Discuss all of your questions, concerns, comments and ideas about Second Edition.
User avatar
 
By Danny (Daniel Giddings)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
2E British National Runner-Up 2021
#592418
In another post, The Perfect posited:

Designers are always trying to give the players things they want and give the game cards it needs. But what the game needs is usually not a matter of objective truth - ask three different designers what the game needs and you'll often get four different answers.

So, is there any truth in this? Let's find out, and expand the question beyond Design, and put it to the wider community:

"Hey buddy, what does the game need?"

(I'm looking for cards and themes, rather than more holistic answers like "Fewer fanboys on design" or "Different folk in the CC org structure" - the main question above is about the game itself, the cards that hit the table, and those example answers belong to questions asked a few threads up, in the PoR.)
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#592423
A strategic vision and a design Bible.

You have those two things, a lot of the Tactical detail questions answer themselves.
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
#592427
Armus wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 9:19 am A strategic vision ...
What is a "strategic vision" to you?
This is a term that gets used a lot but I have a feeling different people have very different ideas about what that should entail.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#592428
monty42 wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 9:50 am
Armus wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 9:19 am A strategic vision ...
What is a "strategic vision" to you?
This is a term that gets used a lot but I have a feeling different people have very different ideas about what that should entail.
I think the definition from this article captures it pretty well:
A strategic vision, or strategic vision statement, is a coherent and straightforward statement that outlines in broad terms what the organization wants to accomplish.
It's basically the high level answer to the question Quo Vadimus? ("Where are we going?")

The Design Bible is a partner document that basically answers the question "How do we get there?" and sets parameters and guardrails for different aspects of the game (affiliation strengths and weaknesses, costing, etc.).

2e has never had either of those (no I'm not counting the sacred jedi costing texts, they were at best a piece of what is needed), and that lack of central guidance has led to a lot of things that ended up being bad for the game over the years.
User avatar
 
By Danny (Daniel Giddings)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
2E British National Runner-Up 2021
#592429
Design get told they're not putting out the cards the game needs.

The question gets asked "What does the game need?", explicitly looking for cards, themes and mechanics, and suggests that the more high level, over-arching, conceptual-framework answers get reserved for the PoR.

And, naturally, what's the first answer that comes in?

Surely if the cards that are coming out aren't needed, people must have ideas about what is needed, as it's now established that the recent sets don't meet the criteria (whatever it is).

Brian is right, however - the CC could probably benefit from taking some of the points from the article onboard. But that's not what was asked here.
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
#592431
Armus wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 10:08 am
monty42 wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 9:50 am
Armus wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 9:19 am A strategic vision ...
What is a "strategic vision" to you?
This is a term that gets used a lot but I have a feeling different people have very different ideas about what that should entail.
I think the definition from this article captures it pretty well:
A strategic vision, or strategic vision statement, is a coherent and straightforward statement that outlines in broad terms what the organization wants to accomplish.
It's basically the high level answer to the question Quo Vadimus? ("Where are we going?")

The Design Bible is a partner document that basically answers the question "How do we get there?" and sets parameters and guardrails for different aspects of the game (affiliation strengths and weaknesses, costing, etc.).

2e has never had either of those (no I'm not counting the sacred jedi costing texts, they were at best a piece of what is needed), and that lack of central guidance has led to a lot of things that ended up being bad for the game over the years.
I obviously worded my question wrong, sorry about that.
I do understand what the term strategic vision means by definition.

My question was supposed to go more in the direction What is a "strategic vision" to you, in terms of the game?
i.e. is it enough to say we're going to have 2 new affiliations in the next 4 years?
I'd like to understand what you're looking for when you use that term.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#592432
Danny wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 10:18 am Design get told they're not putting out the cards the game needs.

The question gets asked "What does the game need?", explicitly looking for cards, themes and mechanics, and suggests that the more high level, over-arching, conceptual-framework answers get reserved for the PoR.

And, naturally, what's the first answer that comes in?

Surely if the cards that are coming out aren't needed, people must have ideas about what is needed, as it's now established that the recent sets don't meet the criteria (whatever it is).

Brian is right, however - the CC could probably benefit from taking some of the points from the article onboard. But that's not what was asked here.
I think it's hard to answer your question asked in a meaningful way without the things I talked about being in place.

Asking the crowd what they want absent any context is basically setting the table for Project Community II, which is fine, but on its own risks making the game as a whole worse vs. better.

I mean, you can give the players the Bread and Circuses they want, but that doesn't mean that what they want is best for the game.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#592433
monty42 wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 10:33 am
My question was supposed to go more in the direction What is a "strategic vision" to you, in terms of the game?
i.e. is it enough to say we're going to have 2 new affiliations in the next 4 years?
I'd like to understand what you're looking for when you use that term.
Short answer: No, that's not enough. I'm not even sure it's an answer to the right question.

Saying "we're going to have two new affiliations in the next four years" doesn't tell me anything meaningful.

WHY are we going to have two affiliations in the next four years?

WHAT is adding those two affiliations going to bring to the game that isn't already there (besides giving the Art Team a chance to flex their muscles with new templates)?

HOW does adding two new affiliations in the next four years make the game better/ more enriching/ more fun/ etc.?

Goes back to my main point: if you don't know where you're going, it's hard to tell if a given thing is going to help you get there.
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
#592437
Armus wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 10:48 am Short answer: No, that's not enough. I'm not even sure it's an answer to the right question.

Saying "we're going to have two new affiliations in the next four years" doesn't tell me anything meaningful.

WHY are we going to have two affiliations in the next four years?

