Pinned HE General and News - Discussion

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.

  • @Giladis I doubt that it is about power level but as usual about removal of options and playstyles. Also nerfing is done mostly with removing abilities while buffing mostly with point reduction. So each balance iteration leaves blander product.

    Also 6th had a ton of fun and fluffy stuff that T9A with it's obsessive removal of variance and guarantee of skill based win won't allow. If in doubt you can check 6ed O&G book.

    I have won a fair share of tournaments myself but I can see how making game nearly only dependent on skill is somewhat detrimental to fun. Right now if you are inferior player you will loose 95+% of your games with someone better and close to 100% with someone significantly better. That gives no hope for newer players. Also the ability to surprise opponent in casual game with some crazy unconventional build is greatly reduced if not gone totally. Compare that to poker in which you can just be lucky and win a single game with a world champion, even though you will be stomped in the long run you can still do it.
    My gallery: Adam painting stuff (HbE, VC and lots of terrain)
    My battle reports: Adam Battle reports
    Sea Guard homebrew: Sea Guard
  • For myself, I am not looking to have an HBE army that always smashes all other Armies, but I would like an army that has an outside chance of winning some games even against good opponents with powerful builds. I have been here on the 9th Age forums for close to a year now and have been greatly impressed by much of the enthusiasm and hard work by many of the dedicated people volunteering precious time to this project. I'd hate to see it flounder and fizzle over tough decisions towards balance and as yet unseen lore.
    I propose that we at least officially return to 1.3.? until the play testers and rule adjusters can smooth out these bumps in the road before any more damage is done, and hopefully we can recoup back our losses in personnel.
    Respectfully, DR
    Failure is not an option.
  • Adam wrote:

    Right now if you are inferior player you will loose 95+% of your games with someone better and close to 100% with someone significantly better. That gives no hope for newer players. Also the ability to surprise opponent in casual game with some crazy unconventional build is greatly reduced if not gone totally. Compare that to poker in which you can just be lucky and win a single game with a world champion, even though you will be stomped in the long run you can still do it.
    Not sure if it is really necessary to win vs a world champion with some very lucky dice to have fun. Most people aren't that good .. even I have recently won a small 12-player tournament (while top players would cry seeing my army list)! And I must say that the swedish system where you quicky get opponents from your own level is a nice one.

    What I think is more (or most) important is that there are many different strategies availabale within the army's limits. What has surprised me thus far (and I don't even play a year yet) is that there are only a few very good combinations and that some stuff isn't regarded viable at all. One would think that small adjustments would eventually bring things up to par within the army books. But somehow, surprisingly, that doesn't seem to happen.
    This forum need polls!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - Playing/painting: SA, DE & HbE ..

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

  • Adam wrote:

    I doubt that it is about power level but as usual about removal of options and playstyles
    Exactly this.

    HbE will most likely remain a reasonably competitive army (although we’ll take a hit). It is the playstyles and flavour which will suffer and worried me the most.

    For example: I will now no longer entertain the idea of having an army made full of core + characters only for casual play. Many of the enjoyment on building thematic army around it with support of Hbe specific tools is something I will miss. A lot.

    That is what many players outside this forum fail to see from what our ask is: we can have a balanced book without killing some of its key flavour components and playstyles. Instead we’re just called powergrabbers
    Always a Highborn Elf, here or somewhere else
    The HbE Hotfix- My view

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

  • ninepaces wrote:

    There's no need for such grandiose dramatic statements of doom. Even if spear, hereditary, honours, banners all get nerfed AND sky sloop, firebird, elite infantry gets a ppm increase there will still be ways to make competitive lists... just requires playing well and fine tweaking.. exactly as its ALWAYS been for high elves. HE have never been an army where you can just deploy and steamroll certain opponents.
    True in the sense that a bow and arrow can still cause damage and even kill someone, but when you have a bow and arrow because someone took your M16 you're not happy about it.
  • Adam wrote:

