Discuss all of your questions, concerns, comments and ideas about Second Edition.
User avatar
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#599882
That's a really good point. For example, one of the things I did to check myself to make sure I wasn't crazy, was I went and manually looked at the zillion times that U.S.S Defiant, Commandeered Warship (a card that's used in all flavors of [Dom] decks) has been used in the past three years, and saw that if you're running it, you're coming in at the top of tournament results way more often than not, with the occasional outlier.

Thinking out loud, perhaps what would be more useful would be a statistic something akin to +/- in hockey or basketball or WAR in baseball. What cards give you a way better chance of winning if you are using it versus some average card from the pool. That would give the best indicator of where power issues lie.
User avatar
 
By GooeyChewie (Nathan Miracle)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Architect
#599887
abargar7510 wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 6:49 pm Of course time will tell on if those strategies will be OP. But that’s still two slots that could’ve gone to helping decks that need help instead of cards that best case help decks that don’t.
I don't want to get involved in the larger conversation, but I do want to touch on these two cards.

Hawk helps out [TNG] Patrol Neutral Zone decks, which definitely need help. He also only helps out [TNG] Dissidents if they are going full Briar Patch, which would be substantially different from current [TNG] Dissident builds.

Memad helps out any [Car] deck which wants to use Maneuvers or Assaults. Kraxon is the most obvious choice, but I might use him to try to download Expedient Opportunity in a The Die is Cast deck. And if I don't draw him in my opening hand, or I do happen to get Expedient Opportunity in my opening hand, no big deal because he's still a decent 1-cost personnel.

In other words, I disagree with the notion that these two cards do not help decks which need help. They just aren't the decks which immediately spring to everybody's mind, precisely because they are decks which need help and thus aren't played as much (if at all).
User avatar
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#599888
Those are absolutely fair points. I mentioned in the Dojo that Hawk would be a lot more palatable if he was specific to Region: Neutral Zone. Someone else mentioned that Memad is what happens when you start making HQ's out of other people's HQ's. The Briar Patch and Subjugated Planet stuff may indeed be unintended consequences, but ones that could have been easily avoided (imo).
User avatar
 
By The Prefect (Michael Shea)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Prefect
2E Sector 001 Regional Champion 2023
#599890
abargar7510 wrote: Wed May 31, 2023 2:07 am I'm not a good player, and I don't mind losing, but there's very little creativity going on in deckbuilding right now. It's what flavor of Founder's Homeworld do you want to run, or, if you don't want to do that, are you playing 5SV or Starfleet? That type of environment is boring as shit to play in, and a big reason why I'm more interested in the Draft and Hall of Fame formats these days.
I understand this may be the experience you're having online, and I can understand why it's frustrating. But it's not reflected in the stats, and the stats are drawn from events in which players upload decks or in which the TD records the HQ. Also, if [Dom] is dominating play at locals (events that aren't Regional or higher), then players don't seem to be taking those decks to higher-level events, for whatever reason. But, again, the stats don't support the conclusion that all people play is Dominion at locals either.

Here are the top 10 missions across 623 decks uploaded in the last six months:

Alpha 5 Approach, Transport Crash Survivor
Provoke Interstellar Incident
Metron Arena, Resolve Standing Conflict
Caretaker's Array
Cardassia Prime, Secure Homeworld
Gateway, Historical Research
Plasma Storm Depths, Search for Missing Vessel
Alsuran Sector, Utilize Abandoned Relay Station
Brute Force
Cardassia IV, Rescue Prisoners

If Dominion were dominating everywhere the way you have experienced in your games, I'd be expecting to see a couple different missions in there.

Turning to draw decks, U.S.S. Defiant, Commandeered Warship has been used in 355 uploaded decks since 2008. That may seem like a lot, but for comparison, U.S.S. Voyager, Home Away From Home has been used in 628 uploaded decks, the I.K.S. Vor'cha has been used in 474, the Groumall, Inauspicious Command has been used in 335, the Xhosa, Sponsored Transport has been used in 512, the U.S.S. Centaur, Patrolling Ship has been used in 691, the D-7 Battlecruiser has been used in 373, the D'deridex Advanced has been used in 294, the U.S.S. Relativity, Federation Timeship has been used in 385, etc.

