This forums is for questions, answers, and discussion about First Edition rules, formats, and expansions.
User avatar
 
By DarkSabre (Austin Chandler)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#584212
abargar7510 wrote: 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.
They have people who are in positions that are supposed to do jobs similar to those. They just don't do them.
User avatar
 
By winterflames (Derek Marlar)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#584215
Guys. I specifically asked for no debate. If you want to argue, make your own thread. I was interested in opinions, not yelling matches. People are more likely to give you opinions if you are listening, not talking over them.
User avatar
 
By GooeyChewie (Nathan Miracle)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Architect
#584217
I don’t play 1E all that often, but when I do it’s strictly OTF. I wouldn’t even consider playing non-OTF at this point, even at the kitchen table. Anything else in 1E I feel like isn’t playing a game; it’s watching somebody who knows the unwritten rules use those unwritten rules to play solitaire while I watch and record the loss.
User avatar
 
By Mugato
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
1E World Quarter-Finalist 2023
2E World Runner-Up 2023
#584222
As someone who’s enjoying 1E again for the first time since 2E, I like most of what OTF offers in terms of structure within an mostly only world.

What I’ve found disappointing is the repetitive nature of dilemma combos. I looked at top decks in the last couple years and there is a lot of repetition. I understanding going with what works but I’d like to see more variety.
User avatar
Director of Operations
By JeBuS (Brian S)
 - Director of Operations
 -  
1E Deep Space 9 Regional Champion 2023
#584224
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.
I would also like to echo this. There are a bunch of fun things to do in the game that score bonus points. But doing those things, generally speaking, means you aren't doing the thing that wins the game. And to add insult to injury, those fun things generally end up not counting at all (via OP rules). I score a lot of points that don't count when I play, because they're fun! But at the end of a tournament, it generally looks like I didn't even sit down at the table.
User avatar
 
By Smiley (Cristoffer Wiker)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#584233
I like the basics of OTF :wink:

Over time I have gathered that my playgroup wants something similar but not exactly. The game is a nice game, but it takes up too much time, and that's something that no one really has anymore. So to make up for that, the game would need to be less complex but still competitive. Or, really, the complexity should be put down to tactical decisions rather than strategic deckbuilding and play automation.

The batch seeding is fine!
The only problem is that it's too many other cards showing up there now. The board complexity is so overloaded before you even start playing the game that it's hard to get it all. Maybe put a hard limit on how much you are able to seed that is not doorway/mission/dilemma/artefact/facility? OR even let go of the possibility of downloading during the seed phase entirely. Just to make the game a bit less frontloaded and let everyone playing discover everything one card at a time.

That dilemma getting removed from play is really good and should have been a part of the game since the start really. That they go to the discard pile just screams for abuse by someone better at the game, which skews the play environment. The same goes for the seed limit, something that should really be used for the rest of the game as well. Maybe not two as for them but 3 or 4? Testing would tell, of course, But the state now that you can include an unlimited amount of copies is again screaming for abuse. And I do get why D had it there, it sold a lot more packs for a game that was not as big as its competitors. Now there's no monetary incentive to keep such a rule. Game design-wise, such a rule is hell on testing and designing. If you have an upper cap, you can plan for the worst, Now there's non, and you have no idea what could creep up down the road.

Mission stealing I was totally against back in the day and really liked how OTF solved this. Now I really wish for it to open up the game for more interaction but try to avoid all the NPE (Negative play experience) associated with stealing. The game needs more ways to interact, and this is a thing that the game had from the start that we should have a look at again. I don't know that it can come back unchanged but at least try something around the idea.

Personnel download limit I really don't have a problem with. I think it's too lenient, really. Mostly because I hate the idea of downloading. This takes away all depth for design when making interesting cards as the most powerful mechanic is so prevalent. I really wish that the function of the [DL] would change entirely to make the game less about flipping through your deck the entire game like now.

