This forums is for questions, answers, and discussion about First Edition rules, formats, and expansions.
User avatar
 
By boromirofborg (Trek Barnes)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
1E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
2E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
#584170
The OTF thread reminded me of it, and with the CC having said that VOY is up for some love soon in future sets, I thought I'd expound on what I view as Decipher's greatest failure, and a need in the game today.
Everything following should be treated as my opinion, even if not called out as such. I do not claim to be an arbiter of objective truth.


1E: Two-player solitaire

At times 1E has had the reputation of two-player solitaire. This is understandable, especially when compared to Decipher's other two big games (Star Wars [SW] and Lord of the Rings [LOTR]) and the perennial Other Game, Magic.

In all those games, interaction is baked in from the very beginning, and you have to work to build your deck to avoid interacting with the opponent. (And when you do, it's often looked at as a mistake and "fixed". (See: Dagobah era SW)

Critically, what those games have is a lot of casual interaction. My deck might be trying to do X, and yours might be trying to do Y, but I can still try and slow you down.


The Golden Era of Decipher 1E

Opinions will likely vary as to the exact golden era of 1E under Decipher, but for me it was the First Contact-Rules era, especially Blaze of Glory. And when you think about it, most of those sets added something that gave players a reason to interact.

FC: Assimilation and battling preventing probing.

DS9: Some of my favorite memories were running battles over who controlled the Nor.

Dominion: Invasive Transporters allowed more access

BoG: The BBSD remains one of my favorite additions to 1E.

Now, those were not always the top tier strategies (indeed, looking back at those decks they rarely were), and they could go too far (blowing up outposts for a lockout.) but they did provide more chances for spontaneous, unplanned interaction.
_____________
Then came VOY and the DQ. To Decipher's credit, they were trying to replicate the show, and struggling to get home, but now it was very easy for two players to sit down at a table, take out their decks, and aside from dilemmas, never interact with each other's cards.

This has several negative effects overall:

1. Snowballing : it's much harder for the player that is behind to catch up. Previously, it might be possible to cruise over, start a mini-fight, kill off a person or two to buy that crucial turn.

2. Dilemmas are more important than ever, so there's an arms race to make dilemmas deadlier. Than to make better and faster crews to survive or overcome the dilemmas.

3. Faster games, or games that feel faster because there's no interaction

4. The seed phase is the most important phase.
I love the seed phase. It's part of what makes 1E unique. I have fond(ish) memories of sitting in the Kendanya station chat rooms, indicating how many dilemmas I'm seeding under different missions based on scraps of paper I had. But on some level, especially when playing remotely instead of in person, it gets boring. And it's very easy for the average players to get outplayed by the stronger players here - making it harder for them to keep up and win occasionally.

----------
The fix so far.

The fix so far is to require 140 points if you haven't solved an AQ mission, mitigated to an extent by Homefront. This was a good band-aid, and does a decent job of making the deck that is non-interactive consider including ways to get to the AQ.

But it only accelerates the focus on dilemmas/seed phase, and still does nothing to promote unplanned interaction.

Now, yes, there are ways for decks to plan on how to get to the DQ and "bring the fight", however, in our current game state, this isn't always tenable for a few reasons.

1. It puts the onus on the interactive deck to be interactive, instead of interaction being the default and the non-interactive deck having to try for it.

2. It leads to all or nothing battle decks. I'm not going to spend 2 turns trying to get to where you are, just to at most buy a turn, and realistically fall further behind in the dilemma race. I will do that if I can eliminate your facilities and lock you out of the game - which is not a desirable game state.

-------------------------
How to solve?

I don't know. I'm not a designer, just a tinkerer. But I will say every home-brew format I've tinkered with for my own amusement has started with the basic premise of a rules based way to move between quadrants, at a cost. Maybe it's moving off one space line end of the DQ to the AQ and being stopped. Maybe it's a location representing between space that players can move to/from, and is automatically downloaded if you seed a DQ mission.

I would love to see more cards that promote non-battle interaction of nouns, and more rules that shape the game that direction. And I would love to see steps taken to make sure that nay return to the DQ for a design focus doesn't bring a return to 2-player solitaire.
User avatar
 
By stressedoutatumc (stressedoutatumc)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#584177
Just my opinion, but I think we have to stop romanticizing old trek. It sucked. It was slow, games took forever, and the game killed itself. It was 100% pay to win as all card games were/kinda still are. If that version of the game was so good with such sound mechanics, it would have been way more successful and not died.

Star Trek isn’t jet fighter warfare. It’s not a big battleship game. It’s subtle submarine warfare. It’s not meant to be a constant cauldron of action (with the exception of the end of DS9).

