we still not ahead there and it is quite possible that cost can still swing the other direction again.

    Please offer criticisms but try to do so in a productive manor that we can see where problems were created.
  • @Willzilla I know its frustrating when you spend a lot of time writing feedback and it gets totally ignored. But you've got to remember lots of people spend time writing feedback, much of which contradicts others. Your feedback not getting implemented is just going to be the case for the majority of people. However if you want your future feedback to be taken on board I suggest writing it in the least emotive and most balanced way possible, this will give it the best chance of being listen too. When there has been a lot of agreement in the DE community for a change, which is within the project/LAB guidelines, say more flexibility in magic or smaller starting size for harpies, the team as listened, has it not?

    Regarding data for feedback what would you like to see? UB tournament data seems like a great source to me?

    @Nico when using team data I don't think it's fair to make the assumption for which books were paired for.
  • @Gingersmali not to throw too much oil on the fire , but a point of clarity, not all feedback is weighted equally in the project.

    There are significant portions of the decision making process that still have an elitist slant and with most of the decisions being made already, there is very little that general community members are able to influence, even with unemotional and empirically relevant feedback.

    The project has defined its stakeholder criteria and the forum sits very low on the totem pole.

    It's sad, but that's the way that the team has decided to take it
    Once a Highborn, always a Highborn.
  • Willzilla wrote:

    msu117 wrote:

    Perhaps you all can share lists used from 9.3 and show how changes in 9.4 have affected them. Certainly using data means having data input from multiple sources, player submissions, tournament data, panels of experts, etc.

    Why would we bother analysing and submitting this data if you are just going to ignore the trends and decide to use individual performances, as explained by SmithF, anyways?


    When the team says to look for individual results they means about RPS things or things that get taken too much or things that are soo good that change the intended way of playing, i suppose that from here we get the nerf to altar(promote deathstar play that is outside guidelines), assassins blades of darag(also promotes deathstar and too killy/reliable for his intended role) and black cloacks(too shooty for de so outside the guidelines or too rps) i suppose.
  • Disclaimer:
    This is my personal opinion, as a member of the DE LAB team. Other members may view things differently, and this diversity is what helped make the DE alpha book the first one to "hit the mark" almost from the get-go. But here goes:

    Boo_619 wrote:

    sorry, maybe I am misunderstanding what you’ve said here. Do you mean that there are many more “bad” dread elf players then “good” ones? That data as a whole doesn’t matter because some people at the top can still win? Is this a long way of telling people to “get good”?
    Thank you for your reply.
    I never said that the data as a whole doesn't matter. We're grateful for all the games that are reported, friendly and tournament alike, and all of the input is evaluated closely.

    What I'm getting at is that we look at lists that are performing very well in search for unforeseen combinations and entries that might prove to be detrimental to the game. One might point out that a good player is always going to do well, no matter the list. But in the case of high profile international events, the good player with the good list has the advantage. Even more so when it's the top-performing player himself that points out the balance issues that he's been able to exploit.

    So looking at the outliers helps us detect balance issues, and then we take A LOT of time to discuss how to best resolve them without affecting the way the army plays.

    Examples of such entries in the previous alpha versions:
    - Warlock Acolyte large unit with Veilbound Amulets + Blades of Darag, and Hand of Glory/Perception of Strength/Word of Iron combo:
    yes, some players used this block and only did "fairly well" with it, but we had a lot of reports about how such a combination removes all semblance of counterplay and dumbs down the game - and that was coming from the DE players that were using it.

    - Legionnaire Altar Star:
    The combination of Warsmith + Assassin + Crucible of Slaughter gave all the bonuses of the Blades of Darag without any of the drawbacks of the Temple Militant units. Add to that the interaction with the Pennon and (previously) Academy bonuses, and you had a combination that was (a) too cheap for what it could achieve (b) had very few counters and was deemed unfun.

    - Academy Banner and how it interacted with Oracle and the Ring of the Obsidian Thrones (old version):
    Almost automatic 6+ to be hit was very quickly flagged - again, there were workarounds; but ultimately having such an option is bad for the game as a whole.

