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
#582123
Gorgo Primus wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 5:50 pm You keep posting the same question over and over, and it will never not be transparently fallacious.
Fallacy implies logically flawed.

Maybe it is, but those aren't originally my words, just the prevailing view of "the community"

At this point I'm just here for the show.
User avatar
Second Edition Design Manager
By The Guardian (Richard New)
 - Second Edition Design Manager
 -  
2E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
#582124
Early in the design process, I knew that we would be changing, redirecting, and combining several of the ideas we saw. (It's hard to design a useful card. It's insanely hard to nail it on the first try. I can think of a handful of cards that I have seen pitched by seasoned designers that I could say are ready to print out of the gate and I can't think of a single one of mine.) I never want to hurt anyone's feelings. I don't want people to be alienated and devalued because we changed their text. Especially since I'm so grateful for their pitch and the opportunity to play in areas I wouldn't have normally gone to myself. There's a callus of sorts that grows as you engage in creative endeavors that allows feedback to be taken more easily. It takes time and experience.

I hear Martin's complaints. I still have the original material Tjark shared with me. Yeah, we didn't take everything and we inserted a good deal of theme (deciding to build on what existed as opposed to starting over), which required more material as well. As a result, I think we found a unique game space, though I am receptive of the differing opinions. I even referred back to the document from time to time to see if there was anything else we could mine.

But I'm not sure how else it could have gone down. I mean, the details and decisions could change, but I wouldn't think it would be wise to give veto power to the pitchers. There's probably a reason all those house remodeling shows don't put a hammer in the hands of the owners and tell them to get to work (I don't know; maybe some of them do; I don't really watch more than I get the idea). They get their input, send them away, and bring them back to see the final result. Some are elated. Some are disappointed. I was ready for both reactions or anything in between. Maybe we could have done a better job making that clear up front or maybe we should have asked for simpler pitches instead of card text.
#582138
I fear the Sisko... :)
I found 2E somewhat stale for a long time. I liked Memory Omega a lot. But you simply cannot get rid of the basic shennanigans/deck archtypes that will always rock at big tournaments... :( But when you are interested in more casual play there have been nice ideas and new spice since Caretaker-Expansion. They will not shift the balance probably in big tourneys, dafür ist 2E einfach zu fest gefahren, but I have to disagree with SotCC that it is all unwanted and uninteresting.

@Ben: Auf wen die ganze Treachery-Klingonen-Soße die letzten Jahre zurückzuführen ist und wer da die Barge of the Dead vorgeschlagen hat, ist schon klar... :) Klingonen haben ehrbar zu sein und alles niederzuknüppeln... Nicht romulanisch herumzuschmuggeln... :)
#582147
@Armus personally I find nothing here nearly as stressful as the KCA. Stateofstccg is unintelligible and unreasonable to the point that even those who agree in part will publicly disagree. All the other criticism here is reasonably expressed.

I personally found the KCA much more disturbing in their engagement. It obviously affected me more than others, based on people's reactions at the time. Maybe a personality type thing. Regardless, I miss the genuine and meaningful parts of KCA interaction, but I'll happily do without that to avoid the rest, and consider even this thread to be an improvement.

Also I disagree with your premise. Negativity when things are negative is healthy. And the KCA aren't not here because of negativity. JC effectively permabanned himself with the way he interacts with forum rules, but everyone else is banned because they can't avoid repeating a stupid catchphrase.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#582172
Fritzinger wrote: Sat Jul 30, 2022 3:36 am
Also I disagree with your premise. Negativity when things are negative is healthy. And the KCA aren't not here because of negativity. JC effectively permabanned himself with the way he interacts with forum rules, but everyone else is banned because they can't avoid repeating a stupid catchphrase.
I actually agree with your premise. But that begs the question: when the KCAs were being negative about the direction of the game, that wasn't healthy? I suppose it depends on one's own definition of what's negative.

As for the rest of this post, despite being wrong on the facts, you hit the nail on the head more strongly than you know.

Corbett was banned for "legal threats" not forum behavior. Ditto BenHosp. Ditto Phil and Sandy. If saying "the magic words" were simply "repeating a stupid catchphrase," then why all the high drama?

I agree it IS a stupid catchphrase (which, BTW, John himself never said), and the whole situation should never have escalated to the point that it did. Personally, I think it was a convenient excuse for the CC Leadership to get rid of some strong, loud dissenting voices that they didn't want around anymore.

