Home of the third annual You Make The Card contest, where the community designs a card for an upcoming Virtual Expansion!
User avatar
 
By Seanshank
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#205807
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 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 :twocents: 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.
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.


Now back to my first post, i would love to see a [Evt] that has something to do with possibly the [Baj] . They've been slammed so hard the past few years i feel they need a kick-start again!
User avatar
Second Edition Rules Master
By Latok
 - Second Edition Rules Master
 -  
1E Australian Continental Champion 2019
2E Australian Continental Runner-Up 2019
#205814
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.
User avatar
 
By nobthehobbit (Daniel Pareja)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Moderator
#206015
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 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 :twocents: 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.
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:

1. Retain the current process. This has all the issues you rightly mention.

2. Restrict the process to people who have been picked out by Design as potential future Design Team members (which would in no way imply that they would ever get onto the Design Team, just that they have consistently shown potential as such).

3. Let everyone submit one card and Design goes through them and develops those it thinks would be good for the game, perhaps with some input from the submitter.

As I noted, you have mentioned the issues with the first. The second would, I think, result in the best card, but the choice of participants might well lead to allegations (however unfounded) of favoritism on the part of whoever decides such. The third might well see Sturgeon's Law hit with full force, or it might see a plethora of good ideas for Design to use--I think this is the most hit-or-miss of the three options presented above, and it does allow Design to discard the bad ideas because there would be no promise that they would become cards.

As I said, these are the three ideas I've come up with, and I am interested to know if you have any others.

As for more design-a-card prizes, the Star Wars PC sells them for $50 as a tournament prize, but I do not know if this is something the CC wishes to (or should) explore.
User avatar
 
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Architect
#206018
great input nob,

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.
User avatar
 
By nobthehobbit (Daniel Pareja)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Moderator
#206021
BaronMorrath wrote:great input nob,

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.
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.

There might still be accusations of favoritism, but at least they wouldn't be directed at anyone specific, as all such communications could be kept private.

The second and third ideas I outlined do subvert the "Collective" aspect of this process, but I do not think this is a bad thing considering the track record to date.
Second Edition Creative Manager
By Triumph (Jonathan)
 - Second Edition Creative Manager
 -  
Adventurer
#206027
Hmm...

Well, if I thought there were simple fixes for WOTC, I wouldn't have argued to do away with it! :D I've just come to think it's a not a good idea.

Your option #2 sounds reminiscent of MiS (not the same, mind you, but with some parallels). While I like that, I don't know if that would satisfying the WOTC-loving masses you suggest exist. :shifty: To be fair, though, it's not as if dozens people have chimed in on this thread clamoring for more WOTC; I would question how much mass demand for another there really is. That said, I think this could have potential.

As I look over the discussion threads for WOTC3, I'm not sure how to make it better. There was a vote to make Mudd work with Commodities. Then Design presented 10 abilities, influenced by comments and suggestions people made. I don't even know how the random selection ability made it into final consideration - three other ability got more votes at that stage. Then came the final, where the random selection ability only got 39% of the vote (tying with another option). (Note: I'm sure there were reasons for these things; I don't believe in conspiracies, except the Vast Canadian one.) And so for whatever reasons (playtesting feedback played a role, I assume) we ended with the card we have today.

I wonder if a more bottom-up design process would work better. Starting with an ability (subject to revision, of course) and then filling in the other aspects of a card might avoid the Virtual-doodad situation were people decided to make an equipment an then no matter what ability was chosen, it had to end up on an equipment. If people decide they really want a card to help play people to Terok Nor, decide that first, then think about what card type / story / et cetera would be the wisest way to achieve that goal. Similarly, if what people really want is an Commodity influencing card, come up with a solid ability for commodities on its own, rather than having it clouded by the alternate sudden desire to create synergy with Mudd's Women due to story connections. I don't even know if the people who wanted a commodities card were the same ones who voted for the random selection turn.

(Note: I think top-down design is awesome, I'm just wondering if it's a poor choice for WOTC).

Looking over the process, I think a little more subtle influence from Design would be prudent too. I'm pretty sure that the Mudd's Women interaction was proposed by a member of the collective, but I believe Design could and should have said (quietly, internally) "The collective already voted to make a Commodities card, and trying to fit interactions with two utterly different bodies of cards into one ability isn't going to be optimal for either."

Your option #3 is interesting, and might fit into what I'm pondering. I could see Design putting out a call along the lines of "submit abilities relating to X." I suppose people could send in full-fledged cards, but it would not necessarily be a requirement. Anyone interested could submit something, Design could look over them (similar to the WOTC discusion threads, though I think Mark's anonymity suggestion might be useful - what matters is good ideas, not who they came from), choose any it finds have potential, and...hmm...announce that they will going to the design file to be considered for a future set? Hmm. Or maybe post the mechanics it liked the best for the collective to vote on in a poll (voting to prioritize one for inclusion in a future set). Not fully fleshed out cards, just mechanical ideas or abilities. As design proceeded to flesh out the ability more, they might ponder several general story options, and present those to the collective to narrow down (this is that bottom up approach).

