[The Prefect]

The Enemy of My Enemy is one of the strongest "hero cards" in the game, released 6 months ago. It essentially costs 0 and you never know how many are being held in someone's hand. Not all hero cards are 5 cost P&O personnel.

I don't think anyone said only personnel could be hero cards ...

I'm not sure that's what Naetor.Ret's alluding to here...

I read the subtext of his message as: "Dude, you came up with The Enemy of My Enemy, on a team with Nathan, under KillerB's watch. You coming up with the "three pronged strategy", while extolling KillerB's virtues, and hoping that Nathan continues them, is at best, a little rich, and at worst, a little hypocritical."

Anyone else get that?

...

I'll respond to Nate's post, to avoid confusion.

[Naetor.Ret]

The Enemy of My Enemy is one of the strongest "hero cards" in the game, released 6 months ago. It essentially costs 0 and you never know how many are being held in someone's hand. Not all hero cards are 5 cost P&O personnel.

I don't think anyone said only personnel could be hero cards ...

I'm not sure that's what Naetor.Ret's alluding to here...

I read the subtext of his message as: "Dude, you came up with The Enemy of My Enemy, on a team with Nathan, under KillerB's watch. You coming up with the "three pronged strategy", while extolling KillerB's virtues, and hoping that Nathan continues them, is at best, a little rich, and at worst, a little hypocritical."

Anyone else get that?

Pretty much this. I'm not trying to start a fight, I just wanted to point out self-reflection is important. Hero cards haven't ended at Set 36 Starfleet.

And, in general, I find the hero interrupts much more game-changing because, unlike personnel, there is more uncertainty if they are in play and generally cost nothing outside deck design. Please don't make any more "I have this interrupt, therefore I solved this mission I had no chance of solving that my opponent could only have guessed I had". Playing around 1 5-cost Kirk is annoying, playing around potentially 3 0-cost interrupts all game is worse.

[The Prefect]

I'm not sure that's what Naetor.Ret's alluding to here...

I read the subtext of his message as: "Dude, you came up with The Enemy of My Enemy, on a team with Nathan, under KillerB's watch. You coming up with the "three pronged strategy", while extolling KillerB's virtues, and hoping that Nathan continues them, is at best, a little rich, and at worst, a little hypocritical."

Anyone else get that?

Pretty much this. I'm not trying to start a fight, I just wanted to point out self-reflection is important. Hero cards haven't ended at Set 36 Starfleet.

May I direct you to prong two (bold added for emphasis):

Second: avoid designing hero cards in future. Cards like Donatra, Honorable Commander and James T. Kirk, Original Thinker should never have been designed. When Voyager's turn in Phase II came up, the Design Team went overkill with Homeward Bound. In my opinion, they did it again with SF and T'Pol, Overbearing Observer. These kinds of design missteps have to be avoided, if possible, or at least minimized. Playtest data, and a design environment in which tester data is valued and incorporated, is probably key here. This has been a hallmark of the Corbett era of design, and as he transitions out of his role and Nathan takes over, I hope this will continue. Empowering the Errata team to take timely action when a card does inevitably slip through (we're all human, after all) is also very important.

First, the specific virtue I was extolling was the level of collaboration between design and testers. What was unclear about that? And, what about that do you think was a bad idea?

Second, Enemy of My Enemy was created over the span of several months, and playtest data was incorporated. If it is determined that the card is overpowered - if it fits the bill of hero card - and that existing interrupt prevention or discard pile management strategies are insufficient to counter the the effects of the card, I'd welcome errata stepping in, and I'd certainly try to incorporate that feedback into my growth as a designer, were I to continue in that role.

What's rich or hypocritical about that? How is that lacking in self-reflection?

Also, would you care to respond to the merits of the argument, or do you just want to call me names?

EDIT: I should also add that I don't mind admitting when I'm wrong, and I've never claimed to be infallible. If infallibility is considered a necessary condition to offer constructive feedback to fellow volunteers, we can all stop posting right now. What I do mind - what really pisses me off - is the notion that it's perfectly okay for you - who doesn't even volunteer - to use perceived mistakes made by another volunteer in good faith to shut sthat volunteer out of a discussion. It may win points in the realms of internet trolldom, but it's not terribly conducive to fostering an atmosphere of collaboration.

