This forums is for questions, answers, and discussion about First Edition rules, formats, and expansions.
  • 122 posts
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 9
User avatar
 
By DarkSabre (Austin Chandler)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#552296
BCSWowbagger wrote:
Yeah, I wasn't trying to criticize you here, Austin -- you resigned well before the set was finished, IIRC.
I did resign for several reasons but one of the primary ones was because of this set and the ignoring concerns about it. I remember discussing the devil as one of the issues. I chose to do so privately because I was being told I was being too 'negative' in my playtest reporting.

I know you didn't criticize me but I don't anyone reading this thread to be negative against the playtesters. My experience is that they are ignored far too often or told that things will be fixed before release or in the next set and then the cards are approved and those fixes or changes either never happen or take far too long.
User avatar
 
By stressedoutatumc (stressedoutatumc)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#552472
I think the best frame for this argument is actually Memory Wipe. My take is that it was banned because it only grief's an opponent and ultimately lock their deck out. Killing a treaty is really no different. If you plan your deck around a treaty, then as soon as it's gone, you are boned.

Yeah, I get the argument that you should plan for that, but that wasn't a winning argument for Memory Wipe. Imagine telling someone..."well, you could get memory wiped, so it's your job to stock all the counters and maybe plan your mission set so you can complete them non-aligned." That's what some people are saying in regards to the Devil. Yeah, you better stock against this one possibility because it really screws your deck without acknowledging the broken nature of the card, itself.
 
By HoodieDM
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#552478
Through plenty of playtesting for DoW, the loss of the Treaty was no problem. Most decks running a treaty had a way to backup. Its the excessive loss of that treaty that becomes a problem, which until now, wasn't something that folks were doing by running multiple copies.

Mainly b/c people recently are being dicks and running excessive treaty loss cards in "beginner friendly" tournaments (see all the arguments in the TNG Borg posts). So the current meta of running treaty decks, lots of folks are now running anti-treaty tech. Which I'm glad to see a ton of people playing with our cards we designed, just now we need to see what we can do to help balance them a little bit, due to some silver bullets (or excessive use of them) is becoming NPE.

So good feedback. Design will look into helping.
User avatar
First Edition Creative Manager
By KazonPADD (Paddy Tye)
 - First Edition Creative Manager
 -  
1E European Continental Runner-Up 2023
1E The Neutral Zone Regional Champion 2023
#552483
HoodieDM wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 10:55 am Through plenty of playtesting for DoW, the loss of the Treaty was no problem. Most decks running a treaty had a way to backup. Its the excessive loss of that treaty that becomes a problem, which until now, wasn't something that folks were doing by running multiple copies.

Mainly b/c people recently are being dicks and running excessive treaty loss cards in "beginner friendly" tournaments (see all the arguments in the TNG Borg posts). So the current meta of running treaty decks, lots of folks are now running anti-treaty tech. Which I'm glad to see a ton of people playing with our cards we designed, just now we need to see what we can do to help balance them a little bit, due to some silver bullets (or excessive use of them) is becoming NPE.

So good feedback. Design will look into helping.
In fairness to the “dicks”, it was a release tournament not a beginner friendly tournament.
User avatar
Director of Operations
By JeBuS (Brian S)
 - Director of Operations
 -  
1E Deep Space 9 Regional Champion 2023
#552487
KazonPADD wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 11:31 am
HoodieDM wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 10:55 am Through plenty of playtesting for DoW, the loss of the Treaty was no problem. Most decks running a treaty had a way to backup. Its the excessive loss of that treaty that becomes a problem, which until now, wasn't something that folks were doing by running multiple copies.

Mainly b/c people recently are being dicks and running excessive treaty loss cards in "beginner friendly" tournaments (see all the arguments in the TNG Borg posts). So the current meta of running treaty decks, lots of folks are now running anti-treaty tech. Which I'm glad to see a ton of people playing with our cards we designed, just now we need to see what we can do to help balance them a little bit, due to some silver bullets (or excessive use of them) is becoming NPE.

So good feedback. Design will look into helping.
In fairness to the “dicks”, it was a release tournament not a beginner friendly tournament.
Exactly. It's not a dick move to use legal cards in a legal way in a tournament format where those cards are allowed.

Let me repeat that. There is nothing wrong with using The Devil to nullify your opponent's treaties. That's what it's for.

