This forums is for questions, answers, and discussion about First Edition rules, formats, and expansions.
User avatar
 
By PantsOfTheTalShiar (Jason Tang)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#584173
jadziadax8 wrote: Mon Aug 29, 2022 7:32 pm
Enabran wrote: Mon Aug 29, 2022 1:47 pm I like most of it. But there are 2 little things I don't like so much. The one thing is that, at the end of the game, Bonus points only count when I have mission points. It is a good thing, that you cannot win with Bonuspoints only, but that they absolutely do not count when I have no mission is mehh....
This is the only thing I would change about OTF. I like Obsession, and it's disheartening to manage to blow up a [Self] or two, but not get the credit for it on my scorecard. I know there's the old fear of Cytherian-shuffle bonus point decks, but the other OTF rules make those sorts of wins unlikely.
:thumbsup: @LORE , this is one of the OP things I mentioned I wanted to talk to you about: points that don't count for winning should still count for differential. Nothing worse than when your opponent is trying to find the silver lining in some bonus points after a loss and you have to say, nope, sorry, those points don't count, your score is 0.

At one point in semi-recent CC history those naked bonus points did count for differential, but then Rules reworded the OTF rule to more closely match Intermix Ratio, which I think was generally a good idea, but now naked bonus points don't count for differential. So it was never a matter of game balance, and I guess this also implies that Rules might be the ones to change this.
 
By Klauser
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#584174
DarkSabre wrote: Mon Aug 29, 2022 4:46 pmThere are A LOT MORE people who play kitchen table / non OTF than there are people who are on these forums & who are active at TrekCC tournaments. I know in my time as Social Media manager that the #1 reason for people not going to tournaments was OTF rules and how they didn't feel like the First Edition they played. There should have been a better 'fix' for how Decipher power broke the game VS what was done via OTF.
This explains a lot for our small local casual group as well. We currently play a locally modified format focused on series-based block sets. While we are thankful to CC for new cards and get jazzed about new concepts you come up with - there's not much draw for to get involved with OTF.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#584175
PantsOfTheTalShiar wrote: Mon Aug 29, 2022 9:47 pm At one point in semi-recent CC history those naked bonus points did count for differential, but then Rules reworded the OTF rule to more closely match Intermix Ratio, which I think was generally a good idea, but now naked bonus points don't count for differential. So it was never a matter of game balance, and I guess this also implies that Rules might be the ones to change this.
Changing full win conditions is indeed Rules. But, changing differential calculation is Organized Play. So, threading the needle on this would undoubtedly involve both.

If I understand you correctly, what you are suggesting is that bonus points should always count for differential, but not toward winning. So, to list out several possible scores at the end of the game, am I correct in understanding that this is what you want to have happen?

GAME #1
ALICE: 100 mission points
BOB: 10 bonus points
RESULT: FW Alice, differential +90

GAME #2
ALICE: 30 mission points
BOB: 10 bonus points
RESULT: MW Alice, differential +20

GAME #3
ALICE: 0 points of any kind
BOB: 10 bonus points
RESULT: TT (true tie), differential 0

GAME #4
ALICE: 30 mission points
BOB: 40 bonus points
RESULT: MW Alice, differential +1

It's that last one that's tricky. Under current rules, of course, Game #4 is MW Alice +30 (not +1).

Under the old rules (prior to the OTF update in March 2016), Game #4 was MW Bob +10. This encouraged players to run lockout decks where they only scored a few bonus points early, then just prevented their opponent from scoring anything, giving them the Mod Win. (I don't know how widespread this really was. @pfti or @Worf Son of Mogh might have some insight. I know that game balance was not a factor in the decision to make the change.)

But I think what you're looking for is to make Game #4 still a loss for Bob. You want it still be impossible to win on bonus points, but you still want bonus points to help for differential. Do I understand correctly?

That might be both doable and a good idea. :twocents:
User avatar
 
By stressedoutatumc (stressedoutatumc)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#584176
I think the premise is false. I think it’s a few loud negative people who are shouting for overpowered mechanics.

This is almost always the case. 15% of any group will demand 85% of attention while the majority stays relatively quiet because they are just doing their thing.
User avatar
 
By Enabran
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
2E Austrian National Second Runner-Up 2022
#584183
BCSWowbagger wrote: Tue Aug 30, 2022 12:27 am GAME #4
ALICE: 30 mission points
BOB: 40 bonus points
RESULT: MW Alice, differential +1

It's that last one that's tricky. Under current rules, of course, Game #4 is MW Alice +30 (not +1).
Under the old rules (prior to the OTF update in March 2016), Game #4 was MW Bob +10. This encouraged players to run lockout decks where they only scored a few bonus points early, then just prevented their opponent from scoring anything, giving them the Mod Win.
Really? I would never have thought of that, because the OTF rules say: If any player has more bonus points than non-bonus points, the excess bonus points do not count toward winning. In my eyes it would be still a MW for ALICE.


