[PantsOfTheTalShiar]

This was one of the questions they asked applicants for the Director of 1E. Now that the search is over, I'm curious how people would answer this question.

(Note: I was not on the search committee, nor did I apply for the position.)

[Takket]

The skyrocketing price of prescription drugs....

No seriously......... I would say length of games. i played in a tournament and we had 90 minute rounds and all three of my games went full time. two ended in a "full win" because a player went over 100 on the last turn, but 1 times out.

[Ensign Q]

I actually like the length of the games. I think its more of a problem that tournament limits the time to 90mins. Id like to see an increase to 120min.

I think the biggest problem with 1e is like is said in the other topic, that the game feels unbalanced right now with 22nd report engines and other tools way above average.

A general problem of 1e are the not always common sense following game rules and not existent term normalization. Like there are a lot of things that refer to the same thing but use different terms. For example "in orbit" or "orbiting"

[BCSWowbagger]

Pace. There aren't enough turns.

This is both a result of and a cause of the grotesque pace Johnny Holeva describes on the front page this week, in a vicious feedback loop.

It's possible to win in very few turns, therefore everything has to either win that quickly (crazy-manipulative speed solvers with 4+ reports) OR has to be able to shut down a speed solver that quickly (total destruction decks). It's impossible to give new offensive tools to interaction (which would make them dominant) or defensive tools to speed solvers (which would make them dominant). Entire card types ( , anything that requires your normal card play and doesn't draw cards, any ongoing effect that doesn't kick in until you solve a mission) have been effectively wiped out because there's no room to draw into them. New cards created have to compete at or close to that pace or they're binder fodder.

Common, easy Design responses to slow down the game ("more / stronger dilemmas," "point loss") do not help the problem at all, and actually deepen it. This is because, while the game doesn't have enough turns, the turns it does have are very, very long (causing games to run to time a lot). The common responses only make those turns even longer. Worse, since they don't go after the core of the problem -- players have too many resources available to them to begin with -- but only deal with the symptoms by attacking their resources after they've hit the table, the common responses actually entrench this breakneck pace as the only possible way to compete.

So we end up with a bit of a paradox: the game is too short, but the last thing the game needs is more strong dilemmas and other traditional game-lengtheners.

We're not at Decipher Circa 2002 yet (with its plague of one-turn wins), but we are close, and it is causing similar kinds of degeneracy.

is part of the problem, but the problem predates . Before MACOs were dominant, KCA Free Report Salad and others were the pace-setters, in largely similar ways, with largely similar effects. It just wasn't quite as severe.

Once pace is under control, things will naturally moderate somewhat. If speed solvers can't win in under 8 turns, then they will have no choice but to pack some defensive tech, because they're going to be playing for a while. This will allow interference, in turn, to loosen its grip on the accelerator and make more opportunistic mid- and late-game attacks -- in contrast to today, when interference needs to make a devastating early-game attack in order to be effective. And that, in turn, will open up design space for more defensive tech without automatically making speed solvers dominant.

But it all comes back to pace. We need more turns on which fewer things happen. We need shorter turns. We need more normal card plays. We need more time for things to happen after the first mission is solved. We need fewer resources available to begin with, both draws and plays. The fundamental reason I think special downloads should be adjusted boils down to a rules consistency issue, but the fact that it would universally reduce the game's pace by a moderate amount is, at the very least, a nice bonus.

That's a hard problem, and I don't have the answers. Indeed, the fact that it's a hard problem is the exact reason it has grown from a minor issue a few years ago (when Design first started trying to address it) to a severe issue today -- nothing Design has tried out in order to stop it has worked, and the problem just keeps growing.

The second biggest problem in 1E is its rules complexity, but that's an incredibly long-standing issue and we have made significant progress on it throughout the reign of pfti. Hopefully we will continue to make progress and accelerate in the coming years.

EDIT: Good question, Pants.

[Ensign Q]

agree with the resource problem. so if it were still decipher era, they probably print a ref card that limits reports to 2 or 3 per turn somehow (hard or soft)

also as i said the other day, i think you could tax non-dilemma or seed as dilemma seedcards with -3 - -5 points per card

I dont see SD are adding much to the problem, the one person per turn seems already slow enough and i havent faced a heavy SD deck yet. I wouldnt mind a SD rework and make it like an interrupt to have more consistency in effectspeed.