WHAT is adding those two affiliations going to bring to the game that isn't already there (besides giving the Art Team a chance to flex their muscles with new templates)?

HOW does adding two new affiliations in the next four years make the game better/ more enriching/ more fun/ etc.?

Goes back to my main point: if you don't know where you're going, it's hard to tell if a given thing is going to help you get there.
So if I'm understanding this correctly, what you're looking for in a strategic vision are things:
that aren't already there
that make the game better
that make the game more enriching
that make the game more more fun
would you say that's a fair assessment of your statement?
User avatar
 
By DJstormtrooper (Tyler Fultz)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Architect
#592438
The game never got the card rotation it needed to stay fresh. I look at the decks winning constructed tournaments now and they don’t look significantly different from the Necessary Evil-abuse designs we were all running a decade ago.

The CC should have implemented Hall of Fame in 2008.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#592441
monty42 wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 10:57 am
Armus wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 10:48 am Short answer: No, that's not enough. I'm not even sure it's an answer to the right question.

Saying "we're going to have two new affiliations in the next four years" doesn't tell me anything meaningful.

WHY are we going to have two affiliations in the next four years?

WHAT is adding those two affiliations going to bring to the game that isn't already there (besides giving the Art Team a chance to flex their muscles with new templates)?

HOW does adding two new affiliations in the next four years make the game better/ more enriching/ more fun/ etc.?

Goes back to my main point: if you don't know where you're going, it's hard to tell if a given thing is going to help you get there.
So if I'm understanding this correctly, what you're looking for in a strategic vision are things:
that aren't already there
that make the game better
that make the game more enriching
that make the game more more fun
would you say that's a fair assessment of your statement?
I was answering in the specific context of the new affiliation example. When it comes to new affiliations specifically, I'm not necessarily opposed to them, but they need to bring something new to the game to be worth it in my mind. Just solving missions in a different color doesn't do it for me.

That's why I've asked multiple times in multiple places: are we adding a new affiliation because it brings something new and interesting to the game, or are we adding a new affiliation to add a new affiliation?

(Note: "new and interesting" doesn't have to mean whole cloth - though it can - it can also include variations or new combination of existing stuff with a new spin)

But higher level than that, the strategic question is what do we want this game to be? And from there, what's missing/ lacking/ in the wrong place that inhibits the game from being what we want it to be, and what's the best way to address those needs?

You answer that, you'll know what cards to make (or in some cases, change).
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
#592444
Armus wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 11:05 am But higher level than that, the strategic question is what do we want this game to be? And from there, what's missing/ lacking/ in the wrong place that inhibits the game from being what we want it to be, and what's the best way to address those needs?

You answer that, you'll know what cards to make (or in some cases, change).
Those are extremely vague answers to implement a strategy on.
You could ask these to ten different people and get 20 different answers.
Maybe where you want the game to be is at an entirely opposite end of the spectrum than where I want the game to be.
So if 2E leadership took my end of the spectrum as basis for their strategic vision, how would you think about that?
You could obviously poll the community about what they want the game to be, which might not be the worst idea but past experience tells me that you probably won't get a concise answer there either.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#592446
monty42 wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 11:21 am
Armus wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 11:05 am But higher level than that, the strategic question is what do we want this game to be? And from there, what's missing/ lacking/ in the wrong place that inhibits the game from being what we want it to be, and what's the best way to address those needs?

You answer that, you'll know what cards to make (or in some cases, change).
Those are extremely vague answers to implement a strategy on.
You could ask these to ten different people and get 20 different answers.
Maybe where you want the game to be is at an entirely opposite end of the spectrum than where I want the game to be.
So if 2E leadership took my end of the spectrum as basis for their strategic vision, how would you think about that?
You could obviously poll the community about what they want the game to be, which might not be the worst idea but past experience tells me that you probably won't get a concise answer there either.
Yup. Nobody said it was easy.

Now you're getting to a more fundamental question: Who decides?

The answer to that is fairly clear: Just like Decipher originally, then Charlie as Chairman of the CC, The Director of Second Edition now bears ultimate responsibility for the game.

If he chooses a direction that is wildly unpopular, then the community has the ability to force a change in leadership.

And yes, one may ask 20 different people and get 20 different answers, but I'm guessing even those 20 different answers will have SOME common threads to build around. And it's not like there's NOTHING that works right now, so there's material to work with.

It just becomes a matter of actually doing it.
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
#592453
I'm still not quite sure what you're getting at.
So to Danny's question
Danny wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 5:09 am What does the game need?
you answered
Armus wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 9:19 am A strategic vision ...
but then you say
Armus wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 11:05 amBut higher level than that, the strategic question is what do we want this game to be?
So if that is the case, then everybody has a "strategic vision".
Because if there's one thing that this community has more than enough of it's opinions. And in the end everybody most likely has their own idea about what they want this game to be.

So in terms of that I'm going to extrapolate that instead of a "strategic vision", what the game needs is a way to determine who's "strategic vision" is the one that should be followed.
User avatar
 
By Danny (Daniel Giddings)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
2E British National Runner-Up 2021
#592455
monty42 wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 12:07 pmSo in terms of that I'm going to extrapolate that instead of a "strategic vision", what the game needs is a way to determine who's "strategic vision" is the one that should be followed.

Doesn't the game already have that? Isn't there already an org chart in place?

Serious question: how many [1E-Fer] basic blo[…]

HP010 and RiF

Aside from "Because Decipher," this a[…]

I will dm you @doctorjoya . Looking forward to th[…]

1EFQ: Into Recovery

https://i.redd.it/mm25lh0wfqg71.png With […]