Armus wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2023 11:02 pmFirst off, I didn't say I personally wanted more Paranoia cards. I'm not necessarily opposed to it, but I'm also not clamoring for it.
No, what you want is
help over
. You framed making stuff for
as designers doing what they want rather than what is needed and contextually its clear you think stuff for
is 'needed' more than
but my point is that is just a 'want'.
Armus wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2023 11:02 pmAlso, nowhere did I say that "winning a tournament = bad design"
Yeah, you did. Obviously it's paraphrasing but that IS the sentiment you have been pushing about Tricia Jenkins. Voyager won a single significant tournament which also presumably had Phil Schrader using a pretty similar deck to the winning one and he did
not come close to winning. It's like it's entirely beatable with out even directly preparing for it. So dominant, it's basically
The Enemy of my Enemy and
Casualties of the Occupation all over again.
Wait, 'The Process' made those cards and 'The Process' only made cards that were needed they didn't fanboy, right? So
needed to be dominant.... yes, they had to be because that is what the game
needed.
Armus wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2023 11:02 pmThe problem with Design the last few years has been they made cards that led to one or two affiliations DOMINATING the rest, resulting in a lot of stuff being completely unplayable.
No, that's just demonstrably wrong, as has been pointed out to you multiple times. It is not a problem Design has had for a few years it existed during 'The Process' too. If we accept the premise that there is a problem with balance currently and the last few years, it is very clear that the same problem existed from 2016 through 2020 and before.
Armus wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2023 11:02 pmDesign should be looking at the state of the game when planning future expansions. If, for example, Voyager is dominant in the meta, then the last thing Design should be doing is making cards that make Voyager stronger. The problem is if Design is making what they want to make, then any Voyager fanboys are going to do just that if they're left to their own devices.
There is as much evidence that the first is happening as there is that the second is happening. Also guess what, and this will blow your mind, the exact same thing is true for 'The Process' years; it is equally possible that they were just fanboy making shit they wanted and liked as there is that any sort of plan was in place or an attempt to balance anything.
Yet you will continue to claim that current Design are making cards they want rather than what is needed and that 'The Process' was so much better for that reason. It is patently false but you will keep droning on about it because your jaded that someone got fed up with your arrogance or stubbornness or whatever. You got disrespected and that means blinkers on and full steam ahead 'shitting on current Design' without any reasonable retrospection.
Armus wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2023 11:02 pm(I'm using Voyager as an example, but given how good it already was, putting it on Steroids with Caretaker might not have been the best decision).
That's your opinion but the data doesn't really back that up, looking back through 2019 (and prior to 2022 Worlds) and
(the affiliation you think needs help more than
) is as good as
in terms of regionals and up, or masters and up, etc.
Armus wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2023 11:02 pmI'd love to see a World final where the top 8 are playing 8 different decks and nobody knows who's going to win because they're all that competitive. Instead we have the same stuff at the top that has been at the top for the last 4 Worlds: 5SV (this time on Steroids!), Rainbow DS9, Cardassian Central Command, and NeuNeuDominion.
I distinctly remember winning the 4th last Worlds with
interference against
.... but that was Australia, everyone knows there are only shit players in Australia, so you're right that doesn't count. Then again
interference did come 2nd at the worlds after that.... nah Europeans are trash as well, they don't know what the good affiliations are*.
So the last 2 Worlds then; the US Worlds; the
important Worlds, amirite Armus or amirite?
How did
do at the last two Worlds? They were terrible yeah?
didn't do any good either...
? They were shit, completely unviable.
No one bothered with
because they are so bad...
Huh seems you're right just the same stuff every time, especially 5SV and it was "
on steroids this time" so everyone
knew it was going to win how could Romulan, Borg, Cardassian or DS9 possibly compete. Of course one of the two 5SV lost 2/3 games... that must have been a bad player though because how could such a dominant deck lose to a trash affiliation like Borg ?
*Side note, I vividly remember one of the best
players (Slaby) complaining that they were trash after 5SV was nerfed, but you say they were really good and you plus 'The Process' boys
know best.
Armus wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2023 11:02 pmAt least MVB did a thing and made a new deck, but @The Ninja Scot is a mad scientist like that.
Hmmm, maybe it's like player skill is a more significant factor than what you perceive as a serious affiliation imbalance (two being dominant) and then people 'bandwagoning' affiliations/decks instead of being able to make their own to beat them.
Armus wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2023 11:02 pmMaybe my ideal is practically unattainable, but as a Design goal, it's the kind of ideal I hope they would shoot for. Even if they miss we'd still probably have a pretty good game.
Just to confirm, your evidence that they aren't doing that is that you think
was already good before they made
Tricia Jenkins/Caretaker, yes? So Tricia Jenkins/Caretaker wasn't a good faith miss because that can't possibly have done that while trying to balance affiliations; that was bad design?