And in the good old days, in such cases, you simply flipped your Q the referee and whipped out Intermix Ratio and the thing was clear.
BCSWowbagger wrote: Tue Aug 30, 2022 12:27 am But I think what you're looking for is to make Game #4 still a loss for Bob. You want it still be impossible to win on bonus points, but you still want bonus points to help for differential. Do I understand correctly?

That might be both doable and a good idea. :twocents:
:thumbsup: That's what we want :cheersL:
User avatar
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#584191
stressedoutatumc wrote: Tue Aug 30, 2022 12:33 am I think the premise is false. I think it’s a few loud negative people who are shouting for overpowered mechanics.

This is almost always the case. 15% of any group will demand 85% of attention while the majority stays relatively quiet because they are just doing their thing.
This matches my experience reading the Facebook group. 25% are loud anti-CC, anti-OTF, anti-everything. 75% are pro-CC and what they’ve done to keep the game supported (especially as it pertains to new cards) and can’t really understand what the other 25% are complaining about. @DarkSabre is right, though, that most players seem to be at home, non-OTF players.
User avatar
 
By stressedoutatumc (stressedoutatumc)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#584193
abargar7510 wrote: Tue Aug 30, 2022 6:34 am
stressedoutatumc wrote: Tue Aug 30, 2022 12:33 am I think the premise is false. I think it’s a few loud negative people who are shouting for overpowered mechanics.

This is almost always the case. 15% of any group will demand 85% of attention while the majority stays relatively quiet because they are just doing their thing.
This matches my experience reading the Facebook group. 25% are loud anti-CC, anti-OTF, anti-everything. 75% are pro-CC and what they’ve done to keep the game supported (especially as it pertains to new cards) and can’t really understand what the other 25% are complaining about. @DarkSabre is right, though, that most players seem to be at home, non-OTF players.
Yep, exactly my point. The squeakiest wheels but most of the wheels are perfectly fine.

I think that’s as much about access than anything though. I live in the Midwest, besides the one we just held ourselves, the closest tournament is 5 hours away. I can see how it would be hard to get jazzed up about tournament rules when you will probably never go play.

My other thought is that the time limit may also be a factor in the minority hate on OTF. You have to move at a pace that does make some decks less competitive. Every group has the “I just want to go blow stuff up” player.
User avatar
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#584198
stressedoutatumc wrote: Tue Aug 30, 2022 6:39 am
abargar7510 wrote: Tue Aug 30, 2022 6:34 am
stressedoutatumc wrote: Tue Aug 30, 2022 12:33 am I think the premise is false. I think it’s a few loud negative people who are shouting for overpowered mechanics.

This is almost always the case. 15% of any group will demand 85% of attention while the majority stays relatively quiet because they are just doing their thing.
This matches my experience reading the Facebook group. 25% are loud anti-CC, anti-OTF, anti-everything. 75% are pro-CC and what they’ve done to keep the game supported (especially as it pertains to new cards) and can’t really understand what the other 25% are complaining about. @DarkSabre is right, though, that most players seem to be at home, non-OTF players.
Yep, exactly my point. The squeakiest wheels but most of the wheels are perfectly fine.

I think that’s as much about access than anything though. I live in the Midwest, besides the one we just held ourselves, the closest tournament is 5 hours away. I can see how it would be hard to get jazzed up about tournament rules when you will probably never go play.

My other thought is that the time limit may also be a factor in the minority hate on OTF. You have to move at a pace that does make some decks less competitive. Every group has the “I just want to go blow stuff up” player.
That makes sense. The squeakiest wheels don't seem to be involved in competitive play whatsoever, not even being aware, for example, of Hexany, when the flaws of other formats are pointed out.
User avatar
 
By Spectre9
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#584203
1. Borg [Bor]

This includes Battle Borg, dilemma ignoring Borg and Stop First Contact Borg all of which are varying degrees of NPE. The unwritten don't be a dick by playing these decks rule doesn't fix this issue.

2. Ref Decks [Ref]

If something needs a ref card to counter how broken it is either ban it or errata it. We're at the stage where you can get some harsh NPE if you don't have a ref deck to counter something.

