I've been asked nicely to respond to this, so I'm going to try.... we'll see how it goes...
Latok wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 8:15 am
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'.
OK, let's look at this statement in context: I said that ideally all affiliations would be equally viable.
is one of the most powerful, verstile affiliations in the game. There's plenty of ways to build a tier 1
deck.
Meanwhile,
is clearly down the list on the power curve (or dare I mention his name, @KillerB's affiliation power rankings... remember those?). So yes, IN THAT CONTEXT, TO MEET THAT GOAL, I would like to see
get expanded on while I don't think
needs those resources thrown at it.
Now if Design has a different goal, then obviously they might make different decisions, but IMO, failing to consider relative power and playability of different affiliations/factions leaves the game worse off.
Latok wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 8:15 am
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.
Where did I say that Tricia Jenkins was the only problem? She was probably one of the bigger problems, as she enabled a Turn 1 Attempt with a full crew, but even she's not that good. There were MULTIPLE offenders in Caretaker:
Plasma Storm Depths enabling a guaranteed turn 1 Voyager drop complete with its 2 crew aboard. You draw 2 4-costers, that alone is a double turn worth of counters that's only slightly offset by the 2-3 discards required to guarantee it.
Tricia Jenkins as made enabled another +4 counters, which is another 1-2 personnel, ON TURN ONE
William T. Riker, Surprised Witness plays for 0 and is another full body.
So let's recap: Turn 1: Voyager + 2 dudes (average 3-cost each - hardly unreasonable), + Tricia + Riker + 1-3 additional personnel depending on draw... again, ON TURN ONE. Result: Likely a staffed Voyager that can make a turn 1 move if not attempt a mission. Nobody else comes even close to that on turn one, except maybe Borg if they hit Annexation Drone and You've Always Been My Favorite in their opening hand and can stack 2x Annexation Drone and 2x At What Cost on YABMF. Plausible, but a lot more luck is involved even in a Borg deck with downloads.
And if you actually packed
Code of the Ushaan to shut down the nonsense and limit your opponent's counters and
Kretassa to get it into play? Hope you won the coin toss, because otherwise it doesn't matter, your opponent still gets an effective 2 turn head start before you've even played your first card. It's bad design because it goes against what's already been established in the game as play/counterplay.
Now, to be fair, the Tricia errata addressed the last part, so now you get your mega turn on turn 2 instead of turn 1 and your opponent at least has a chance for counterplay. But the fact that the Balance team made that change is an implicit acknowledgement that it was a design fuckup that directly led to an unbalanced game state, otherwise why make that move? Sounds a lot like the Casualties/TEOME situation to me.
And yeah, nobody found it before John did because with one exception, every Voyager deck that ran Tricia only ran one copy (including mine last year), and that one exception ran 2 copies in a 70 card deck... John figured out that by leaning in and running Tricia and Riker in multiples you maximize your chances for an early super turn (and if you draw into those multiples early you can pitch them to fuel the Voyager download, which is a huge efficiency boost.
Maybe you're ok with that - reasonable people can disagree - but if you are, I would ask why you are ok with this but not with TEOME/Casualties?
And not for nothing, but since I've been told that "The Process" was only 3 sets, only Casualties is "The Process's" fault... apparently the Fanboys designed TEOME.
Latok wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 8:15 am
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.
You know what? You're right. A few years goes back a bit, and I can find broken cards from every design era. Nobody's perfect. But what I find interesting is how much derision is heaped on "The Process" and John specifically, when his sets had
relatively few broken cards. Yet he got fired as Design director and people who have made broken problem cards from multiple Design "eras" with a worse track record are still heavily involved in the Design process today. I've been very intentional in not bringing specific people into it by name, and focusing on the merits of the cards and the related design decisions, but it's not hard to make a case that there was more than that involved in the organizational changes. A lot of ego too, and not just (or even mainly) from the KCAs.
Latok wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 8:15 amArmus 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.