I'm not doubting your experience. But I am also not playing in your games. Just as you are not playing in mine. I am still playing in person, and I am not seeing the same things you are seeing. And I know stats are an imperfect measure, but so too is anecdotal experience. For example, for literally years [Rom] and [Voy] dominated my local playgroup. So, to me, that's all anybody who wanted to win ever seemed to play. But that wasn't what other people in other groups were experiencing.

So, what's the answer to this? I am not sure, but any answer probably involves a wider breadth of experience than either of us have. That's one of the reasons I like looking at the stats, it's the only way I know to approximate that wider breadth of experience, even though I recognize that it is an imperfect approximation. Travelling is another, and I am trying to travel more...

One of the reasons why John was such a good person to do Rankings was because he travelled all the time. So, he saw what was going on all over the US and he saw what was being played in high level events in different places in the world. He also hosted events that lots of people from all over traveled to. Was his ranking system infallible? Certainly not - it was prone to being influenced by his personal biases, though I think he tried to compensate for that fact. Did it always mirror the stats? Certainly not - stats do present an incomplete picture because they lack context. But it had the benefit of cutting through different sets of anecdotal experiences because what one player who keeps playing the same 5 or 10 players over and over is experiencing isn't necessarily what the rest of us are.

So, I guess what I am saying is that while your experience is clearly frustrating, it doesn't seem to be the experience all of us are having. I'd be very interested to hear from others though and see if they too are seeing what you are seeing. I am not.
User avatar
 
By The Prefect (Michael Shea)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Prefect
2E Sector 001 Regional Champion 2023
#599894
edgeofhearing wrote: Wed May 31, 2023 5:25 am
monty42 wrote: Wed May 31, 2023 3:39 am This is actually quite an interesting discussion (if one manages to suffer through all the saltiness)
abargar7510 wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 10:19 pm I would argue that the CC should add average placing and margin of victory to the affiliation HQ for better (and more transparent) analysis of these kinds of issues.
This might actually be a little more difficult than it sounds. You cannot base such an evaluation on just a HQ alone. People are trying a lot of different things with different HQs. I for example have a Subjugated Planet deck that worked very well but I also have a Subjugated Planet deck that failed miserably and I have an entirely different build in my head that I haven't gotten around to playing yet.
So you see raising any statistical data from just the HQ is most likely not gonna be very conclusive.
For gathering the information that I think you're looking for, you'd have to make an evaluation by certain deck type. With that however you'd get into the weeds of what constitutes a certain deck type. How do you quantify which deck is a Dial-AA deck and which isn't.
I'm not saying that's impossible but I think there's a lot more going into that than just entering some numbers somewhere.
Armus wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 10:55 pm Put another way, given two players of roughly equal ability, a reasonably built deck with the "worst" affiliation should still expect to win 1/3 games vs a reasonably built deck with the "best" affiliation.
I agree with most of your points but this is a vast stretch because a game between two players of roughly equal ability happens as often as it doesn't.
Therefore any statistic based on that can be diluted very quickly.
For example, MvB wins with the weirdest shit (because he's crazy). Does that mean if he wins a couple of times with such a deck, that deck has a high probability of winning? Statistically yes. Realistically probably not.
On the other side, Tj lost a bunch of tournaments with extremely good decks because he's unable to maintain his concentration for a long time. Now does that mean those decks aren't good because they didn't win? Statistically yes. Realistically probably not.