    I have won a fair share of tournaments myself but I can see how making game nearly only dependent on skill is somewhat detrimental to fun. Right now if you are inferior player you will loose 95+% of your games with someone better and close to 100% with someone significantly better. That gives no hope for newer players. Also the ability to surprise opponent in casual game with some crazy unconventional build is greatly reduced if not gone totally. Compare that to poker in which you can just be lucky and win a single game with a world champion, even though you will be stomped in the long run you can still do it.
    Indeed. This is the most common complaint I hear from players who are still sticking around with T9A... But who are also getting more and more fed up with it. And I can't say that I prefer the overall direction the project is taking myself.

    In the game I played today, my opponent talked to me about the magic phase. And after giving it some thought, I have to say, it really has become quite blunt. As much as the veil token micro-management might suggest otherwise, it usually boils down to:
    "The active player nominates 2 - 3 spells, the reactive player chooses 1 - 2 spells that are cast."

    Now this is perfectly reliable and plannable, which is what is probably the most important for "high end" players (I'm missing a better term here, sorry). However, it's also detrimental to the overall fun a more random system could give.
    Also, while I generally believe not randomising spells for wizards is a good thing, it leads to mostly the same combinations because some spells will almost always be better or more universally applicable than others. Here, the limited spell selection really is a negative factor...
  • Emgies wrote:

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    It is literally the job of ACS to come around and explain things to the community.


    If you want to personally yell at the designers, sign up for a job for the project. That's the main perk of doing something to help the project, really. ;)

    ferny wrote:

    @ForsetisMuse @nightwun see last few posts. @Emgies might be a useful recruit :)
    So I am in dubio here. I have possible scenario's here. Maybe @ferny, @WhammeWhamme, @ArchangelusM or @nightwun can help me out.

    1. I wait till the hotfix arrives and I yell and rant at the BLT.
    2. I wait till the hotfix arrives and I sign up furiously and yell and rant at the BLT.
    3. I wait till the hotfix arrives and I am that furious I stop playing.
    4. I sign up, wait till the hotfix and yell and rant at BLT. @WhammeWhamme his preference.
    5. I am cool.
    6. I am cool and I sign up.
    7. Dust my EoS/Dogs of war.
    2. Definitely 2.

    Chymera wrote:

    Haha. I know but there are no good memes showing elves gathering into a mob on the verge of riot...... the internet has let us all down.
    What are you talking about? The internet is full of pictures of furious HE citizenry, it's just not immediately obvious to the casual observer, because they like to maintain an elegant bearing, rather than the vulgar belligerence of a human mobile.

    For example, see this classic depiction of a furious mob just starting to form:
  • ninepaces wrote:

    There's no need for such grandiose dramatic statements of doom. Even if spear, hereditary, honours, banners all get nerfed AND sky sloop, firebird, elite infantry gets a ppm increase there will still be ways to make competitive lists... just requires playing well and fine tweaking.. exactly as its ALWAYS been for high elves. HE have never been an army where you can just deploy and steamroll certain opponents.
    The issue, as has been stated multiple times, is the list variety available at a competitive (read not-trash) power level. I guess we will see when hfix is published.

    Caledoriv wrote:

    Adam wrote:

    I have won a fair share of tournaments myself but I can see how making game nearly only dependent on skill is somewhat detrimental to fun. Right now if you are inferior player you will loose 95+% of your games with someone better and close to 100% with someone significantly better. That gives no hope for newer players. Also the ability to surprise opponent in casual game with some crazy unconventional build is greatly reduced if not gone totally. Compare that to poker in which you can just be lucky and win a single game with a world champion, even though you will be stomped in the long run you can still do it.
    Indeed. This is the most common complaint I hear from players who are still sticking around with T9A... But who are also getting more and more fed up with it. And I can't say that I prefer the overall direction the project is taking myself.
    In the game I played today, my opponent talked to me about the magic phase. And after giving it some thought, I have to say, it really has become quite blunt. As much as the veil token micro-management might suggest otherwise, it usually boils down to:
    "The active player nominates 2 - 3 spells, the reactive player chooses 1 - 2 spells that are cast."

