This forums is for questions, answers, and discussion about First Edition rules, formats, and expansions.
User avatar
 
By stressedoutatumc (stressedoutatumc)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#577721
Dukat wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 6:18 am What the Caretaker said! Definitely!


I also see a certain way of how Americans like the game: Battle, Capture, interaction ... all not fun for them.
Not all Americans, but the bias is strongly towards a relevant majority.

Some might better be playing 2E, it seems it's more what they seek.
Speaking for myself (and maybe on behalf of Americans), I think we seek a game that has a purpose, not just getting battled all the time. In the cannon of Star Trek, the winning side is always the one who attacks as a last resort. I think the game reflects that. There's a reason the Fed is the strongest affiliation; Klingons, Dominion, Cardassians...always lose.

I actually like interaction, but not NPE interaction. Let's not forget that at least 50% of the game is resolving dilemma. That's the main interaction of the game and needs to be respected as such.
User avatar
 
By Professor Scott (Mathew McCalpin)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Trailblazer
1E Cardassia Regional Champion 2023
#577723
Another factor that might not be as obvious is that since the game was originally released in America and in English, many American players have played from the beginning before many of the interactive strategies (Battle/Infiltrators/Capture/Ref Decks) were part of the game. That said, while many of the Americans are aware of these strategies, we didn't start with them, so we often don't like/use them. Other countries most likely got the game later in it's growth, and by contrast may have always had some or all of these strategies as part of the game and are more accustomed to them. That's not to say that there aren't new American players that have all these options open to them now. Also, by the nature of the game being created in America, there is a much broader American player base that might be influencing the game's direction and thus a greater push to get rid of [Ref] and other strategies that they find unappealing . This is similar to the fact that [Fed] generally has the best toys/most resources due to the TV shows being Federation centric.
User avatar
 
By Professor Scott (Mathew McCalpin)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Trailblazer
1E Cardassia Regional Champion 2023
#577724
Dukat wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 12:05 pm 'Respected' ... does it?

What EXACTLY do you mean by that?
If I had to take a stab at it, I suppose he means in the beginning, you only got points for passing dilemmas/solving missions; this is the game's core. Yes, Klingon Armada has always been a thing, but Battle was very primitive then compared to today's standards. Points for solving objectives/destroying resources/capturing personnel were all added later, but I think he is saying that we need to 'respect' the origins of the game which is attempting/solving missions.
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#577727
Professor Scott wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 12:12 pm If I had to take a stab at it, I suppose he means in the beginning, you only got points for passing dilemmas/solving missions...Points for solving objectives/destroying resources/capturing personnel were all added later
The OG Borg Ship would like to have a word with you!
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#577728
stressedoutatumc wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 11:43 am In the cannon of Star Trek, the winning side is always the one who attacks as a last resort. I think the game reflects that. There's a reason the Fed is the strongest affiliation; Klingons, Dominion, Cardassians...always lose.
You should watch "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine."

The Klingons didn't attack as a last resort, and they certainly didn't lose.
I actually like interaction, but not NPE interaction.
"You lose because you willingly refused to prepare and react" isn't "NPE Interaction."
Let's not forget that at least 50% of the game is resolving dilemma. That's the main interaction of the game
Prove it.
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#577729
Rachmaninoff wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 2:10 pm The reason is that the [Ref] mechanic gets into the timing weeds pretty quickly. I like rules-lawyering, but I would *never* claim that [Ref] is simple. Just a few examples:

-Because revealing a face-down Q the Referee is not a valid response to a [Ref]-able action, whoever goes first can take an action free and clear, unless the opponent actually seeded the right card. For instance, if I go first and the first action of my turn is to play a Kivas, flipping a face-down Q the Referee is NOT a valid response and you can't grab a Mirror Image that way. Tribunal doesn't help either unless you specifically grab Mirror Image before I play Kivas. (For the same reason, old veterans know that the first action you take should generally be revealing Q the Referee. I used to slip in free Scans all the time from players who took another action first.)
This is an interesting point, and it raises a few questions.

First, should the rules be changed so that [HA] cards that are played or seeded are not obligated to play as [HA] ? Thematically, [HA] cards reflect hidden strategies that your team is bringing to fruition behind-the-scenes, until such time it becomes beneficial to reveal them. It keeps your opponent guessing and uncertain. But if the strategy is more effective by being upfront and open from the beginning, why would your team hamper themselves by being hidden?

When I think of Q the Referee, I think of nuclear deterrents. You play it to warn your opponent not to try and use cheese, and if they do, you have a way of punishing them. If you possess nuclear weapons as a deterrent to invasion, it would be pointless to hide that fact. The entire point is to be open and public about it, so nobody messes with you. Same with [Ref] and cheese.

Secondly, and relatedly, should Q the Referee be [HA] in the first place? It feels cheesy to hide it. If this match is being refereed, everyone should be in the know about it. Otherwise, by hiding it, it feels like you are trying to bait your opponent into using cheese, only so you can later spring the trap on them and slap them with a Writ or something. "Ah ha! You tried to cheese me, but little did you know, this was supposed to be a non-cheese matchup, so now you must suffer!" That kind of feels like entrapment, and not in the spirit of refereeing or fair play.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#577730
You run something that loses to Writ and your opponent drops Writ on you, you can't get mad that you got Writ'd - you really did bring it on yourself.

Back in the day when I played Q-Bypass Cheese at big events I always assumed that somebody was gonna gig me and just built that into my day 2 qualifying calculations.

