[HoodieDM]

Hmm, a couple of requirements that want ? Guinan and Madam Guinan say hello. And goodbye to those requirements if nothing else works because they can nullify it. It's as bad as Dr. McCoy is in that regard.

She cannot nullify a doorway. So this works against her. Madam can count as the AU req, but Doorway acting like a dilemma =/= a dilemma.

~D

[HoodieDM]

And Im still in favor of a 6 month rotation of 6 changing requirements?

Why is this so hard...????????

Can anyone in the CC just make it happen already?

~D

[winterflames]

And Im still in favor of a 6 month rotation of 6 changing requirements?

Why is this so hard...????????

Can anyone in the CC just make it happen already?

~D

Problem with QI is that alternatives have been tested and proven to be too weak vs the current QI. Finding a new combination of requirements is harder than it seems!

The answer to your question was on page 1.

[Se7enofMine]

The posting of the 'weekly round up' sorta got me thinking about what members may want to see. Then remembered there was this thread is for things we want to see I'm 2019.

Combining those two things a bit .. I wonder if there is any appetite for a weekly / bi-weekly / monthly article / interview with CC members, either in front or behind the scenes?

For example, one article could be just asking questions to, say, the head Lich himself. Then the next could be a randomly chosen CC member.

It would be kind of a RIP off from Lucas' post-tourney reports but with a different focus.

Anywho. I'm not sure if this would be met with great enthusiasm. But I thought I'd ask anyway

[MidnightLich]

The posting of the 'weekly round up' sorta got me thinking about what members may want to see. Then remembered there was this thread is for things we want to see I'm 2019.

Combining those two things a bit .. I wonder if there is any appetite for a weekly / bi-weekly / monthly article / interview with CC members, either in front or behind the scenes?

For example, one article could be just asking questions to, say, the head Lich himself. Then the next could be a randomly chosen CC member.

It would be kind of a RIP off from Lucas' post-tourney reports but with a different focus.

Anywho. I'm not sure if this would be met with great enthusiasm. But I thought I'd ask anyway

I used to do a monthly Google Hangout were people could submit questions ahead of time, or come on the show live, to ask of me. It didn't prove to be very popular, so I stopped it. I would be happy to try again, or something more traditional like an interview, with a pure 1E focus, if people would be interested.

We're also going to start having a monthly column written by top 1E players that come with decks, as well as detailed information about how they were built and how to play them. There will be a focus on decks that use cards from the past 12-18 months. I don't have an eta for the first one yet, but I do have a few authors lined up.

-crp

[HoodieDM]

Problem with QI is that alternatives have been tested and proven to be too weak vs the current QI. Finding a new combination of requirements is harder than it seems!

The answer to your question was on page 1.

But it's not hard!!! I literally came up with a easy/med/hard combo in like 5 mins!!

The CC is trying to "solve" a problem that isn't a problem. Just put out 6 new requirements. If they suck, so what, they change in 6 months anyways. That's the beauty of it being on a rotation. They could have had 3+ years worth of data already if they'd of just stuck to their guns of rotating it already.

~D

[BCSWowbagger]

Problem with QI is that alternatives have been tested and proven to be too weak vs the current QI. Finding a new combination of requirements is harder than it seems!

The answer to your question was on page 1.

But it's not hard!!! I literally came up with a easy/med/hard combo in like 5 mins!!

Generating combos is easy.

But then the combos go to testing.

And there is no consensus within testing on what a revised QI should be like. I think there's a consensus that QI should change, but no agreement on any *specific* change, so nothing happens. Design or Errata sallies forth with a new plan, but it soon dissolves on the shoals of different folks pulling in different directions.

(It doesn't help that errata testing is much, much harder and slower than testing of new block cards.)

This is ultimately on Design/Errata, which have mostly dropped the subject instead of forging ahead to either (a) create and communicate consensus on the correct direction for this problem card, or (b) just ban it for a bit. And the consensus has been so hard to forge that it may ultimately need to be achieved by Brand Manager fiat. That's not a step a good Brand Manager relishes taking.

[HoodieDM]

But then the combos go to testing.

But why does it need testing? Good gravy, how is "2 MEDICAL + >>insert Skill<<" ANY different then the 8 dilemmas that already do that...??

We're not looking for a dilemma that HAS to be a key in every deck. Make it so it just rotates it. Then again after 3 years of gathering data, you want to make 6 requirements as "staples" then so be it. Or you know what, just create 6 new dilemmas with those "harder requirements" that QI at this time did this at this time and a different one out of six at this other time, and keep QI and keep gathering data.

Hell, at this point, I'd be fine if a ton more dilemmas were RNG based. It would almost create a better play environment! But that's a different topic.

And there is no consensus within testing on what a revised QI should be like. I think there's a consensus that QI should change, but no agreement on any *specific* change, so nothing happens. Design or Errata sallies forth with a new plan, but it soon dissolves on the shoals of different folks pulling in different directions.

This is ultimately on Design/Errata, which have mostly dropped the subject instead of forging ahead to either (a) create and communicate consensus on the correct direction for this problem card, or (b) just ban it for a bit. And the consensus has been so hard to forge that it may ultimately need to be achieved by Brand Manager fiat. That's not a step a good Brand Manager relishes taking.

Again, why does it have to involve so many steps. Designate the 1E Creative Design Lead to put up 6 requirements that go into effect NOW and on July 1st, they change again. Trust me, there is NOTHING that's going to alter QI to be anymore difficult now or anything that's going to be game breaking if you guys put a rotating skill requirements on it. And you know what, if this 6 months, it forces people to play this affiliation, and then in another 6 months, these affiliations pass it better and it becomes a more diverse meta for 6 months, that's great.

