Discuss all of your questions, concerns, comments and ideas about Second Edition.
User avatar
Second Edition Design Manager
By The Guardian (Richard New)
 - Second Edition Design Manager
 -  
2E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
#591660
vlasopes wrote: Tue Jan 17, 2023 2:56 pm These are fair points. Nevertheless, IMHO for 30 point missions with requirements >30 and no gametext they do not offer any incentive beside easy skills (and cool images :thumbsup: ). Have you considered making them >28 or giving them some text or the limited spacing did not allow that? Also, did they undergo any changes of the requirements based on the reports from the testing groups?
Fantastic questions. Yes, some of the requirements were pumped a little based on concerns for microteaming possibilities. There is actually quite a difference between ">28" and ">30" from a mathematical standpoint. And as Lucas mentioned, even one-line gametext was restrictive in this project, so missions generally spoke for themselves through requirements. To make personnel "useful," we probably gave ourselves a little more leeway, as some have rightfully commented.
User avatar
Second Edition Art Manager
By edgeofhearing (Lucas Thompson)
 - Second Edition Art Manager
 -  
Community Contributor
#591672
The Guardian wrote: Tue Jan 17, 2023 4:24 pm
vlasopes wrote: Tue Jan 17, 2023 2:56 pm These are fair points. Nevertheless, IMHO for 30 point missions with requirements >30 and no gametext they do not offer any incentive beside easy skills (and cool images :thumbsup: ). Have you considered making them >28 or giving them some text or the limited spacing did not allow that? Also, did they undergo any changes of the requirements based on the reports from the testing groups?
Fantastic questions. Yes, some of the requirements were pumped a little based on concerns for microteaming possibilities. There is actually quite a difference between ">28" and ">30" from a mathematical standpoint. And as Lucas mentioned, even one-line gametext was restrictive in this project, so missions generally spoke for themselves through requirements. To make personnel "useful," we probably gave ourselves a little more leeway, as some have rightfully commented.
I think that actually all of the 30-point missions started at >28. I thought maybe one or two of them might make it live at that threshold, but there ended up being problems with all of them.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#591680
I'm personally glad that there's some >30 missions AND there's no >28 missions.

It does present some interesting new deck options while also not giving a giant middle finger to the Hall of Fame crowd.

Sure, Insurrection is retired, but so are a large majority of the stupid easy missions that necessitated Insurrection in the first place. And more importantly, the missions by and large got retired *first*.

Making a whole new slew of stupid easy missions would be another case of flying in the face of what the community has said they wanted, along the same lines as Friendship and Good Will was when it came out.

I get that this doesn't matter in Standard since all the cards are playable anyway, and I'm not saying that Design has to specifically design towards Hall of Fame, especially since the CC has been very clear that it's a side format and nothing more. But I also think that in almost all cases it's possible to meet a given Design goal without specifically designing against Hall of Fame, and that's where I would hope Design would be aiming.

So I guess since this is the Design Q&A thread, I should probably ask a question to avoid getting sent to the corner:

How much (if any) consideration was given toward the Hall of Fame meta with this set? More generally, as Designers, how much (if any) consideration do you give toward the Hall of Fame meta when designing new cards?
User avatar
Second Edition Art Manager
By edgeofhearing (Lucas Thompson)
 - Second Edition Art Manager
 -  
Community Contributor
#591748
Armus wrote: Wed Jan 18, 2023 8:31 amHow much (if any) consideration was given toward the Hall of Fame meta with this set? More generally, as Designers, how much (if any) consideration do you give toward the Hall of Fame meta when designing new cards?
It's on my mind, particularly for a set like this one. Mission selections for many decks are so optimized in standard that it's going to be hard for any new mission to sneak its way in to a standard deck, especially if it doesn't have crazy gametext or 2 span in space or something. Hall of Fame format is a little bit more open mission-selection-wise, so it was not lost on me that many of the Timeless missions would see a higher chance of use in a Hall of Fame deck.

Interestingly, the Hall of Fame retired missions list feels kind of short to me. For example, Wolf 359, Assimilate Resistance has been in every Borg AQ deck forever, but hasn't received its jacket. While Wolf 359 is in any format, as much as System L-374 is a good fit for Borg AQ decks, it's going to be hard to make the switch. And while Wolf 359 won't ever leave standard, I imagine having a viable alternative might hasten its departure from HoF. I wouldn't be surprised if the existence of the Timeless missions makes it easier to retire missions more generally.
User avatar
Second Edition Design Manager
By The Guardian (Richard New)
 - Second Edition Design Manager
 -  
2E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
#591844
edgeofhearing wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 10:58 am It's on my mind, particularly for a set like this one.
I'll admit that it's not often much on my mind. I've only played one tournament with HoF (2022's Worlds; I also had to heavily modify a deck to play in it), so I'm not that experienced. By way of explanation, my local community includes mostly new players, so I don't want to put the increased burden on them of having a card they want to use possibly not be eligible for an event. Hell, at Worlds, there was some confusion. Admittedly, I do balance that against a meta that can be differently overwhelming to new players, but that's just where I came down.

