This forums is for questions, answers, and discussion about First Edition rules, formats, and expansions.
User avatar
 
By Smiley (Cristoffer Wiker)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#571372
BCSWowbagger wrote: Sat Feb 05, 2022 6:10 pm I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just putting some context around this.

***

*cut for space*

For now, the ban list + aggressive errata + universal printability (a huge advantage Magic doesn't have!) seems adequate. If we're failing to recruit players under these circumstances, it seems to me that it's probably due to other factors, like overly complicated rules, insufficient novice-friendly materials, inadequate marketing, or just fundamentally unpopular gameplay.
And that's probably what I've been trying to say for the last couple of years. =/

And the facts you drop are not wrong, but they lack the context of the amount of players they have and how many they have playing in tournaments with these formats compared to the people that play at home. And didn't the pros have to play lots of different formats when competing?

And as you say, most Magic cards are simpler and gameplay is so much easier compared to 1E. When we disengage all those things from each other we're trying to make a complex thing simpler than 1E is not. =)
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#571376
Smiley wrote: Sun Feb 06, 2022 6:28 pm And the facts you drop are not wrong, but they lack the context of the amount of players they have and how many they have playing in tournaments with these formats compared to the people that play at home. And didn't the pros have to play lots of different formats when competing?
Not that many - Pro Tours had one limited (almost always booster draft) and one constructed event. The constructed event waffles a bit over the years, but Standard is by far the most common. Which makes sense, because those are the two "hey go buy the new stuff" formats. The constructed has toyed with Block Constructed (Standard but only this year, not last year), and Modern (2003 and up) and Pioneer (2012 and up) make appearances in years when WotC is either trying to hype those formats and/or the Standard environment is maybe a bit uninteresting.

But that's all likely to change, since last I checked WotC was moving away from any sort of pro-tier event (and actively telling said pros to not expect to be able to play Magic as a job).
User avatar
Executive Officer
By jadziadax8 (Maggie Geppert)
 - Executive Officer
 -  
2E North American Continental Semi-Finalist 2023
ibbles  Trek Masters Tribbles Champion 2023
2E Deep Space 9 Regional Champion 2023
#571410
AllenGould wrote: Sun Feb 06, 2022 7:19 pm But that's all likely to change, since last I checked WotC was moving away from any sort of pro-tier event (and actively telling said pros to not expect to be able to play Magic as a job).
Oh wow!
User avatar
 
By boromirofborg (Trek Barnes)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
1E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
2E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
#571414
Yep. Wotc is still holding their current equivalent of Pro Tours. (ONline in Arena, Set championships), but the biggest difference is they moved away from a system where pros could reliably make a living off just playing Magic.

They've said they intend to reinvest that money into having more smaller tournaments and the like, but if they will follow through or not is debatable, especially in a post-covid world.


It's an interesting philosophical point. WHat's better for the game as a whole, an elite tournament series that you can aspire to (but unlikely to ever play in), or more smaller, regional games that anyone can win with a lucky day?


Having played both ST, LOTR, and Magic at a competitive level over the years (well, enough to attend the competitive events, not to ever do particularly well), one of the big things that I appreciate in retrospect about the Decipher games, is how much more they were "love of the game" oriented.

Go to almost any magic tournament, from FNM to a Grand Prix, and there will be people complaining that the prizes are not enough for your "EV". (Expected value).

Magic's monetary value has been both a blessing and a curse over the years, helping it last as long as it has, but also (IMO) instilling a mindset among players that if they don't come out ahead, they've lost something.
User avatar
 
By stressedoutatumc (stressedoutatumc)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#571516
boromirofborg wrote: Mon Feb 07, 2022 12:56 pm It's an interesting philosophical point. WHat's better for the game as a whole, an elite tournament series that you can aspire to (but unlikely to ever play in), or more smaller, regional games that anyone can win with a lucky day?
IMO, neither. The real question is a game-theory one. Which is better for STCCG's health:

1. To make the game more complex than the player
or
2. To make the a game in which the player is more complex than the game.

Right now, it's the former, but the most successful card-based/deck-building games are always the opposite. Magic, Pokemon, Yugio (I'll admit I've never played the last two) tend to make their cards and mechanics simple, stright-forward, and leave very little to interpretation. I'm not trying to start a fight with any hardcore players and yes I am aware all the rule clarifications that have been needed over the years in all those games, but, objectively, someone can explain those games to a 12yo and they can start playing in 10 min. Same with games that self-contained deckbuilders like Smash-Up or Here to Slay, for example. It's the players who use their skill and ingenuity to add complexity and strategy to the game itself.