I beg; James, Paddy, Charlie, I don't care....just change it. Right now, over the next 24 hours to 6 different requirements. You won't break the game. You will actually create a better game. And then in 6 months, change it again. You will succeed!! It's not like you have a gazillion dollars riding on your decision here. It's okay!! Just change it

~D

[BCSWowbagger]

Nothing in 1E can (or should!) happen without playtesters looking at it and saying, "This does X," and Design saying, "We are good with X." Even typographical corrections are sent to testing for a round of feedback. (I'm not sure THAT is quite necessary, but it's a consistent application of the principle and I respect it.)

There is no end to the seemingly simple mischief we have avoided over the years by forcing everything to be tested.

I'm on your side, I do think the card should be changed, and it's taken too long to do so given the strong negative impact QI has turned out to have on deck construction -- but it can't be changed recklessly, either. It's so easy to say, "It won't hurt anything" and then find out, "Oh, man, unintended consequences have occurred."

[AllenGould]

Just, when we change it, can we *please* make sure all affiliations have access to the various bits and bobs? (Or at least a round where Feds are the folks who are missing out?)

[BCSWowbagger]

Just, when we change it, can we *please* make sure all affiliations have access to the various bits and bobs? (Or at least a round where Feds are the folks who are missing out?)

As you no doubt recall from the April 2018 thread where you last suggested this, it turned out to be a big debate whether QI should punish any specific affiliations (the way it currently punishes Dominion/MQ) or should be equally tough for everyone.

And a side debate about which affiliations should be punished (Fed? 22? MACO?), and how one would do that.

Then there was another debate about whether revised QI should be as strong as it is now or weaker.

Then there was ANOTHER debate about whether current QI is actually good or is just overrated.

And the debate about which specific affiliations currently get hurt worst by QI.

And the debate about whether we should measure QI against how top players use it / tech against it or how regular players use it and tech against it.

Then there was the debate about whether the card's RNG Requirements format is good or bad.

And the debate about whether the RNG should generate something different, like opposed rolls (or maybe something else entirely).

And the debate about which skills are too much and which are just right.

I'd say there was a debate about whether the revised requirements on QI should fit the story or not (or whether they could fit the story as well as the current requirements), but it really was just one person talking about that. (It's a fair point, though.)

There was a lurking meta-debate, mostly unspoken but definitely there, about whether QI should rotate regularly or the revised QI should be a permanent change.

...and there've been side debates in the past about how often it should rotate if it should rotate at all.

Then the whole enchilada became a debate about whether we should revise QI at all or simply provide more cards to hurting affiliations so they can more easily tech against it.

And that's before we even got into side issues like what the true meaning of the AU icon is and whether QI is a major "skills matter" card or an anti-"skills matter" card.

There must have been a dozen people in that thread, but I counted at least two dozen contradictory opinions.

***

And THAT is why QI has turned out to be a hard problem to solve.

Of course, if the community achieved consensus on all these points, revising QI would become almost as trivially easy as HoodieDM suggests. I would love to see that, as I personally have strong opinions on all these questions and all my opinions are good and correct, so I'm sure the community would agree with me ( ) But consensus is no easy task, so I bid anyone who tries good luck!

[AllenGould]

Just, when we change it, can we *please* make sure all affiliations have access to the various bits and bobs? (Or at least a round where Feds are the folks who are missing out?)

As you no doubt recall from the April 2018 thread where you last suggested this
<snip>

Oh, I'm sure I've been making that argument for longer than that.

But if I've learned anything around here, it's that if you have a drum or horse to bang on, you should take every opportunity to do so

(And all your points after that are 100% true.)

[BCSWowbagger]

But if I've learned anything around here, it's that if you have a drum or horse to bang on, you should take every opportunity to do so

Ha ha, this is also 100% true.

(And, FWIW, I agree with you: it's best if new QI is a sometimes-tough dilemma that treats everyone equally, but, if they decide to punish somebody with it, it should be Feds.)

[Slayer07]

Just, when we change it, can we *please* make sure all affiliations have access to the various bits and bobs? (Or at least a round where Feds are the folks who are missing out?)

And how exactly do you that when the Feds have multiples of most every non-intelligence skills and icons in the game?

[frakkingoff]

[Lots of things]

I feel like most of those "debates" are problems if you allow too many cooks in the kitchen. I think this is a case where some leadership/authority figure should simply make a decision (this is what "designers" ultimately do!). QI isn't a product of "Will of the Collective," it doesn't need to be adjusted by an (impossible) consensus or committee.

I'd say there was a debate about whether the revised requirements on QI should fit the story or not (or whether they could fit the story as well as the current requirements), but it really was just one person talking about that. (It's a fair point, though.)

I mean, this is 1E, isn't it? Aren't all cards supposed to have and fit a story? If not, why not rename to "Quantum Incursions" to "Random Dilemma" and change the picture to the / dilemma icon (like an "Emblem" card)?

Serious Proposal: Why not change "QI" to roll the die TWICE each time, and require an away team to pass either the first set of requirements rolled OR the second set?

You keep the gameplay flavor of the card, the story flavor of the card, you minimize the amount of rules rewriting and website coding you have to do, it's intuitively quite similar to what it's always been (so no one's confused), and it still has bite without being TOO difficult for certain affiliations.