This forums is for questions, answers, and discussion about First Edition rules, formats, and expansions.
User avatar
 
By Professor Scott (Mathew McCalpin)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Trailblazer
1E Cardassia Regional Champion 2023
#575450
@Smiley, While I appreciate that you are an advocate for new players, and I applaud you for that but, you seem to often lump easy to learn with easy to play.

This game has never and should never be easy to play, in my opinion. That's part of why I think most of us play it. Pokemon is easy to learn and easy to play, if that's what we wanted instead.

Our game is much more like chess then checkers. Checkers is easy to learn and easy to play. Chess is also easy to learn. There are only 20 possible opening moves after all, but chess can take years or even a lifetime to master.

Please, please stop confusing easy to learn with easy to play.
User avatar
 
By ShipNerd
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#575452
Regarding game and rule complexity AND different skill/experience levels:

I´d say Chess is much easier to learn rule wise then STCCG 1e.

So I go for @Smiley and @Professor Scott opinion here regarding rule/card simplicity for quadrant hopping.

Keep the mechanism / card / rule simple to understand.

Quadrant hopping can still be an big effort / difficult to cross into other quadrants, like using full range + being stopped + x.

With all that in mind, the mechanism can be used by player of all skill experience levels. Yet it would still mean some play OTF and some casual, serperating the small community.

Yes STCCG is like chess, in terms everyone is on a complete different experience/skill level. With the exception that chess has "a few more player" (like hundreds of thousends more) and therefore everyone finds people on the same level. Thats not the case for a half-dead ccg. So i do understand @Smiley here.

Its understandable that some experts with 20 years of knowledge want to show of their skills in OTF. @KazonPADD

While casuals want to have a chance to win too and not spend weeks and month of deckbuilding.

In order for player with different skill levels playing together and both have a a chance:
I went from OTF, to easy to play pre-constructed balanced multiplayer decks, that still have some STCCG depth, where more then 2 player can join. Events with friends and family to up to 4 player. So far both experienced player like @Caretaker's Guest and casual player like @Eberlems, as well as returning player like D'ell and completly new real life player had fun.

:)
User avatar
 
By Smiley (Cristoffer Wiker)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#575490
Professor Scott wrote: Mon Apr 18, 2022 8:09 am @Smiley, While I appreciate that you are an advocate for new players, and I applaud you for that but, you seem to often lump easy to learn with easy to play.

This game has never and should never be easy to play, in my opinion. That's part of why I think most of us play it. Pokemon is easy to learn and easy to play, if that's what we wanted instead.

Our game is much more like chess then checkers. Checkers is easy to learn and easy to play. Chess is also easy to learn. There are only 20 possible opening moves after all, but chess can take years or even a lifetime to master.

Please, please stop confusing easy to learn with easy to play.
Eh?! What am I confusing? A game that is easy to learn has to be easy to play for it to work. The thing that you seem confused about might be "hard to play" = complex/depth? A game should always go for easy to play. What you might be looking for is "hard to master"`? And I'm all for that as well. Unfortunately, that's impossible if the game is too hard/complex, to begin with.

I'm sorry if I offended anyone with this, I'm tired and this is still not my native language. =(
User avatar
 
By Professor Scott (Mathew McCalpin)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Trailblazer
1E Cardassia Regional Champion 2023
#575493
Easy to learn, Easy to play, Easy to be completive, Moderate to Master: Pokemon
Easy to learn, Easy to play, Moderate to be competitive, Difficult to Master: MTG
Easy to learn, Moderate to play, Difficult to be completive, Difficult to Master: STCCG

The above are my opinion of relative difficulty between these 3 popular games.

I think very few people picked up STCCG because they thought it was an easy game, and I don't think Decipher or TrekCC should have to apologize for that. I think most of us picked it up due to the property. In 1994 not only was this the only ST game option, it was one of the very few options at all. Some of us even picked up SW in 1995 as well. The insane of us also picked up LoTR, and tried to keep up with all 3 games simultaneously. Star Wars has some very cool mechanics, but I would never have played it if not for the property, same with Lord of the Rings. I quit Lord of the Rings when they dropped Two Towers and and forced players to play with the new 9 card path thus making all the Fellowship cycle path cards useless. So much for collecting 4 Balrog's, 4 Balrog's Swords, 4 Balrog's Whips, 4 Watcher in the Water, 4 Cave Trolls, etc.

I think the reason we still play Trek after all these years is the game complexity and the property, to say nothing of the community that exists off the table. If new players are having trouble with the complexity of Trek, that's ok, we'll still be here when they are ready to try it again.