As is the case with most games, trek falls into a general archetype, which in my opinion is basically monopoly. It’s a resource control and trap game. You aren’t meant to go over to Park Place and blow it up so someone else’s plan is messed up. It’s not Uno in the way it’s not based on constant interaction.

There’s a constant fallacy in this case the beating of one of the most deadest of horses. “Why can’t game x be game y instead?” Because it’s not. Why can’t Trek be more like lord of the rings or Star Wars? Because it’s not. Why can’t battlefield be more like call of duty? Because it’s not. Why can’t this thisntv show be more like this other tv show that I prefer to watch? Because it’s not that show.

OTF actually plays out like an episode, which is the point. If one examines any random episode, they will find generally very little direct and aggressive “interaction”. It’s almost always in the form of extremely subtle and mostly political subterfuge. I think there’s room for improvement in the game, but if one wants a game that has more direct and aggressive interaction, there other games that do that very well as their main mechanic. Trek is a game that is just more deliberate, which is what makes it unique and honestly very good.
User avatar
 
By Enabran
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
2E Austrian National Second Runner-Up 2022
#584180
Try out Second edition!

The "you can fly to everywhere and jst add +2 Range to another quadrant, is something that disturbs me in 2e.

There are enough ways in 1E to reach other quadrants, we do not need a dumb rule to allow it.

If you urgently need to hit your opponent and buy you a turn, just add [1E-Int].
Smoke Bomb, Loss of orbital stability, etc...
User avatar
 
By Dukat (Andreas Rheinländer)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
1E European Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
1E German National Runner-Up 2024
#584190
stressedoutatumc wrote: Tue Aug 30, 2022 1:02 am Just my opinion, but I think we have to stop romanticizing old trek. It sucked. It was slow, games took forever, and the game killed itself. It was 100% pay to win as all card games were/kinda still are. If that version of the game was so good with such sound mechanics, it would have been way more successful and not died.
What you said!

Definitely.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#584201
stressedoutatumc wrote: Tue Aug 30, 2022 1:02 am Just my opinion, but I think we have to stop romanticizing old trek. It sucked. It was slow, games took forever, and the game killed itself. It was 100% pay to win as all card games were/kinda still are. If that version of the game was so good with such sound mechanics, it would have been way more successful and not died.
I think you're mixing up a couple of things here.

If we define the Golden Age of Trek as 1999 (Premiere- Rules of Acquisition), then it's REAL hard to make the case that's the environment that killed the game. The Jumpstart cards that started in TwT and then the giant ramp-up in power curve of the Voyager era (2001-2002) is what derailed the game to the point where most everybody - including Decipher - tapped out.

That's not to say the Golden Age was perfect - far from it - there was still turn 1 cheese back then too.

That said, if you take the cheese out of that era, it's actually a really fun card pool to play in. A couple years ago I ran a series of Return to Talos IV events, and the most popular one by far was Golden Age 1999, which was that card pool with the modern OTF rules and ban list. It was big fun. It was even so well-received that I was asked to run an encore tournament a month later, which I was happy to oblige.

Maybe 1999 era Trek suffered from some of the same problems present in any era (e.g., high cheese factor) but I'd say it was relatively good even with the problems, and arguably even better with some of the biggest problems removed.

Regardless, it wasn't what killed the game.
User avatar
 
By boromirofborg (Trek Barnes)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
1E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
2E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
#584205
I do play 2E, actually more regularly then 1E thanks to having monthly local tournaments.

And I actually would argue that the interaction system there is even worse, outside of the dilemma system being better.

Battles requiring a card to even start, combined with many not having a significant payoff.

One of the best, I teratvie factions I’ve enjoyed in the last year of playing has been the Romulans, but even then the interaction is mostly one sided. I get to be at their missions and disrupt their hand and plans, but there’s little built in ways for them to counter the disruption. It’s a race to who can get thru the dilemma piles fastest. Which is fun, but

Which is fun, but still not the dance it could be. (And I’m not going to touch on how decipher massacred the Borg, compared to their work of art that was 1E Borg).


Over all, I find the mission/ quadrant system of 2E to be the other extreme, where quadrant and layout rarely matters.
User avatar
 
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#584240
I put this thought out there a long time ago but I wonder if it's time for 1e to have an unstable wormhole doorway?

[Door] Unstable wormhole

Seeds on table. Once each turn you may discard a card from hand to move your ship to a random mission that is in a different quadrant. That ship and crew are stopped.
User avatar
 
By stressedoutatumc (stressedoutatumc)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#584269
Armus wrote: Tue Aug 30, 2022 8:31 am
stressedoutatumc wrote: Tue Aug 30, 2022 1:02 am Just my opinion, but I think we have to stop romanticizing old trek. It sucked. It was slow, games took forever, and the game killed itself. It was 100% pay to win as all card games were/kinda still are. If that version of the game was so good with such sound mechanics, it would have been way more successful and not died.
I think you're mixing up a couple of things here.