Bans!
I have zero problems with this. I like this approach. It's the same for limited formats as well. Anything outside of the agreed-upon card pool is off-limits and, as such, banned from that session. This is nothing bad! This is good. Restrictions breed creativity! And it makes it so much easier to build decks if you don't have to look up the 30 cards that every deck have to take into consideration each time I go to a tournament, as well as the new abuse that's been unearthed since last time. I don't like errata for other things than actually, errors made. If the card is doing something else, it could be a new card, and the old one is just banned. Sure, if something is needed to change in the entire game and you need to errata cards for that reason, I would get behind it immediately!

The victory conditions are there to balance the game, and I really like them. If you play a different, more limited card pool or quadrant-restricted format like Voyager only, then sure, it could be changed to not apply the forced alpha quadrant things, but otherwise, we need more incentive to move around each other (without having to resort to battle all the time!)
User avatar
 
By Professor Scott (Mathew McCalpin)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Trailblazer
1E Cardassia Regional Champion 2023
#584245
I have asked this before and I will ask it again. Why do homebrew/kitchen-table/casual games care anything at all about OTF and it's rules?

Official
Tournament
Format

Again Official Tournament Format. If you are not playing in an OFFICIAL TOURNAMENT, who cares what rules you use as long as you and your opponent agree on the rules beforehand.

If you are anti-OTF, and are not playing in Official Tournaments, then let those rules alone. They are mere a suggestion to you.

If you are playing in Official Tournaments, then please, by all means, answer the OP's question; if not, find something else to do with your time.

For the record, this is not a wholesale endorsement for OTF as a format, as it does have flaws. This is merely me saying that unless you play in Official Tournaments, or the reason you don't play in Official Tournaments is the format itself, then please don't don't comment; it's not constructive, IMHO.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#584254
For the record, this is not a wholesale endorsement for OTF as a format, as it does have flaws. This is merely me saying that unless you play in Official Tournaments, or the reason you don't play in Official Tournaments is the format itself, then please don't don't comment; it's not constructive, IMHO.
I don't know. I mean, you're right that "OTF" is the current name of the rules set, but I tend to think that that name is a misnomer: it's played at all kinds of non-tournament events (including lots of casual play), it's not the only official way to play, and (this is my favorite) it's not a format (it's a ruleset).

People who play OTF casually or who would consider doing so if it were changed in some way can therefore validly weigh in on what's wrong with it.
User avatar
 
By Professor Scott (Mathew McCalpin)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Trailblazer
1E Cardassia Regional Champion 2023
#584263
BCSWowbagger wrote: Tue Aug 30, 2022 3:47 pm
For the record, this is not a wholesale endorsement for OTF as a format, as it does have flaws. This is merely me saying that unless you play in Official Tournaments, or the reason you don't play in Official Tournaments is the format itself, then please don't don't comment; it's not constructive, IMHO.
I don't know. I mean, you're right that "OTF" is the current name of the rules set, but I tend to think that that name is a misnomer: it's played at all kinds of non-tournament events (including lots of casual play), it's not the only official way to play, and (this is my favorite) it's not a format (it's a ruleset).

People who play OTF casually or who would consider doing so if it were changed in some way can therefore validly weigh in on what's wrong with it.
Oh I quite agree, if it is intended to be a Ruleset and not a Format, the name does need to change. At the end of the day, unless you are participating in some organized endeavor that requires these rules, they are just a guideline. If this ruleset were to change it's name then I think we would get better feedback as currently it seems that it is used as both a Ruleset and a Format, even if in name only.
User avatar
 
By Ausgang (Gerald Sieber)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
1E European Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
#584289
Ruleswise OTF is fine, but there's no perspective on design or balance for a long time now.
User avatar
 