I understand that non-native English speakers have trouble with some parts of the game, and I am sorry if I offend anyone, but this is a game written in English and is played by people who have chosen to play it. Decipher, and now TrekCC, should not have to bend over backwards to accommodate other language speakers. They do need to be be mindful of archaic lore and and such, and do their best to be mindful of other languages, but this is an English game. If I want to play a game in French or German or Swedish, I have no business complaining that the game is not easy or friendly to my language. I have chosen to add a layer of complexity by playing something not in my native tongue.

I respect all non-native speakers that play this game, especially those that excel at it, but make no mistake, this game was never designed to be easy to play, and it became more complex with each new side deck or mechanic, heck even each new affiliation adding layers to the game.
User avatar
 
By winterflames (Derek Marlar)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#575513
KazonPADD wrote: Mon Apr 18, 2022 9:03 am
ShipNerd wrote: Mon Apr 18, 2022 8:23 am Its understandable that some experts with 20 years of knowledge want to show of their skills in OTF. @KazonPADD
Huh?
I agree with KazonPADD here. I would like to understand why you feel that OTF is an Expert level rule set, but Open is not? The point of OTF, if I understand it correctly, is to curtail First Turn Win decks, Total Lock Out decks, and Infinite Combo decks.
User avatar
 
By stressedoutatumc (stressedoutatumc)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#575515
I'll offer a slightly different take.

I think the additional 40 point rule is and should be enough of an incentive to a player to build in viable and existing ways to travel to and from the alpha quadrant and interact in the AQ. Most of these ways an opponent can take advantage of as well.

If the main complaint is a player being able to "hide" in a quadrant without their opponent being able to do anything about it, then the root of that problem is actually the 40 point penalty not being sufficient to incentivize leaving the non AQ. Maybe what should be considered is not a easy or permanent way to transverse quadrants, but toning down the proliferation of easy to acquire bonus points or cards like Homestead that nullify it. If I was going for straight up speed and felt like being in an non AQ helped me start fast, why wouldn't I if I can rack up 70+ points per mission? It could also create an environment where my opponent had to attempt/finish something like 4-5 missions to win, which seems more fun than 2 anyway.
Last edited by stressedoutatumc on Tue Apr 19, 2022 11:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
 
By ShipNerd
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#575519
winterflames wrote: Tue Apr 19, 2022 9:43 am I would like to understand why you feel that OTF is an Expert level rule set, but Open is not?
i never wrote that.

I used to play competivly 1vs1 but i no longer want to. its okay if you and kazon want to play competivly and want the game to be complicated. (IF that is what you want)

I play multiplayer format now. viewtopic.php?f=24&t=45643 for those who want to know how it works.

The reason the complexity / skill level that came up in this thread was
KazonPADD wrote: Sun Apr 17, 2022 7:40 am This games whole identity is based on being hard and complicated!
No. Only for you. I am also fine with gameplay / decks that do not use all the unsesseary complicated rules. e.g. pre-constructed and therefore equaly balanced multiplayer decks free of many rules like infiltrators, sites, nemesis rules and complicated card types [Trib] [Trob] [Q] etc.

I said keep the quadrant hoping rule simple, so that casual play has its place too. And that quadrant hoping should be difficult but always possible to avoid solitair and enable interaction.

Agreeing to: @Smiley
Smiley wrote: Mon Apr 18, 2022 8:24 pm A game should always go for easy to play.
And i assume easy to play = easy rules.
User avatar
 
By stressedoutatumc (stressedoutatumc)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#575523
Professor Scott wrote: Mon Apr 18, 2022 8:57 pm Easy to learn, Easy to play, Easy to be completive, Moderate to Master: Pokemon
Easy to learn, Easy to play, Moderate to be competitive, Difficult to Master: MTG
Easy to learn, Moderate to play, Difficult to be completive, Difficult to Master: STCCG

The above are my opinion of relative difficulty between these 3 popular games.
FWIW, another way to look at games like these are where the designers intended to be simple and where they intended to be complex.

For Pokemon and Yuhgio (I've never played, but I imagine this is correct)...the game has simple rules, cards, and interactions. Complexity is added by the players.

MTG (in its current state) has simple cards, started out but has increasingly complex rules and interactions. Complexity is added more by the players than the cards.

STCCG has complex cards, complex rules, and complex interactions. Additional complexity is added by the players.

Game Theory suggests this is why games like Pokemon and Yuhgio (I know that spelling is wrong) have gained ground on MTG in the past x years and why a game like STCCG "died".

