Discuss all of your questions, concerns, comments and ideas about Second Edition.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#592660
winterflames wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 9:34 am Question about Hamlet: It says that you are separating [TOS] and [E] , and that [TOS] will have skill gaps after

Does that mean you are stripping the [TOS] off all the [TOS] [E] movies people?
Oh good. I can't wait to use OT Kirk exclusively in a [E] deck where he's not even in the right era.

:roll:
User avatar
 
By GooeyChewie (Nathan Miracle)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Architect
#592667
winterflames wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 9:34 am Question about Hamlet: It says that you are separating [TOS] and [E] , and that [TOS] will have skill gaps after

Does that mean you are stripping the [TOS] off all the [TOS] [E] movies people?
No, separating the two would mean taking the [E] icon off those personnel. The blurb is awkwardly worded, but believe Ross is referring to the skills [DS9-E] Paranoia would lose as result of losing [TOS] [E] personnel. Meanwhile [TOS] is the side that would need a boost in terms of Paranoia cards, as most of the current ones require [DS9] or [E] (or both).
Armus wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 9:38 am Oh good. I can't wait to use OT Kirk exclusively in a [E] deck where he's not even in the right era.

:roll:
James T. Kirk (Original Thinker) has already lost the [E] icon.
User avatar
 
By winterflames (Derek Marlar)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#592669
Armus wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 9:38 am
winterflames wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 9:34 am Question about Hamlet: It says that you are separating [TOS] and [E] , and that [TOS] will have skill gaps after

Does that mean you are stripping the [TOS] off all the [TOS] [E] movies people?
Oh good. I can't wait to use OT Kirk exclusively in a [E] deck where he's not even in the right era.

:roll:
I figured I read it wrong, but you can go with "the sky is falling" if you want to. I was going to reserve the torches and pitchforks for after an answer was provided? Could be that they were going to make the decision on a card by card basis? I for one would love to see an [E] only headquarters to play up the paranoia hype.

Edit: cross posted with answers.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#592672
GooeyChewie wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 10:11 am
winterflames wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 9:34 am Question about Hamlet: It says that you are separating [TOS] and [E] , and that [TOS] will have skill gaps after

Does that mean you are stripping the [TOS] off all the [TOS] [E] movies people?
No, separating the two would mean taking the [E] icon off those personnel. The blurb is awkwardly worded, but believe Ross is referring to the skills [DS9-E] Paranoia would lose as result of losing [TOS] [E] personnel. Meanwhile [TOS] is the side that would need a boost in terms of Paranoia cards, as most of the current ones require [DS9] or [E] (or both).
Armus wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 9:38 am Oh good. I can't wait to use OT Kirk exclusively in a [E] deck where he's not even in the right era.

:roll:
James T. Kirk (Original Thinker) has already lost the [E] icon.
Wait.... so Paranoia is going to *become* a [TOS] thing?! WHY?!?!

God, something finally gives [E] decks a common identity (if not necessarily a good one, but at least it's something) and of course it's not allowed to stand. It's not a good fit in [TOS] ... plus, they don't need it!

As for OT Kirk losing the [E] icon... I guess I missed that memo. But in my defense, it's been a minute since I played a [TNG] or [DS9-E] deck, so it's not a change I would've had reason to notice. On the merits, I'm fine with it. Living Legend should be the Kirk that shows up in [E] decks anyway.
User avatar
 
By GooeyChewie (Nathan Miracle)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Architect
#592673
winterflames wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 10:12 am Could be that they were going to make the decision on a card by card basis? I for one would love to see an [E] only headquarters to play up the paranoia hype.
Hamlet is pretty far down the 2E Set Update list, so nothing is set in stone. The one thing I can say for sure is that even if it's a complete split (i.e. all [TOS] [E] personnel lose the [E] icon), [TOS] Paranoia will not be a copy-paste of [DS9-E] Paranoia.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#592674
GooeyChewie wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 11:07 am
winterflames wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 10:12 am Could be that they were going to make the decision on a card by card basis? I for one would love to see an [E] only headquarters to play up the paranoia hype.
Hamlet is pretty far down the 2E Set Update list, so nothing is set in stone. The one thing I can say for sure is that even if it's a complete split (i.e. all [TOS] [E] personnel lose the [E] icon), [TOS] Paranoia will not be a copy-paste of [DS9-E] Paranoia.
Why not spend the time and resources trying to make the existing Paranoia builds ( [DS9-E] and [TNG] ) better instead of spreading Paranoia to a third HQ and having 3 meh mechanics?

[TOS] doesn't need the help. [DS9-E] is barely played.

This is an example of what I mean when I say Design makes the cards they want instead of making cards the game needs.
User avatar
 
By Danny (Daniel Giddings)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
2E British National Runner-Up 2021
#592682
Armus wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 11:12 ammeh mechanics

meh-canics 8)
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#592683
Danny wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 11:59 am
Armus wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 11:12 ammeh mechanics

meh-canics 8)
If it helps you avoid designing more of them, sure. Whatever works.
User avatar
Second Edition Rules Master
By Latok
 - Second Edition Rules Master
 -  
1E Australian Continental Champion 2019
2E Australian Continental Runner-Up 2019
#592734
Armus wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 11:12 am Why not spend the time and resources trying to make the existing Paranoia builds ( [DS9-E] and [TNG] ) better instead of spreading Paranoia to a third HQ and having 3 meh mechanics?