[Discovery suxs]

There is too many cards with vague words on cards. So if the game was revamped with you know exactly what the card does in the game. It would speed up games. It would limit questions and debates. It would make the game just simply more enjoyable for all players. Trekcc and decipher both are/were responsible for this crime against the game.

Let's take Vulcan tricorder

https://www.trekcc.org/1e/index.php?mod ... ardID=3636

It can be read plenty of ways.

If the card read like this it would be better to me.

All personal with science or engineer (you choose one) can add one of the following skills. You may reselect once each turn.

The skills part is fine but adding you choose one. You get rid of the common player thinking it means both get those skills.

Now decipher cards I could be here all day. There was so many of them.

[Ensign Q]

i actually think its both engineer and science classification guys get it. Otherwise the "or" would be red.

if not, fail lol

Id be totally up for rewording everything, but i think trekcc is missing the necessary tools to easily rework all the textboxes? this wouldnt also help players that play with the original paper cards.

for example id introduce icons for dilemma whether or not they reseed, oneshot or continue effects

[Discovery suxs]

Ok on the red or thing.

You made me think of something else. A clear rulebook covering everything. How would I ever known about the red or thing unless someone told me. The main reason why some decipher cards are confusing is because keywords are not used anymore. So you have to dig or ask questions about the card. Once again I reference no way out as a clear example of this problem. The card should be errata with clear language.

[SudenKapala]

Hey, Q & Disco,
Because these last few posts have gone a bit off-topic (into specific rules domain), I answer them here:
viewtopic.php?f=24&t=38101

[DarkSabre]

I think its the fact we don't have enough playtesting


Yes, can point to many issues in First Edition (and keep hitting a broken horse) but the main issue we are having is the need for more play testers and get more cards out. Why? Because people love their affiliations & want to play them and right now we have many affiliations that have been neutered, purposely downplayed, or in need of a serious overhaul.

[Discovery suxs]

I think its the fact we don't have enough playtesting


Yes, can point to many issues in First Edition (and keep hitting a broken horse) but the main issue we are having is the need for more play testers and get more cards out. Why? Because people love their affiliations & want to play them and right now we have many affiliations that have been neutered, purposely downplayed, or in need of a serious overhaul.

I honestly love federation but I have refrain from making pure federation decks now. The fact they can't attack is neutered to me. Yes there is ways but everything is a workaround. If I'm playing pure federation my group takes full advantage of it. I have to pack resources to defend my stuff. If I don't my personal get stolen, I get attacked just enough to slow me down,etc. I understand flavorwise it makes sense. Just gamewise it is very limiting for no real advantage at this point. First 3 sets federation were far superior to everyone else. So the fact they could not attack in a way balanced the game. Today it is just a weakness to be taken advantage of by your opponent is all.

[DarkSabre]

I think its the fact we don't have enough playtesting


Yes, can point to many issues in First Edition (and keep hitting a broken horse) but the main issue we are having is the need for more play testers and get more cards out. Why? Because people love their affiliations & want to play them and right now we have many affiliations that have been neutered, purposely downplayed, or in need of a serious overhaul.

I honestly love federation but I have refrain from making pure federation decks now. The fact they can't attack is neutered to me. Yes there is ways but everything is a workaround. If I'm playing pure federation my group takes full advantage of it. I have to pack resources to defend my stuff. If I don't my personal get stolen, I get attacked just enough to slow me down,etc. I understand flavorwise it makes sense. Just gamewise it is very limiting for no real advantage at this point. First 3 sets federation were far superior to everyone else. So the fact they could not attack in a way balanced the game. Today it is just a weakness to be taken advantage of by your opponent is all.

If you trick out a Fed deck to be defensive then an opponent hoping for battle to slow you down or score some extra points can be heavily disappointed.

Depends on your style of play.

I feel a DS9 set based on Dominion War can help a lot, just hope it gets made

[AllenGould]

War Conditions seems to solve the battle problem nicely. They wanna fight, tada - boom squish.

Affiliations need weaknesses, and battle is pretty much the only one Feds have.

[jjh]

Biggest 1E problem?

Lack of stated Vision/Goals AND the unwillingness to use the full OTF Toolbox (Rules, Errata, Ban, Design) to proactively manage the meta.

[bosskamiura]

Biggest 1E problem?

Lack of stated Vision/Goals AND the unwillingness to use the full OTF Toolbox (Rules, Errata, Ban, Design) to proactively manage the meta.

TK