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
#587593
I'm someone who would love a lot more interaction in the game, ideally every turn should have cards played by both players or other interaction.


Would it delight or frustrate you if getting to the mission and being able to attempt was as hard as clearing the mission itself?

Would you like to be able to both delay and be delayed for multiple turns?
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#587600
boromirofborg wrote: Mon Oct 24, 2022 4:15 pm I'm someone who would love a lot more interaction in the game, ideally every turn should have cards played by both players or other interaction.


Would it delight or frustrate you if getting to the mission and being able to attempt was as hard as clearing the mission itself?

Would you like to be able to both delay and be delayed for multiple turns?
Given that even speed solvers (to say nothing of slower more balanced decks) already struggle to get a full win in time, I'd be careful with how much more interaction we throw in. I don't want all drag racers all the time, but if the game gets so bogged down by interference tech that it becomes impossible to get a full win, that's pushing things too far the other way.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#587601
Armus wrote: Mon Oct 24, 2022 5:16 pm Given that even speed solvers (to say nothing of slower more balanced decks) already struggle to get a full win in time
Is this the fundamental obstacle to creating a balanced rock-paper-scissors environment? Speed is simultaneously too fast (in that it outpaces other builds) and too slow (in that players are generally unwilling to tolerate a game that lasts longer than 80 minutes). So there's nothing we can do: everything we do to fix one horn of the dilemma makes the other horn worse, and eventually has to be cancelled out by a different change on the other side.

Thinking out loud here. Probably inappropriately.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#587604
I mean, it's solvable, if you're willing to consider fundamental mechanical changes to the game and rules themselves.

Look at your ideal state of (more turns, fewer decisions per turn)... we can limit the number of things you can do in a turn, but it would require some fairly massive changes to the 1e rules themselves.

Costing systems are a thing (look at 2e! *ducks*), card type play limits are a thing, hell, limiting the number of orders you can execute is a thing!

I'm not necessarily advocating for any of these, but anything is possible if you're willing to accept tradeoffs.
User avatar
 
By boromirofborg (Trek Barnes)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
1E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
2E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
#587605
I think so, in a nutshell.

In a perfect world (for me, to be clear, my opinion only), I would want doing *a* mission to feel live an achievement. But that might mean 6-7 turns to get there, between having to fight or dodge a battle, losing a needed crew, someone coming down with transporter phobia, Luther Sloan appearing out of nowhere to Capture someone, my ship having to return to base because of an incoming message....

But, as Armus pointed out, part of the issue is time. And the seed phase (which I love) and setup parts of a turn take so long. (And the setup parts of a turn taking so long exacerbate the lack of interaction, because without interaction, it's even less fun for my opponent to sit back during a 10 minute turn when they have no input.)


I think back to the multiplayer format that was mentioned (apologies, I forget who to credit for the format. I think shipnerd) that BCS commented on. Where you have a setup turn OR an action turn, but not both and how that helped the flow of things.


I guess, ideally I want the play phase to be quick, and the orders phase to be interactive. Not a lot of time where the opponent is doing nothing.
 
By StuartL
 - Alpha Quadrant
 -  
#587609
Personally I'm very much in favour of increasing players' ability to interact with each other more. It is quite easy for the game to be two people playing simultaneous solitaire.

However I also feel that interaction shouldn't be too powerful. For example, my regular opponent runs a [Fed] deck almost exclusively. I could stock my deck with Incoming Message: Federation cards and lock him out of every mission that doesn't have a facility for most of the game. I don't do that as that wouldn't be fun for either of us. If I were attending an event where I would expect to face decks from every affiliation, I wouldn't use Incoming Message as it is too narrow in its focus.

Interaction cards should not be able to affect an entire ship and crew, potentially across multiple turns IMHO. Stopping/relocating a few key personnel, or bouncing a card back to a player's hand feels like enough power with the cost of a single Interrupt card. They should also have the potential for use against every affiliation/deck under the right circumstances.

As an example, Thine Own Self is about the right level for me. It can stop any opponent from redshirting dilemmas but it isn't going to prevent them from winning if I have 20 copies in my draw deck. I'm trading one card for 1 or 2 (probably expendable) personnel, and maybe forcing my opponent to run into a serious dilemma combo with no way to avoid it.

If the CC wants to ramp up the power a little, they can do so by having the interaction card cost you a card play (e.g. an event card), a card draw, or even deducting points from your total for the truly powerful pieces. There is a lot of design space available I feel, but balancing things is a top priority.

That's my :twocents: anyway.
User avatar
 
By Smiley (Cristoffer Wiker)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#587637
The short answer is a lot more than we have today.

Others have brought up both things that are a problem as well as suitable solutions. One solution that was not addressed was the use of bans/rotation.

The game state is attainable if we let it be the focus and not dwell too much on what has been and try to keep that as well. The game changes for each card introduced, and without an Escher-staircase in place, we are bound to repeat ourselves and have a continuous power creep.