    If we had only been looking to the averages, none of the above would have gotten looked at. At this point, you have to have a bit of faith that the team has the game's and the faction's best interests in mind. Everything you like about the book, we're responsible for. We're also responsible for everything you dislike about it, and that's simply the way it goes. :)

    Willzilla wrote:

    Thank you for taking the time to respond. If this is entirely accurate, I feel there are quite a few problems with how you went about these changes.
    Firstly, saying that the larger data pool is incorrect and that individual performance is weighted higher is absolutely backwards. It might be the worst possible explanation ever given. Why bother asking for and analysing large data pools if you are going to ignore the trends and decide to use individual anecdotal performances?
    See above.

    An army performing average when you pool the results from various sources is what we're going for. But outliers are important data points because we can use them to explain what's wrong with the book.

    It's clear that you are not a fan of our work, and I'm sorry to hear that. But trying to prove that the changes were arbitrary by demanding to see data is not how project accountability works. You'll have to acknowledge at least that this is not a single person who has no clue of what he's doing changing things arbitrarily - if you want proof, we've been tweaking things for the past 6+ months and the book still hasn't underperformed in any event.

    If you want my personal opinion, I think that what was keeping the original alpha book in the 50-50 region was a very important meta shift towards an anti-elf meta, triggered exactly by the advent of the DE book. As this trend subsides (bigger fish to fry, what with the new VS getting released), I would expect the Dread Elf performance to improve further.



    Willzilla wrote:

    Secondly, I'd like to address the manticore issue. The new 'game wide mandates', that don't apply to those lucky few books already in gold, are a step in the wrong direction. It's extremely strange to decide midway through Lab creation that there are new rules that only apply going forward. That terrible decision aside, we arrive at the manticore. In no way was the 'game wide mandates' applied in the way it was explained. As I understand, we were told that models on 50x50 bases were not to have towering presence. And what we received, was a reduction in resilience and kept towering presence. What is really going on here?

    @msu117 has already hinted at other possibilities for the "baby" manticore.
    I have to say that re-reading your post I don't appreciate the "what is really going on here?" bit - there is no hidden agenda, and there is no anti-DE conspiracy. People can have different opinions about how to change X or Y without being out to get you.

    That note aside, we discussed a lot of options for the small manticore. The facts:
    1. The 50x50 Manticore was originally added to address modelling issues. Some players do not want to rebase their old manticores, and there was a popular demand to have an option for the smaller base. It might sound legalese, but there is no reason for every option to be equally competitive, especially one that's been added for modelling reasons. For precedent, look at the bigger zombie Dragon, the bigger Monstrous Revenant, the Bigwing upgrade for the wyvern and even the Big Brother giant upgrade.

    I'm not saying that we want to the 50x50 manticore to be crap, but that in the greater scheme of things it's not game breaking in any way to have one mount option be weaker than another, given the history of how the 50x50 "upgrade" came to be.

    2. Having a smaller base is not a trivial advantage: from avoiding flank charges to being able to hide from cannons and other warmachines, the smaller base increases the survivability of the model by a lot. Case in point, most players didn't opt for the Extraordinary Specimen, citing the bigger base as an issue. It works both ways: if the bigger base is worse, then the smaller base is better. ;)

    3. Towering Presence: this rule might initially seem to be "just" a way to give +6" to commanding presence and a weird way to give "Tall" to a Large model. Reality is a bit more complicated:
    - There are models in the game that specifically target Towering Presence (extra damage, bigger charge range and so on)
    - Towering Presence precludes the model from joining units or forming units with other Towering Presence single models
    - Towering Presence prevents the interaction with certain items (Destiny's Call, Essence of Mithril, Potion of Strength at the very least).

    So dropping Towering Presence was deemed initially to be too complicated and with too many ramifications. We also suggested other tweaks, but the one that was seen as sufficient in the scope of the entire game was to lower the resilience. If it doesn't see play, we'll tweak it again - that's how LABs work.



