This forums is for questions, answers, and discussion about First Edition rules, formats, and expansions.
User avatar
 
By winterflames (Derek Marlar)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#584145
Ok, serious question now. There have been several people around that don't seem to like OTF, but also never seem to say why they don't like it? So I would like to have a thread where anyone can tell me why they don't like OTF. No debate. Just your opinion, stated out loud and in public. If you want to debate a specific point, make a new thread. This one is for statements, not debates.

Seriously guys, No replying to another person's statements in this thread unless you agree and are expounding upon a statement. No disagreeing here.

I mean it.

And I am not looking for any "My opinions are clearly known," kind of statements either, because they aren't. That is why I am asking.

And you don't have to be anti-CC-establishment to reply here either. Do you like most of it but wish this one thing was different? Tell me about it. Tell me why.
User avatar
 
By boromirofborg (Trek Barnes)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
1E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
2E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
#584148
Do you like most of it but wish this one thing was different?
I probably qualify under this mere then anything else. Let me be clear, I haven't played in enough tournaments recently to have a clear, informed opinion and I am not claiming otherwise.

I would say the issue is that OTF is both too restrictive and not restrictive enough, and that comes more from a lack of clear vision of what the format wants to be.

Explanation/background, with summary at the end:
During my gap years, when I wandered away from STCCG I played a lot of Magic. And magic is king of having multiple formats, but one of the upsides tis that most of the formats have a pretty good definition. Part of that definition is the idea of the Critical Turn, or the turn # where the game is really decided, even if the game takes longer to actually play out.

Vintage/Legacy is like Open. Anything goes with the only banned cards generally being for legal, not power reasons. (Ante, Raise the stakes.). Because everything is broken, things reach an equilibrium. Technically, Turn 0 (winning before the opponent takes a turn) wins are possible, but unlikely due to the amount of counterpleas. Games can actually take longer than other formats when the decks are well matched, but overall a turn 1 format.

Modern and Pioneer are meant to be the mid ground. Give a taste of the long history of magic, without being as broken. Typically Turn 3 formats.

Standard was meant to be the normal onboarding for new players. Because of yearly rotation, you only need to know the last 1-2 years of cards to understand what's going on, and it's easier to buy in to.

EDH / Commander is the opposite of most magic formats. Where magic is usually a quick 10-15 min game played in best of 3 50-min matches, Commander is explicitly multiplayer, casual, longer, and community based.. It's a turn 7-10 format, where people play the cards that would be binder fodder in other formats. Because it uses the same cardpool as Legacy (rough approximation), things can get broken quickly and turn 2 wins are very, very capable, but typically doesn't happen because of community agreements on power level before playing.

________________________

So what is OTF wanting to be? What is the desired turn number, what's the balance we are aiming for? For the most part, I think OTF is in a very good place from my outside observations, but it feels both oddly restrictive with he rules about personnel downloads and limits on copies of dilemmas and yet wildly permissive with no cap on card plays or draws. It's too fast for some types like [Art] , and also too slow for quick casual games.

Part of me wishes that instead of dividing based on properties, the [WC] [RC] divide was based on play engines vs draw engines, and used the icons to limit both.

Ideally, I think there should almost be another format, just to help give OTF some definition. The Commander version of 1E, that's meant for the long drawn-out, multi-hour games.

Edit to add: The quadrant stuff reminds me of my biggest complaint. There's still the possibility of players rolling up and having decks that cannot fundamentally interact with each other. If OTF has other rules, I'm mildly annoyed that there wasn't some cross-quadrant transit forced in the rules to make a backup. Requiring a card for players to have even the hope of interaction is bad design. (See also: 2E's Battle system)
Last edited by boromirofborg on Mon Aug 29, 2022 6:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
 
By Enabran
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
2E Austrian National Second Runner-Up 2022
#584149
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....
The other thing is, that I can only download personnel one time during my opponents turn. I think it would not be broken if that rule would be eliminated. Especially personnel downloads via Dilemmas. But you can convince me of the contrary.
 
By jrch5618
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#584151
Main problem is that the "standard" we tried to do, the block format, has fallen out of favor and is basically irrelevant. Nobody seems to care about it - the block core list hasn't been updated in years... it'd be a lovely option for games with a limited card pool but alas...
 
By Se7enofMine (ChadC)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Moderator
#584153
I dont dislike OTF at all.

Anything that my ever so small group dislikes, we alter to suit our purposes. We are only three people so its pretty simple to do.
User avatar
 
By Marquetry
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
2E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
#584157
The extra 40 points required when solving in the DQ (and other non-Alpha places). Felt like I was always starting behind just to play a deck I enjoyed.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#584159
Marquetry wrote: Mon Aug 29, 2022 4:08 pm The extra 40 points required when solving in the DQ (and other non-Alpha places). Felt like I was always starting behind just to play a deck I enjoyed.
Still?

I figured Homestead would let you solve for that.

But speaking of... I actually agree that the YAAM rule is less than ideal. I'd tweak it to make it so you only need 100 points to win if you've solved a mission in the Alpha Quadrant or Any TWO other Quadrants.