That all being said, I always listen when someone brings up a point about HoF considerations. Oftentimes, it coincides with concerns about the standard game. We don't necessarily want to double down on effects that are extremely powerful or make more versions of effects that are derided by players. If nothing more, and it of course is more, the HoF list is a good tool to explore the state of the standard game as well.
 
By vlasopes
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
2E Czech National Champion 2011
#591952
What was the story behind the choice of personnel in this set, expecially Jessel, Laas and Lurin. Dukat or Bareil make sense to me but the former are quite surprising. I would hardly call them iconic personnel as are Kirk, T'Pol, Seven, Janeway or Borg Queen. There were several less obvious choices like Persis, Neras or Stripped down that also became Archive portraits during the Decipher era but these cards could be used in almost all decks (should you need them). But the affiliated personnel tend to be iconic or bridge crew personnel like Bareil or Dukat.
User avatar
Second Edition Design Manager
By The Guardian (Richard New)
 - Second Edition Design Manager
 -  
2E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
#591967
vlasopes wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 1:50 pm What was the story behind the choice of personnel in this set, especially Jessel, Laas and Lurin. Dukat or Bareil make sense to me but the former are quite surprising. I would hardly call them iconic personnel as are Kirk, T'Pol, Seven, Janeway or Borg Queen. There were several less obvious choices like Persis, Neras or Stripped down that also became Archive portraits during the Decipher era but these cards could be used in almost all decks (should you need them). But the affiliated personnel tend to be iconic or bridge crew personnel like Bareil or Dukat.
Well, we wanted to give a little to everyone. At one point, we had a [Maq] icon involved on a personnel too, but that one had to be cut for other reasons. It did have some star power.

Jessel was born of a desire to include both [TNG] and [Fut]. That has some added issues in that those are the only two icons that can be on the card (for space reasons). Sure, we could pull a James T. Kirk, Youngest Captain in Starfleet and just eliminate an icon the character should have, but... In addition, pretty much every future version of a bridge crew member has been done. Could we do one of them again? Sure. It would have to have a hook to compete, but possible. "Picard from six hours in the future" was thrown out as a possibility, but had other issues with the pitch that we were reticent to work through for a boutique set. In the end, Jessel's Chef was a selling point of sorts.

Laas also suffers from the same issue as Jessel, in that pretty much all the worthwhile Dominion characters we've seen have been made. Again, we looked at other versions of characters that maybe didn't have super popular versions, but hit on the idea of finding a picture of a Changeling mid-transformation that could stand in for any character we wanted. I even did some work pulling screencaps of different times that Changelings were in a liquid state. Most were of Odo, and frankly looked like him, but brought up a suggestion to change the background. One of my favorites was from "The Ship" where the dying Changeling falls to the ceiling of the upside down ship. I thought it might look cool to flip the picture over, like it was a Changeling tossing out some tentacles when the ship was right-side up, but it never quite looked right. I realized that I had forgotten to take Laas transformations into account and looked to those, but that caused Lucas to suggest photoshopping Laas into a Dominion background, rejoining the Great Link, as was Laas's intention. J. G. Hertzler is almost a series regular, so it also felt like star power.

Lurin came from a personal desire to add in the Commander keyword to Lurin. We have a Ferengi version of the Enterprise, so it made sense to me to have a version that acts as the ship's Commander. Being that the other version has a pretty decent ability, it felt like a reasonable trade-off in the right deck. Maybe the personnel doesn't have the biggest name recognition, but his keyword does.

So, I understand the complaint that the characters aren't "iconic," but we also wanted to give something new where we could. Something unexpected maybe.
 
By vlasopes
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
2E Czech National Champion 2011
#592013
Thank you for the answers. Please, don't read to much into my questions, I was merely curious given my experience with the Archive portrait cards. Back in the day I used most of them (cards from the Decipher era). For example Janeway, clever captain was overlooked eventhough her 2x leadership was handy in some games. The only exception was Kirk. He never really fitted into any of my decks. But that was probably because of OT Kirk. But that is another story.

One last question. Given the leaked information regarding a [Maq] personnel, anything you can share with us about the card?
User avatar
Second Edition Art Manager
By edgeofhearing (Lucas Thompson)
 - Second Edition Art Manager
 -  
Community Contributor
#592024
vlasopes wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 5:34 pm Thank you for the answers. Please, don't read to much into my questions, I was merely curious given my experience with the Archive portrait cards. Back in the day I used most of them (cards from the Decipher era). For example Janeway, clever captain was overlooked eventhough her 2x leadership was handy in some games. The only exception was Kirk. He never really fitted into any of my decks. But that was probably because of OT Kirk. But that is another story.

