For posting 1E deck designs for feedback from other players and members of the community.
User avatar
 
By DarkSabre (Austin Chandler)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#553044
Hoss-Drone wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 3:22 pm
DarkSabre wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 3:07 pm
It isn't about 'the best dilemmas in the game' vs 'the weakest'. Dilemmas are situation and meta nuanced. However given the severe speed of decks now (under 6 turn wins), the copy and print way people are playing decks now, and the lack of seed slots available for real good dilemma combos makes it a lot easier to go with 'the best dilemmas that can slow down an opponent when I can only put 2 or 3 dilemmas under a mission'
This sounds like old man yells at cloud I hate how the way things are now, darn kids and their skateboards doing things different than the way I do them. Rather than an actual critique of dilemma power and otf. With a hint of personal vendetta against the powers that be.

There is plenty of room to build all the way from Kevin style 2 dilemmas interferance deck all the way to sonsteby style 4 card combos everywhere castle and dimensions within each of those for strategies and variations. I know this bc I do this, see this and play against it.

I also know that a lot of players don't play the way I do bc they have their own style and also their own meta OR they don't know the meta and thus fall back on just "18 card good stuff" to paraphrase a mtg idea. These are all valid ways to play.

We can talk about helping out underpowered cards but there's nothing wrong with the choices players are making in their decks imho.
No personal vendetta. This is just my experience from playing, building decks, teaching new players, etc. You are starting to sound pretty defensive. Don’t start turning this into a ‘oh he has an axe to grind’. I don’t. Or is this an issue of not accepting other points of view on here? Are you are going to tell me that no other points of view besides yours and certain others are the only accepted ones on these forums?

Back to topic: Yes you can do two dilemma interference but guess what? It’s extremely limited. It’s not what the vast majority of the dilemmas in the game were designed for. It’s not what the majority of players can make do with certain deck designs.

You are sidestepping the issue I believe. Especially in consideration that many view you are one of the top players and deck designers in the game. People emulate and copy your decks and dilemma combos all the time. That is not a good thing for the health of the game because creativity, unique decks, and interesting combos are only being generated by a select pool of players while everyone just grabs the deck list and print and cuts it.

Speaking as someone who test played multiple types of decks weekly for a very long time, from my experience I believe the following: There is a very narrow chasm of where dilemmas and the seed phase is right now. There is a reason why the average dilemma combos are between 16 to 20. People have too much to seed that aren’t dilemmas, people are rushing to win in less than 6 turns, and free plays & draws have been pushed forward more and more as the years have gone by.

Neutering dilemmas, making new uber dilemmas, or smacking down the current top 30 dilemmas isn’t an answer to the current situation. Encouraging new deck & dilemma combo designs should be the goal.
User avatar
Director of Operations
By JeBuS (Brian S)
 - Director of Operations
 -  
1E Deep Space 9 Regional Champion 2023
#553056
DarkSabre wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 3:10 pm I always felt the game should have had 30 dilemma slots + 10 seed slots for other cards in the post Voyager era of the Decipher game.
This is an approach I've wanted as well. I wrote it into a draft 1.5e/3e rules doc once, too. It would be an interesting format to playtest. The balance would be pretty different, I think.

My main concern is that it would make speed solvers even better.
User avatar
 
By DarkSabre (Austin Chandler)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#553063
pfti wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 8:06 am Capping non-dilemma seeds at 10 would end a lot of decks.
Yeah that’s the downside of the idea. But if you make it more then you’ll have people having too much choice in what they are seeding.

Which decks specifically you think would have a hard time?

Mods maybe we can spin this topic into a new thread so we can discuss this elsewhere?
User avatar
 
By DarkSabre (Austin Chandler)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#553064
JeBuS wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 8:02 am
DarkSabre wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 3:10 pm I always felt the game should have had 30 dilemma slots + 10 seed slots for other cards in the post Voyager era of the Decipher game.
This is an approach I've wanted as well. I wrote it into a draft 1.5e/3e rules doc once, too. It would be an interesting format to playtest. The balance would be pretty different, I think.

My main concern is that it would make speed solvers even better.
It might. But it would also give decks the luxury of putting in dilemmas that could give speed solvers trouble as well. I think it would be an interesting thing to test. Revamping the entire seed phase would be the first thing a 1.5 revamp would need to do.
User avatar
Online OP Coordinator
By pfti (Jon Carter)
 - Online OP Coordinator
 -  
2E Cardassia Regional Champion 2023
#553066
DarkSabre wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 8:55 am
pfti wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 8:06 am Capping non-dilemma seeds at 10 would end a lot of decks.
Yeah that’s the downside of the idea. But if you make it more then you’ll have people having too much choice in what they are seeding.

Which decks specifically you think would have a hard time?

Mods maybe we can spin this topic into a new thread so we can discuss this elsewhere?
Decks not built around very narrow play engines or who need extra cards to travel etc (e.g. multi HQ rommies, GQ, stop kirk contact, most battle decks).
Also things like TNG fed and KCA flagship that already are seed light (current 24 dillema decks) get the 30 dilemmas plus 6 slots to spend on jump start or defense -- hence the probable move towards solvers.
User avatar
 
By DarkSabre (Austin Chandler)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#553184
pfti wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 9:04 am
DarkSabre wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 8:55 am
pfti wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 8:06 am Capping non-dilemma seeds at 10 would end a lot of decks.
Yeah that’s the downside of the idea. But if you make it more then you’ll have people having too much choice in what they are seeding.