Ironically, it was Q2 that jacked me up more than Writ - I couldn't do as much to prepare for it and it was more widely used.
User avatar
 
By Professor Scott (Mathew McCalpin)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Trailblazer
1E Cardassia Regional Champion 2023
#577731
DISCO Rox No More wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 12:27 pm
Professor Scott wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 12:12 pm If I had to take a stab at it, I suppose he means in the beginning, you only got points for passing dilemmas/solving missions...Points for solving objectives/destroying resources/capturing personnel were all added later
The OG Borg Ship would like to have a word with you!
OG Ship was a dilemma, yes? In order to get the points, you had to destroy it, thereby passing it, yes?
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#577732
Professor Scott wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 12:49 pm
DISCO Rox No More wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 12:27 pm
Professor Scott wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 12:12 pm If I had to take a stab at it, I suppose he means in the beginning, you only got points for passing dilemmas/solving missions...Points for solving objectives/destroying resources/capturing personnel were all added later
The OG Borg Ship would like to have a word with you!
OG Ship was a dilemma, yes? In order to get the points, you had to destroy it, thereby passing it, yes?
More often the goal was just to survive it long enough to solve the mission.
User avatar
 
By Professor Scott (Mathew McCalpin)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Trailblazer
1E Cardassia Regional Champion 2023
#577733
Armus wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 12:50 pm
Professor Scott wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 12:49 pm
DISCO Rox No More wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 12:27 pm

The OG Borg Ship would like to have a word with you!
OG Ship was a dilemma, yes? In order to get the points, you had to destroy it, thereby passing it, yes?
More often the goal was just to survive it long enough to solve the mission.
Right, but I think he was trying to gig me by implying that I had overlooked it as a point source, when clearly I had it covered. I would not consider it a resource, thereby not falling under the 'destroying resources' that mentioned later in the post.
User avatar
 
By stressedoutatumc (stressedoutatumc)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#577741
Dukat wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 12:05 pm 'Respected' ... does it?

What EXACTLY do you mean by that?
I certainly don't mean you or any other group of players are being disrespectful, so let me start with that. Certainly not trying to start a fight.

What I mean is that when people on these boards talk about player interaction, they often leave out the MAIN player interaction, which is encountering and overcoming dilemma. Similarly, when I read posts or discussions on the flow or speed of the game, I observe a general disregard for dilemma interaction and I see it often dismissed as being important.

So, while I appreciate that you are saying the European Meta leans into battle, I speak for myself when I think battle is and should be a small part of the game. It shouldn't be a primary path to victory and often causes a NPE, unfortunately. What should be respected and bolstered is the interaction and overcoming of dilemma since that is and always was the way to win the game.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#577742
stressedoutatumc wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 2:26 pm
Dukat wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 12:05 pm 'Respected' ... does it?

What EXACTLY do you mean by that?
I certainly don't mean you or any other group of players are being disrespectful, so let me start with that. Certainly not trying to start a fight.

What I mean is that when people on these boards talk about player interaction, they often leave out the MAIN player interaction, which is encountering and overcoming dilemma. Similarly, when I read posts or discussions on the flow or speed of the game, I observe a general disregard for dilemma interaction and I see it often dismissed as being important.

So, while I appreciate that you are saying the European Meta leans into battle, I speak for myself when I think battle is and should be a small part of the game. It shouldn't be a primary path to victory and often causes a NPE, unfortunately. What should be respected and bolstered is the interaction and overcoming of dilemma since that is and always was the way to win the game.
I think you're overgeneralizing the term "battle" as applied to "NPE"

If I spam out 30+ weapons worth of ships on turn one and drop your Outpost on turn two (yes, that's happened in this game, and it isn't even that hard), I'm sympathetic if you want to call that an NPE.

On the other hand, if you put 10 Mains on an 8 shields ship on turn 4 and wander out into space, get stopped, and on my turn I roll over and blow you up, you have to question what role your own in-game decisions played in arriving at that result.

Space is Dangerous. Bad stuff happens, especially to an unprepared player. To borrow a term from someone (@Professor Scott?) That's not a "negative player experience" that's a "player experience" and one that can be learned from and used as a lesson to improve one's deckbuilding and play skills.

The former is bad and needs to be balanced out of the game. The latter is integral and if you muck around trying to "balance" out everything bad that could happen, you end up with a very boring game that nobody wants to play.
User avatar
Director of Operations
By JeBuS (Brian S)
 - Director of Operations
 -  
1E Deep Space 9 Regional Champion 2023
#577744
I am generally in agreement with this opinion.
Armus wrote:Space is Dangerous. Bad stuff happens, especially to an unprepared player. To borrow a term from someone (@Professor Scott?) That's not a "negative player experience" that's a "player experience" and one that can be learned from and used as a lesson to improve one's deckbuilding and play skills.

The former is bad and needs to be balanced out of the game. The latter is integral and if you muck around trying to "balance" out everything bad that could happen, you end up with a very boring game that nobody wants to play.
But I will say that many of the [Ref] things were meant as basically "we made this card to stop you from automatically losing the game if your opponent does X". Those X situations are dumb game design NPEs. The [Ref] mechanic, in my mind, is also a dumb game design. It's basically "stock these cards or automatically lose to X."
User avatar
 
By Dukat (Andreas Rheinländer)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
1E European Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
1E German National Runner-Up 2024
#577746
What Brian says.


I have seen tons of deck lists, ESPECIALLY from U.S. players, where people have two ships in total in their decks. Weak ships. Or one average one and two shuttles or something like that.

Now, when they get blown out of the sky, they blabber about NPE and battle decks, simply because their decks have no protection against space debris ... or a player with a single ship with solid attributes.

It's their fault.

AAAND ... because Americans are often used to this kind of small speed decks, whenever someone plays an actually armed deck (not necessarily a pure battle deck), they cry havoc and call for the dogs of NPE.
1EFQ: Game of two halves

Honestly, I don’t think I’ve re[…]

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!!

Happy birthday to @Takket ! :D :thumbsup: […]

Opponents turn

Remodulation