[Armus]

I'm still not quite sure what you're getting at.
So to Danny's question

What does the game need?

you answered

A strategic vision ...

but then you say

But 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.

Well, i mean, that statement is premised on the need for a strategic vision, but sure
Nature abhors a vacuum.

[The Prefect]

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?

Asking the question this way begins with the assumption that the game now isn't something it's supposed to be. Is that true? Who decides? How do we know?

Now, to the "who" in "who decides". What are we really talking about here? Who are we making this game for? Ourselves? The handful of people who still show up and/or log-in to play the game?

As far as "how do we know"... how do we measure the health of the game from a design perspective?

Here are some ideas I had...

POR? If enough players aren't happy, wouldn't they be likely to vote leadership out? Maybe there should be some measure of approval in addition to retention?

Event attendance? This is important, but so much could be going on to influence attendance that has nothing to do with the health of 2e Design. Event attendance for 2e has been falling steadily since around 2010. So, has the game been not getting what it needs for the last 13 years?

Deck Use? Since we're talking about Design, one way to measure whether 2e is getting what it needs might be deck usage of cards in any given set. There are, of course, multiple dimensions of "usage". Has the card been used in the last six months? If so, in how many decks? What's the lifetime usage of the card - how many decks has it been used in from legal date to present? How consistently has the card been used over time (lifetime usage/age in months)? What is set median and mean for card usage for these dimensions? If the set has a main "theme" what is the theme median and mean for card usage for these dimensions?

Player Satisfaction? We could start doing short formal surveys at all high-level events (Regionals or higher?) asking players, a) what keeps them coming back; b) whether they're happy with the state of the game; and c) what they want to see in the coming year. In order to be of real value, the survey would have to both standardized (the same at all events) and value neutral (avoiding loaded terms like "The Process" and "Fanboy Design" and avoiding assumptions of failure buried in the questions).

Just some thoughts about measurement... We need something better than the Statler and Waldorf approach.

[eberlems]

I'd like to see improvements in these points:

Price support on time (thinking of the last 3 german nationals here).

Website e.g.
usable on mobile devices (google searches are around the same for desktop and mobile).
search for decks by tournament format.
card creator app improvements.
tournament system improvements (formats, elo results, earned bye).
faster and secure code.

Description texts for new expansions.

Articles for new sets.

Articles for errata.

Errata list.

GEMP ?!?

Volunteers with time to do the work.

[Armus]

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.

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

Yeah I'm pretty sure that I already said that under the current model, this responsibility necessarily falls to the Director of Second Edition. I don't think there's any disagreement from any quarters on that point (and without too much rehashing of the details of historical nerd fights, everybody agreed on that much as given even then, it was just the implications of that given that was the source of the nerd fights).

[Marquetry]

A few quick card-based things:

*Fewer dilemmas that don't go under missions (or none, that would be fine for a while with how many there are)

*No more flip missions, or at least no more mechanics like this

*More even representation of the various series in new cards

*And please stop changing cards for the sake of changing them- there are several errata in the past few years that have annoyed me. (In addition to people who may not check the site as often, or don't want to reprint the same card multiple times)

[monty42]

*Fewer dilemmas that don't go under missions (or none, that would be fine for a while with how many there are)

I 100% support this! This is something that design certainly should take to heart as I feel this is one of the two main reasons that unnecessarily prolong the game and make too many games go to time.

*No more flip missions, or at least no more mechanics like this

I'm curious to understand why you feel that way? What's wrong with this mechanic that makes you not like it?

*More even representation of the various series in new cards

This is definitely something that design can take to heart although it's probably difficult to exactly quantify. I certainly feel that the TOS era has been underrepresented in recent releases and I'd like to see more of it.

*And please stop changing cards for the sake of changing them- there are several errata in the past few years that have annoyed me. (In addition to people who may not check the site as often, or don't want to reprint the same card multiple times)

I'm wondering what makes you think that people would change cards "for the sake of changing them"?
I honestly can't think of a reason why somebody would do that.
Now I can't speak for all of them but I can at least assure you that all of the errata I've been involved in was made with the best interest of improving gameplay in mind.
That obviously might mean something different to different people but those decisions certainly weren't made lightly.

