This forums is for questions, answers, and discussion about First Edition rules, formats, and expansions.
 
By Klauser
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#593726
BCSWowbagger wrote: Fri Feb 10, 2023 10:02 pm ...
Even though I now wear a green badge, I have often found that the fastest way to make something happen at the CC is to do it and then ask for official blessing. That's no slight against the CC; I am obviously quite a fan of the CC! It's just that there are a lot more good ideas for projects than there are people + coordinators to bring projects to fruition, and the best way to prove to people that your idea is actually worth doing is to do it so well it blows their socks off.
Excellent point. Several years back I floated the idea of doing a small set of Star Trek Animated Series starter decks (2 players, [OS] for [Fed] and [Kli]). It was designed as a simple entry point aimed at younger players and was designed to be compatible with the existing [OS] pool of cards. I even developed a prototype and submitted it for evaluation. The initial conversations were positive, mainly because we had an initial draft as a starting point.

(( Unfortunately my timing was absolutely horrible - it was right about the time COVID-19 hit. Real world employment drama drew me away from home and hobbies for over a year, and I'm just as sure it was equally as turbulent for CC members.))
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#593727
Klauser wrote: Sat Feb 11, 2023 1:23 pm
BCSWowbagger wrote: Fri Feb 10, 2023 10:02 pm ...
Even though I now wear a green badge, I have often found that the fastest way to make something happen at the CC is to do it and then ask for official blessing. That's no slight against the CC; I am obviously quite a fan of the CC! It's just that there are a lot more good ideas for projects than there are people + coordinators to bring projects to fruition, and the best way to prove to people that your idea is actually worth doing is to do it so well it blows their socks off.
Excellent point. Several years back I floated the idea of doing a small set of Star Trek Animated Series starter decks (2 players, [OS] for [Fed] and [Kli]). It was designed as a simple entry point aimed at younger players and was designed to be compatible with the existing [OS] pool of cards. I even developed a prototype and submitted it for evaluation. The initial conversations were positive, mainly because we had an initial draft as a starting point.

(( Unfortunately my timing was absolutely horrible - it was right about the time COVID-19 hit. Real world employment drama drew me away from home and hobbies for over a year, and I'm just as sure it was equally as turbulent for CC members.))
This concept is one that's been incorporated into the project plan. It's currently known as Project Pink Floyd and is currently in the early stages of development.
User avatar
Director of Operations
By JeBuS (Brian S)
 - Director of Operations
 -  
1E Deep Space 9 Regional Champion 2023
#593730
@Takket
I've given the idea of a nuOTSD quite a lot of thought. When I was putting together the Chicago Cube and when the OTSD remaster came out, I had a lot of opportunity to think on what would be good for such a thing. Here are some conclusions I came to, in no particular order:

Rarity shouldn't matter.
For several reasons, throw the idea of rarity right out the window. If you want any virtual cards, rarity is a useless metric for inclusion into the card pool. Secondly, not all Rares are created equal, especially in a limited & random card pool format. As an example, I've played in OTSD tournaments where I've gotten 5 rare Artifacts, but zero rare Personnel. In fact, I didn't get enough Personnel to actually solve any missions that time. Which leads to...

'Packs' should be about card types, not sets.
The above example is only one of many where I or others have been screwed by the randomness of the OTSD booster packs. As another example, I've also had it where the only Dilemmas I had were the OTSD set pieces. 6 Dilemmas for a whole tournament. If, instead, you got a 'pack' of Dilemmas (accounting for a good mix of [1E-S] [Dual] [1E-P]), a 'pack' (or two) of Personnel, etc.

Basic skill matrices should be accounted for in the generator.
It does no good to hand a new player a nuOTSD, only for them to end up with 16 personnel with Greed and Treachery, when all of their missions require ENGINEER and Computer Skill. Using the magic of programming, we can solve that. You can guarantee that players get at least one skill level for each of the requirements on their Missions and / or that their Missions get some diversity of requirements. I did this, on a broader scale, for the Chicago Cube card pool.

I have more thoughts, but not the time to write them at the moment. (And maybe this isn't the right thread for it, anyway.)
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#593745
JeBuS wrote: Sat Feb 11, 2023 1:47 pm 'Packs' should be about card types, not sets.
The above example is only one of many where I or others have been screwed by the randomness of the OTSD booster packs. As another example, I've also had it where the only Dilemmas I had were the OTSD set pieces. 6 Dilemmas for a whole tournament. If, instead, you got a 'pack' of Dilemmas (accounting for a good mix of [1E-S] [Dual] [1E-P]), a 'pack' (or two) of Personnel, etc.
I'd say rather than by packs, it should be by card slots.

We know what a reasonable deck build should be by card type (6 missions, 18ish dilemmas, etc and so forths), so you can dedicate card slots in the pack so that on average you're getting the right proportions.
User avatar
 
By Smiley (Cristoffer Wiker)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#593750
I would like to add the concept of "complexity" to the list as well.
This was achieved with the help of rarity back in the days, something that we have lost since we began with the virtual cards. Now any card can be as good and often as complex as any other card. This is not a good first encounter with this card game.
User avatar
 
By WeAreBack
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#594000
Klauser wrote: Sat Feb 11, 2023 1:23 pm Several years back I floated the idea of doing a small set of Star Trek Animated Series starter decks (2 players, [OS] for [Fed] and [Kli]).
Does CC have the rights to the Animated series?

Also, I've recently re-watched the animated series and, thinking about something similar myself, took note of the characters in each episode. I don't think there are neough people for a [Kli] affiliation, even using the folks with no lines. It would probably need to be [Fed] and everyone else (basically [NA], [Kli] [1E-Rom].)
 
By Klauser
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#594023
WeAreBack wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 5:46 pm
Klauser wrote: Sat Feb 11, 2023 1:23 pm Several years back I floated the idea of doing a small set of Star Trek Animated Series starter decks (2 players, [OS] for [Fed] and [Kli]).
Does CC have the rights to the Animated series?

Also, I've recently re-watched the animated series and, thinking about something similar myself, took note of the characters in each episode. I don't think there are neough people for a [Kli] affiliation, even using the folks with no lines. It would probably need to be [Fed] and everyone else (basically [NA], [Kli] [1E-Rom].)
On your second point here, when I developed my TAS draft I was able to build 12 different Klingon characters. I researched online (primarily Memory Alpha and TrekCore) . More than half had names (from multiple sources). I also scoured the TAS DVDs for the episodes with Klingons in them - and once all that was complete, I came up with 12 Klingon characters. I made seven of them ❖. During deck development, I included the 5 unique characters x1, and the seven ❖ x2 which gave me a starting personnel cadre of 19 characters. The big challenge was there was only one female Klingon character shown in TAS. She was a minor character, so I made her ❖ , but that still wasn't enough. So I developed and included [NA] females to round out a basic deck.

The Feds on the other hand had almost too many characters in the series, so I had the reverse problem. Ultimately, the two decks I submitted each had 4-5 [NA] characters.
1EFQ: Game of two halves

Or maybe keep your unsolicited snark to yo[…]

Vulcan Lander and its ability

What constrains this strategy is the number of c[…]

Ignoring point losses & Timing

I would be interested in the answer to this as wel[…]

Greetings 'trek fans! As discussed in our Februar[…]