Which decks specifically you think would have a hard time?

Mods maybe we can spin this topic into a new thread so we can discuss this elsewhere?
Decks not built around very narrow play engines or who need extra cards to travel etc (e.g. multi HQ rommies, GQ, stop kirk contact, most battle decks).
Also things like TNG fed and KCA flagship that already are seed light (current 24 dillema decks) get the 30 dilemmas plus 6 slots to spend on jump start or defense -- hence the probable move towards solvers.
It would be interesting to test it out though.
 
By HoodieDM
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#553592
DarkSabre wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 9:38 am
pfti wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 9:04 am
DarkSabre wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 8:55 am

Yeah that’s the downside of the idea. But if you make it more then you’ll have people having too much choice in what they are seeding.

Which decks specifically you think would have a hard time?

Mods maybe we can spin this topic into a new thread so we can discuss this elsewhere?
Decks not built around very narrow play engines or who need extra cards to travel etc (e.g. multi HQ rommies, GQ, stop kirk contact, most battle decks).
Also things like TNG fed and KCA flagship that already are seed light (current 24 dillema decks) get the 30 dilemmas plus 6 slots to spend on jump start or defense -- hence the probable move towards solvers.
It would be interesting to test it out though.
But why? Jon already told you certain decks would be hugely disadvantage and a few meta decks would emerge.
User avatar
Online OP Coordinator
By pfti (Jon Carter)
 - Online OP Coordinator
 -  
2E Cardassia Regional Champion 2023
#553596
To be fair, I could be wrong. I am sure there are 10 seed interference decks that would benefit from the added dilemmas. I just know that a handful of decks would be almost impossible to do at a speed that could keep up (hence why they need 18 non dilemma seeds to hit before the speed wins
User avatar
 
By DarkSabre (Austin Chandler)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#553598
HoodieDM wrote:
But why? Jon already told you certain decks would be hugely disadvantage and a few meta decks would emerge.
Because Jon, as he said above, could be wrong. That’s why we playtest.

I think it is more nuanced since some cards seed as a dilemma. You can even make new cards that would seed as dilemma. Anything that seeds during dilemma phase as an example would count towards dilemma count vs non dilemma seed phase. This could help those decks that Jon feels would be hurt by a lack of seed slots but would also benefit by having more dilemmas potentially.

It’s an interesting idea. It’s an evolution of OTF. Fixing seed phase & downloads would simplify a lot of issues for the game.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#553889
Hey, sorry, question about the card pool: I know that, in general, VPs are legal for a given tournament.

But can you play a watermarked VP in an online tournament?

I ask because of the TNG-logo Cybernetics Expertise VP, which is still watermarked, along with (I presume) the rest of the TNG promos.

This is one of those weird Organized Play quirks where I can never quite remember how it works.
User avatar
 
By Commander Joe (Joe Kallstrom)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#553898
BCSWowbagger wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 3:07 am Hey, sorry, question about the card pool: I know that, in general, VPs are legal for a given tournament.

But can you play a watermarked VP in an online tournament?

I ask because of the TNG-logo Cybernetics Expertise VP, which is still watermarked, along with (I presume) the rest of the TNG promos.

This is one of those weird Organized Play quirks where I can never quite remember how it works.
I was told during last year's TNG public playtesting tournament that they are not allowed. Maybe that was an error :cross: .

The card in question is the same one I inquired about then. That tournament began on June 5th, 2020. How long do cards stay watermarked for?
User avatar
Chief Programmer
By eberlems
 - Chief Programmer
 -  
Explorer
2E European Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
2E  National Second Runner-Up 2023
#553899
Commander Joe wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 7:22 am
BCSWowbagger wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 3:07 am Hey, sorry, question about the card pool: I know that, in general, VPs are legal for a given tournament.

But can you play a watermarked VP in an online tournament?

I ask because of the TNG-logo Cybernetics Expertise VP, which is still watermarked, along with (I presume) the rest of the TNG promos.

This is one of those weird Organized Play quirks where I can never quite remember how it works.
I was told during last year's TNG public playtesting tournament that they are not allowed. Maybe that was an error :cross: .

The card in question is the same one I inquired about then. That tournament began on June 5th, 2020. How long do cards stay watermarked for?
Printable on: 2021-09-06
Most online TDs allow them anyway. In person tournaments you can bring the foil version and play. Online that's harder to prove.
User avatar
 
By Professor Scott (Mathew McCalpin)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Trailblazer
1E Cardassia Regional Champion 2023
#553901
Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the rule was as long as there is a property logo'd version of it (watermarked or not), you are allowed to play with any version of it. Obviously you can't play in Lackey with a watermarked version if that version is not in Lackey, and I don't think watermarked versions are.

Also, since this is a for fun, non-ratings tournament, I would think this should be allowed and encouraged, because as at some point in the future it will be printable; after all, aren't we trying to encourage a variety of deck ideas?

Also, did we reach a consensus on whether or not we are inviting [1E-TNG] [Bor] to the party or not?
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#553962
@MidnightLich, as the TD, I think this watermarked-VP question has to be answered by you.

I ask it because I was contacted by a player in the event who does not want to be identified, so it's not mere idle curiosity.
1EFQ: Game of two halves

Honestly, I don’t think I’ve re[…]

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!!

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

Opponents turn

Remodulation