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
#584307
What @Dizzle of Borg has said is exactly the kind of feedback I was hoping for in my prior post.
User avatar
 
By Professor Scott (Mathew McCalpin)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Trailblazer
1E Cardassia Regional Champion 2023
#584316
Dizzle of Borg wrote: Wed Aug 31, 2022 2:26 pm Thanks!

I tried to come at it from a knowledgeable and objective POV.
Kudos and glad to have you and your background as a resource around here.
StateofSTCCG, who is currently listed as a forum troll [unconstructive and disruptive behavior], made this post. Responding to forum trolls is discouraged.
Display this post.
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#584361
OTF needs a card limit then the format works pretty well Otherwise it never will be great. Revised will probably always be the best format in 1E history. OTF is ok but will never be the best. [Flip] [Flip]
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#584369
StateofSTCCG wrote: Thu Sep 01, 2022 3:25 am Revised will probably always be the best format in 1E history.
So great nobody played it! :P

I didn't hate Revised the one time I tried it, and it had its advantages, but it was definitely different than more traditional 1e.

I can see why the purists hated it - a copy limit is a very fundamental paradigm shift, maybe even more so than the OTF rules.
User avatar
 
By Ausgang (Gerald Sieber)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
1E European Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
#584414
Professor Scott wrote: Wed Aug 31, 2022 3:19 am
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?
I think I've already wasted enough time while being on the Balance Team...
User avatar
 
By PantsOfTheTalShiar (Jason Tang)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#585643
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.
+1
OTF is a good solution for a format involving the complete card pool, but there is not a coherent, common understanding of what the game is (or even what the CC is) among the people who keep dumping cards into the format.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#585670
PantsOfTheTalShiar wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 3:29 pm
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.
+1
OTF is a good solution for a format involving the complete card pool, but there is not a coherent, common understanding of what the game is (or even what the CC is) among the people who keep dumping cards into the format.
I would consider that a benefit, not a drawback.

There are *wildly* different opinions on what 1E should be, depending on regional meta, history, personal preference... it would be pretty bleak if a single viewpoint was able to skew the game to their vision.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#585672
Diversity of opinions is good.

Outright incoherence is bad.

I think we tend more toward the latter than the former.

It is not obvious to me that we are worse on this score than other games (volunteer-run or professional).

But it would be nice if the CC had, say, a clear idea of what a control deck is, so we could at least talk about it and how to shape it. I think the complaint here is not just that we lack consensus, it's that we lack the vocabulary to discuss it, measure it, set goals, intentionally design toward the goals, or avoid undermining one another as we jolt from set to set and team to team.

Again, it's not clear to me that we are worse on this score than other games -- including 1E circa 2001. But surely we've all been frustrated with some set in the past five years that didn't seem to do anything good for the game. (Although it seems likely we'll all have different sets in mind for this.)

Still, I would like to hear Ausgang and Pants spell out their critiques (if they can find the time / words), rather than depending on my attempt at translation.
User avatar
 
By PantsOfTheTalShiar (Jason Tang)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#586543
BCSWowbagger wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 6:14 pm Diversity of opinions is good.

Outright incoherence is bad.

I think we tend more toward the latter than the former.

It is not obvious to me that we are worse on this score than other games (volunteer-run or professional).

But it would be nice if the CC had, say, a clear idea of what a control deck is, so we could at least talk about it and how to shape it. I think the complaint here is not just that we lack consensus, it's that we lack the vocabulary to discuss it, measure it, set goals, intentionally design toward the goals, or avoid undermining one another as we jolt from set to set and team to team.

Again, it's not clear to me that we are worse on this score than other games -- including 1E circa 2001. But surely we've all been frustrated with some set in the past five years that didn't seem to do anything good for the game. (Although it seems likely we'll all have different sets in mind for this.)


Still, I would like to hear Ausgang and Pants spell out their critiques (if they can find the time / words), rather than depending on my attempt at translation.
This is a good translation and control decks are a good example.
User avatar
 
By ShipNerd
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#586632
Warning this post includes smirky cynisism and the last sentence is sarkasm, and i enjoy it ;)

Its good for the pro player. This one i mean, in regardings to 2000-2005 times, its a bit better, with the trekcc IMO.

