Check out the trials and troubles of the first Will of the Collective, where the community designed a card for the first time!

Which concept should become the first WotC card?

Concept A
6
9%
Concept B
5
7%
Concept C
19
28%
Concept D
1
1%
Concept E
6
9%
Concept F
2
3%
Concept G
13
19%
Concept H
6
9%
Concept I
3
4%
Concept J
6
9%
User avatar
Ambassador
By Linkan (Torbjörn Lindquist)
 - Ambassador
 -  
Architect
#6627
The Guardian wrote:I think that I will pick between C and G. Does anyone have any arguments either way to try to convince me?
I think dilemma C has more to offer in Will of the Collective, and hope that concept G is used by TCC for another card in the (not to far) future.
User avatar
Ambassador
By Linkan (Torbjörn Lindquist)
 - Ambassador
 -  
Architect
#6628
SirRogue wrote:I wish I hadn't totally missed the boat on the concept submission. I would have liked to seen something that combines Timescape with a wall. "Unless you have (X), all personnel and ships you command are stopped."
One of my concepts could have been combined nicely with Timescape, "Abort a mission atempt without stopping the personnel". The one of my concepts I really hoped to go to this section. I think I would have voted C anyway in this stage, because of its potential though.
User avatar
 
By RedDwarf (Unjustly Banned)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#6630
The Guardian wrote:I think that I will pick between C and G. Does anyone have any arguments either way to try to convince me?
C - How often do you actually consume dilemmas? What are the chances of this dilemma being on the top of your pile when you're about to consume? In short, would this dilemma get played much?

G- Think about what would you change to your deck if a dilemma like this existed. This type of dilemma should force players to broaden the scope of their decks. Bajoran Integrity solvers, Klingon Strength solvers, and many more decks would have to include other cards just because this dilemma exists. In short, this dilemma should change the way we build decks.

:twocents:
User avatar
 
By ikeya (David Kuck)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#6631
RedDwarf wrote:G- Think about what would you change to your deck if a dilemma like this existed. This type of dilemma should force players to broaden the scope of their decks. Bajoran Integrity solvers, Klingon Strength solvers, and many more decks would have to include other cards just because this dilemma exists. In short, this dilemma should change the way we build decks.
Maybe I'm too conservative, but I think that if this happens, it should either be temporary (maybe Decay?) or perhaps just adding another requirement i.e., you ALSO need minimum 20 strength or integrity or something now.

If I'm running Brute Force, I think it's a bit too drastic to say "You must attempt and complete this mission using Cunning instead of Strength".

It should change some of my deck process but not force to have a complete balance. That'll just force everyone to switch to playing Feds and 6-6-6 personnel.

Changes that restrict certain decks can be bad. Changes that make other decks more competitive are good! :)
User avatar
 
By charlie
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Grand Nagus
#6632
I agree that it could become too powerful. I like the idea of it decaying or disappearing after something happens. Maybe they would have to complete a different type of mission, space if it hit on a planet or planet if it hit on a space and then leaving the game. It could be made unique to that you cannot have more than 1 in play at any time. Of course you are still facing it so that point may be moot since you can only face 1 copy of a dilemma at a time. I would like to see many of these choices make their way into the game. There are some real good ideas here. :thumbsup:
User avatar
Second Edition Design Manager
By The Guardian (Richard New)
 - Second Edition Design Manager
 -  
#6633
ikeya wrote:
RedDwarf wrote:G- Think about what would you change to your deck if a dilemma like this existed. This type of dilemma should force players to broaden the scope of their decks. Bajoran Integrity solvers, Klingon Strength solvers, and many more decks would have to include other cards just because this dilemma exists. In short, this dilemma should change the way we build decks.
Maybe I'm too conservative, but I think that if this happens, it should either be temporary (maybe Decay?) or perhaps just adding another requirement i.e., you ALSO need minimum 20 strength or integrity or something now.

If I'm running Brute Force, I think it's a bit too drastic to say "You must attempt and complete this mission using Cunning instead of Strength".

It should change some of my deck process but not force to have a complete balance. That'll just force everyone to switch to playing Feds and 6-6-6 personnel.

Changes that restrict certain decks can be bad. Changes that make other decks more competitive are good! :)
What if the dilemma was built to "nudge" the game closer to balanced attributes. For instance, what if the requirement for it not being put on the mission was the difference between the highest attribute and the lowest attribute present < 15? Then, you could still run your Dominion Strength-only deck, but without some Cunning or Integrity around, you might work a little slower. All of this may be getting ahead of ourselves, but my point is that implementing the decision is not our problem right now. It's deciding what we want to work on. And if you want to disregard a decision just because you think it's impossible to make balanced (not to put words in your mouth)...well, that almost makes me want to vote for it all the more.
User avatar
 
By ikeya (David Kuck)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#6639
The Guardian wrote:What if the dilemma was built to "nudge" the game closer to balanced attributes. For instance, what if the requirement for it not being put on the mission was the difference between the highest attribute and the lowest attribute present < 15? Then, you could still run your Dominion Strength-only deck, but without some Cunning or Integrity around, you might work a little slower. All of this may be getting ahead of ourselves, but my point is that implementing the decision is not our problem right now. It's deciding what we want to work on. And if you want to disregard a decision just because you think it's impossible to make balanced (not to put words in your mouth)...well, that almost makes me want to vote for it all the more.
Nudging is good. :) I don't want to see it not be done just because it could be a more difficult one to balance properly.