I'm not trying to make a stance or come down on either side of the argument. In fact I don't think there is a black or white answer with this because all of these factors and more play into it.
I endorse this take.
:thumbsup:
User avatar
 
By boromirofborg (Trek Barnes)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
1E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
2E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
#599895
a few years ago I used t run a monthly MTG cube. I had a spreadsheet where I tracked the win rate in deck for every card. I was able to identify a few problem cards, and I was able to confirm my bais on another But ultimately, I knew that our sample size was so small the data was a very rough guide more then anything.

And that's true of 2e as well. There's not enough play - casual or competitive - to get meaningful numbers. And I would argue even the competitive play is rare enough, it's still not super meaningful.

I play in a local once a month. There's usually 4-5 players. One of the players is my 12-year old, who the first month we went over a year ago, played a [TN] deck I found online. He liked it, and has played it ever since. He likes it, he can win with it,and he doesn't think about the game in between the tournaments. For the rest of us, we all change our decks almost monthly. The most I ever played a deck was twice, and that's because I didn't find time to build a new one. This month will be the first I play the same twice in a row, because I think I have a deck I want for continentals.

But aside from that, even if deck X was the most winning deck, most of us wouldn't play it more then once or twice, because we don't get enough games to get stuck on one, nor are the prizes there to sway us.

(I also have a problem where I love building and making decks. I have a new ikea cabinet with currently 113 different magic commander decks, so any time me and the 2 kids want to play, we can just grab one.).



TLDR - player base and organized play are too low a sample size for meaningful data. You can spot trends, but not enough data to understand the trends.
User avatar
 
By The Prefect (Michael Shea)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Prefect
2E Sector 001 Regional Champion 2023
#599899
boromirofborg wrote: Wed May 31, 2023 9:58 am a few years ago I used t run a monthly MTG cube. I had a spreadsheet where I tracked the win rate in deck for every card. I was able to identify a few problem cards, and I was able to confirm my bais on another But ultimately, I knew that our sample size was so small the data was a very rough guide more then anything.

And that's true of 2e as well. There's not enough play - casual or competitive - to get meaningful numbers. And I would argue even the competitive play is rare enough, it's still not super meaningful.

I play in a local once a month. There's usually 4-5 players. One of the players is my 12-year old, who the first month we went over a year ago, played a [TN] deck I found online. He liked it, and has played it ever since. He likes it, he can win with it,and he doesn't think about the game in between the tournaments. For the rest of us, we all change our decks almost monthly. The most I ever played a deck was twice, and that's because I didn't find time to build a new one. This month will be the first I play the same twice in a row, because I think I have a deck I want for continentals.

But aside from that, even if deck X was the most winning deck, most of us wouldn't play it more then once or twice, because we don't get enough games to get stuck on one, nor are the prizes there to sway us.

(I also have a problem where I love building and making decks. I have a new ikea cabinet with currently 113 different magic commander decks, so any time me and the 2 kids want to play, we can just grab one.).



TLDR - player base and organized play are too low a sample size for meaningful data. You can spot trends, but not enough data to understand the trends.
Interesting.

So, imagine you are 2e Design Manager. How would you go about trying to inform your designers of what needs strengthening, balancing, etc.? What information would you use?

Please note: I am not saying you're wrong. You may well be right about small-N problems and data. But, if the data is unreliable, what would you want a designer to use to inform their decision-making process?

For whatever it's worth: my answer to the question is that I would designers to look at data, look at what's being said in the forums, look at tournament reports when they're available, look at what's happening in their own groups, talk to other players and designers, and take testing data into account. That's what I used to do as a designer.
User avatar
 
By boromirofborg (Trek Barnes)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
1E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
2E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
#599906
The Prefect wrote: Wed May 31, 2023 10:17 am So, imagine you are 2e Design Manager. How would you go about trying to inform your designers of what needs strengthening, balancing, etc.? What information would you use?

Please note: I am not saying you're wrong. You may well be right about small-N problems and data. But, if the data is unreliable, what would you want a designer to use to inform their decision-making process?