By Professor Scott (Mathew McCalpin)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Trailblazer
1E Cardassia Regional Champion 2023
#584291
Ausgang wrote: Wed Aug 31, 2022 1:36 am Ruleswise OTF is fine, but there's no perspective on design or balance for a long time now.
I am curious as to what you mean by this. Can you explain in more detail? Can you elaborate on what you mean by a long time, such as time range?
User avatar
First Edition Creative Manager
By KazonPADD (Paddy Tye)
 - First Edition Creative Manager
 -  
1E European Continental Runner-Up 2023
1E The Neutral Zone Regional Champion 2023
#584296
I like OTF. Because it’s fun.
User avatar
 
By Professor Scott (Mathew McCalpin)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Trailblazer
1E Cardassia Regional Champion 2023
#584298
KazonPADD wrote: Wed Aug 31, 2022 6:58 am I like OTF. Because it’s fun.
Official Tournament Fun, sounds catchy!
User avatar
 
By Dizzle of Borg (Dizzle of Borg)
 - Alpha Quadrant
 -  
#584305
Let me preface this by saying I have been playing in M:TG & STCCG competitive events since 1995. I currently play Open, OTF, and PAQ formats. I have worked inside the game industry since 98, and so I have a bit of perspective from having seen the rise and fall of literally dozens of TCG formats. Alot has changed over the years from rules sets to ban lists, but all in all I think OTF has STCCG competitive in a fairly good place. Is it the best place? Probably not, but that's what I feel the purpose of this thread is!! Without further ado. here are my main gripes with OTF format.

1) Not being able to solve Opponent's missions.
YES. I know enchanting dilemmas was gross, but removing an entire aspect of the core rules was not the way to deal with it. Print EXTREMELY punishing [Ref] cards that will deter those degenerate play patterns or ban the main culprits. Removing Espionage and deep thought from the dilemma seed phase weakens the game itself and the overall experience.

2) Tournament Round Time limits
This has been a problem since the decipher days. We have this amazingly complex game, that can go in myriad directions and offers tons of cool playstyles. It is meant to be an epic clash between two groups culminating in ultimate control of the spaceline. We wait for MONTHS to play in an actual OTF event... drive HOURS (for most of us) to play our deck we've been crafting for months. Then, we get there, play 3-4 rounds in 4-5 hours and its over?? We are expected to finish these epic games in 75 minutes? Just over an hour to play?

That makes ZERO sense. It makes so little sense in fact, that if you look at the tournament results posted on the site, VERY FEW people are actually finishing their matches. I hardly ever see someone with an actual 100 point victory. I had a match at Gen Con a few years back where we made it to literally turn 4 before time was called. Turn 4. This makes many decks archetypes simply invalid and leads to the hyper-efficient solver meta we see in front of us. Plenty of decks COULD deal with those archetypes and come back around for a win, but current limitations put you in a situation where you are probably losing 40-0 instead. Also the human factor of having to think in between downloads and plays is real. Most of us don't get to play STCCG often. To expect well-oiled machines making plays as fast as possible is illogical.

As with any issue, if it affects more than 50% of the population, the issue is SYSTEMIC. That means you need to look at the rules with an objective eye and figure out how to get more completions. My suggestion? 2 Hr rounds. None of us are out here grinding STCCG every weekend competitively. There is no exhaustion factor. I've never been to a STCCG event (even at Gen Con) that had enough players to constitute 5 rounds. Most of us have waited so long to play that we would much rather finish our games than be rushed through an event.

3) Red Alert and Power Creep
Let me be clear: I'm not here to beg for Red Alert back. It is probably hands down the best STCCG card ever printed and creates so many one sided wins around turn 4-5 that even most PAQ groups play with a highly errata'd version or ban the card altogether. I don't want to live in a world where people drop Red Alert and immediately win the game either.

What has happened though, is through power creep, the CC have circumvented the Red Alert ban for us. While we might not get to dump our whole hands on the table turn 1 the plethora of extra play cards now available ensure that most competitive decks are making 3-4 card plays a turn, and by turn 4-5 have that same board they would have gotten with Red Alert. It is not uncommon for a Solver or the Borg to have 8-12 crew on turn 3-4, ready to start racking up points. I love construct starship, but its continued legality further compounds the problem.