Agreed that I was probably getting ahead of myself in the implementation. Just campaigning a little bit against this one I guess is more what I was doing. ;) I voted for I myself, but I think C could be a good one to work on too. (They're all good ideas and could be explored at some time) I just have more of a reward someone for doing something cool, not punish them for not conforming philosophy when it comes to gaming.
User avatar
 
By wweist
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#6643
The Guardian wrote:I think that I will pick between C and G. Does anyone have any arguments either way to try to convince me?
I have been trying to decide based on revitalizing "Binder Fodder". Which of these has the most potential of digging out a seldom used card from the binder? I would say "E" of the choices listed, but "C" is still a bit open as to what its effect will be... "G" seems a bit too powerful.
 
By Foreman
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
#6645
Another concern about G.

We would have to consider how an ability like this would interact with events such as Wariiors Birthrite. (Allows you to complete using strength)
User avatar
Achievement Master
By SirRogue
 - Achievement Master
 -  
Emperor
#6646
The Guardian wrote:For instance, what if the requirement for it not being put on the mission was the difference between the highest attribute and the lowest attribute present < 15?
Hrm, an interesting idea, but it feels a bit cumbersome in the wording, and would take a lot of playtesting to find a good window. And it wouldn't affect everyone you are trying to hit. Sure, my 4 person [Baj] team of choice has Integrity 36 and Strength 19 (just barely misses the mark), but my 4 person [Dom] team of choice has Strength 34 and Cunning 25. Finding a window like that that would be effective against [Baj] Integrity, [Dom] or [Kli] Strength, and [E] Gen Enhanced Cunning solvers will be difficult to impossible.
User avatar
Achievement Master
By SirRogue
 - Achievement Master
 -  
Emperor
#6647
Foreman wrote:Another concern about G.

We would have to consider how an ability like this would interact with events such as Wariiors Birthrite. (Allows you to complete using strength)
True, whether it was worded as a dilemma to pass or as something that modified the mission requirements, Warrior's Birthright would still subvert it.
User avatar
 
By Keller
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#6654
RedDwarf wrote:
The Guardian wrote:I think that I will pick between C and G. Does anyone have any arguments either way to try to convince me?
C - How often do you actually consume dilemmas? What are the chances of this dilemma being on the top of your pile when you're about to consume? In short, would this dilemma get played much?
You're assuming all that happens is a decision between adding it to a dilemma pile or not adding it. The very existence of dilemmas that trigger when consumed changes the calculus of consume dilemmas. More consume dilemmas would get played, because the dilemma they consume could now be more than just a lost dilemma. And more consume dilemmas means a greater chance that the dilemma you want consumed is at the top, ESPECIALLY in the late game, when it gets harder to deal with mission attempts.

Think about this: you opponent is on the second attempt of his third mission, you have maybe 4 to play with, and of the 6 or 7 dilemmas remaining in your pile, 3 of them trigger when consumed (because you chose to never play them, they always get recycled). You might be able to stop a team of 9 with 4 cost IF you play two consume dilemmas, trigger the effects of 1-3 consumed dilemmas.
 
By Foreman
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
#6655
Foreman wrote:Another concern about G.

We would have to consider how an ability like this would interact with events such as Wariiors Birthrite. (Allows you to complete using strength)
I had tried to edit this earlier but I got the "service unavailable" message. I thought we were done with that.

What I wanted to add is that I am concerned about a "g" type dilemma making some other dilemmas obsolete. Right now if you want the opponent to need another stat to complete the mission you can play a dilemma that requires that stat like excalbian drama or fesarius bluff. It might be better to jsut make more dilemmas like this that key of different stats.
User avatar
Second Edition Design Manager
By The Guardian (Richard New)
 - Second Edition Design Manager
 -  
#6656
SirRogue wrote:
The Guardian wrote:For instance, what if the requirement for it not being put on the mission was the difference between the highest attribute and the lowest attribute present < 15?
Hrm, an interesting idea, but it feels a bit cumbersome in the wording, and would take a lot of playtesting to find a good window. And it wouldn't affect everyone you are trying to hit. Sure, my 4 person [Baj] team of choice has Integrity 36 and Strength 19 (just barely misses the mark), but my 4 person [Dom] team of choice has Strength 34 and Cunning 25. Finding a window like that that would be effective against [Baj] Integrity, [Dom] or [Kli] Strength, and [E] Gen Enhanced Cunning solvers will be difficult to impossible.
It was just the first thing that came to mind. I'm sure we could iron out a better idea. Also, 15 seemed about right in my mind. Maybe 10 or less would be better for that intent. I don't know yet. Again, that isn't the intent of this decision. I do know that I like the idea of slowing down speed decks, and this dilemma would do that better than most of the others.
User avatar
Second Edition Design Manager
By The Guardian (Richard New)
 - Second Edition Design Manager
 -  
#6657
Foreman wrote:What I wanted to add is that I am concerned about a "g" type dilemma making some other dilemmas obsolete. Right now if you want the opponent to need another stat to complete the mission you can play a dilemma that requires that stat like excalbian drama or fesarius bluff. It might be better to jsut make more dilemmas like this that key of different stats.
Dilemmas that hit the same thing don't make each other obsolete, they make each other better with more focus on a single theme.

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

Come play tonight! https://www.trekcc.org/tournam[…]

What's Good These Days?

Anyone make a good DS9 Ferengi deck yet? Sta[…]

Sorry I'll have to miss this. Going down to Key La[…]