    Willzilla wrote:

    Thirdly, I'd like to address the hereditary spell. I agree that it is a vast improvement over the previous version. Certainly a buff. However, you claim that it single handily makes up for all other nerfs in the book. You have no data to back up that statement, and it has hardly been playtested. Again you are using personal bias to make that decision instead of referring to a larger data pool that obviously doesn't yet exist. Blanket statements like that make the Lab look bad and frankly you should be embarrassed.

    Call it an educated guess. I guess time will tell, but I'd be willing to bet on it.

    Yet again, the project uses data but project accountability doesn't mean that a LAB team has to prove to every single T9A member that every change is supported by data, nor does every change have to be accompanied by a 3-page briefing on why it was warranted. If I wanted an administrative/corporate job, I would get one outside of T9A and receive the paycheck for it, too.

    Bottom line is: I gave my hobby time for free so that you can play games of imaginary battles with your toy soldiers. I am sorry if the end result doesn't satisfy you, but this is nothing "I should be embarrassed" about. Now, constructive criticism is welcome and other posters have pointed out instances where the team took that criticism and acted upon it.


    Willzilla wrote:

    The major concerns are not addressed in anyway. Why do underperforming units (manticore, chariot mounts, judicators, assassins, corsairs, collosal kraken) receive nerfs while units with great performance (shadow riders, acolytes) receive buffs? What the hell is happening here?
    Underperforming is an overstatement for at last a handful of these.
    But rest assured that the data-driven part of the process, as witnessed by the yearly point and balance updates, will kick in and solve any underperformance issues that the LAB team may miss during alpha (and beta).


    Glegut wrote:

    Sorry, where can we see DE army lists from this tournament?Regards,
    Here are all the qualification lists:

    Listas_Final_Talavera_2021.pdf - Google Drive

    Babnik Kalenina wrote:

    In the french qualifs, the winning team had a DE player, and apparently he has the worst scoring level of his team...
    What I still struggle to swallow in this new version, is that for months, some players here have complained, whinned about the harpies, 8 size for 160, and DE team have explained why it's legit and balanced game wise.
    And now, the same team has hugely nerfed this unit.
    I happily painted 8 harpies and played them extensively this year. Now this unit will be back in a case.

    Really bad work guys on that version.

    For every person that was happy with the 8-strong harpy units (I was one of them, too), there was another - very vocal- person that wanted his 5-man harpy units back both for modelling reasons and for in-game reasons. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

    I've already explained the reasons why a small, maneuverable and easy to hide unit of flying chaff will never be cheap. It would be to the detriment of the game if we did so, and another option was explored.

    Kind regards,

    Smith

  • For every person that was happy with the 8-strong harpy units (I was one of them, too), there was another - very vocal- person that wanted his 5-man harpy units back both for modelling reasons and for in-game reasons. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
    Would be interesting how many of those vocal guys are satisfied with paying more than before for the chaff unit with 3 less wounds now.
    I doubt that the on charge bonus attack will do much difference on their performance. Of course they will have even better chances against warmachines. Else this means about 1 additional wound on charge. While there are 3 wounds less in the unit.
  • Could I just suggest that there could be a point in the future where all off the non-LAB books would be adjusted to conform to the 'new' general guidelines?
    So, if we will have to play with a book with such constraints, is it possible to do so against similar books rather than to have to wait for another 5 years before all the books have gotten their LABs?

    Quick fixes:
    - no more than triplicate hero choices in any book
    - 50x50 mm flying mounts max Res 4?
    - no more chariot crew on chariot mounts?
    - all chaff goes to min 150 PTS?
    - whilst you're at it, remove crown of autocracy & rending banner?
    - anything else I missed?
    Have you checked out my Youtube channel yet? Link: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8s5AkuzccDY_M0zBVIDd7w
  • SmithF wrote:


    For every person that was happy with the 8-strong harpy units (I was one of them, too), there was another - very vocal- person that wanted his 5-man harpy units back both for modelling reasons and for in-game reasons. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

    I've already explained the reasons why a small, maneuverable and easy to hide unit of flying chaff will never be cheap. It would be to the detriment of the game if we did so, and another option was explored.