This ensures that any "fringe" archetypes and strategies just aren't viable. It also ensures each turn takes longer, which is why we often see games that time out at 4-6 turns. A slower rate of card plays would allow a wider variety of decks into the meta while simultaneously ensuring that more games finish within a reasonable time limit (see above).

How do we achieve a slower rate of Play? We may be past the event horizon without some serious [Ref] cards and bannings that would likely make people upset. We could unban Anti-Time Anomaly Its existence punishes decks that front end dump cards into play and forces them to think about their play patterns. Another option would be to stop focusing on just constantly printing more great solver cards or weird goofy archetypes. Actually look at how do we print powerful cards that can make some other archetypes compete in the meta? Power Creep can be fine if it is crept across the board, but leaving archetypes like Dabo, assimilation, and Run and Gun in the dust creates a stale metagame.

4) The Big Picture
Why are we still functioning under this general rule? The solver decks are WAY faster at scoring points than the fair bonus point decks. While they may get to avoid dilemmas, these decks are forced into a slower rate of play as they accumulate points turn over turn. If the main offender Gift of the Tormentor were banned and Ressikan Flute errata'd to a cap, (there's one more I'm not thinking of) the other fair decks wouldn't have to pay for their sins.

5.) The Download Dilemma
I love the General Order Personnel Download Rule in OTF. I think it makes play more fair and keeps things clean and crisp. There are times it doesn't work, however. I think the rule should be lifted from downloads based on a faced dilemma. Cards like Scout Encounter aren't problematic, and if my opponent is in the position to attempt multiple missions in a single turn, my download from a second copy of this dilemma should not be limited. There are other examples of this same thing, but I felt this is an easy one to see the issue.

Dilemmas are our line of defense against the best archetype in the game: The Solver. They shouldn't be limited in effectiveness by a blanket rule that attempts to keep game balance. If problem cards arise, ban them.

6) Relic on the Banlist
There is one card on the banlist, IMO that is a relic of a time gone by, one which could help create a more diverse metagame.

Anti-Time Anomaly

This card is in no way too good for STCCG OTF play. Pretty much every single healthy CCG has some sort of boardwipe that helps decks come back or limits board flood strategies. This card helps so much against the latter its insane. We have entered an era of OTF where board flooding is so common all decks are forced to be able to do it or cease to exist. This card could bring much needed balance.

7) You are a monument
This General rule is completely unnecessary nowadays due to power creep. The delta and Gamma quadrant decks are no faster at scoring 100 points than their Alpha quadrant counterparts, and this blanket 40 point handicap not only hurts their ability to be competitive: it restricts their deck building as well, forcing them to find ways to come to the Alpha quadrant to solve a mission. This sort of blanket rule was fine when we lived in the "Voyager is the most pushed thing ever" era, but it has long outgrown its usefulness and turned into a diversity killer.

8) Community Outreach
OTF is a great format, but we need MORE local outreach. We need people that are able to get us registered at a local level to run events. For example: I sent a message to our Regional organizer back in 2021 asking about organizing events for my store. I own a LGS in Central Indiana and have about 8 players that hang out regularly who Trek. I was really excited to try to get them into the OTF format, but alas, I am not sure how to get support to do that. So instead we all play a PAQ league. We could grow the playerbase through a bit of effort, but we really need people at a more local level than regional as points of contact.

Let me end this by saying the following. I love and respect the CC for working so hard to protect and curate new sets for what is, in my opinion , one of the best CCGs to ever exist. I think that 90% of what they do and work on is brilliant, and the OTF format is great considering the vast undertaking that is something on this scale. Does it have its flaws? Sure. The gameplay and experience are still phenomenal. I'd simply like to see us finish more games, hold more events with local support, and live inside a more diverse metagame.
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[…]

Hey all, we are running a "Warum-up" fo[…]