    Now this is perfectly reliable and plannable, which is what is probably the most important for "high end" players (I'm missing a better term here, sorry). However, it's also detrimental to the overall fun a more random system could give.
    Also, while I generally believe not randomising spells for wizards is a good thing, it leads to mostly the same combinations because some spells will almost always be better or more universally applicable than others. Here, the limited spell selection really is a negative factor...
    100% less fun drawing a card with a more or less known varianve between the players vs rolling 2 dice.
  • @PadForce

    I think the fun of the magic phase is definitely subjective.

    I don't play in tournaments, and I'm not super competitive. That said, the new magic system has been an absolute godsend for me and my regular opponents.

    We love that we can choose the spells that match our strategies, and love that an investment in magic is not governed entirely by luck. We've had so many instances of "I rolled a great magic phase and steamrolled you" and "I didn't get any useful spells" and "I just had three 3-dice phases in a row" that magic felt like a major liability.

    Having that kind of randomness is fine if there is a lot of iteration, but when you're only playing a single game every two weeks, having your game end early due to luck is just plain bad design (worst instance ever: game ended turn 1 due to a horrifically bad magic phase. We drove out to the game store, spent 30 minutes setting up the game, played for 10 minutes, and then packed up to leave. Bad value all around).
  • I'm not necessarily saying that the old system was better.

    And I agree entirely, @lawgnome. Such strange magic phases should not be part of the game. And there could simple solutions, like e.g. having access to more spells, which are individually much weaker. That'd actually bring some variety back.
  • Honestly I think the new magic phase is a big improvement from the 1.1-1.3 equivalents.

    I'm as gutted as everyone else about the expected nerfs, but I think pointing at the magic phase as the(a) issue is a distraction.

    @Calcathin, I've been less active for a while and just caught up. Above all I am sorry we lost you from the HBE team, your contribution was instrumental and the team and community will miss you. I raise my spear and shield to you.
  • This is to the people that are in charge of communication to the community. Pls be so kind to take your time to read my post and answer my questions.

    Hi everybody,

    I am following this thread for quite a while now reading the different posts regarding the nerf incoming as a "hotfix".

    I have some serious questions about this entire procedure and would be really happy, if someone with some insight might respond to my questions.

    But before asking, I will try to explain what are the main reasons for my lack of understanding for the upcoming nerf.

    So let's start:

    After reading that a huge nerf is incoming, because there are "some gamebreaking tools for HBE", I was wondering, where this "state of knowledge" came from. I was especially confused, because of the following points:

    1.) I always thought, the period of time till May was planned as a beta version, that should be used, to see, if there are items/units/etc. that need a redesign or an adjustment. So, if I am right, the beta is less than 2 months up and running. There were few tournaments to gather data from (as they are a more competetive sources of play).

    My first question is though: Why are we fixing things after not even 2 months of testing in the middle of a beta, that should be a time for testing?

    So, I said to my self: One might answer, that there are obviously "gamebreaking things" that dont require further testing to know there is a huge issue.

    But than I was wondering again:

    2.) If there were these "gamebreaking things" wouldnt you expect to find them in most of the competetive lists? Or wouldnt you see tournament results, that are highly above everage?

    And so, I started checking tournament lists and results. I gathered all lists (that were available to me) and checked them for which units where used, which charakters, which banners etc.

    And guess what: There was a huge variety. Yes, some choices where more often to find than others, but "gamebreaking"? No, I couldnt find these highly urgent issues...

    So what next? I began to check results (if there were some available for everybody). Wanna guess again?

    Right! No huge statistical outliers.

    3.) Wouldnt you expect either that HBE are a) using all the same overpowered items in their builds b) be highly overperforming in results or c) be highly overrepresented in tournaments (what they arent btw)?