For whatever it's worth: my answer to the question is that I would designers to look at data, look at what's being said in the forums, look at tournament reports when they're available, look at what's happening in their own groups, talk to other players and designers, and take testing data into account. That's what I used to do as a designer.
sorry, to be clear, I think what you said is correct. You need to look at the data we have, the forums, the play tester feedback, etc. But you do need to keep in the back of your mind the subjectivity of it.

This is where the non-physical nature of the game is actually a benefit, because banning and errata don't have quite the same cost as they do in paper formats where millions of cards are printed and cards have a real money value that gets tanked if banned.

What matters most really, is are people enjoying the game.

Another story from my magic cube.
When I first designed it, it was a powered cube. (Meaning it ran the power 9, the most busted old magic cards like Black Lotus that are infamous.). This was because I copied an online list to start with, and we played.

Over the months as I learned more, I read on lots of forums about why cubes were better if they didn't include the power 9, because they were too swingy. (And indeed, they are.). So I was planning on taking them out, but I asked my players. Unanimously, they said to keep them in. They enjoyed to fun of playing them, even at the cost of losing to them. And since this was just a fun game and an excuse for food and relaxing with friends, I kept them. Player enjoyment > ideal balance.


So back to your question; I think what's important for designers to keep in mind is all the data we have, and player sentiment on what's overpowered. But you may have to go with your gut sometimes. And at the end of the day, you *will* make mistakes. Design cards you would be happy to lose to.
User avatar
 
By The Prefect (Michael Shea)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Prefect
2E Sector 001 Regional Champion 2023
#599910
boromirofborg wrote: Wed May 31, 2023 11:44 am
The Prefect wrote: Wed May 31, 2023 10:17 am So, imagine you are 2e Design Manager. How would you go about trying to inform your designers of what needs strengthening, balancing, etc.? What information would you use?

Please note: I am not saying you're wrong. You may well be right about small-N problems and data. But, if the data is unreliable, what would you want a designer to use to inform their decision-making process?

For whatever it's worth: my answer to the question is that I would designers to look at data, look at what's being said in the forums, look at tournament reports when they're available, look at what's happening in their own groups, talk to other players and designers, and take testing data into account. That's what I used to do as a designer.
sorry, to be clear, I think what you said is correct. You need to look at the data we have, the forums, the play tester feedback, etc. But you do need to keep in the back of your mind the subjectivity of it.

This is where the non-physical nature of the game is actually a benefit, because banning and errata don't have quite the same cost as they do in paper formats where millions of cards are printed and cards have a real money value that gets tanked if banned.

What matters most really, is are people enjoying the game.

Another story from my magic cube.
When I first designed it, it was a powered cube. (Meaning it ran the power 9, the most busted old magic cards like Black Lotus that are infamous.). This was because I copied an online list to start with, and we played.

Over the months as I learned more, I read on lots of forums about why cubes were better if they didn't include the power 9, because they were too swingy. (And indeed, they are.). So I was planning on taking them out, but I asked my players. Unanimously, they said to keep them in. They enjoyed to fun of playing them, even at the cost of losing to them. And since this was just a fun game and an excuse for food and relaxing with friends, I kept them. Player enjoyment > ideal balance.


So back to your question; I think what's important for designers to keep in mind is all the data we have, and player sentiment on what's overpowered. But you may have to go with your gut sometimes. And at the end of the day, you *will* make mistakes. Design cards you would be happy to lose to.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup:
User avatar
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#604721
Thread necro!

I've played 8 tournament games with Memad now. I went 5-3 in those games.

When I got either Audacious Assault or Memad in my opening hand, I had 4 full wins and one modified loss. I think I got *only* Memad in my opening hand in two of those 5 games.

When I didn't get either of them in my opening hand, I had one full win and two full losses.

This dude is definitely this year's Tricia Jenkins!
User avatar
 
By Danny (Daniel Giddings)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
2E British National Runner-Up 2021
#604728
abargar7510 wrote: Sat Aug 26, 2023 4:20 pmThis dude is definitely this year's Tricia Jenkins!