[TOS] doesn't need the help. [DS9-E] is barely played.

This is an example of what I mean when I say Design makes the cards they want instead of making cards the game needs.
Oh that's what you meant.... but not what you said in the thread specifically asking.

It seems to me like this is just an example of the Bread and Circuses you want. Of course if they then win a tournament after getting new cards, that's just bad design but if they don't win a tournament that's also bad design because they needed more.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#592736
Latok wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 10:15 pm
Armus wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 11:12 am Why not spend the time and resources trying to make the existing Paranoia builds ( [DS9-E] and [TNG] ) better instead of spreading Paranoia to a third HQ and having 3 meh mechanics?

[TOS] doesn't need the help. [DS9-E] is barely played.

This is an example of what I mean when I say Design makes the cards they want instead of making cards the game needs.
Oh that's what you meant.... but not what you said in the thread specifically asking.

It seems to me like this is just an example of the Bread and Circuses you want. Of course if they then win a tournament after getting new cards, that's just bad design but if they don't win a tournament that's also bad design because they needed more.
Huh? Sounds like you're putting words in my mouth.

If you're going to do that, at least use better words.

First off, I didn't say I personally wanted more Paranoia cards. I'm not necessarily opposed to it, but I'm also not clamoring for it.

Also, nowhere did I say that "winning a tournament = bad design"

In a balanced game any number of different affiliations should be able to win a tournament. Not all of them would be decks I would like, build, or play, but it's not just about me.

The problem with Design the last few years has been they made cards that led to one or two affiliations DOMINATING the rest, resulting in a lot of stuff being completely unplayable.

In fairness, this isn't unique to 2e. 1e has a similar problem, which is why two major play engines just got hit with the ban hammer while they figure out what errata nerf bat to hit them with.

Design should be looking at the state of the game when planning future expansions. If, for example, Voyager is dominant in the meta, then the last thing Design should be doing is making cards that make Voyager stronger. The problem is if Design is making what they want to make, then any Voyager fanboys are going to do just that if they're left to their own devices.

(I'm using Voyager as an example, but given how good it already was, putting it on Steroids with Caretaker might not have been the best decision).

And maybe Paranoia IS bad design and Paranoia decks are always going to be relegated to "fun deck" level. In that case, if they can't be helped, it may be better for Design to "take the L" and develop something else for the affiliation in question.

(For what it's worth, I think both [TNG] and [DS9-E] Paranoia builds aren't unsalvageable, and are probably only a few cards away from being competitive.)

And I'm saying that not because I necessarily REALLY REALLY want to play a Paranoia deck, but it was decided long ago that Paranoia decks should be an option, I'm just accepting that premise and saying that if they're going to be an option, they should at least be made a plausibly competitive option.

I'd love to see a World final where the top 8 are playing 8 different decks and nobody knows who's going to win because they're all that competitive. Instead we have the same stuff at the top that has been at the top for the last 4 Worlds: 5SV (this time on Steroids!), Rainbow DS9, Cardassian Central Command, and NeuNeuDominion.

At least MVB did a thing and made a new deck, but @The Ninja Scot is a mad scientist like that.

Maybe my ideal is practically unattainable, but as a Design goal, it's the kind of ideal I hope they would shoot for. Even if they miss we'd still probably have a pretty good game.
User avatar
Second Edition Rules Master
By Latok
 - Second Edition Rules Master
 -  
1E Australian Continental Champion 2019
2E Australian Continental Runner-Up 2019
#592759
Armus wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 11:02 pmFirst off, I didn't say I personally wanted more Paranoia cards. I'm not necessarily opposed to it, but I'm also not clamoring for it.
No, what you want is [DS9-E] help over [TOS]. You framed making stuff for [TOS] as designers doing what they want rather than what is needed and contextually its clear you think stuff for [DS9-E] is 'needed' more than [TOS] but my point is that is just a 'want'.
Armus wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 11:02 pmAlso, nowhere did I say that "winning a tournament = bad design"
Yeah, you did. Obviously it's paraphrasing but that IS the sentiment you have been pushing about Tricia Jenkins. Voyager won a single significant tournament which also presumably had Phil Schrader using a pretty similar deck to the winning one and he did not come close to winning. It's like it's entirely beatable with out even directly preparing for it. So dominant, it's basically The Enemy of my Enemy and Casualties of the Occupation all over again.
Wait, 'The Process' made those cards and 'The Process' only made cards that were needed they didn't fanboy, right? So [Car] needed to be dominant.... yes, they had to be because that is what the game needed.
Armus wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 11:02 pmThe problem with Design the last few years has been they made cards that led to one or two affiliations DOMINATING the rest, resulting in a lot of stuff being completely unplayable.
No, that's just demonstrably wrong, as has been pointed out to you multiple times. It is not a problem Design has had for a few years it existed during 'The Process' too. If we accept the premise that there is a problem with balance currently and the last few years, it is very clear that the same problem existed from 2016 through 2020 and before.
Armus wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 11:02 pmDesign should be looking at the state of the game when planning future expansions. If, for example, Voyager is dominant in the meta, then the last thing Design should be doing is making cards that make Voyager stronger. The problem is if Design is making what they want to make, then any Voyager fanboys are going to do just that if they're left to their own devices.
There is as much evidence that the first is happening as there is that the second is happening. Also guess what, and this will blow your mind, the exact same thing is true for 'The Process' years; it is equally possible that they were just fanboy making shit they wanted and liked as there is that any sort of plan was in place or an attempt to balance anything.