[Latok]

*Fewer dilemmas that don't go under missions (or none, that would be fine for a while with how many there are)

I 100% support this! This is something that design certainly should take to heart as I feel this is one of the two main reasons that unnecessarily prolong the game and make too many games go to time.

I also agree and that's why I think Playing by the Rules is one of the best cards made probably ever.

*And please stop changing cards for the sake of changing them- there are several errata in the past few years that have annoyed me. (In addition to people who may not check the site as often, or don't want to reprint the same card multiple times)

I'm wondering what makes you think that people would change cards "for the sake of changing them"?
I honestly can't think of a reason why somebody would do that.
Now I can't speak for all of them but I can at least assure you that all of the errata I've been involved in was made with the best interest of improving gameplay in mind.
That obviously might mean something different to different people but those decisions certainly weren't made lightly.

I might be remembering incorrectly but wasn't there a number of errata for spelling/grammatical errors? Adding a comma or fixing a misspelled word is definitely changing a card just to change it because it's not like people were playing the cards incorrectly.

However I think Amber is referring to some changes that are substantive. The type of errata you're saying is done to improve gameplay, like making old dilemmas slightly better, which is something people will disagree about (personally I don't care either way).

[monty42]

I might be remembering incorrectly but wasn't there a number of errata for spelling/grammatical errors? Adding a comma or fixing a misspelled word is definitely changing a card just to change it because it's not like people were playing the cards incorrectly.

However I think Amber is referring to some changes that are substantive. The type of errata you're saying is done to improve gameplay, like making old dilemmas slightly better, which is something people will disagree about (personally I don't care either way).

You see, both of these instances are resemblances of something I talked about earlier in this thread.
There are no shortages of opinions in this community.
Personally I couldn't care less about either of those topics but there obviously were enough people who did care about them, otherwise these changes wouldn't have been made.
In any case, it wasn't change for the sake of change.
People had legitimate concerns/reasons asking for these changes. And not unexpectedly some people in the community disagree with these concerns/reasons.
That puts the people who are supposed to address this in a sort of damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario because no matter what they do, they're gonna step on some people's toes.
The one thing I have to admit is that the reasoning behind some of these changes have been communicated poorly, which might have led people to assume that they have been made arbitrarily and that is definitely something that needs to be improved.

[Latok]

In any case, it wasn't change for the sake of change.
People had legitimate concerns/reasons asking for these changes. And not unexpectedly some people in the community disagree with these concerns/reasons.
That puts the people who are supposed to address this in a sort of damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario because no matter what they do, they're gonna step on some people's toes.

Sure everyone has a reason for doing everything and they will think it is legitimate which is just an immediate conversation ending argument.
However adding an oxford comma is 100% change for the sake of change. It's not even fixing grammar (which itself isn't a legitimate reason to change cards that are being played correctly) because with or without are both acceptable. An errata for an oxford comma adds nothing (not only nothing to gameplay but nothing at all) except a card to the errata list.

[Enabran]

There are no shortages of opinions in this community.

Yes, and unfortunately the people with the wrong opinions hold the reins.

[Armus]

There are no shortages of opinions in this community.

Yes, and unfortunately the people with the wrong opinions hold the reins.

[Mic drop.gif]

#shotsfired

[boromirofborg]

*No more flip missions, or at least no more mechanics like this

This one intrigues me the most, because I'm a huge advocate for *more* dual sided cards. Dating back to Spacedoor in 1E, I think they were a great idea for the game, and honestly, I'd love if all missions were dual sided, representing before/after the solve.

Now, maybe I'm misunderstanding and there's a specific implementation in 2E you don't like?

I'm just intrigued because one of my feedback to the designers when I came back to the game was "more of this please".

[boromirofborg]

"Hey buddy, what does the game need?"

My background: 1E player since WB Premier, dropped 2E in favor of LOTR, and followed it casually since the end of decipher. Stated playing again last year due to having a local player base.

1. More non-dilemma based interaction.
2. More affiliations.
3. More differences between affiliations
4. Less reliance on perfect memory of a personnel played 5 turns ago.
5. More flavor (subset of point 3)
6. More ways to play limited with new cards



1. More non-dilemma based interaction.
After coming back to the game, I've tried to play each of the affiliations and factions. Many based on net-decks until I get a better feel on building.

Of that, the only times I really felt like I was actually interacting with my opponent outside of dilemmas were with and . I do think that the theme of being at opponents missions to mess with them is an area that 2e does better than 1e and is a solid win.

