Check out the trials and troubles of the first Will of the Collective, where the community designed a card for the first time!
User avatar
 
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#15798
I'll second (or third or twelth) the suggestion of voting on cost - in part because I'm curious what the difference would be between space, planet, and dual.

Also, with these small 45 card sets, I think we only need one variety - the parallel version should be in a later set (if at all)
User avatar
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#15805
MilesStuntDouble wrote:Am I the only one that thinks 2 is a bit high?
No, it isn't too high. As others have mentioned, it is a skill-targeted kill for zero dilemmas under (or -1 consume, depending on how you look at it). Cost 2 is a bargain (as a carrot should be).
User avatar
Director of First Edition
By MidnightLich (Charlie Plaine)
 - Director of First Edition
 -  
Trailblazer
#15809
The cost is calculated from the "Top Secret Formula" and is derived based on what the dilemma does. (Of course, this is an assumption based on my understanding, as I'm not privy to the top secret club that gets to see the formula.) Regardless, cost isn't something that can be "voted" on because it's derived from the text.

But, I will run the idea of a [D] version past the current design team, as well as the idea of a parallel space version. We can see what kinds of effects it would have and then - if it's possible - bring the matter to a vote.

So we'll take a look for ya. But for now - go vote on the title.

-crp
User avatar
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#15815
MidnightLich wrote:The cost is calculated from the "Top Secret Formula" and is derived based on what the dilemma does. (Of course, this is an assumption based on my understanding, as I'm not privy to the top secret club that gets to see the formula.) Regardless, cost isn't something that can be "voted" on because it's derived from the text.

But, I will run the idea of a [D] version past the current design team, as well as the idea of a parallel space version. We can see what kinds of effects it would have and then - if it's possible - bring the matter to a vote.

So we'll take a look for ya. But for now - go vote on the title.

-crp
Excellent.
 
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#15892
So while 2 might seem like a bargain for a "kill your choice". However, by and large, the number of Consume dilemmas were Consume Me! makes a worthwhile combination is small. Roughly 20% of Consume Dilemmas are simply "finishers" that are going to practically stop the whole team anyways: In Training, No Kill I, Zero Hour, Outmatched, and Temporal Misalignment, Up the Ante. You *could* use Consume Me! with those dilemmas, but in the end, all you will end up with a weak Barrier's Effect. Then there are dilemmas that simply are never really going to see serious play: Crew Advancement, Coordinated Effort, Financial Pitfall, Toe to Toe, Profitable Venture (nearly a strictly worse version of Entanglement), and Molecular Mishap. In the middle, there are a select few dilemma where Consume Me! makes a good match. These include Casualties, Charged Particle Parcipitation, Biochemical Hyperacceration, Tragic Turn, A Royal Hunt, and Final Adventure.

Even if you do build a deck around all these consume the dilemmas... you only can plan on the benefit if you draw Consume Me! and only once for each copy you draw. So if you play two three consume dilemmas, with only one Consume Me, you are going to be stuck paying full price for the other one or two. Moreover, even if you stock 5-6 copies of the above dilemmas in your dilemma pile (with a total size of 40), the odds of actually drawing one of them, given that you draw Consume Me! out of 9 cards, is only 75% (Even at 12 in 60, 85%). So even if you plan to use it... Consume Me! is really only effective 38% of the time.

Lastly, you still have to Consume dilemmas. I am not too sure about a dilemma strategy where the intent it to use a lot of dilemmas that intentionally places additional dilemmas under the mission- even if you do get a slightly added benefit.

I could be wrong, but in the end, I would cost Consume Me! aggressively and test it a lot so that we have a good card people are happy to play with as opposed to a card that looks exciting, but is not as good as it looks. I think we should price it at 0- and raise it if needed, as opposed to sticking to 2 and not being able to lower it. Especially in the design process, it is much easier to justify raising a cost than to lower it.

If there is one thing I have learn about dilemmas is that, in general, since dilemma draws are random, the best strategy for dilemmas are to focus on dilemmas that can hold their own. Consume Me does not fall under that category, so applying some "secret formula" (the same "secret formula" that gave us under priced weenies) is not necessarily appropriate.
User avatar
 
By charlie
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Grand Nagus
#15907
We currently have a way of subtracting 1 from any planet or space dilemma when combined with Conscious of the KIng. So I feel that 2 is more than fair in its cost.
 
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#15973
Mugato wrote: https://www.trekcc.org/2e/index.php?id=4&cardID=953

Now that people attempt planets last more often, you have time to set this up.

Jared
charlie wrote: We currently have a way of subtracting 1 from any planet or space dilemma when combined with Conscious of the KIng. So I feel that 2 is more than fair in its cost.
Sure, but then, you can use the same justifications to raise the cost of *any* planet dilemma. That does not make any sense.

Moreover, as I pointed out, the more a dilemma relies on other cards, the worse it gets. So while you can reduce the cost of dilemmas with cost X, Y or Z, that does not make the dilemma any more worthwhile relative to other dilemmas (since their cost is reduced too!)

My main point is this: I would rather, in design, start with a cost of 0, and raise it during testing as we see appropriate so we have a card everyone likes as opposed to a card that looks good and exiciting on paper, but in reality, is not worth playing.

If it were a 0-cost dual dilemma, would that really be too good... even after considering that you have to use (draw and play) a specific set of dilemma in conjunction with it?
User avatar
 
By Lysander
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#15984
MilesStuntDouble wrote:
Mugato wrote: https://www.trekcc.org/2e/index.php?id=4&cardID=953

Now that people attempt planets last more often, you have time to set this up.