It makes you, at best, unkind, and at worst, part of the problem rather than the solution. Reflect on that.

[Latok]

I'm still unclear on what a 'hero card' is, rather than examples what would be an actual definition?

The only similarity between the examples given that I can see is that they're all 'win conditions'. Meaning that they're cards a player can rely on to be able to win a game. Win condition cards are vital to have, the less there are of them the stronger RNG is in the game because with out powerful cards that can allow you to complete missions better than the opponent you're just relying on them having worse draws from the deck/dilemma pile to win, especially if you're going second and have to win a turn faster.

Second, Enemy of My Enemy was created over the span of several months, and playtest data was incorporated.

It's easy to say that because 'playtest data being incorporated' can be as much as "I read the playtest data and decided to change nothing". From what I've heard there were playtesters that said The Enemy of my Enemy needed more restrictions.

If it is determined that the card is overpowered - if it fits the bill of hero card - and that existing interrupt prevention or discard pile management strategies are insufficient to counter the the effects of the card, I'd welcome errata stepping in.

None of those questions are unanswered at this point, the card's to good, the only question is will it get errata under the current regime or will the 'design first' approach (which apparently is just silver bullet cards) mentioned earlier in this thread be used.

[KillerB]

Enemy of my Enemy is a strong cheater, not a Hero Card.

It's sad that any conversation about The Process turns into a discussion about one strong cheater that helped an affiliation that wasn't Tier-1 in over a decade.

[prylardurden]

None of those questions are unanswered at this point, the card's to good, the only question is will it get errata under the current regime or will the 'design first' approach (which apparently is just silver bullet cards) mentioned earlier in this thread be used.

Honestly, you seem to be creating a 'no-win situation' here (or lose-lose, if you prefer). You have previously complained about cards being errata'd but now are seeming to suggest that is the better option.

[The Prefect]

It's easy to say that because 'playtest data being incorporated' can be as much as "I read the playtest data and decided to change nothing". From what I've heard there were playtesters that said The Enemy of my Enemy needed more restrictions.

Nice try, but no. The card went through more than one draft. At each phase in which the card was changed, tester data was incorporated to make the change. At no time was tester data ignored.

If it is determined that the card is overpowered - if it fits the bill of hero card - and that existing interrupt prevention or discard pile management strategies are insufficient to counter the the effects of the card, I'd welcome errata stepping in.

None of those questions are unanswered at this point, the card's to good, the only question is will it get errata under the current regime or will the 'design first' approach (which apparently is just silver bullet cards) mentioned earlier in this thread be used.

You think the card is too good. The questions are answered for you. But, that doesn't make it so. Errata is looking at the card. The process is working as it should. It's good to see you've newfound faith in errata, though.

[Latok]

None of those questions are unanswered at this point, the card's to good, the only question is will it get errata under the current regime or will the 'design first' approach (which apparently is just silver bullet cards) mentioned earlier in this thread be used.

Honestly, you seem to be creating a 'no-win situation' here (or lose-lose, if you prefer). You have previously complained about cards being errata'd but now are seeming to suggest that is the better option.

As I've already posted in this thread "The problem I see is consistency". If errata is not issued to The Enemy of my Enemy then people really need to stop implying that the Errata Team has a process that goes beyond 'one random person doesn't like a card and changes it because another random person said they could have that power'.

There are easy wins in this situation,
1) Revert all of the unnecessary errata
2) Stop issuing errata to good but not broken cards like The Enemy of my Enemy but do it as an actual policy change not a 'KillerB is personally attached to it so we're to scared to errata it' situation.
3) Be consistent and errata the card, so the portion of the player-base that remains because the game has been stale and boring can rely upon you to maintain that.

The second option would be ideal so we can have the power creep necessary to keep the game interesting but the real concern is when KillerB starts bitching and harassing people from outside of design again, can you stay the course?

Nice try, but no. The card went through more than one draft. At each phase in which the card was changed, tester data was incorporated to make the change. At no time was tester data ignored.

