#205634
I'm still waiting for all versions of Borg Queen to be errata-ed to be .
"Shaka, when the walls fell."
Triumph wrote:I've tried to figure out how to say this in a productive way. I posted once, deleted it, then started another post and didn't post it. Now I'm trying again.As some people have lost faith in WotC (and i was one of them) people have forgotten that VR Headset wasn't broken til PP came out. It was a GOOD card til then. I will admit i really don't like how Harry Mudd was design. I still can't believe people still make these so called Commodite decks which i still haven't seen win anything before even in person. Now that the Mudd is finally done with i would like to make this a debate about where WotC should go from here. If you don't wish it to continue then don't bother on posting here. I feel the players of the CC should try to make a card at least once a year! If people have some faith in continuing this feel free to discuss.
I have no faith in WotC anymore. The first card it was produced was of...questionable power. The second was deemed broken and was revised into obscurity. The third...I disagree extremely vehemently with the choices of the voting public. I think it led to a card that, while not broken like its predecessor, is a terrible card that will see little play. Given the Collective's first three collective failures (though I will at least credit ACE as being somewhat creative), I don't see WotC as being good for the game. If more participation by the public in the design in strongly desired by the public, I'd rather see the CC run MiS again, or issue more design-a-card prizes. I think getting individuals involved, as individuals, is less likely to result in jumbled messes - such cards can be the work of one vision (at least at the outset - of course Design and playtesters will then shape it further) rather a confusing clamor. WotC 3 fuses a character (Mudd) with an element he had nothing do with (we never saw him doing commodities trading / dealing bulk goods like Tulaberry Wine) and then combines with an unrelated gameplay element (the personnel who like being randomly selected aren't prime for a Commodities deck) for something that is unhelpful to thief decks, to commodities decks, and yet requires too much commodity commitment to just splash in decks with good "if randomly selected" personnel. It's a bad card, as best I can tell.
This is just my on 2E design - I have no knowledge or opinion of 1E, and won't comment on whether it should have WotC still. I hope I'm not insulting anyone who loves the new Mudd. I'm also not trying to insult Design - I think they made the best of a bad lot, working with what the public gave them. What I am doing is criticizing the WotC process. I hope this is constructive.
If you don't wish it to continue then don't bother on posting here. I feel the players of the CC should try to make a card at least once a year! If people have some faith in continuing this feel free to discuss.Except that it will affect people who don't wish it to continue so they should be voicing their opinions as much as anyone who does wish it to continue.
Triumph wrote:I've tried to figure out how to say this in a productive way. I posted once, deleted it, then started another post and didn't post it. Now I'm trying again.I'd like to know, then, how you would go about this process under the assumption that something like it will happen again (since there are quite a few people who want another WotC). Here's a few ideas I came up with; perhaps you can come up with something better:
I have no faith in WotC anymore. The first card it was produced was of...questionable power. The second was deemed broken and was revised into obscurity. The third...I disagree extremely vehemently with the choices of the voting public. I think it led to a card that, while not broken like its predecessor, is a terrible card that will see little play. Given the Collective's first three collective failures (though I will at least credit ACE as being somewhat creative), I don't see WotC as being good for the game. If more participation by the public in the design in strongly desired by the public, I'd rather see the CC run MiS again, or issue more design-a-card prizes. I think getting individuals involved, as individuals, is less likely to result in jumbled messes - such cards can be the work of one vision (at least at the outset - of course Design and playtesters will then shape it further) rather a confusing clamor. WotC 3 fuses a character (Mudd) with an element he had nothing do with (we never saw him doing commodities trading / dealing bulk goods like Tulaberry Wine) and then combines with an unrelated gameplay element (the personnel who like being randomly selected aren't prime for a Commodities deck) for something that is unhelpful to thief decks, to commodities decks, and yet requires too much commodity commitment to just splash in decks with good "if randomly selected" personnel. It's a bad card, as best I can tell.
This is just my on 2E design - I have no knowledge or opinion of 1E, and won't comment on whether it should have WotC still. I hope I'm not insulting anyone who loves the new Mudd. I'm also not trying to insult Design - I think they made the best of a bad lot, working with what the public gave them. What I am doing is criticizing the WotC process. I hope this is constructive.