Ehh...I'm not sure that any of these are really good ideas, but you asked me to brainstorm, so...maybe there's something worth :twocents: in there? :shifty:
Last edited by Triumph on Fri Mar 15, 2013 2:28 pm, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
Director of Organized Play
By LORE (Kris Sonsteby)
 - Director of Organized Play
 -  
Architect
1E Andoria Regional Champion 2023
2E Andoria Regional Champion 2023
W.C.T. Chairman's Trophy winner 2014-2015
#206028
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 [Equ] on the pretense that if it were an [Evt] 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?
Second Edition Creative Manager
By Triumph (Jonathan)
 - Second Edition Creative Manager
 -  
Adventurer
#206030
Oh, one thought I had involved the voting procedure: would there be a way for people to vote for a favorite and a least favorite? Or favorite and second favorite? It could be helpful in situations where, say, the biggest vote-getters are two options that each get 39% of the vote.

Again, I'm not sure this would really help anything, since it does nothing to influence the quality of ideas that reach the voting stage.
User avatar
 
By nobthehobbit (Daniel Pareja)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Moderator
#206035
For the record, I don't think WotC should "just go off and die a silent death", but I do think that Triumph made a very good case for the current process being unsuited to making good cards. People seem to want fancy, but fancy is tough to do by committee.

VR Headset in particular is a card where Design should simply have said that it had to be an Event, whatever the Collective wanted. Looking back, if it was to be an Equipment, perhaps it should have done part of what the 1E version did and make a guy a corresponding Commander. That might still have been more suited to an Event, but it probably wouldn't have been as easily broken (if at all).

I just can't see any other process that wouldn't have some serious downsides.

Note 1: I do not doubt that there would be no favoritism in selecting the group should my second option be chosen--but I can easily see some of those who were not selected alleging that there was.

Note 2: This has to do with 2E. 1E proved to turn out OK this time, I think, partly because Design did make the necessary change to Mudd (turning the special skill the voters wanted into an Event and giving him a special download of it).
User avatar
Second Edition Playtest Manager
By Faithful Reader (Ross Fertel)
 - Second Edition Playtest Manager
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#206112
AllenGould wrote:Not for nothing, but Magic just started their Make a Card 4.

We don't want to fall behind those Magic players, do we?
Well, we've already made four cards, so technically, they're catching up to us.
Second Edition Creative Manager
By Triumph (Jonathan)
 - Second Edition Creative Manager
 -  
Adventurer
#206121
Another brainstorm: could WOTC be shifted from designing a card to, well, basically asking Design to make a card? It would be simpler, on the public side, than WOTC. The process could be begin with a poll to request either a story or a gameplay goal for the "design."

If story wins, people could post ideas for a story / character / ship / object / other top-down element they want to see on a new card; the people would then vote. If the winning thing is a story rather than a character or ship or object, there could be one more vote to see the card types (in order of preference) people would like the story to be represented on (e.g. 1. dilemma, 2. mission, 3. interrupt). Design would then make its best effort to incorporate the results of these polls into a card for a future set.

If gameplay wins the initial poll, people would submit GENERAL, GENERAL, GENERAL (I can't emphasize this enough) gameplay ideas they want to see (e.g. a NA personnel that works with commodities; or a card to shut down Obnoxious Shran and Obnoxious McCoy). These ideas would also need to be focused, limited to just one bottom-up mechanical goal (e.g. NOT "trying to enhance both commodities and random selection personnel in a single ability"). Then a second vote would lead to a list of, say, the top three gameplay elements the collective really wants to see in a future set. Design would then make its best effort to incorporate the results of these polls into a card for a future set.

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. It has fewer steps than WOTC (at least on the public polling side), and thus could theoretically be resolved more quickly. By limiting the public's contribution on each..."design"...to either story or gameplay, it also strives to avoid unfortunate mashups like Harry Mudd.
User avatar
Second Edition Playtest Manager
By Faithful Reader (Ross Fertel)
 - Second Edition Playtest Manager
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#206137
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.
User avatar
 
By JurgenP
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#206272
Faithful Reader wrote:
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.
Maybe overly simplistic on my part, but could it be done in like 3 stages:
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.

Finally Design tests and finalizes the cards and it released to the masses?

That way the card can be balanced and well designed because it is done by people that know what they are doing.
I'm not saying that player don't, but it would only be natural for players to have alterior motives and want a card that fits in seemlessly with the deck they want to play.
Fi: a next gen Data, that specifies "served as chief of operations aboard the U.S.S. Enterprise" and has ENGINEER-classification (and no OFFICER skill), computer skill x2 and cybernetics.
It could all be justified, but would be seriously unbalanced.

Jurgen
User avatar
 
By nobthehobbit (Daniel Pareja)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Moderator
#206321
JurgenP wrote:Maybe overly simplistic on my part, but could it be done in like 3 stages:
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.
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.
Thermokinetic explosion

It would hit because your total attibutes at the t[…]

1EFQ: Random Releases

I'll add one more thing. If this becomes more of[…]

Klingon Neelix ponderings

I am collecting data at this point. Someone aske[…]

Keep in mind that it doesn't stop anyone itself, m[…]