    Kind regards,

    Smith
    It is a fact that people rather give negative than positive feedback, so assuming that equal amount of complaints and praise means the crowd is undecided is wrong.
    Admitting to succumbing to the "very vocal " part is also disturbing, seems like repeating a mantra long enough gives me what I want even if I'm the only one complaining.
    So given those reasons isn't helping to trust the design process.

    Now, seeing what changes are done, what complaints are listened to, and what community feedback is ignored,it isn't as simple as you make it seem claiming the vocal part got what they wanted.

    During the process of ID, DE and now VS we can easily see that most things are already set in stone, the changes we get are on things the team doesn't realy care for.
    No amount of expressed concerns, no amount of provided data changes major issues seen as problematic in the design process.
    That was different for a while as WodG and DL were done, we had the feeling of being taken into account with the developement of these books.
    ID is in-between, some very vocal calls for nerfs were being heard, but it already started to seem like nerfing and taking away things without compensating was done more willingly than tweaking designe around to keep ideas alive.

    WIth DE, and now appearantly VS as well, designers don't change anything seen as problematic.
    DE character section is way too restricting, as are the weapon options.
    DE shooting army is pretty dead, it was never great but playable, some liked it - gone is the playstyle.
    DE board control is greatly reduced, reducing the possible army builds a lot, again taking away playstyles some people loved to play, also gone.
    Reaction of the designers to those complaints : zero.
    No explanation, no change, nothing.
    So some things apparently will not change. So why bother asking the community?
    I don't want the possible playstyles reduced, in no army. Make new backgrounds, create new units, but contain what the army felt like, contain what was possible with the army.
    Because every possible playstyle had people who used it, who played the army because of that playstyle.

    Reducing those options leads to RPS games, DE shows that a lot. It also leads to boring lists and disappointed players.

    Go back to creating fun books, taking nothing established away, and don't sacrifice other players fun because you as the designers happen to not like that playstyle.
  • Ehakir wrote:

    Could I just suggest that there could be a point in the future where all off the non-LAB books would be adjusted to conform to the 'new' general guidelines?
    So, if we will have to play with a book with such constraints, is it possible to do so against similar books rather than to have to wait for another 5 years before all the books have gotten their LABs?

    Quick fixes:
    - no more than triplicate hero choices in any book
    - 50x50 mm flying mounts max Res 4?
    - no more chariot crew on chariot mounts?
    - all chaff goes to min 150 PTS?
    - whilst you're at it, remove crown of autocracy & rending banner?
    - anything else I missed?
    - remove Book of Arcane Mastery
    - remove all cavalry-like mounts on 25*50 with LT (or just add it to DE)
  • Masamune88 wrote:

    @Gingersmali not to throw too much oil on the fire , but a point of clarity, not all feedback is weighted equally in the project.

    There are significant portions of the decision making process that still have an elitist slant and with most of the decisions being made already, there is very little that general community members are able to influence, even with unemotional and empirically relevant feedback.

    The project has defined its stakeholder criteria and the forum sits very low on the totem pole.

    It's sad, but that's the way that the team has decided to take it
    This is a good point and I hope my post didn’t give the impression otherwise. I was only trying to say thought out balanced views are given more weight than emotive complaining in threads like this. I agree sadly both have low impact. But the the public forum is listen too. I’m not one of the decision makers, so can’t be sure, but I am fairly confident the harpie change is a direct result of comments in the public forum. Whether you agree with it’s implementation is another question.

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

  • rolan wrote:

    Go back to creating fun books, taking nothing established away, and don't sacrifice other players fun because you as the designers happen to not like that playstyle.
    In other words, all we need is a miraculous "make everybody happy"-machine and we are done.