I would argue that STCCG is the opposite, or at least wants the make the game and the player equally complex. As a result, it makes the entry to the game very difficult for anyone who is interested. When was the last time you tried to get someone into the game and had to explain all the different phases and rules and intricacies just to get their first game started? I'm a professional explainer and that has always been the sticking point for new players I've tried to get into the fold. And, there's always a dichotomy that I can have them start with a simple "starter" deck which doesn't even really represent the modern game and honestly at this point is fairly boring to play...or I can give them a modern deck to play but have to further explain why they literally cannot play an interrupt card to interrupt any actual playing or when it says "download" there are like 5 variants of that mechanic. It's part of what I personally like about the game, but is also a hard barrier for the game has to overcome to attract new players.

Going back to your original question, the game has to be fun for everyone to play and the play has to be accessible to everyone equally. Games like MTG or the like would not be successful if not for the grass roots growth of playing with your friends at lunch or after school. That's how games like even have the chance to get a pro-circuit.
User avatar
 
By PantsOfTheTalShiar (Jason Tang)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#572214
The reason that MTG can have simple cards that create complex gameplay is because the complexity comes from the interactions of cards and players, and 1E is not designed to be interactive, at least at this point. Now I doubt the CC would say that they're trying to make a non-interactive game, but they are catering to certain preferences in the Community, and those preferences lead to non-interactive gameplay. That means cards have to be interesting on their own, which makes them more complex.

Also, I know that stressedoutatumc acknowledges this, but I need to reiterate that MTG is not as simple as people here like to say it is. The stack is not simple OR intuitive. I had a lot of "fun" trying to explain even the basics of it to my buddies in college. Then you get stuff like Protection and Indestructible, which protect your creatures from some things but not others, and then even the most recent set has two mechanics that feel like casting spells, but aren't actually casting spells.

The difference with MTG is that you can play simplified versions of the game and still have fun, and that's where the CC has struggled. Past that, MTG also has a lot more resources for helping players learn the game, ranging from multiplayer formats like Two-Headed Giant, to articles and videos explaining new cards and mechanics, to gameplay videos, and the judge program. It's awesome that we have an up-to-date rulebook, but some people (most people?) aren't very good book learners.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#572218
PantsOfTheTalShiar wrote: Thu Feb 17, 2022 8:26 pm
The difference with MTG is that you can play simplified versions of the game and still have fun, and that's where the CC has struggled.
I'm not entirely sure I agree.

My Squire Starters are great for simplified gameplay (5 minute seed phase!) and have a good balance of dilemmas to decks being able to clear those dilemmas such that it's rarely a walk or a jobber squash.

I've played with my kids (ages ranging from 5-11) and they've been able to pick up the basics and get into it.

Now that's me, and I'm not the CC, but I think there's enough proof of concept to demonstrate that it's at least possible.
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#574771
I think they would need to do a "Revised Premier" type set that focused mainly on TNG. A lot of the cards in Premier were bland and others became problem children as the years progressed. Since we know they hated errata and banning cards, I imagine they would have made events, incidents, doorways and objectives that made the game easier to play and perhaps have a tagged-on ability that messes with old deck building favorites like Traveler: Transcendence, Red Alert, Static Warp Bubble, H'oragon, etc. for both players, letting players decide if they want to forfeit those old advantages to gain a new one with the added advantage of depriving an opponent.
Even though I believe the set should have had an Alpha Quadrant TNG era focus, they could have also reissued many older cards with new pictures and new property logos to help new players while giving collectors their eye candy.
The remaining "All Good Things" crew must show up and perhaps First Season versions of our favorite TNG characters to push along the "All Good Things" narrative.
TNG/DS9 Borg, TNG Cardassians, Rogue Borg, Maquis. But remember, I said "focus" on TNG era, so things could get creative. This could have also of been a clever way to do the DS9 Emissary Wolf 359 prologue cards and the Pathfinder characters for Voyager or even Alpha Quadrant USS Voyager and crew members could work out too.
They also loved to help out binder fodder, so how about a series of seed cards that enhance the less desirable ❖ starships. Give your ❖ Miranda class starships [SD] Medical, your ❖ Romulan Science Vessels and ❖ Oberth Class ships [SD] Science along with other mission bonuses.
Oh! And new outpost/HQ/station cards, mechanics can be the same, but art and property logos need to change.

Just my thoughts. A decent chunk of this has already been accomplished by the CC now anyways.
 
By Klauser
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#574825
Coming late to this conversation - excellent "What If?" question about the game.

I was very engaged as an Ambassador at this time and looking back in hindsight the odds of this happening was extremely slim.

Apologies, but some STCCG history is in order. I was also a playtester for the last two major expansions - "Holodeck Adventures" and "The Motion Pictures" and I can tell you the timelines were exceptionally compressed. Not only that, but the product development teams in Decipher at the time were under equally difficult timelines to get not only STCCG product out the door, but were under compressed development pressures for their LOTR CCG line. (Look at the release dates for "Mirror, Mirror" through "The Motion Pictures" expansions!) One of the constant complaints from all the playtest teams was can you please give us more time to flesh out different deck designs and card combinations. The answer back was almost always "no, we have to hit our production deadline".