    So, if you dont belive me, I will provide my list of checked tournaments as an excel sheet in the upcoming days. But belive me, it isnt that difficult to find this information by yourself, you only have to check the T9A forums.

    So, if competetive play isnt the main issue - as it cant be by taking into consideration the data of the last bigger tournaments - I was thinking about more casual gameplay.

    The next step was, to check more lists of a higher variety of players. So I checked the "Show us your 2.0 lists" thread, that can be found subsequent in this forum.

    Of course, there is no way for me to get information about results, but that wasnt the point for me. What I did was checking every list shown in this thread to see, if there are some issues.

    And yes, there were some significant results: In ~80 lists I found a high usage of MoCT Commander, HWotF Prince using SotBD, a significant use of either SM with WBoR or LG with NB. Also a lot of lists used Citizen Spears with WBoR or Citizen Archers with BoB.

    But there were also a lot of other builds used AND (and these are the most relevant points for me) a) a much wider usage of units compared to 1.3 b) much less avoidance orientated lists c) much more versatility in total.

    I will provide my gathered data, if one wont belive me also as an excel sheet.

    So:

    4.) If competetive play isnt the point, why do you force players back to maybe 2 or 3 lists by nerfing a book, that obviously provides a huge variety of stiles (but that has of course some elements working out better than others)?

    I cant see the point. I really cant.

    HBE players are happy with their book, competetive play isnt the real issue. It provides more variety than ever before, there is much less msu, there is more infantery played than before, there are a lot of the units used that are in the book, it seems not to be performing highly over the top (there are points I see - - > pls check my opinion below!).

    Why do you guys really force the issue if there is none (or better: if there is some, but it isnt a dramatically deal)?

    I played myself 10 games in the last weeks (all with different HBE lists). I had 4 wins, 5 losses, 1 draw. I cant say things are extremly "gamebreaking". Not at all.

    I think, there are some things, to be considered in the future (like a adjustment in casting value for our hereditary spell e.g or the WBoR limitation for Special/Core).

    But that is no new recognition. We had a poll for this, where mostly HBE players confirmed: ok lets put the value up to 9+/10+ or lets make a limitation for WBoR.

    I ask myself: Why the f*** am I investing time in testing, providing feedback, investing my time in making this game better, if the result is an obviously dramatic nerf incoming to a point of time, where it isnt needed in that way not considering anybodys feedback?

    I really really really would appreciate some answers. I dont want to be mean or blackmail somebody but maybe you can see my following point: Why should I play tts, when the energy i am investing in it is useless time to making it better. For real guys: there are alternatives for players like us. Maybe you should take this into account.

    And at last: not every player in ur community is playing ETC or something like this. Have you ever thought about the point, that there are more players not playing International tournaments that just wanna enjoy cool lists, where everything is useful to a certain point?

    Kind regards

    Celegil

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

  • CariadocThorne wrote:

    Emgies wrote:

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    It is literally the job of ACS to come around and explain things to the community.


    If you want to personally yell at the designers, sign up for a job for the project. That's the main perk of doing something to help the project, really. ;)

    ferny wrote:

    @ForsetisMuse @nightwun see last few posts. @Emgies might be a useful recruit :)
    So I am in dubio here. I have possible scenario's here. Maybe @ferny, @WhammeWhamme, @ArchangelusM or @nightwun can help me out.
    1. I wait till the hotfix arrives and I yell and rant at the BLT.
    2. I wait till the hotfix arrives and I sign up furiously and yell and rant at the BLT.
    3. I wait till the hotfix arrives and I am that furious I stop playing.
    4. I sign up, wait till the hotfix and yell and rant at BLT. @WhammeWhamme his preference.
    5. I am cool.
    6. I am cool and I sign up.
    7. Dust my EoS/Dogs of war.
    2. Definitely 2.

    Giladis wrote:

    Aegon wrote:

    @Emgies:

    BLT: Responsible for the point costs

    RT: Responsible for the actual rules

    ADT: Responsible for the design of the army

    Just that you know how to channalise your anger (just kidding :D ).