3. Dilemmas [Dual]

Yes they're central to the game but we are now at the point where there are so many powerful dilemmas the only way to play is have a bunch of 6 skill [SD] personnel spammed out at 3-4 a turn so you can bust your way through.

This was probably a way for OTF designers to counter the power creep from Voyager [Voy] but then they just continued to make more OP personnel cards and more OP dilemmas to slow them down.
User avatar
 
By DarkSabre (Austin Chandler)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#584206
abargar7510 wrote:
That makes sense. The squeakiest wheels don't seem to be involved in competitive play whatsoever, not even being aware, for example, of Hexany, when the flaws of other formats are pointed out.
I mean Ive been playing since '96. I've been playing virtual era on and off since '08. No one is asking for abusive decks to be brought back. However, neutering any form of deck design that makes players sad isn't a viable solution either which is what OTF has turned into.

The only reason why my 1 to 2 times a month house tournaments using OTF and definitely competitive meta decks aren't put on the site is that frankly, the CC couldn't care less as to why I'm not running tournaments at all and many are quite happy that I'm not being active on here anymore. If you are in Richmond and want to play lmk.
User avatar
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#584207
DarkSabre wrote: Tue Aug 30, 2022 9:24 am
abargar7510 wrote:
That makes sense. The squeakiest wheels don't seem to be involved in competitive play whatsoever, not even being aware, for example, of Hexany, when the flaws of other formats are pointed out.
I mean Ive been playing since '96. I've been playing virtual era on and off since '08. No one is asking for abusive decks to be brought back. However, neutering any form of deck design that makes players sad isn't a viable solution either which is what OTF has turned into.

The only reason why my 1 to 2 times a month house tournaments using OTF and definitely competitive meta decks aren't put on the site is that frankly, the CC couldn't care less as to why I'm not running tournaments at all and many are quite happy that I'm not being active on here anymore. If you are in Richmond and want to play lmk.
There was one guy asking for abusive decks to be brought back, that's who I was thinking about specifically. I just started relearning 1e yesterday for the first time since the mid-90's, so I need a little bit of time but I will definitely let you know :D . I'm not looking to become a competitive player or anything, just focused on learning how to play viably in a modern setting.
User avatar
 
By DarkSabre (Austin Chandler)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#584208
abargar7510 wrote: This matches my experience reading the Facebook group. 25% are loud anti-CC, anti-OTF, anti-everything. 75% are pro-CC and what they’ve done to keep the game supported (especially as it pertains to new cards) and can’t really understand what the other 25% are complaining about. @DarkSabre is right, though, that most players seem to be at home, non-OTF players.
3+ years ago the FB group was very Anti-CC. I worked hard to change the perception of the CC on that FB group when I was Social Media Manager. The more problematic problem is that the CC, with its dwindling amount of people active on these forums and even fewer people even showing up to tournaments, doesn't care about outreach to gain players or tournament directors and doesn't care about the issues/concerns people have with what is going on from rules or design standpoint.
User avatar
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#584209
DarkSabre wrote: Tue Aug 30, 2022 9:32 am
abargar7510 wrote: This matches my experience reading the Facebook group. 25% are loud anti-CC, anti-OTF, anti-everything. 75% are pro-CC and what they’ve done to keep the game supported (especially as it pertains to new cards) and can’t really understand what the other 25% are complaining about. @DarkSabre is right, though, that most players seem to be at home, non-OTF players.
3+ years ago the FB group was very Anti-CC. I worked hard to change the perception of the CC on that FB group when I was Social Media Manager. The more problematic problem is that the CC, with its dwindling amount of people active on these forums and even fewer people even showing up to tournaments, doesn't care about outreach to gain players or tournament directors and doesn't care about the issues/concerns people have with what is going on from rules or design standpoint.
I think a "Chief Marketing Officer" or "Chief Growth Officer" or whatever the right title is would definitely be a worthwhile position to be added.
User avatar
 
By DarkSabre (Austin Chandler)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#584211
abargar7510 wrote:
There was one guy asking for abusive decks to be brought back, that's who I was thinking about specifically. I just started relearning 1e yesterday for the first time since the mid-90's, so I need a little bit of time but I will definitely let you know :D . I'm not looking to become a competitive player or anything, just focused on learning how to play viably in a modern setting.
Welcome back!

Yeah some abuse decks cannot ever be brought back. They would have been better served by just complete bans of some cards. Which was done in some instances.

However, one aspect of the OTF issue is Ferengi. They are non-viable in competitive play under OTF rules. Which is a shame. They were one of the best affiliations to run.
Question for noob

I still think I'm misunderstanding TMW. By saying […]

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[…]