And when STCCG wasn't making the sales numbers they wanted, they made plans to shelve the game and "restart" it. The horrid "Project Trek" concept that was floated was just, well horrid, then they settled on a total reboot that resulted in 2E.

What we did NOT know at the time was that Decipher had a serious embezzlement scandal in the making as early as 2000, and while it was not apparent until later where the funds were going, their financial strategy was to pump out as much product as possible to get the company books out of the red.

What I think would be a more interesting "What If?" scenario is one where the embezzlement was discovered earlier or did not happen at all, allowing Decipher to more rigorously test their latest expansions.

I think/hope we would have seen the expansions after Rules of Acquisition (December 1999) taking longer and (hopefully) being more rigorously playtested. In this timeline, the Original Series cards that came out starting in Trouble with Tribbles would have included a wider selection of cards supporting a more diverse variety of strategies before changing over the Voyager-centric expansions. When the Motion Pictures expansions eventual came out in this timeline, it would have been later and could have supported at least one more expansion to more fully flesh out both the Original Series Motion Pictures and the Next Generation Movies cards and strategies.

All else being the same, we would still have the months-long impact of the 9-11-2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the cancellation of Worlds in 2001, but afterwards I would expect they would have expanded into the Enterprise-era with several expansions instead of the one small boutique release.

Most of what I'm outlining here is extrapolation and expansion on what Decipher did in reality, but after they developed the Enterprise-era affiliations, their path is harder to predict. The reboot of the Star Trek movie franchise with J.J. Abrams new take on Star Trek in 2009 was probably too far in the future after the alternate reality's development of the Enterprise-era affiliations. And it's possible the game would have run its course while Decipher moved on to different franchises and different product lines.

And maybe ... just maybe ... with a fairly comprehensive coverage of the Star Trek franchises complete, there would have been no impetus for a 2nd Edition rebirth of the game, or the re-birth of the game under an organization like the Continuing Committee. And the game would be truly dead.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#574849
Klauser wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 11:54 pm The horrid "Project Trek" concept that was floated was just, well horrid
I still have a copy of the playtest files, and while I'd agree the first draft they sent out was not exactly "fun", to this day I think there's a cool idea for a game in there. (Trying to flesh it out is on Allen's Far Too Large List of Hobby Stuff To Do.)
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#574851
AllenGould wrote: Fri Apr 08, 2022 11:28 am
Klauser wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 11:54 pm The horrid "Project Trek" concept that was floated was just, well horrid
I still have a copy of the playtest files, and while I'd agree the first draft they sent out was not exactly "fun", to this day I think there's a cool idea for a game in there. (Trying to flesh it out is on Allen's Far Too Large List of Hobby Stuff To Do.)
Yeah, I think it's called "My Little Pony CCG"
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#574854
Armus wrote: Fri Apr 08, 2022 11:34 am Yeah, I think it's called "My Little Pony CCG"
My thought process:

1. There's a MLP CCG?
2. Of course there's an MLP CCG.
3. I wonder if it's the same designer?
4. Huh, that looks kinda like it borrows from Deadlands or Ani-Mayhem
5. GET BACK TO WORK. ;)
User avatar
Executive Officer
By jadziadax8 (Maggie Geppert)
 - Executive Officer
 -  
2E North American Continental Semi-Finalist 2023
ibbles  Trek Masters Tribbles Champion 2023
2E Deep Space 9 Regional Champion 2023
#574859
AllenGould wrote: Fri Apr 08, 2022 11:40 am
Armus wrote: Fri Apr 08, 2022 11:34 am Yeah, I think it's called "My Little Pony CCG"
My thought process:

1. There's a MLP CCG?
2. Of course there's an MLP CCG.
3. I wonder if it's the same designer?
4. Huh, that looks kinda like it borrows from Deadlands or Ani-Mayhem
5. GET BACK TO WORK. ;)
The design roster for MLPCCG is a bunch of former Decipher folks.
User avatar
 
By Professor Scott (Mathew McCalpin)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Trailblazer
1E Cardassia Regional Champion 2023
#574869
I am sure having the SWCCG literally STOLEN out from under Decipher's nose didn't help us any either.
User avatar
 
By winterflames (Derek Marlar)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#574871
MLPCCG is awesome. I can play it with my 5 year old. And last summer, my 7 year old used it as a jumping off point to become the first of my 4 children to actually play star trek. I suspect it would have been easier to use the thing to get them into 2e, but I don't play that game unless it is the only Trek in town.
Card Page Glitches

So, it's seeming on some sets that the cards on th[…]

Question for noob

Awesome. Thanks everyone for all the help!

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

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