Jared
charlie wrote: We currently have a way of subtracting 1 from any planet or space dilemma when combined with Conscious of the KIng. So I feel that 2 is more than fair in its cost.
Sure, but then, you can use the same justifications to raise the cost of *any* planet dilemma. That does not make any sense.

Moreover, as I pointed out, the more a dilemma relies on other cards, the worse it gets. So while you can reduce the cost of dilemmas with cost X, Y or Z, that does not make the dilemma any more worthwhile relative to other dilemmas (since their cost is reduced too!)

My main point is this: I would rather, in design, start with a cost of 0, and raise it during testing as we see appropriate so we have a card everyone likes as opposed to a card that looks good and exiciting on paper, but in reality, is not worth playing.

If it were a 0-cost dual dilemma, would that really be too good... even after considering that you have to use (draw and play) a specific set of dilemma in conjunction with it?
Consume is calculated as a cost, what this dilemma does is remove that cost and turn it into an advantage. you basically are adding two to the cost of any consume dilema and making consume mean: kill one person of your opponent's choice. I'd say that is powerful. The fact it only works 33% of the time is why it only costs 2, if it worked all the time it would cost 4 or 5.
 
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#15987
Lysander wrote: Consume is calculated as a cost, what this dilemma does is remove that cost and turn it into an advantage. you basically are adding two to the cost of any consume dilema and making consume mean: kill one person of your opponent's choice. I'd say that is powerful. The fact it only works 33% of the time is why it only costs 2, if it worked all the time it would cost 4 or 5.
I am fully aware of how Consume works and how Consume Me can turn that cost into an advantage.

Nonetheless, the idea that "2 is cheap for a selected kill" is taken slightly out of context. The dilemma is only effective with a few select handful of dilemmas (Tragic Turn, CPP, Casualties, and a couple others), so Consume effectively costs 4 or 5 anyways- granted you get a slighted added benefit. But that cheapness only occurs a fraction of the time.

Again, the bottom line is that we should see how low the cost can go. During the design process, we can always increase the cost as needed, but it will be impossible afterwards.

Until people have really tried it, it is not appropriate to conclude that 2 is the right cost.

... I have yet to read anyone comment regarding its cost being too low.
User avatar
 
By garetjax
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
Architect
2E Danish National Champion 2015
#16001
Roughly 20% of Consume Dilemmas are simply "finishers" that are going to practically stop the whole team anyways: In Training, No Kill I, Zero Hour, Outmatched, and Temporal Misalignment, Up the Ante. You *could* use Consume Me! with those dilemmas, but in the end, all you will end up with a weak Barrier's Effect.
No it is a better than Barrier`s Effect. If you use these "Finishers", why not use Consume Me! in addition. In the end you will have the same amount of dilemmas under the mission plus an additional kill.
User avatar
 
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Socialite
#16012
*Shock* I disagree with MSD.
MilesStuntDouble wrote: Even if you do build a deck around all these consume the dilemmas... you only can plan on the benefit if you draw Consume Me! and only once for each copy you draw. So if you play two three consume dilemmas, with only one Consume Me, you are going to be stuck paying full price for the other one or two. Moreover, even if you stock 5-6 copies of the above dilemmas in your dilemma pile (with a total size of 40), the odds of actually drawing one of them, given that you draw Consume Me! out of 9 cards, is only 75% (Even at 12 in 60, 85%). So even if you plan to use it... Consume Me! is really only effective 38% of the time.
You should get a job on Fox News. They love to do this too - forget to mention the obvious that hurts their slanted viewpoint. You dont need to draw CM! to luck into its benefit. It could just happen to be there for you. If i stock 3 in my dilemma pile of 30, and my opponent attempts space first, i actually DONT want to draw into any because then I would have an increased chance of the kill at random. Since I know i'm already playing a consuming pile, i feel pretty confident i will luck into at least 1 CM! when i've consume somewhere between 3 and 8 out of my pile of 22.
Lastly, you still have to Consume dilemmas. I am not too sure about a dilemma strategy where the intent it to use a lot of dilemmas that intentionally places additional dilemmas under the mission- even if you do get a slightly added benefit.
That its only a *slightly* added benefit is a matter of opinion. I can line up a row of MN players who can attest the effectiveness of my Tragic Turn pile. When you figure in that your deck strategy will or should synergize with your dilemma pile (and vice versa) the benefit is obvious - my dp kills some more effectively, my deck kills some which = i win i hope. When my opp has 22 people in his deck and my deck kills 8 and my dp kills 8, he's left with only 6 to solve his third mission - and those 6 will often need to be the right 6. Not exactly a slight benefit.

Basically, i dont think you can judge the power or benefit of a dilemma in a vacuum. You dont just play the dilemma without anything else.
I think we should price it at 0- and raise it if needed, as opposed to sticking to 2 and not being able to lower it. Especially in the design process, it is much easier to justify raising a cost than to lower it.
When CM! is randomly consumed for the kill without setting itself up - it did cost 0. You pay the 2 for the gaurantee of being on top AND getting a choice kill AND reducing the consume cost of another dilemma minus 1 - which to me makes 2 feel incredibly cheap. Otherwise, as i said, it cost you 0 when you get the benefit.
Q-Flashin'

Battle deck with The Issue Is Patriotism

I really enjoyed draft the couple times I've playe[…]

Hey folks. I'm bumping this thread to see what peo[…]

jadziadax8 MW treebel 40-35 Thanks for the good g[…]