One last question. Given the leaked information regarding a [Maq] personnel, anything you can share with us about the card?
It was, due to a momentary lapse of judgement, Riker Wil. There just can't be any more [Baj] [Maq] personnel. If 2e ever gets a version of Riker Wil, he'll probably have to be [Fed] or [NA] affiliation. Or a [TNG] personnel with the Infiltrator keyword, but I can think of about 30 other factions that should get infiltrator support before TNG.
 
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Community Contributor
#592149
edgeofhearing wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 1:28 am It was, due to a momentary lapse of judgement, Riker Wil. There just can't be any more [Baj] [Maq] personnel. If 2e ever gets a version of Riker Wil, he'll probably have to be [Fed] or [NA] affiliation. Or a [TNG] personnel with the Infiltrator keyword, but I can think of about 30 other factions that should get infiltrator support before TNG.
Just out of interest, why can't there be any more [Baj] [Maq] personnel?

Thanks.

All the Best,

Mattgomery Scott.
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
#592151
MattgomeryScott wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 7:50 am
edgeofhearing wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 1:28 am It was, due to a momentary lapse of judgement, Riker Wil. There just can't be any more [Baj] [Maq] personnel. If 2e ever gets a version of Riker Wil, he'll probably have to be [Fed] or [NA] affiliation. Or a [TNG] personnel with the Infiltrator keyword, but I can think of about 30 other factions that should get infiltrator support before TNG.
Just out of interest, why can't there be any more [Baj] [Maq] personnel?

Thanks.

All the Best,

Mattgomery Scott.
That gives [Baj] easier access to [Maq] toys. They're bad enough in a Maquis deck, but combined with Bajorans' easy access to the discard pile for recursion, you can get a real Negative Play Experience.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#592152
jadziadax8 wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 9:46 am
MattgomeryScott wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 7:50 am
edgeofhearing wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 1:28 am It was, due to a momentary lapse of judgement, Riker Wil. There just can't be any more [Baj] [Maq] personnel. If 2e ever gets a version of Riker Wil, he'll probably have to be [Fed] or [NA] affiliation. Or a [TNG] personnel with the Infiltrator keyword, but I can think of about 30 other factions that should get infiltrator support before TNG.
Just out of interest, why can't there be any more [Baj] [Maq] personnel?

Thanks.

All the Best,

Mattgomery Scott.
That gives [Baj] easier access to [Maq] toys. They're bad enough in a Maquis deck, but combined with Bajorans' easy access to the discard pile for recursion, you can get a real Negative Play Experience.
Huh. I always thought it was the inverse: You don't want [Maq] getting access to all that sweet sweet [Baj] discard pile retrieval tech.

Since most of the worst [Maq] offender cards require either a specific [H] and/or [Fed] [Maq] people to make them go, I'm not sure that trying to run a quasi-Maquis deck off of Bajor would really be all that effective anyway. On the other hand, a "regular" Maquis deck with a side of discard pile retrieval seems like a high table-flip potential situation! :shock:
User avatar
 
By GooeyChewie (Nathan Miracle)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Architect
#592155
Armus wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 9:59 am Huh. I always thought it was the inverse: You don't want [Maq] getting access to all that sweet sweet [Baj] discard pile retrieval tech.
It's both.
 
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Community Contributor
#592168
jadziadax8 wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 9:46 am
MattgomeryScott wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 7:50 am
edgeofhearing wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 1:28 am It was, due to a momentary lapse of judgement, Riker Wil. There just can't be any more [Baj] [Maq] personnel. If 2e ever gets a version of Riker Wil, he'll probably have to be [Fed] or [NA] affiliation. Or a [TNG] personnel with the Infiltrator keyword, but I can think of about 30 other factions that should get infiltrator support before TNG.
Just out of interest, why can't there be any more [Baj] [Maq] personnel?

Thanks.

All the Best,

Mattgomery Scott.
That gives [Baj] easier access to [Maq] toys. They're bad enough in a Maquis deck, but combined with Bajorans' easy access to the discard pile for recursion, you can get a real Negative Play Experience.
Ah, that makes sense. Thank you.

All the Best,

Mattgomery Scott.
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
#592192
GooeyChewie wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 10:34 am
Armus wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 9:59 am Huh. I always thought it was the inverse: You don't want [Maq] getting access to all that sweet sweet [Baj] discard pile retrieval tech.
It's both.
Indeed.
1EFQ: Game of two halves

Honestly, I don’t think I’ve re[…]

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!!

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

Opponents turn

Remodulation