Building a treaty deck comes with inherent risks, in the same way building a single-ship deck comes with inherent risks. Part of a CCG is anticipating risks and planning for them in the deck building stage.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#552492
JeBuS wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 11:41 am
KazonPADD wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 11:31 am
HoodieDM wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 10:55 am Through plenty of playtesting for DoW, the loss of the Treaty was no problem. Most decks running a treaty had a way to backup. Its the excessive loss of that treaty that becomes a problem, which until now, wasn't something that folks were doing by running multiple copies.

Mainly b/c people recently are being dicks and running excessive treaty loss cards in "beginner friendly" tournaments (see all the arguments in the TNG Borg posts). So the current meta of running treaty decks, lots of folks are now running anti-treaty tech. Which I'm glad to see a ton of people playing with our cards we designed, just now we need to see what we can do to help balance them a little bit, due to some silver bullets (or excessive use of them) is becoming NPE.

So good feedback. Design will look into helping.
In fairness to the “dicks”, it was a release tournament not a beginner friendly tournament.
Exactly. It's not a dick move to use legal cards in a legal way in a tournament format where those cards are allowed.

Let me repeat that. There is nothing wrong with using The Devil to nullify your opponent's treaties. That's what it's for.

Building a treaty deck comes with inherent risks, in the same way building a single-ship deck comes with inherent risks. Part of a CCG is anticipating risks and planning for them in the deck building stage.
Ok I think we need to define some terms.

If the goal of a release event is to have people play the new cards, then it's going to create a meta opportunity where counters to the new cards will be more effective than they would for any other random tournament.

And yes, if your primary goal is winning, that's exactly what the logical deckbuilding choice would be.

However, I challenge Paddy's characterization. Release events are L1 events, the equivalent of Locals. This ain't Online Masters, Nationals, or (not a) Worlds.

And yes... building your deck specifically to shut down new stuff FOR A RELEASE EVENT is a dick move. It's a totally legal dick move, but it's still a dick move.

Now this isn't all on the players, as I think Design bears some responsibility. I'll post again what I put on the staff boards 2 games into this event:
Here's my bottom line: Hey here's an idea. Let's make a new 1e faction that let's everybody work together but not let you play cards for free as a drawback. Then let's just ignore the existence of a Premiere interrupt that completely shuts it down. Then let's wonder why nobody plays our awesome fun new cards.

I'm done with Staging Ground. Is that the result you wanted, Design?
I'll just say this: I've learned my lesson that there's no such thing as an online "fun" tournament. So going forward, I'll either be coming for blood or I won't be bothering.

Player culture matters, and I'm not necessarily the biggest fan of a player culture that feels the need to win any event at any cost. That's how you end up with no player culture at all.
User avatar
Director of Operations
By JeBuS (Brian S)
 - Director of Operations
 -  
1E Deep Space 9 Regional Champion 2023
#552493
The discussion about whether or not specific tournaments should be rated is elsewhere. As was the discussion about release events. This is about The Devil.

Playing a card as it's meant to be played isn't a dick move.
User avatar
 
By Mr.Sloan
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#552494
Armus wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 12:03 pm
It's a totally legal dick move, but it's still a dick move.
....
Player culture matters, and I'm not necessarily the biggest fan of a player culture that feels the need to win any event at any cost.
Calling players choices "dickmoves" is not exactly a paragon example of willing to contribute to good culture either.

If their is no mutual respect maybe having different events that suit different players needs is a solution? I point out that i consider SuddenK. "Impulse-Speed" format (everyone with pre-constructed decks) and sealed formats (emissary decks + booster) nice for that matter as winning chances are more equal. And having less single cards that decides the game.

i mean when people wine about that the other wants to win at any cost, maybe the hidden goal of the complainer is to win too? Or at least not to lose to easily by single cards.

As someone who cares for having NPE and OP-ness removed i stick to the topic and the opinion to ban/errata the devil.
Until then i decide myselve wheather i want to play a deck thats vunable to the devil or a deck that is not and can help me against decks that are.
Last edited by Mr.Sloan on Thu Apr 29, 2021 12:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#552496
JeBuS wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 12:09 pm The discussion about whether or not specific tournaments should be rated is elsewhere. As was the discussion about release events. This is about The Devil.

Playing a card as it's meant to be played isn't a dick move.
You gonna stock 10% of your deck with Devils in any event that isn't a release event that involves a new set driven by two new major factions that are dependent on a treaty?

Hope you brought some cycling cards because in most metas that's a lot of dead draws.

I brought it up here because Paddy brought it up here.

Looking at the history, there's a higher density of the Devil in the last two weeks than there has been in the last 10 years.