    What I want to say is: Don't blame the BLT for everything.

    Personally, I will wait for the actual changes and decide after that ;) .
    Also if ever in doubt just blame me.
    So that you know @Giladis, 15th of February 2018.

    angrymob_giladis.jpg

    Army Design Team Coordinator


    "Great things in business are never done by one person.
    They're done by a team of people."

    – Steve Jobs
  • Calcathin wrote:

    Adam wrote:

    I doubt that it is about power level but as usual about removal of options and playstyles
    Exactly this.
    HbE will most likely remain a reasonably competitive army (although we’ll take a hit). It is the playstyles and flavour which will suffer and worried me the most.

    For example: I will now no longer entertain the idea of having an army made full of core + characters only for casual play. Many of the enjoyment on building thematic army around it with support of Hbe specific tools is something I will miss. A lot.

    That is what many players outside this forum fail to see from what our ask is: we can have a balanced book without killing some of its key flavour components and playstyles. Instead we’re just called powergrabbersHow
    How want you make full core army playable, if you dont get the power level down ?

    @Celegil Your question is legitime.I hope the team will give you some clear answer the day of the realease of the hotfix.

    If all you say is true, and there is no data that you dont see. Then i think one possible answer could be the quesiton of power level. You have to see that there is not only change into HBE but in all army.
    Then there is question for HBE player, do really this hotfix, will transform the V1.9 list into unplayable or internally unbalanced list ?

    Rendez-vous in 2 month to analyze again the data ;)
    cas-p.net / graphic & web designer.
    SE - VS - O&G - EoS / 9th age player.

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

  • Emgies wrote:

    So that you know @Giladis, 15th of February 2018.
    angrymob_giladis.jpg
    I'll meet you at field :D

    Background Team

    Rules Team

    Conceptual Design

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- :BH: :DL: :DE: :DH: :EoS: :HE: :ID: :KoE: :OK: :O&G: :SA: :SE_bw: :VS: :UD_bw: :VC: :WDG:
  • @Casp I can see your point, that there are nerfs on other armies too and that the powerlevel overall should be considered.

    But dont you think, things are turned around in a wrong way? I mean: wouldnt it be better to make OTHER armies playable and fun in the same way like HBE have become than rather cutting everything down to a point where we all have been before?

    I understand totally why @Calcathin quit, when taking a look at this "idea of balancing things".

    And another aspect I want to point out clearly: I am not interested in having the uber army smashing everybody left and right. I am interested in close and funny games that give me a chill while fearing to lose, laughing when turning around a game that seemed doomed after turn 2 or begging to roll high in the last round of combat in the game to take the win of the entire match.

    I am not interested in repetetively playing the same two valid builds. So that is why I am asking for an explanation of this whole shenanigans...
  • @Celegil thank you for leaving your questions

    I feel the best time to answer these is when the hotfix drops. Then, we can discuss some of the stated rationale that went into these decisions. There are also other factors that went into these decisions that are better brought up at a future time.

    I can say that the tournament data is not the only feedback used. And the community feedback was delivered.

    There’s a reason I wanted more accountability and communication for project internals, primarily BLT.

    The hotfix will probably be frustrating. I will say, I am still able to build an infantry based list with strong magic (120 infantry models woot woot!). There’s definitely less freedom in building such a list, but I’m excited to play my best friend in an bloody dirty infantry battle ^^

    If this game frustrates you and can’t deliver what you love, then my advice to to take a break. Move on if needed. But there are no “evil” people on this team. And there’s people who internally I think share your viewpoints. The HBE ACS definitely does agree with many of them ^^

    If you choose to stay, then you are not alone in your energy and desire for change. And if it’s not a hassle, those docs would be a good resource ^^

    Edit: you are correct that the 2 month period was for “game breaking things”, presumably done quickly to maximize tournament data. But for reasons I don’t really understand the scope was widened (reason I heard was “ACS asked for a lot of stuff to change”)

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