Its just not suitable for the mainstream, because too complicated and weaker player have little chances.

In order to make OTF (or another format good) you need the goal to make it simpler, more balanced to suit a broader audiance / average player, yet need the experienced player make this goal happen as average player have not enought competence when it comes to design/rules. Basicly BLOCK Format but in actuall good execution. While the Block might be mainly decipher cards.

Many turns for more interactions is also imporant, which is why i advocated around 2009 to make all affiliations able to play/draw about 2-3 cards, but no more.

Maybe in another 13 years, we are there?
User avatar
 
By winterflames (Derek Marlar)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#586639
ShipNerd wrote: Thu Oct 06, 2022 8:28 am Warning this post includes smirky cynisism and the last sentence is sarkasm, and i enjoy it ;)

Its good for the pro player. This one i mean, in regardings to 2000-2005 times, its a bit better, with the trekcc IMO.

Its just not suitable for the mainstream, because too complicated and weaker player have little chances.

In order to make OTF (or another format good) you need the goal to make it simpler, more balanced to suit a broader audiance / average player, yet need the experienced player make this goal happen as average player have not enought competence when it comes to design/rules. Basicly BLOCK Format but in actuall good execution. While the Block might be mainly decipher cards.

Many turns for more interactions is also imporant, which is why i advocated around 2009 to make all affiliations able to play/draw about 2-3 cards, but no more.

Maybe in another 13 years, we are there?
But, what is "harder" about OTF than the Open game?
Is it the Win conditions? (100 points, 40 more if you don't have [1E-P] & [1E-S] , 40 more if you don't have Alpha)
Is it the Download Limit?
Is it the Ban list?

I request reasons so we can see about finding solutions. General Statements of Badness aren't actually that helpful for fixing things.
But that is all that people seem to be willing to provide.
User avatar
 
By ShipNerd
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#586700
winterflames wrote:
But, what is "harder" about OTF than the Open game?
Is it the Win conditions? (100 points, 40 more if you don't have [1E-P] & [1E-S] , 40 more if you don't have Alpha)
Is it the Download Limit?
Is it the Ban list?

I request reasons so we can see about finding solutions. General Statements of Badness aren't actually that helpful for fixing things.
But that is all that people seem to be willing to provide.
I think we solved that misunderstandings in chatting.
To answer so that others see it:
I DO like OTF for purpose of playing as pros. I DID write that here.
I do consider it complicated for other reasons, as it needs all decipher rules + 50 new sets + a long errata list.
I did make some concrete examples, in other posts and in the discord. Maybe using more decipher cards, focus on ONE casual format and not try to many. use different good ideas from it. provide easer yet more powerfull pre-constructed decks then we have today. make a rule document covering all rules for the format, maybe excluding certran card types like tactics, sites, tribbles, artifacts, trouble.
I do not wast to much time making it totaly concrete as trekcc officials as i invested many hours since beginning of 2021 and sent some info to trekcc officials directly who take up to 10 month for even replieng. so if you don´t know all my suggetions, its because they are in direct communications, different threads, discord server and posts over the last 14 years. I do not re-writte everything for everyone just because they (not meaning winterflames) claim i do not make concrete suggestions while the person not even tells me which of all my writings he has read.

I did create the Multiplayer format which IS a casual and balanced format in service for about 5 years, as i did not want to wait longer and my local friends (and sometimes online friends) needed such a format and play in it: viewtopic.php?f=24&t=45643&hilit=Multiplayer&start=15

As most people (including me in the past and sometimes today) are reading something into others words that is not there, i see no points discussing with someone who claims he has understand my words while re-cititing them in a way where i do not see myselve understood.

I do thank you winterflames for asking to understand in the discord chat instead of claiming something what i did not say. I do not discuss or justify to people where i do not have the impression that person is willing to carefully read or accept that he is responsiblity for what he reads into other peoples words and claims stuff.
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[…]