Yet you will continue to claim that current Design are making cards they want rather than what is needed and that 'The Process' was so much better for that reason. It is patently false but you will keep droning on about it because your jaded that someone got fed up with your arrogance or stubbornness or whatever. You got disrespected and that means blinkers on and full steam ahead 'shitting on current Design' without any reasonable retrospection.
Armus wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 11:02 pm(I'm using Voyager as an example, but given how good it already was, putting it on Steroids with Caretaker might not have been the best decision).
That's your opinion but the data doesn't really back that up, looking back through 2019 (and prior to 2022 Worlds) and [DS9-E] (the affiliation you think needs help more than [TOS] ) is as good as [Voy] in terms of regionals and up, or masters and up, etc.
Armus wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 11:02 pmI'd love to see a World final where the top 8 are playing 8 different decks and nobody knows who's going to win because they're all that competitive. Instead we have the same stuff at the top that has been at the top for the last 4 Worlds: 5SV (this time on Steroids!), Rainbow DS9, Cardassian Central Command, and NeuNeuDominion.
I distinctly remember winning the 4th last Worlds with [Rom] interference against [SF] .... but that was Australia, everyone knows there are only shit players in Australia, so you're right that doesn't count. Then again [Rom] interference did come 2nd at the worlds after that.... nah Europeans are trash as well, they don't know what the good affiliations are*.
So the last 2 Worlds then; the US Worlds; the important Worlds, amirite Armus or amirite?
How did [Rom] do at the last two Worlds? They were terrible yeah?
[Bor] didn't do any good either...
[KCA] ? They were shit, completely unviable.
No one bothered with [TNG] because they are so bad...
Huh seems you're right just the same stuff every time, especially 5SV and it was "on steroids this time" so everyone knew it was going to win how could Romulan, Borg, Cardassian or DS9 possibly compete. Of course one of the two 5SV lost 2/3 games... that must have been a bad player though because how could such a dominant deck lose to a trash affiliation like Borg ?

*Side note, I vividly remember one of the best [Voy] players (Slaby) complaining that they were trash after 5SV was nerfed, but you say they were really good and you plus 'The Process' boys know best.
Armus wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 11:02 pmAt least MVB did a thing and made a new deck, but @The Ninja Scot is a mad scientist like that.
Hmmm, maybe it's like player skill is a more significant factor than what you perceive as a serious affiliation imbalance (two being dominant) and then people 'bandwagoning' affiliations/decks instead of being able to make their own to beat them.
Armus wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 11:02 pmMaybe my ideal is practically unattainable, but as a Design goal, it's the kind of ideal I hope they would shoot for. Even if they miss we'd still probably have a pretty good game.
Just to confirm, your evidence that they aren't doing that is that you think [Voy] was already good before they made Tricia Jenkins/Caretaker, yes? So Tricia Jenkins/Caretaker wasn't a good faith miss because that can't possibly have done that while trying to balance affiliations; that was bad design?
User avatar
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#592763
(For what it's worth, I think both [TNG] and [DS9-E] Paranoia builds aren't unsalvageable, and are probably only a few cards away from being competitive.)
I would tend to agree with this. I played [DS9-E] with some Paranoia flavor in the last Dojo and went winless, but I was probably 1 or 2 turns away from winning in 2 or 3 of the games.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#592837
The Guardian wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 7:39 pm Latok is nailing it.
Sure.

@Latok is having a conversation with himself and his Sykes strawman. You're easily entertained.

He is right on one thing though: Player skill matters. How do you win one game at Worlds and claim to know what is and isn't good in this game?

Meanwhile, da Gr0up Chat is laughing at your Superior Intellect.

You keep making broken bullshit, we'll keep building Worlds Winners.
User avatar
 
By monty42 (Benjamin Liebich)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
2E World Quarter-Finalist 2023
Chancellor
2E European Continental Runner-Up 2023
2E German National Champion 2022
#592839
Armus wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 7:54 pm @Latok is having a conversation with himself and his Sykes strawman.
Image Image

Still a few weeks left to get registered for the f[…]

Still a few weeks left to get registered for the f[…]

1EFQ: Game of two halves

Or maybe keep your unsolicited snark to yo[…]

Vulcan Lander and its ability

What constrains this strategy is the number of c[…]