    Tool Support Battle Scribe

    DE Community Support


    My blog with battle reports and painting gallery: bleaklegion.wordpress.com/
  • SmithF wrote:

    - Legionnaire Altar Star:

    The combination of Warsmith + Assassin + Crucible of Slaughter gave all the bonuses of the Blades of Darag without any of the drawbacks of the Temple Militant units. Add to that the interaction with the Pennon and (previously) Academy bonuses, and you had a combination that was (a) too cheap for what it could achieve (b) had very few counters and was deemed unfun.
    - Why were the blades also removed? How does that make sense from a fluff pov? Bearing in mind you have added the frenzy that was missing plus there was other nerfs. I don't really care about pennon, HP, etc as I think that's all fair but reducing the quality and quantity of attacks on top of all that. Its repressive to hit a unit so thoroughly.

    Also there's no way when this is supposed to be a war platform that bestows a malus onto its unit should it be allowed to run as a single model.


    - Academy Banner and how it interacted with Oracle and the Ring of the Obsidian Thrones (old version):
    Almost automatic 6+ to be hit was very quickly flagged - again, there were workarounds; but ultimately having such an option is bad for the game as a whole.
    Fair enough but again it was done it a way that every aspect was hit (banner, ring, oracle ability) and now you never see oracles.


    Its more the fact that these changes are as subtle as a kick in the baws. Both of those things mentioned were hit in their entirety. The oracle has disappeared and you aren't gonna see the altar in units now it can ignore it's malus by running solo and on top of that it fights worse than whatever it replaces.




    3. Towering Presence: this rule might initially seem to be "just" a way to give +6" to commanding presence and a weird way to give "Tall" to a Large model. Reality is a bit more complicated:
    - There are models in the game that specifically target Towering Presence (extra damage, bigger charge range and so on)
    - Towering Presence precludes the model from joining units or forming units with other Towering Presence single models
    - Towering Presence prevents the interaction with certain items (Destiny's Call, Essence of Mithril, Potion of Strength at the very least).

    So dropping Towering Presence was deemed initially to be too complicated and with too many ramifications. We also suggested other tweaks, but the one that was seen as sufficient in the scope of the entire game was to lower the resilience. If it doesn't see play, we'll tweak it again - that's how LABs work.

    - To be fair all that should've been realised by whoever has randomly deemed this is now a thing after 2 LABs have 50x50 TP fliers and they just buffed wyverns a couple of months ago, not by you guys. This change to gamewide design guidelines 100% comes across as whimsical.

    With all the ramifications you've pointed out this should be a change whenever the full rulebook is reworked so it can be captured properly, not now.


    Willzilla wrote:

    Thirdly, I'd like to address the hereditary spell. I agree that it is a vast improvement over the previous version. Certainly a buff. However, you claim that it single handily makes up for all other nerfs in the book. You have no data to back up that statement, and it has hardly been playtested. Again you are using personal bias to make that decision instead of referring to a larger data pool that obviously doesn't yet exist. Blanket statements like that make the Lab look bad and frankly you should be embarrassed.
    Call it an educated guess. I guess time will tell, but I'd be willing to bet on it.

    The H spell is obviously better given its increased flexibility. However it is still situational.

    Moreover for someone with single model lists it is a far bigger bonus that to someone who plays more infantry based lists. Therefore a statement such as "its worth the 100pts you've lost in your list" is impossible to make.

    Free command groups for standard infantry
  • Ehakir wrote:

    Could I just suggest that there could be a point in the future where all off the non-LAB books would be adjusted to conform to the 'new' general guidelines?
    So, if we will have to play with a book with such constraints, is it possible to do so against similar books rather than to have to wait for another 5 years before all the books have gotten their LABs?

    Quick fixes:
    - no more than triplicate hero choices in any book
    - 50x50 mm flying mounts max Res 4?
    - no more chariot crew on chariot mounts?
    - all chaff goes to min 150 PTS?
    - whilst you're at it, remove crown of autocracy & rending banner?
    - anything else I missed?
    They had the chance to address the chaff points in Feb and choose not to.
    Free command groups for standard infantry
  • Maybe we should start organizing more the feedback in this forum subsection ? I mean some theme come frequently, there is way to ask more detailed questions, with a framework (initial constraint, potential direction, etc).