If we define the Golden Age of Trek as 1999 (Premiere- Rules of Acquisition), then it's REAL hard to make the case that's the environment that killed the game. The Jumpstart cards that started in TwT and then the giant ramp-up in power curve of the Voyager era (2001-2002) is what derailed the game to the point where most everybody - including Decipher - tapped out.

That's not to say the Golden Age was perfect - far from it - there was still turn 1 cheese back then too.

That said, if you take the cheese out of that era, it's actually a really fun card pool to play in. A couple years ago I ran a series of Return to Talos IV events, and the most popular one by far was Golden Age 1999, which was that card pool with the modern OTF rules and ban list. It was big fun. It was even so well-received that I was asked to run an encore tournament a month later, which I was happy to oblige.

Maybe 1999 era Trek suffered from some of the same problems present in any era (e.g., high cheese factor) but I'd say it was relatively good even with the problems, and arguably even better with some of the biggest problems removed.

Regardless, it wasn't what killed the game.
I agree that the game-death had other factors. I think the move to try and play on an online environment was also a factor. I started playing in about 99 or so, I was in high school, so I definitely cannot say I remember perfectly everything from that part of the game. I suppose my point is that era of the game can be fun, but humans also tend to look fondly at things in the past but in reality they weren't all that great comparatively. It's like thinking Goldeneye 007 on the n64 was an amazing game...but you play it today and it's basically unplayable.

Not trying to start any arguments or come off as brash or aggressive, just expressing an opinion is all. I think the OTF has made the game accessible, fair, and playable. If it wasn't for OTF, I think none of this would even be in existence, and I think the CC and all the people who have kept this game alive and viable need a big thanks.
 
By Se7enofMine (ChadC)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Moderator
#584302
Hoss-Drone wrote: Tue Aug 30, 2022 2:08 pm I put this thought out there a long time ago but I wonder if it's time for 1e to have an unstable wormhole doorway?

[Door] Unstable wormhole

Seeds on table. Once each turn you may discard a card from hand to move your ship to a random mission that is in a different quadrant. That ship and crew are stopped.
*nodding* i like this
User avatar
 
By Ausgang (Gerald Sieber)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
1E European Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
#584734
WeAreBack wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 9:30 am Or just make a version of Wormhole Negotiations worth 25 points that downloads Barzan Wormhole when seeded. (The new point value is actually in line with how easy this mission is today). After all, this was the "Unstable wormhole" from the show.
That said, I never understood why this wasn't realized with Preliminary Incursion in the first place...
 
By Kander77 (Lee Sneathen)
 - Alpha Quadrant
 -  
#584945
Armus wrote: Tue Aug 30, 2022 8:31 am
stressedoutatumc wrote: Tue Aug 30, 2022 1:02 am Just my opinion, but I think we have to stop romanticizing old trek. It sucked. It was slow, games took forever, and the game killed itself. It was 100% pay to win as all card games were/kinda still are. If that version of the game was so good with such sound mechanics, it would have been way more successful and not died.
I think you're mixing up a couple of things here.

If we define the Golden Age of Trek as 1999 (Premiere- Rules of Acquisition), then it's REAL hard to make the case that's the environment that killed the game. The Jumpstart cards that started in TwT and then the giant ramp-up in power curve of the Voyager era (2001-2002) is what derailed the game to the point where most everybody - including Decipher - tapped out.

That's not to say the Golden Age was perfect - far from it - there was still turn 1 cheese back then too.

That said, if you take the cheese out of that era, it's actually a really fun card pool to play in. A couple years ago I ran a series of Return to Talos IV events, and the most popular one by far was Golden Age 1999, which was that card pool with the modern OTF rules and ban list. It was big fun. It was even so well-received that I was asked to run an encore tournament a month later, which I was happy to oblige.

Maybe 1999 era Trek suffered from some of the same problems present in any era (e.g., high cheese factor) but I'd say it was relatively good even with the problems, and arguably even better with some of the biggest problems removed.

Regardless, it wasn't what killed the game.
To me it was the addition of "downloading" a card. That tumbled out of control with each set. While it did open some amazing deck ideas and mechanics, it was also a reason why things got wildly complicated.
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#586306
The problem with DQ and interaction is navigating two contradictory points:

1. To be true to the show, it *should* be really hard to get to and from the AQ and AQ. That was the whole point of Voyager, even setting up communication with the AQ was a really big deal.

