This forums is for questions, answers, and discussion about First Edition rules, formats, and expansions.
 
By Kova4H9
 - Alpha Quadrant
 -  
#556828
Alright, I've had this hot-ish take for a few years now, and for no other reason than that I've finally gotten around to doing it, I will now voice my complaint:

The first player advantage is way too big.

As is, one player has an extra turn in the game that the other player doesn't have. If player 1's deck can score 100 points in 6 turns, then player 2 needs to score 100 points by turn 5. If player 2 can score 100 points in 6 turns, player 1 only needs to score 100 points by turn 6. I have not said anything that every Star Trek player has known for a while.

What I don't get is why there haven't been steps taken to mitigate this huge advantage- other than Tribunal of Q, which only really gives you you an extra card draw if you go second. The game keeps getting faster and faster, and when the whole game is only lasting 6-8 turns, one turn makes a BIG difference. Maybe the first turn advantage wasn't as noticeable back when the game was taking 2 or 3 times as many turns, but it certainly is now.

And the problem doesn't necessarily seem that hard to fix, either. For example, in tournaments after time is called, players play until they've done the same number of turns, then whoever has the most points wins. This rule could be used verbatim for games in general; if the first player reaches 100 points, the second player takes an additional turn, and whoever has the most points afterwards wins. If instead the second player reaches 100 points first, then the game is over anyhow.

Don't get me wrong, I think the design team has done a great job of balancing the game and giving a multitude of diverse strategic options for deck construction and gameplay. But the first-player advantage strikes me as a holdover from a time when First Edition was, well, less balanced and strategically diverse :) Am I alone in this?
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#556840
Kova4H9 wrote: Mon Jun 28, 2021 9:13 pmAm I alone in this?
Not at all! It comes up every few months. That's just the most recent topic I could find.

It has always been my impression -- since long before I wore a green badge myself -- that the best way to get the Department of First Edition to make a big OTF rule change (like what you're proposing) is to just implement it yourself as a "variant format" locally, with your local playgroup. Report on it, show that it makes the game more fun, convince other playgroups to try it out. That gets the attention of the powers that be.

That's the hard part of this process, after all. It's not coming up with ideas. It's testing them that takes all the time and effort. And if playgroups just start testing ideas out for themselves and prove them to be good ideas without the CC having to put together a project plan or allocate tester weeks... well, that makes it a lot easier for the CC to say, "Huh, yeah, that looks successful, we should try that."
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#556845
Thanks for posting this. Reading your thoughts allowed me to give voice to a thought that I've had every time I see this topic come up.

I think at this point I generally agree with the problem. However, I also generally disagree with this proposed-multiple-times 'equal turns/ most points' solution.

Why? Because it doesn't remove the advantage, it just shifts it. You go first, you hit 100 points. Now I know that to beat you I need 101 points.

This is why whoever wins the overtime coin toss in college football chooses to play defense first: informational advantage. If I know where the bar is, I can play with that bar in mind.

I don't like the idea of being punished for meeting the victory conditions of the game. Winning should be the goal, and getting there should be rewarded, not punished.

Now.... having said all of that... I'm going to riff on the base idea a little bit.

What if player 2 got one more turn... but at the cost of a higher victory bar.

For example, player 1 finishes with 100. Player 2 gets one more turn, but now to win they have to get to, say, 120 (and still have more points than your opponent).

Off the top of my head, I think this could really shake up deckbuilding. If you're running a 2 mission speed solver on a script (the kind of deck that most often wins on turn 5-6), is that script robust enough to dig up an extra 20 points? Are you willing to trade a dash of speed for a little more coverage? Maybe you were about to solve for 100 but got out-raced... does your crew have what it takes for a hail-mary mission attempt? Maybe, maybe not, but those types of nail biter finishes make for the best games!

I've won and lost my share of coin toss games over the years, and over a long stretch it really does even out, but one tournament is not the long run and it sucks to lose on a coin toss with a baller deck... been there, done that too.

Bottom line, I like the idea of an equal turn game, but getting that last turn hero shot has to come with costs/drawbacks or it just becomes an advantage the other way.

I welcome any comments on my proposed alternative.

:twocents: :cheersL:
User avatar
 
By Mogh, Son Of Worf (Meinhard S. Rohr)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
1E Swedish National Champion 2018
#556849
Why don't we just delare it a tie if both players reach a win condition in the same number of turns?
I would also think of it as stupid if the second player would win if they score more points in the "catchup" round. If you do that you also need to allow the first player to raise the bar in their round and not stop at 100. Otherwise it really is an advantage to the second player if that one can just continue until they beat the first player, while the first player is capped.
User avatar
 
By Ausgang (Gerald Sieber)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
1E European Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
#556851
I think it should be more like "give both players equal turns to meet their victory condition", since it needs to integrate the varying victory conditions. If both players meet their victory conditions, then it's a tie.
 
By Kova4H9
 - Alpha Quadrant
 -  
#556865
Armus wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 1:00 am I think at this point I generally agree with the problem. However, I also generally disagree with this proposed-multiple-times 'equal turns/ most points' solution.

Why? Because it doesn't remove the advantage, it just shifts it. You go first, you hit 100 points. Now I know that to beat you I need 101 points.
This is fair... but I don't fully agree. I think the extra turn advantage is a stronger advantage than the informational advantage. Also, at least in my experience, snagging those extra points to get a higher is much easier said than done :) You have to work for all the points you get, and it represents a pretty serious dilemma seeding problem on your opponent's part if you're able to snap up enough extra points to get over their score just like that. For better or worse, you have a pretty good idea what your score is going to be before your turn starts, especially late game like that. As for requiring the second player to get extra points, that would certainly shake up deck construction! 20 points strikes me as a bit harsh, although I suppose if Player 1 scored 120 points at end of game, its essentially the same story.