    There was what ? 2/3 ask for (forum) community here (mainly hereditary, and once altar for what I remember) and else it's free form (and well, we know what's come first/mostly in this case).
    Most suggestions were shut with the keywords "guideline" / "background (not the one you see in this book)" / "list that work without this change", so it's hard to see the point of showing our own creativity on this book (not for direct implementation, but as direction/idea).
    And it really seems that's the alpha is meant to hit the balance point and that's all. This media feels underused by a lot while it's the time (alpha) for setting the fun rules, and next (beta) let use the expertise of top player to set the powerlevel.



    rolan wrote:

    and now appearantly VS as well, designers don't change anything seen as problematic.
    Just. Don't be too hastly for this point : last patch was an hotfix after only 2 weeks for cleaning wording and few complaints/remarks, having more change as this point is maybe too much to ask (if you refer to the previous spoiler that didn't change while talked long before release, then OK for this criticism). It's hardly comparable to ID 14/15 months or DE 7/8 months.
    :UD_bw: :SE_bw:

    Strider (Open Terrain)

    I hold no truth except mine. And I'm not sure about this last one.
  • Minidudul wrote:

    Maybe we should start organizing more the feedback in this forum subsection ? I mean some theme come frequently, there is way to ask more detailed questions, with a framework (initial constraint, potential direction, etc).

    There was what ? 2/3 ask for (forum) community here (mainly hereditary, and once altar for what I remember) and else it's free form (and well, we know what's come first/mostly in this case).
    Most suggestions were shut with the keywords "guideline" / "background (not the one you see in this book)" / "list that work without this change", so it's hard to see the point of showing our own creativity on this book (not for direct implementation, but as direction/idea).
    And it really seems that's the alpha is meant to hit the balance point and that's all. This media feels underused by a lot while it's the time (alpha) for setting the fun rules, and next (beta) let use the expertise of top player to set the powerlevel.



    rolan wrote:

    and now appearantly VS as well, designers don't change anything seen as problematic.
    Just. Don't be too hastly for this point : last patch was an hotfix after only 2 weeks for cleaning wording and few complaints/remarks, having more change as this point is maybe too much to ask (if you refer to the previous spoiler that didn't change while talked long before release, then OK for this criticism). It's hardly comparable to ID 14/15 months or DE 7/8 months.
    Granted it was too early to do changes based on gaming experience. But why do changes then?
    The only reasons I can see is either the things that changed were under discussion from developement members,and the small amout of feedback was enough to tilt the view is the other direction, or some people are seen as important enough (staff members or forum members, IDK) to be able to influence the process this early in their favour.
    Both is not encouraging, and simply wrong. The release of the alpha was to gather data, not to change on a whim, disappointing people before they can have a sophisticated opinion.
  • DarkSky wrote:

    rolan wrote:

    Go back to creating fun books, taking nothing established away, and don't sacrifice other players fun because you as the designers happen to not like that playstyle.
    In other words, all we need is a miraculous "make everybody happy"-machine and we are done.
    No, not at all. I didn't even say " change nothing".
    Change everything, I like new stuff. But is an army had good shooting, good manouverability, good speed, good melee damage output and many ways of special deployment, I expect the new army to keep all those things, as well as low defence, low resistence, low magic defence but high magical damage output.
    That all can be done in a new, even unexpected way.
    But concentrating all efforts on high melee damage, low res, low defence while making the army bad at magic, bad at special deployment, bad at lateral movement, there are a bunch of people left annoyed with the new thing, and unnessesary so.
    At least, if you get feedback, try to listen to it.
    But with every iteration so far, nothing of those thing s changed, only some cosmetic stuff was done. Still some playstyles that were available are gone, still characters are too restricted, still ... you know it already.

    It is not about making everybody happy, it is about trying to keep the basics intact. If everything is basically contained, you will still find those who don't like a particular new ruling. But you will have a far greater support from people who see the new possibilities to keep their playstyle, and eventually the new ideas will be fine for most.
    Now a couple of things are so far gone, you will lose players who liked DE before.