Why do I think this is so important? Because with only dilemmas as the main source of interaction, there is a lack of ability to come back from behind AND we miss out on some of the big appeal of playing a Star Trek CCG. If my opponent is Borg, I want to be worried about my personnel being assimilated, and I want to be able to slow them down. I want to simulate showdowns between Kirk and Khan, or the Fed and dominion. And 2E just doesn't do that well.

2. More affiliations.
This came up on the discord the other day, but to expand on it a bit. Affiliaitions are one of the few deck building costs in the game. One of the best things 2E did, was splitting the monolith into the sub-factions. There should be more affiliations, both for mechanics and flavor. Seeing the tease of Vidiians coming got me more excited to play 2E then I have been since the early decipher days. I expect to be a little disappointed when they aren't too different from the rest, but I want the option. Part of why I play ST over other games is the flavor, and we are missing it now. And this was a Decipher mistake, not CC but KCA and Terra should have been separate affiliations, not just .

3. More differences between affiliations
One of the biggest reasons I walked away from 2E was the Borg. I loved 1E Borg and how different they were. And then in 2E they just solve missions and face dilemmas like the Fed do. And assimilating personnel was so disappointing.

I 100% understand and can even agree with 2E Borg being better from a gameplay pov, but as a player, it was enough to quit.

Even now, like I said, the feel of different affiliations isn't that strong. There are differences, but they tend to be "this affiliation is better at having 2-cost, while this affiliation lets you pay a kicker cost when played."

Which is *something*, but I really want each affiliation to feel different.



4. Less reliance on perfect memory of a personnel played 5 turns ago.
This comes back to more non-dilemma based interaction, but I don't love that to be a great 2E player, I have to have a good mental memory of each personnel card my opponent played, store that in memory for 1 hour, and remember who has what skill for optimal dilemma combos.

That's personal preference, but more non-dilemma interactions would help.


5. More flavor (subset of point 3)
The templates go a long way, and are far better then 1E, but just like mechanics, there's not too much keeping the affiliations that different.

6. More ways to play limited with new cards
In other games (Magic) I'm primarily a limited player. I loved opening packs and making do with that. One of the biggest losses when moving to the CC era (and an unavoidable one) is that smaller sets means limited isn't possible. For returning players or new players, things like sealed are great. I actually have an idea I'm working on for this that might help.

[Enabran]

1. More non-dilemma based interaction.

To boromirofborg:

No thank you. At my last tournament 2 of us rage quit because of your named interaction. It is so much unfun to play against such decks.
You can do nothing or are losing more personnel than you can restock.
Everything you play goes back. Or you cannot play it at all.
Boom boom and bye bye ships at your space mission.

can be nasty but at least they are not deck-devastating.

2. More affiliations.
Vidiians... I don't know what they should do differently than the others. They also have to solve missions. Storywise they should do something with your opponents personnel. And they must do something to stay alive. So all should have a Decay. Maybe they will gain skills or points from them. A mix of Cardassians and Borg?
And even worse: There is hardly any visual material for cards. We have seen 3 ships and here is the list of all unnamed Vidiian personnel seen in the show. Not to mention that the images used in that List are the best shots of those personnel. So have fun with an Affiliation of about 20 cards and 75% of blurred images. Like the 56-set-blur-faces- .
1E managed to create 19 personnel cards (Some of the unnamed Vidiians shown were used for more than 1 personnel). Relativity is the smallest Sub-"Affiliation" and even there you can choose between 30 names. But they can cheat in more faces. But every Relativity deck plays the same. And the even more limited Vidiians?

[Marquetry]

*No more flip missions, or at least no more mechanics like this

This one intrigues me the most, because I'm a huge advocate for *more* dual sided cards. Dating back to Spacedoor in 1E, I think they were a great idea for the game, and honestly, I'd love if all missions were dual sided, representing before/after the solve.

Now, maybe I'm misunderstanding and there's a specific implementation in 2E you don't like?

I'm just intrigued because one of my feedback to the designers when I came back to the game was "more of this please".

The 1E feel is most of it for me, but in the opposite direction I don't want my 2E to feel like 1E; and I want less non-dilemma interaction.

I agree with you on more affiliations, and less reliance on pure memory!