But, as was mentioned above, the real way to tell is by just testing this stuff out.

Also, someone mentioned varying win conditions, and yeah, those do make for some difficulties here... While I'm not morally opposed to counting it a tie if both players win (after all, it shows that their decks really did perform at about the same level), I think we'd probably end up with a lot of ties...
 
By phaserihardlyknowher (Ben Daeuber)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#556868
Part of the problem is that the nature of a CCG means you cannot adjust your strategy depending on your turn placement as you might in chess or go. You're more or less locked into the deck archetype you designed. I'm curious, however, if you could design a deck explicitly to play second, what would it do? Would you focus on specific affiliations or deck types? More dilemmas to slow your opponent down? More card draws to speed you up?
User avatar
 
By boromirofborg (Trek Barnes)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
1E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
2E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
#556872
Mogh, Son Of Worf wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 2:58 am Why don't we just declare it a tie if both players reach a win condition in the same number of turns?
Are we designing for casual games, or for tournaments? (Not that tournaments are that different really.)

For casual games, a tie is fine. For any kind of organized play, ties are messy, complicate pairings and determining who wins. You want to make them rare or impossible.

The "nightmare" scenario is a tournament of 8 people - everyone ties every round. Even if you have some tie-breaker method of scoring it, it still feels less like a victory if the 1st place player has the same number of wins as last place.
 
By HoodieDM
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#556878
Sorry I disagree here. You can say that going first is the advantage, but plenty of times I've gone first and lost. So I think its a moot point. Any game I've Played, going first or second hasn't determined who wins. It's all about having the right set of skills to get through my opponents dilemmas. And if my opponent is playing mid/heavy interaction, then being able to outwit them.

Also sometimes it's purely based on the layout of the spaceline which is in itself a chess match but also sometimes pure luck.

Maybe back in 2002-2003 when DQ was running rampant and folks were winning in 1 turn, but I don't see that anymore.

So all I can say is build your decks to be able to handle going first or second.
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
#556881
Couch Kev won every one of his games this past weekend 100-0 and I don't believe for a second going first (or not) had anything to do with it.
User avatar
 
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#556884
LORE wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 1:21 pm Couch Kev won every one of his games this past weekend 100-0 and I don't believe for a second going first (or not) had anything to do with it.
I went first every game and it was actually a disadvantage in each of those games bc I had less information and less targets but it ultimately didn't matter in either direction as all 3 games went past turn 8 and by then any first turn advantage was immaterial. I drew out my deck all 3 games, I never gave up a mission despite the game going to 8+ turns each time and I won each game on a two mission plan.

I've said before that I don't think 1e has a first turn advantage mainly bc there are plenty of informational advantages inherent to going second - mission seeding, first turn downloads, etc.
User avatar
 
By Mogh, Son Of Worf (Meinhard S. Rohr)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
1E Swedish National Champion 2018
#556889
boromirofborg wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 12:00 pm For casual games, a tie is fine. For any kind of organized play, ties are messy, complicate pairings and determining who wins. You want to make them rare or impossible.

The "nightmare" scenario is a tournament of 8 people - everyone ties every round. Even if you have some tie-breaker method of scoring it, it still feels less like a victory if the 1st place player has the same number of wins as last place.
I understand where you are coming from and I agree that ties are undesirable. However, if the tie would only occur because of the situation that the second player caught up with the first player, then without the ties the games would have been decided by who went first (so by the coin toss pre-match).

So, your nightmare tournament in which everyone ties would otherwise be a tournament where all matches were only determined by coin tosses who started first.
 
By Kova4H9
 - Alpha Quadrant
 -  
#556894
Hoss-Drone wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 2:00 pm
LORE wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 1:21 pm Couch Kev won every one of his games this past weekend 100-0 and I don't believe for a second going first (or not) had anything to do with it.
I went first every game and it was actually a disadvantage in each of those games bc I had less information and less targets but it ultimately didn't matter in either direction as all 3 games went past turn 8 and by then any first turn advantage was immaterial. I drew out my deck all 3 games, I never gave up a mission despite the game going to 8+ turns each time and I won each game on a two mission plan.

I've said before that I don't think 1e has a first turn advantage mainly bc there are plenty of informational advantages inherent to going second - mission seeding, first turn downloads, etc.
I find it interesting that you see an advantage to going second, particularly in spaceline seeding. Player 1 is the first player who actually begins to shape how the spaceline looks (the placement of the first two missions being entirely inconsequential), and in the case of shared regions/mission, Player 1 is more likely to be able to draw and place their missions in a location beneficial to themselves.

Also, I think it's fair to say that the first turn advantage is really at its peak in two cases:

1. Players are playing speed decks (players aren't playing very interactively, so it's a matter of who can solve fastest)
2. One player is playing some sort of "I'll blow up your outpost or something" deck (since the non-battle player has a shorter amount of time to get their defenses in place, or otherwise get out ahead of the battle- and full disclosure, my experience with these types of games is almost nonexistent.)

Once you get to games that drag out for 9 or 10+ turns, the first player advantage does get mitigated. Of course, in a timed tournament setting, I figure many of these games would get cut short as well?

I guess I should also say, I'm not saying that first player always wins. What I would say is that in a match between equal decks and equal players, where random luck goes about equally on both sides, first player will almost assuredly win. If one deck/player clearly outclasses the other deck/player, or the matchup puts one deck at a severe disadvantage somehow, or one player gets an extremely lucky/unlucky break, then its entirely possible (and probable) that the superior/lucky player/deck will win, regardless of who went first.

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

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

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

1EFQ: Game of two halves

Or maybe keep your unsolicited snark to yo[…]