I wonder why that is?
 
By HoodieDM
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#552499
KazonPADD wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 11:31 am In fairness to the “dicks”, it was a release tournament not a beginner friendly tournament.
Why wouldn't a Release Tournament with brand new cards that have been out for just a couple of weeks be considered a beginner friendly tournament?

I'm not saying some unforeseen broken combo cards can't be discovered, but there's a reason why you and I both excluded this card in our release tournaments :)
User avatar
 
By DarkSabre (Austin Chandler)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#552500
stressedoutatumc wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 9:48 am I think the best frame for this argument is actually Memory Wipe. My take is that it was banned because it only grief's an opponent and ultimately lock their deck out. Killing a treaty is really no different. If you plan your deck around a treaty, then as soon as it's gone, you are boned.

Yeah, I get the argument that you should plan for that, but that wasn't a winning argument for Memory Wipe. Imagine telling someone..."well, you could get memory wiped, so it's your job to stock all the counters and maybe plan your mission set so you can complete them non-aligned." That's what some people are saying in regards to the Devil. Yeah, you better stock against this one possibility because it really screws your deck without acknowledging the broken nature of the card, itself.
Ah, but what you think isn't true. Memory Wipe was playtested and cannot be used to lock out a deck. It might take a little bit of inventiveness but it isn't the case at all.

There has so far been NO DECK released to anyone (especially myself as a Playtest Manager) since the 'alarm over Memory Wipe' was brought up. It is based on theory craft and ever since Obsession was released I have been asking for a deck design that proves it and no one has done so.
Last edited by DarkSabre on Thu Apr 29, 2021 12:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#552501
Mr.Sloan wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 12:16 pm
Armus wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 12:03 pm
It's a totally legal dick move, but it's still a dick move.
....
Player culture matters, and I'm not necessarily the biggest fan of a player culture that feels the need to win any event at any cost.
Calling players choices "dickmoves" is not exactly a paragon example of willing to contribute to good culture either.

If their is no mutual respect maybe having different events that suit different players needs is a solution? I point out that i consider SuddenK. "Impulse-Speed" format (everyone with pre-constructed decks) and sealed formats (emissary decks + booster) nice for that matter as winning chances are more equal. And having less single cards that decides the game.

i mean when people wine about that the other wants to win at any cost, maybe the hidden goal of the complainer is to win too? Or at least not to lose to easily by single cards.

As someone who cares for having NPE and OP-ness removed i stick to the topic and the opinion to ban/errata the devil.
Until then i decide myselve wheather i want to play a deck thats vunable to the devil or a deck that is not and can help me against decks that are.
Apparently something I said is getting lost in translation. Let me try again.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to win. At any level, at any event.

Without going into too many details since games are still pending, I had no problem with how our game turned out. You had a very good deck, played it well, and won clean.

Did I want to win our game too? Of course, that's why I spent the time I did to build my deck and play in the event.

Games where you out play me and I lose, I have no issue with.

Games where I don't even get to play is where I have an issue, as it makes me question why I even bothered spending the time to build the deck in the first place.

Look at it this way: has there been another event in recent memory where we had such a high attrition rate of drops in the first 2 rounds? Combine that with people's stated reasons WHY they were dropping, and maybe that helps illustrate my point.
User avatar
 
By DarkSabre (Austin Chandler)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#552502
HoodieDM wrote: So good feedback. Design will look into helping.
I hope so. I'll say again: Counters being pushed out of the game is what is leading to many of these issues.
User avatar
 
By DarkSabre (Austin Chandler)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#552505
I do think release events are an L1 and also it should be expected that your deck would revolve around the new set instead of being built to be an ******* and butcher everyone else's fun.

The Devil isn't an issue at all. I think the topic is: Should Organized Play allow these type of things to happen all the time in Online Events? Perhaps, OP should talk to these 'cut throat players' and ask them to tone it down. Maybe make Online Tournaments not count for Player Ranking anymore. More has to be done (besides getting rid of people who cause issues but that's another problem).

If I knew I could stock a few Amandas in my deck or Q2s to be able to handle some of these 'Deck Counters' then I wouldn't have a problem. But currently the nature of the game is that even 5 points could make you win or lose the game and its not feasible to want to use counters knowing it can cost you the game.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 9
Question for noob

That's the question. The Isolinear Rods downloads […]

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

Still a few weeks left to get registered for the[…]

Hey all, we are running a "Warum-up" fo[…]