Oh cool, I'm totally assuaged by "We totally did incorporate playtester feedback".

You think the card is too good. The questions are answered for you. But, that doesn't make it so. Errata is looking at the card. The process is working as it should. It's good to see you've newfound faith in errata, though.

Yeah I know, the Errata Team can pretend to gather data/information, or whatever the fuck it is they use to justify their shitty decisions but if the card gets to July next year untouched then there's no consistency and I'm not going to be as receptive to stupid comments like "the process is working".

[Latok]

Enemy of my Enemy is a strong cheater, not a Hero Card.

It's sad that any conversation about The Process turns into a discussion about one strong cheater that helped an affiliation that wasn't Tier-1 in over a decade.

So is The Central Command a hero card?

[KillerB]

Enemy of my Enemy is a strong cheater, not a Hero Card.

It's sad that any conversation about The Process turns into a discussion about one strong cheater that helped an affiliation that wasn't Tier-1 in over a decade.

So is The Central Command a hero card?

It's a strong cheater.

You overestimate my influence in Errata since Josh took over. If you're going to rant his name should be in your mouth not mine.

Fucking amazing that I get disrespected by the CC and then by people who think I have some kind of influence outside the little left to me, for a short time remaining, as DD.

Grudges everywhere from you people. I have a dominate male personality, I get that's become unacceptable in the CC and the online social club. I'm doing my best to wrap up my affairs and let you have this space.

I'm not going to be one of those angry, bitter nerds who shits the bed on the way out. I do good work. I don't give a fuck if people can't acknowledge, or even see, that.

[Latok]

Enemy of my Enemy is a strong cheater, not a Hero Card.

It's sad that any conversation about The Process turns into a discussion about one strong cheater that helped an affiliation that wasn't Tier-1 in over a decade.

So is The Central Command a hero card?

It's a strong cheater.

Then I'll ask my question again, what is a hero card?

[prylardurden]

As I've already posted in this thread "The problem I see is consistency". If errata is not issued to The Enemy of my Enemy then people really need to stop implying that the Errata Team has a process that goes beyond 'one random person doesn't like a card and changes it because another random person said they could have that power'.

There are easy wins in this situation,
1) Revert all of the unnecessary errata
2) Stop issuing errata to good but not broken cards like The Enemy of my Enemy but do it as an actual policy change not a 'KillerB is personally attached to it so we're to scared to errata it' situation.
3) Be consistent and errata the card, so the portion of the player-base that remains because the game has been stale and boring can rely upon you to maintain that.

The second option would be ideal so we can have the power creep necessary to keep the game interesting but the real concern is when KillerB starts bitching and harassing people from outside of design again, can you stay the course?

...

Yeah I know, the Errata Team can pretend to gather data/information, or whatever the fuck it is they use to justify their shitty decisions but if the card gets to July next year untouched then there's no consistency and I'm not going to be as receptive to stupid comments like "the process is working".

Wow, thank you for that amazing *constructive* input!!!

[KillerB]

Then I'll ask my question again, what is a hero card?

I'll answer all of your questions... on The Hosp Report. I've already violated my own rule for this thread. Let's have an honest discussion face to face.

The nominations show will be right after the HoF deadline.

[Latok]

Then I'll ask my question again, what is a hero card?

I'll answer all of your questions... on The Hosp Report. I've already violated my own rule for this thread. Let's have an honest discussion face to face.

The nominations show will be right after the HoF deadline.

So in just over a fortnight you're going to 'answer' my question on a podcast mostly about a topic I have absolutely zero interest in.

You keep saying stuff like let's have an honest face to face discussion and that you have an open information policy but you won't answer a simple question right now so that a discussion can be had. How am I supposed to talk about 'hero cards' when you won't define them? All you've done is give some examples of what a hero card is and a couple of cards that aren't but the only way to discern a definition from that is 'they're cards you don't like', is that accurate?

Can hero cards become not hero cards without errata?
Can non-hero cards become hero cards?
Why are hero cards bad?
How is Ruling Council a hero card and The Central Command not?

If you want an honest discussion just do it now.

[Naetor.Ret]

Greg, you just got kayfabed.