Discuss all of your questions, concerns, comments and ideas about Second Edition.
User avatar
 
By boromirofborg (Trek Barnes)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
1E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
2E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
#591006
Thesis: One of the core issues with multiplayer in Star Trek, both 1E and 2E is that it is designed as a "first-past-the-post" victory, instead of a "last man standing".

Definitions:

First past the post: First person to achieve the victory conditions wins, regardless of the state of other players.

Pro: games take close to the amount of time as 1v1. Decks need little or no modifications. Less politics in player interaction.

Con: Very susceptible to snowball effect. Once a player pulls ahead there's less ways to stop or slow them.

Examples: Dominion, Civilization.

Last Man Standing: Players are eliminated 1 by 1, until there's only one player left who wins.

Pro: If a player pulls ahead too far, they risk becoming the target of everyone else. Encourages temporary alliances between players to stop others. Has a different feel then 1v1.

Con: Games can take longer. Politics can be a negative.

Examples: Magic, Lord of the Rings (Decipher)


Suggestions:

For 2E multiplayer:
- Each player starts with 100 points.
- When you solve a mission, that many points are removed from a player of your choice.
- If you would score bonus points, that's added to your own score. (Like gaining health)
- If you would pay points, those are still deducted from your score like usual.


This shifts the game from FPTP to Last Person Standing.
This gives players a way to stop someone who is ahead.


Issues:
- what if you run out of missions to attempt and not all opponents are eliminated?





Summary:

I'm not posting this expecting or even wanting anything to change. If there's interest, I might work on developing the ruleset to try a multiplayer tournament. This was mostly a thought experiment about how 2e could be better.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#591008
boromirofborg wrote: Fri Jan 06, 2023 1:17 pm
Issues:
- what if you run out of missions to attempt and not all opponents are eliminated?
Well if you're not running 3x Favor the Bold in this format, you're clearly doing it wrong! :wink:

More generally, my biggest issue with multiplayer has always been you have X players (where X=total players-2) sitting around doing nothing at any point during the game. 2e isn't so much multiplayer as it is multi-GAME where the game is 2 players playing 2e at a time in rotating fashion.

I'm not seeing how this proposal addresses that core issue.
User avatar
Executive Officer
By jadziadax8 (Maggie Geppert)
 - Executive Officer
 -  
2E North American Continental Semi-Finalist 2023
ibbles  Trek Masters Tribbles Champion 2023
2E Deep Space 9 Regional Champion 2023
#591010
This sounds fun! I have warm fuzzies for multiplayer 2E and have lots of experience playing it in the past. I think the concept of last person standing is a lot more fun than the current multiplayer setup. I would playtest that.

I would propose a lower starting score (maybe 70 points) to make the game move faster. I have found that multiplayer 2E takes a looooong time.
User avatar
 
By boromirofborg (Trek Barnes)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
1E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
2E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
#591015
Armus wrote: Fri Jan 06, 2023 1:27 pm More generally, my biggest issue with multiplayer has always been you have X players (where X=total players-2) sitting around doing nothing at any point during the game. 2e isn't so much multiplayer as it is multi-GAME where the game is 2 players playing 2e at a time in rotating fashion.

I'm not seeing how this proposal addresses that core issue.
Good point! What if players could collaborate on dilemma piles, similar to how in LotR all the shadow players could use the twilight. It would also mean that you never get the free attempts where opponent just lucks into all the wrong dilemmas.

Back in paper days it could have gotten messy with keeping track of whose dilemmas were under what mission, but with printable cards, it doesn't matter near as much. (Oh no, I lost a dilemma last month. I guess I'll print a new one.)

You could also then have an extra 5 mission points scored against any player who has dilemmas under the mission when its's completed, to add a little risk/cost to people playing dilemmas.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#591016
We had a version of last person standing multiplayer in college. It was called "Drunk Trek"

It was a lot of fun but I'm not sure I ever saw a game that actually finished... :shifty:
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#591359
Love the idea of multiplayer 2E. I think maybe the only 2 big rules you need to change is:

• Most points at the end of the round when a player scores 100.
• Opponents can combine dilemma piles.

On the first, if you had 1-4 players, say player 2 reaches 100+ pts, then players 3 and 4 get their turns to reach 100 and try to outscore #2.

On the second... I'd say maybe adjust the rule such that all opponents get to draw X dilemmas? Then they can discuss how to build the stack.

I dunno. my :twocents:
User avatar
Director of First Edition
By MidnightLich (Charlie Plaine)
 - Director of First Edition
 -  
Prophet
#591364
Armus wrote: Fri Jan 06, 2023 2:16 pmWe had a version of last person standing multiplayer in college. It was called "Drunk Trek"
My liver still hasn't recovered.

-crp
User avatar
Ambassador
 - Ambassador
 -  
#591674
If everyone gets to draw dilemmas would it work for the dilemma players to split the dilemma draw and spend between them in a manner of their choosing?

“I’m playing a bouncing pile, that’s not so good against big teams. You’ve got lots of anti weenie stuff… you draw 6, I’ll draw 3”

OTOH distributing dilemma draw evenly distributes the reading time. That would be an improvement even on 2 player.
User avatar
Ambassador
 - Ambassador
 -  
#591675
For last person standing: what if when someone solves their second mission, everyone who hasn’t solved 1 mission is eliminated?

That’s more like a clock that’s winding down on players who aren’t having a good game. Maybe merciful to be eliminated by the time you’re two missions down.

OTOH not having a chance of winning can also be fun: time to just focus on blowing people up.
User avatar
Second Edition Art Manager
By edgeofhearing (Lucas Thompson)
 - Second Edition Art Manager
 -  
Community Contributor
#591676
Fritzinger wrote: Wed Jan 18, 2023 4:36 am If everyone gets to draw dilemmas would it work for the dilemma players to split the dilemma draw and spend between them in a manner of their choosing?

“I’m playing a bouncing pile, that’s not so good against big teams. You’ve got lots of anti weenie stuff… you draw 6, I’ll draw 3”

OTOH distributing dilemma draw evenly distributes the reading time. That would be an improvement even on 2 player.
Okay, here's a dumb idea: each player takes turns adding a dilemma to the stack or returning their remaining dilemmas to their pile.

Broke: The stack can be examined at any time by the dilemmaing players.

Woke: The dilemmaers can see a dilemma as it goes on the stack and can then no longer examine it.

Bespoke: When you put a dilemma on the stack, you announce its cost and nothing else, then the next player does the same.

Probably slows dilemmas down a bit, but gets everyone involved. Also, mission solving will likely get easier due to the flop-wank dilemma stack quality that this technique with invariably deliver.

Optional added difficulty layer: players must not use a standard attrition pile.
1EFQ: Game of two halves

Honestly, I don’t think I’ve re[…]

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!!

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

Opponents turn

Remodulation