2. Gameplay is better when players have easy access to each other. This doesn't just mean actual battle -- even the threat of battle, or anything that can happen when both players' cards are nearby.

I've never liked rule-based solutions (like using full RANGE to move from one spaceline end to another) because of point (1). It just doesn't feel like Voyager. Going to/from the DQ should feel different, and much harder, than going to/from the Gamma Quadrant and Mirror Universe (which were much easier in the show, and where the plots specifically involved interaction between these and the AQ). But I definitely acknowledge point (2).

A few thoughts about how to take both factors into account:

- Caretaker's Array. Originally, there was a built-in relocation function that let any player relocate a ship from a Badlands mission to the Array -- just like in the show! This was great for encouraging interaction, and my AQ battle decks would often seed a Badlands mission in hope of getting easy access to the DQ via the opponent's Array. Oddly, the errata made this *much harder*, requiring you to play a copy of Array from hand. I am very curious why this was done, since it closed an easy route into the DQ.

My suggestion: restore the original text on Array allowing ships to relocate there. I'd actually go even further and allow ships to relocate to the Array from any spaceline location. Gives easier access to the DQ, and fits with the show (wasn't the Caretaker grabbing ships from all over?). Note that it is a one-way trip unless you stock some other relocation cards of your own, so it's not completely free.

2. How can you guarantee that a DQ opponent will seed an Array?

My suggestion: require a seeded Array (or make it a download) on major DQ engines -- essentially have it be like an AU Door for [DQ] cards. This follows the principle of making a player choosing a strategy to pay for their own costs (like making White Deprivation a mandatory download on Jem'Haddar engines, rather than a [Ref] the opponent needs to stock). You want to play DQ, where you might be able to turtle from your opponent? Well if you want to use the flashy engines, you need to give your opponent a way to join you.

Note: there are some natural ways to build on this framework -- objectives allowing return trips from the Array (think The Only Way Home for other affiliations/factions), or offloading this relocating ability onto a different mandatory card. The core idea is to make it easy to get to the DQ, but hard to get back -- just like the show.
User avatar
 
By winterflames (Derek Marlar)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#586328
A lot of that seems to be based on the idea that DQ is a safe place to hide and being a DQ Affiliation is a good way to win. But the modern game doesn't show that to be true.

A quick look through the Affiliation HQ for 1E shows almost no DQ decks played recently. Not Vidiian, not Voyager, not Equinox, not Kazon, nor Hirogen. There are around 10 posted deck lists for the DQ in the last 6 months. (Looking at the card pages for key cards reveals a significant difference in played decks? But still not all that many compared to the TNG mechanics.)

Why punish decks that aren't being played?
User avatar
 
By boromirofborg (Trek Barnes)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
1E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
2E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
#586331
winterflames wrote: Sat Oct 01, 2022 8:56 am A lot of that seems to be based on the idea that DQ is a safe place to hide and being a DQ Affiliation is a good way to win. But the modern game doesn't show that to be true.

A quick look through the Affiliation HQ for 1E shows almost no DQ decks played recently. Not Vidiian, not Voyager, not Equinox, not Kazon, nor Hirogen. There are around 10 posted deck lists for the DQ in the last 6 months. (Looking at the card pages for key cards reveals a significant difference in played decks? But still not all that many compared to the TNG mechanics.)

Why punish decks that aren't being played?

That's a good, fair question. I would put it like this:

1. DQ decks should be around the same appox power level as the rest. Idelly, when sitting down to play an opponent, I should have at least a 33% chance of playing against them.
2. This might mean they need to be powered up, or others powered down.
3. When that happens, I don't want a return to non-interactive games.

It's not about punishing DQ decks, but it is about making non-interaction *not* a feature of the DQ.

DQ decks should be strong, they should be competitive, and they should be interactive.

Interestingly enough, when you look at the Decipher cards, of the Q affiliations, 4 are built around interaction. The Kazon steal your stuff, the Vidiaans harvest your organs, the Hirogen hunt you, and the Borg assimilate you.

That should be encouraged more, and the Fed solitaire less.


I look at it like this:
- Early on, people figured out that a good way to win was by running all Planet or All Space missions. This limited the interaction with your opponent's cards.
- People could avoid that, by running all P/S dilemmas, but the community pretty much all agreed that cutting out that much design space was bad.
- Running all [DQ] is much the same way. I'm not avoiding your dilemmas, but I am avoiding any accidental interaction.



The flavor of the game requires the [DQ] to be hard to get in/out of.
The nature of the game is that interaction is fun, solitare is not.
The two are at tension.
1EFQ: Game of two halves

Honestly, I don’t think I’ve re[…]

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!!

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

Opponents turn

Remodulation