Just something to add to y'alls conversation.
User avatar
 
By Professor Scott (Mathew McCalpin)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Trailblazer
1E Cardassia Regional Champion 2023
#575525
In fairness, any game that stops making cards will die. It was a lot easier to accidently run into STCCG at your LCS during Decipher days. I think most folks finding TrekCC now were either directed here by a friend or at least knew of the game to look for it. If you are not even searching for Star Trek in general, you will likely never find this site. Pokemon, MTG, and Yu-gi-oh! are all still producing cards at the retail level by the company that originally made them. It also doesn't hurt that you can find them in non-LCS locations like Target and Walmart. I don't think any of the Decipher-made card games ever were.

Embezzlement aside, what killed this game for me and my group of players in Tampa, FL was when Decipher decided to exclusively sell AGT online without telling ANY of the Wholesalers, or Distributors that sold their products nor was there any press on it in the gaming magazines (I have no idea if it was posted on their site though), so none of us knew where to find it. We all realized our collections were forever incomplete since we couldn't get it at retail prices, so we dumped the game. I bought SW, ST, and LoTR by the case at that time, so not being able to get AGT was a death knell. We were all long gone from the game before Decipher coughed up The Enterprise Collection.
User avatar
 
By winterflames (Derek Marlar)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#575526
I find it amusing that you guys think I can play competitively. I just lost a tournament to my own children who have been building decks for, like, 3 months.

@stressedoutatumc I think I misunderstood what @ShipNerd was saying, not what you were saying.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#575527
Professor Scott wrote: Tue Apr 19, 2022 12:15 pm It also doesn't hurt that you can find them in non-LCS locations like Target and Walmart. I don't think any of the Decipher-made card games ever were.
This is factually incorrect. The Star Wars CCG 2 player games (both the premiere and Hoth versions) were sold at Target in the mid to late 1990s. I want to say the Trek 2PGs were as well but the Target near me couldn't keep them in stock (this was long before Target.com and ship-to-store were a thing).

I also remember playing in SWCCG tournaments at Media Play (remember those?) And they at least had SWCCG Premiere starters and boosters, and maybe A New Hope as well?

And I also want to say LOTR got a big box retail push for a minute as well, but I don't remember any details on that one.
User avatar
 
By Professor Scott (Mathew McCalpin)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Trailblazer
1E Cardassia Regional Champion 2023
#575531
Armus wrote: Tue Apr 19, 2022 12:25 pm
Professor Scott wrote: Tue Apr 19, 2022 12:15 pm It also doesn't hurt that you can find them in non-LCS locations like Target and Walmart. I don't think any of the Decipher-made card games ever were.
This is factually incorrect. The Star Wars CCG 2 player games (both the premiere and Hoth versions) were sold at Target in the mid to late 1990s. I want to say the Trek 2PGs were as well but the Target near me couldn't keep them in stock (this was long before Target.com and ship-to-store were a thing).

I also remember playing in SWCCG tournaments at Media Play (remember those?) And they at least had SWCCG Premiere starters and boosters, and maybe A New Hope as well?

And I also want to say LOTR got a big box retail push for a minute as well, but I don't remember any details on that one.
I worked at Target all of 1995 with backroom access, and I don't remember seeing Decipher products in my store, but we did get a MTG 3rd Ed Starter box and a box of Fallen Empires. I don't think we had a Media Play in our area, we mostly had our tournaments at Little Professor Bookstore, Barnes & Nobles, and our LCS's. Maybe once I moved from buying packs to buying boxes, I might have stopped looking. By the time I was buying cases, I for sure wasn't paying any attention to retail outlets, but I think my point still stands that games without active new product will die. Heck, some games can't even be saved by that.
User avatar
 
By ShipNerd
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#575535
winterflames wrote: Tue Apr 19, 2022 12:24 pm I find it amusing that you guys think I can play competitively. I just lost a tournament to my own children who have been building decks for, like, 3 months.

@stressedoutatumc I think I misunderstood what @ShipNerd was saying, not what you were saying.
Thats why i put the bold faced "IF" in my post. I don´t know you. Just that you where talking about competiveness. Playing with family sounds fun. I don´t have family, i play with friends, casualy Multiplayer.

Misunderstanding is the rule in social media, understanding the exception. thats why i prefere voice chat, but in order to find people social media is the first step.
1EFQ: Game of two halves

Honestly, I don’t think I’ve re[…]

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!!

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

Opponents turn

Remodulation