If you're playing in multiple quadrants, your opponent has at least some plausible (if not likely) ways of getting to you. Let the players figure that part out.
User avatar
 
By DarkSabre (Austin Chandler)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#584160
I've been around here for a long time. Was a playtester for the first virtual sets made for 1E. Since have been around for quite a while I'll throw down my opinions as to why I don't like OTF.

OTF wasn't designed to be an end-all ruleset initially. This opinion is also based upon many of the first virtual sets being designed without OTF in mind & also not allowing virtual printing of 1E cards while 2E was allowed.

Some early support for what became OTF was only given because some rules were agreed to never be included because they would be completely game and design warping (the download rule in particular, which is why it was a ref card, to begin with), that the ban list would as temporary as possible, and errata would be limited to ensuring keeping with the original flavor design of the card esp when it was a Decipher made card.

OTF has now warped design, rules, & errata in a way where now the current sets being made are absolutely unable to be used in any format other than OTF without breaking said format. Thereby completely disregarding many members of the STCCG community who like new cards but don't play OTF.

The unbalanced concept of banning some cards, without proper explanations or playtesting to support said the ban, and errata that are done solely it seems to support the current idea of OTF style decks with their LEGO / Solitare / no counters wanted here playing.

No support at all for non-OTF formats unless it's sealed.

It seems OTF was made to be the standard for tournaments when 1E was finally able to be fully printed so the more problematic cards were more accessible in abundance. So instead of fixing the seed phase, banning the problematic cards, and bringing the game much-needed balancing, we are imposed with a rule set that is almost like a different version of the game.

I have told many others on here this opinion. If the CC admitted that they don't care about continuing Decipher's game/fixing it but are rather pushing their own 1.5 edition under OTF rules then they would have gotten a lot more acceptability from many corners of the 1E community. However, by digging in their heels and claiming to continue First Edition when they are only continuing OTF First Edition and also changing the rules of the game to fit said OTF First Edition is a problem. This has been exceedingly worsened by members of the CC who seem to enjoy going onto Facebook and confronting anyone who doesn't want to use Virtual Cards / OTF rules. A lot of the goodwill I created as Social Media Manager has been erased by some members of the CC.

Summary: OTF has divided the community a lot. It has caused a lot of design and rule problems between OTF & people who are casual/don't play OTF. There 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.
User avatar
 
By geraldkw
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#584161
Armus wrote: Mon Aug 29, 2022 4:45 pm
Marquetry wrote: Mon Aug 29, 2022 4:08 pm The extra 40 points required when solving in the DQ (and other non-Alpha places). Felt like I was always starting behind just to play a deck I enjoyed.
Still?

I figured Homestead would let you solve for that.

But speaking of... I actually agree that the YAAM rule is less than ideal. I'd tweak it to make it so you only need 100 points to win if you've solved a mission in the Alpha Quadrant or Any TWO other Quadrants.

If you're playing in multiple quadrants, your opponent has at least some plausible (if not likely) ways of getting to you. Let the players figure that part out.
I agree about the two other quadrants. I was going to make a deck with Mirror and Gamma quadrant stuff but Homestead wouldn't allow me to use a mission I needed for one of the factions. It think working between two quadrants is enough trouble without forcing one to be Alpha.
User avatar
First Edition Art Manager
By jjh (Johnny Holeva)
 - First Edition Art Manager
 -  
#584162
“If we're both unhappy, it means we've reached… a compromise!”

Dare I say OTF is the perfect 1E compromise??

OTF and the thoughtful stewardship of this imperfect card game is the reason I still play First Edition after all these years.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#584163
jjh wrote: Mon Aug 29, 2022 5:10 pm “If we're both unhappy, it means we've reached… a compromise!”

Dare I say OTF is the perfect 1E compromise??

OTF and the thoughtful stewardship of this imperfect card game is the reason I still play First Edition after all these years.
Doesn't mean there isn't still room for improvement.

But if I held off on playing to get the perfect game, I'd never play anything and that's no fun either.
User avatar
 
By Captain Parrish (Bruce Parrish)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#584164
For the record I love OTF. There are some solid arguments here against it, but at the end of the day I have had way more fun playing OTF, than I ever did playing Decipher Rules Only.
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
#584168
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.
User avatar
 
By boromirofborg (Trek Barnes)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
1E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
2E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
#584171
I'll add on another OTF specific issue. The inability to mission steal at all. But on the other hand, I don't want it removed, because I think the other side of things (enchanting your own dilemmas) is often worse.


But I really, really dislike the fact that in the main format of the game, there are a whole type of cards that are practically useless (espionage), and half the space for game text on mission is practically wasted.

This is another area where I think the temporary bandaid was a good and needed one, but has evolved into something that's just "ok", when something bigger and bolder could be done to fix it.

Make it where if you attempt a mission you didn't seed, your opponent gets to download 3 dilemmas from outside the game, or something (as a rule instead of a card), but bring back Mission text relevance again.
Question for noob

Crossover or Temporal Micro-wormhole should both w[…]

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[…]