[Y]our report describes how rational these people are. Millennia ago, they abandoned their belief in the supernatural. Now you are asking me to sabotage that achievement, to send them back into the Dark Ages of superstition and ignorance and fear? No!
BaronMorrath wrote:great input nob,Yes, the submission method would be such that only the submitter of a card and possibly Design (if Design wishes to develop such submissions with the input of the original submitter, among other things) would know who submitted that particular card (short of the submitter telling others, of course). The submissions could be made with the understanding that, unlike Design-a-card prizes, the creator would not be publicly credited on the card list for the set in which the card appears.
the only concern i would have is with the third option.
would only 1 of the many cards submitted be chosen? and would that also lead to accusations of favortism? perhaps an anonymous submission method?
something to think on anyway.
[Y]our report describes how rational these people are. Millennia ago, they abandoned their belief in the supernatural. Now you are asking me to sabotage that achievement, to send them back into the Dark Ages of superstition and ignorance and fear? No!
Seanshank wrote:As some people have lost faith in WotC (and i was one of them) people have forgotten that VR Headset wasn't broken til PP came out. It was a GOOD card til then...How so? The community forced the card to be an on the pretense that if it were an it would get destroyed easily, and design bowed to their wishes. Regardless of gameplay impact pre-PP, the card was "bad" right from the start because it was completely the wrong card type for what it did.
Seanshank wrote:Now that the Mudd is finally done with i would like to make this a debate about where 2E WotC should go from here. If you don't wish it to continue then don't bother on posting here...Ok, so if we think WotC should just go off and die a silent death, as I do, we're not allowed to voice our concern about the public making yet another horribly powerful, useless, or broken card? You're thus insisting that the public be allowed to make cards, while simultaneously disregarding the input of members of said public. That's awfully ironic, don't you agree?
[Y]our report describes how rational these people are. Millennia ago, they abandoned their belief in the supernatural. Now you are asking me to sabotage that achievement, to send them back into the Dark Ages of superstition and ignorance and fear? No!
AllenGould wrote:Not for nothing, but Magic just started their Make a Card 4.Well, we've already made four cards, so technically, they're catching up to us.
We don't want to fall behind those Magic players, do we?
Triumph wrote:The process above probably has a glaring flaw, but it gives the voting public a chance to influence materially either gameplay or story for new cards, while leaving Design a lot more leeway to work out the details than WOTC has.Doesn't this happen anyway? AU is hugely popular and could fill up ten expansions worth of cards. We just got one in 2E and will be getting one in the not too distant future in 1E. The designers know which cards we want. They just can't give us all of them at once, in either edition.
Faithful Reader wrote:Maybe overly simplistic on my part, but could it be done in like 3 stages:Triumph wrote:The process above probably has a glaring flaw, but it gives the voting public a chance to influence materially either gameplay or story for new cards, while leaving Design a lot more leeway to work out the details than WOTC has.Doesn't this happen anyway? AU is hugely popular and could fill up ten expansions worth of cards. We just got one in 2E and will be getting one in the not too distant future in 1E. The designers know which cards we want. They just can't give us all of them at once, in either edition.
As far as gameplay is concerned, this is very well handled by Referee and Rituals.
JurgenP wrote:Maybe overly simplistic on my part, but could it be done in like 3 stages:The issue here is in the first step. If everyone got to propose 3 cards, that would be a huge pile of ideas. I don't think Design would want to sort through all of them for the gems. Even at one card, as I proposed, there would still be a lot of cards to look at.
1) Everyone can suggests like 3 cards (kinda like they are doing for the promo's) within a certain timeframe ....
2) Design picks the 10 or so most popular, and proposes a version (gameplay) of that card.
3) The Collective gets to to vote on which of the proposed cards it wants.
[Y]our report describes how rational these people are. Millennia ago, they abandoned their belief in the supernatural. Now you are asking me to sabotage that achievement, to send them back into the Dark Ages of superstition and ignorance and fear? No!
Danny gets the FW against Tjark - 100 - 35 Good t[…]
Back from the old days, pre-errata Visit Cochrane[…]