Finding our way back to the card play economy would be an excellent way to solve this problem.
User avatar
 
By stressedoutatumc (stressedoutatumc)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#587664
This question or, rather, constant line of questions is built on faulty premise...that the game in it's current form doesn't have enough interaction.

I think it's also important to differentiate between OTF and non-OTF play. A tournament day is long and grueling enough...the games literally cannot be any longer.

Overall, the main interaction of Trek has always been in the dilemma. I would say the CC has done a great job with the last set of creating situations through dilemma to enhance their interaction anyway. Khan is pretty dang fun. Dilemma interactions have always been the focus...it's literally half the game.

I don't want Star Trek to be more like other games. It's is own thing and is fine not being those other games.
User avatar
 
By boromirofborg (Trek Barnes)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
1E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
2E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
#587679
See, I would argue they don't have enough interaction.

The dilemma phase is great, but if we rewind all the way back to the beginning, there's a lot of interaction that's no longer part of the game compared to when I bought those decks in 1995.

- Can no longer attempt opponent's missions
- Most ways of interacting with opponents hand are gone
- Some ways of interacting with dilemmas (scans) are gone
- Basic counter interaction has potential punishments (Kevin/Amanda)
- You can't use rogue Borg
- you can't wormhole opponents ships
- you can't interact during the seeding (fast seeding)
- there's no interaction of Supernova
- You can't anti-time anomaly
- the "pollution" events to interact with the space line are nerfed.

Now, to be clear, I support pretty much all those changes overall. But removing each of them has left a hole.

So now the dilemma interaction is, I would argue, 90+% of the interaction in any given game, and most of that interaction is determined in the seed phase, no way to alter it later.

I posit this scenario is true:
If we both to the seed phase, then copied the table. I was at my table, you were at your table. The only cards of yours that I see are the dilemmas. It's a solitaire race to see who can solve the missions quicker.

That would probably mean no changes to a significant amount of games that are played.

I agree, the time issue is a quandary.

I would be much happier to lose to having my crew be assimilated / killed / reti-eeled, over a dilemma lockout.
User avatar
 
By stressedoutatumc (stressedoutatumc)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#587785
boromirofborg wrote: Tue Oct 25, 2022 6:03 pm See, I would argue they don't have enough interaction.

The dilemma phase is great, but if we rewind all the way back to the beginning, there's a lot of interaction that's no longer part of the game compared to when I bought those decks in 1995.

- Can no longer attempt opponent's missions
- Most ways of interacting with opponents hand are gone
- Some ways of interacting with dilemmas (scans) are gone
- Basic counter interaction has potential punishments (Kevin/Amanda)
- You can't use rogue Borg
- you can't wormhole opponents ships
- you can't interact during the seeding (fast seeding)
- there's no interaction of Supernova
- You can't anti-time anomaly
- the "pollution" events to interact with the space line are nerfed.

Now, to be clear, I support pretty much all those changes overall. But removing each of them has left a hole.

So now the dilemma interaction is, I would argue, 90+% of the interaction in any given game, and most of that interaction is determined in the seed phase, no way to alter it later.

I posit this scenario is true:
If we both to the seed phase, then copied the table. I was at my table, you were at your table. The only cards of yours that I see are the dilemmas. It's a solitaire race to see who can solve the missions quicker.

That would probably mean no changes to a significant amount of games that are played.

I agree, the time issue is a quandary.

I would be much happier to lose to having my crew be assimilated / killed / reti-eeled, over a dilemma lockout.
I think the main issue here is we have to accept that there are different ways to play this game, and that's ok.

The game you are describing still exists. Just play original format with original cards. The un-errata'd version of every card is preserved on this site. Just find people and go for it. It's not OTF, but that's ok. It doesn't have to be. OTF, in many ways, is a way to play a tournament in less than 389 hours. It has to be faster and cleaner and most of the "interaction" that was removed is really just a form of griefing, anyway. Having just played nationals, it's just a different game, and that's ok, too. Games like MTG have different formats for different player preferences. It would be terrible if everyone had to play Commander, which is the dumbest format imaginable.
 
By NoComment
 - Alpha Quadrant
 -  
#589830
mtg has a gigantic playerbase that can easily support many formats. 1e is tiny, its hard to fire any games outside of tournies already, so we are left with otf. there ia no option to "just find other players"
maybe otf online could be split off and give games more playtiime. the non-linear structure could easily allow for games to take as long as needed.
i also think a major issue is stalling. sure sometimes you need time to think about your actions. but some players are so immensly slow that it becomes unfair

for the initial q. i think there is enough interaction as is, just nobody plays them.
obsession, valiant seed and pollution events are still competitive imo, niall also finds interaction all the time
1EFQ: Game of two halves

Honestly, I don’t think I’ve re[…]

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!!

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

Opponents turn

Remodulation