But hey, everyone has been re-elected twice since then so clearly the community isn't bothered by such treatment of "undesirables" ... how's that whole CC Nerd Utopia thing working out?
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
#582175
Armus wrote: Sat Jul 30, 2022 1:16 pm
Fritzinger wrote: Sat Jul 30, 2022 3:36 am
Also I disagree with your premise. Negativity when things are negative is healthy. And the KCA aren't not here because of negativity. JC effectively permabanned himself with the way he interacts with forum rules, but everyone else is banned because they can't avoid repeating a stupid catchphrase.
I actually agree with your premise. But that begs the question: when the KCAs were being negative about the direction of the game, that wasn't healthy? I suppose it depends on one's own definition of what's negative.

As for the rest of this post, despite being wrong on the facts, you hit the nail on the head more strongly than you know.

Corbett was banned for "legal threats" not forum behavior. Ditto BenHosp. Ditto Phil and Sandy. If saying "the magic words" were simply "repeating a stupid catchphrase," then why all the high drama?

I agree it IS a stupid catchphrase (which, BTW, John himself never said), and the whole situation should never have escalated to the point that it did. Personally, I think it was a convenient excuse for the CC Leadership to get rid of some strong, loud dissenting voices that they didn't want around anymore.

But hey, everyone has been re-elected twice since then so clearly the community isn't bothered by such treatment of "undesirables" ... how's that whole CC Nerd Utopia thing working out?
Let's not forget that people were having nerd-meltdowns way before people were called "KCAs" and probaly will continue to have them as long as there are nerds.
Imo what you're trying to do is the equivalent of
the NRA pointing out that there's mass shootings in other countries too. Even if it's 0,01% the amount of the one's in the US.
:wink:
I admire your tenacity on that particular subject though.
I think everything is working out fine. The fact that somebody is having an occasional rant on these boards is nothing more than the usual.
As far as people being permabanned all I can say is that it takes two to tango.
User avatar
 
By Gorgo Primus (Benjamin Rostoker)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#582406
Fritzinger wrote: Sat Jul 30, 2022 3:58 am @Enabran you sound hurt by the outcome for your dissident ideas, sorry to hear it. Would it help to share your original cards, here or in PM?
Richard already spoke on this, but as someone else on the team I'll chime in a bit now. I've read over his post and looked at our notes, and just to be clear here, his experience in practical terms seems to have been pretty much identical to everyone else's. He submitted a bunch of cards (more than anyone else did from the sound of it), and of those a few were chosen by us to be worked on and were fairly consulted on up until we went through the first round of playtesting and he cut off contact.

In terms of number of cards a person got in if they had their cards chosen, he's in the same ballpark as that average. If we picked up some of a player's cards that did not mean we were obligated us to pick up more of their cards; we didn't chose to work on and include his Garak submission for various reasons just like we didn't pick any number of other cards in the pile sent to us that someone presumably really wished would end up in print. We also didn't give him authority to have a commanding say or veto on how the subaffiliation his chosen cards belonged to were to be designed henceforth, because that was never going to be on the table and would have also meant he'd have a say in how Cardassians that others submitted would function (and yes, there were others who submitted cards in that category); that was likewise the same for everyone.

He's upset about how the set ended up, and he seems to really hate how the dissident cards in the set turned out as a whole, but this was how the Community Project was always going to work and we never gave any indication that it would be otherwise. Like Richard, I'm sincerely sorry he ended up having a bad time and regrets taking part, but I don't see how this could ever have gone another way if he went into this with those expectations.

Finally, yes a very small number of cards in this set were not submissions - but that's because sometimes a group of submitted cards we chose that we thought would be workable and interesting were found to not quite have the card support they'd need to be viable in competitive play once playtesters got them in their hands. If we didn't have a suitable submission we liked that could fill that role, rather then give up and scrap those submitted cards for lack of support, we either split/merged cards to address those issues or just made said support (often using cards from our pile of submissions as a base) for inclusion in the next round of playtesting. But again, this was a very small proportion of cards and I don't think they violated the spirit of what we set out to do here. ~90%+ of all of the cards in here are player submissions, and the rest were by and large designed solely to support and accommodate those submissions.
1EFQ: Game of two halves

Honestly, I don’t think I’ve re[…]

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!!

Happy birthday to @Takket ! :D :thumbsup: […]

Opponents turn

Remodulation