Surely this guy's only part of the problem? I mean, if it weren't for the strength of AA, surely he wouldn't be used in a Dominion deck (or maybe, any deck)?
User avatar
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#604736
Danny wrote: Sun Aug 27, 2023 3:02 am
abargar7510 wrote: Sat Aug 26, 2023 4:20 pmThis dude is definitely this year's Tricia Jenkins!

Surely this guy's only part of the problem? I mean, if it weren't for the strength of AA, surely he wouldn't be used in a Dominion deck (or maybe, any deck)?
Yeah, I agree completely. Dominion has several powerful elements that all synergize very well with each other, leaving a messy problem to unwind and solve:
  • AA combos very well with Subjugated Cardassia. Memad doubles your chance of getting AA in your opening hand, AND gives you good discard fodder for when your hand inevitably ends up over 7 after all those free card draws. AA's already been errata'd so that leaves just the HQ card that could be fixed.
  • You can dial-a-hand with Crom, and do it multiple times using Survey New World (which is a key mission for powerful strategy #3). I don't know how you errata Crom to balance this without some kind of weird text that only lets you use him once per game regardless of how many copies of him you've played.
  • Jem'Hadar micro teaming has gotten way stronger with so many Dominion personnel available now that have strength >= 7. I have no clue how to balance this other than some kind of ritual card that's 2E's version of White Deprivation.
User avatar
 
By Danny (Daniel Giddings)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
2E British National Runner-Up 2021
#604764
abargar7510 wrote: Sun Aug 27, 2023 8:04 am
  • AA combos very well with Subjugated Cardassia. Memad doubles your chance of getting AA in your opening hand, AND gives you good discard fodder for when your hand inevitably ends up over 7 after all those free card draws. AA's already been errata'd so that leaves just the HQ card that could be fixed.
  • You can dial-a-hand with Crom, and do it multiple times using Survey New World (which is a key mission for powerful strategy #3). I don't know how you errata Crom to balance this without some kind of weird text that only lets you use him once per game regardless of how many copies of him you've played.
  • Jem'Hadar micro teaming has gotten way stronger with so many Dominion personnel available now that have strength >= 7. I have no clue how to balance this other than some kind of ritual card that's 2E's version of White Deprivation.


  • AA could be changed again. It's not unheard of. It happened to the Dominion Defiant. Maybe making it once per turn, or the first personnel played that turn?
  • Maybe Crom doesn't need the change, but SNW does. This could be done by only having it trigger on "real" attempts:
    • When you are about to fail a mission attempt that began with six or more personnel at this mission, randomly select a personnel present and place that personnel on the bottom of their owner's deck.
  • Or by having the downside of failing a mission attempt harder to be spun into a positive:
    • When you are about to fail a mission attempt at this mission, your opponent may draw a card/score 5 points/places a personnel from their hand on their headquarters mission.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#604768
Since when has a "real" mission attempt at SNW required 6 people?

Hell, that change SCREAMS micro-team abuse!

Bad plan. :thumbsdown:
User avatar
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#604769
Yeah, I think requiring six or more personnel for the cost to kick in makes the microteam problem worse, not better. There is something I remember vaguely about about that particular episode that makes me think for some reason that the "return to bottom of deck" has Treksense. Maybe you send the personnel to the discard pile? [Baj] can attempt it but not [Bor].

Here's an off-the-wall suggestion: errata it to allow your opponent to download Unity at the start of the game.

Or maybe you buff Unity to make it a bigger deterrent?

I should mention though, in my games, doubling up on the Crom download was something I only did once when I was struggling to get personnel out due to lack of AA. That particular trick is a more essential piece for Infiltration decks to get Kira Founder and Bashir Founder early.

FIRST pair? You got more cooking? I am hoping t[…]

Card Page Glitches

So, it's seeming on some sets that the cards on th[…]

Question for noob

Awesome. Thanks everyone for all the help!

Only works when RS is played after AIV. This is be[…]