My strongest evidence of Designers Designing what they want is @tjark's multiple statements as Director of Second Edition that he's giving his design team license to design what they want. Maybe the Design team has a holistic vision for the long term health of the game, but if so it's not been communicated by either the Director of Second Edition or the Design Director/XO/De Facto Director of Second Edition, so I have little choice but to assume that either that is in fact what's happening, or that Tjark has been lying to the community about his approach in multiple public statements over his tenure. I know Tjark and I have had our occasional differences, but he's not given me much reason to think he's an outright liar, so in this case I choose to believe him. My main issue with that approach is that I don't view it as optimal for the long term health of the game, for reasons I've already stated.
As for "Disrespected, Full Steam Ahead, etc.," This was a much stronger argument 18 months ago. I laid low for most of 2021, and the result was a broken ass set in
Heroes and Demons that I warned them about months prior to release and they didn't listen. On that particular point, I'm not sure I was the one being arrogant and stubborn, but whatever. To add on, when I saw an early version of what was then called "Project Community" which eventually became The Menagerie, and saw that the same people who were responsible for previous brokenness had still not learned any lessons about what makes cards good vs. bad, I was in Nerd Rage mode, and responded accordingly, because I was getting really tired of watching the same mistakes get made by the same people over and over with no consequences or even any apparent desire to do better.
Ironically, after Lucas nerd fired me from the Playtest team and Richard chipped in with a few of his own Colourful Metaphors, most of the issues I pointed out were corrected prior to the set's release, so maybe my message got through after all. The way it all went down was ugly, but even at its peak, I was focused on the quality of the cards and the health of the game rather than my position within the organization. Hell, at that point I'd already been fired once for even more dubious reasons, so I was kind of over it anyway.
However, after spending most of 2021 only playing locally, I tried to put my player hat back on and re-engage in the game in 2022, having moved past the drama and nonsense. The actions taken by the Balance team to defang TNG Dissidents (aka Admiral Fuckface) and NeuNeuDominion was pretty strong validation of my position, so there was no need for further nerd rage on the subject.
Latok wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 8:15 am
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.
Regionals have been glorified locals for years. ES9 seeing play at that level is not proof of anything. What's being played at Masters/Nationals/Continentals/Worlds and what isn't? That's where the bar should be, because those are the events where people are most likely to bring their A-game decks that give them the best chance to win. Looking lower than that introduces a lot of confounding variables like "gentlemen's agreements" to not play a certain broken/unfun strategy/deck. The people that still have playgroups have probably figured out by now that local legend-ing your players with the worst offenders week after week is not a good way to maintain a playgroup.
Latok wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 8:15 am
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.
And now we're getting to the peak Strawman part of this rant. I already told you once not to put words in my mouth, but apparently you'd rather deal with things you want me to say than things I actually said.
I never said Australian players were shit.
I never said European players were shit.
I never said that U.S.-based Worlds were the only important Worlds.
But looking back at the relevant results... I'm seeing strong concentrations of
,
, and
, and
(NeuDominion) in 2019, with a splash of
,
and
tossed in. That's what, 7 HQs? Out of 25?
Let's look at 2021: A TON of
(This time it's mostly NeuNeuDominion), even post-errata, with a couple NeuDominion decks thrown in (probably as a counter to the NeuNeuDominion speed nonsense, as that was identified as one of the better replies to it). A splash of
,
,
,
, and
... that's actually not a terrible spread, but the fact that the two NeuNeuDominion decks finished 1-2 in the standings (not sure which variant Justin was playing, as it's not actually posted), says something. Sure, player skill matters too (more on that below), but what does it say that the two best players in the field both chose the same build to give them the best shot to win?
Now let's look at 2022: 2x
, 2x
,
,
,
,
, basically all speed solvers. Expanding to Day 1 I'm seeing 2x
and one
in the top 8 and 2x
and a bunch of other random stuff sprinkled into the also-rans.
That's still less than a third of the options available seeing play at a serious level. You know what I'm not seeing?
,
,
,
,
(either version),
,
,
, and
(Equinox)... and the last two were straight up pushed in Caretaker, which was out well before Worlds.
So the nerf bats hit hard (too hard?), but look at how many affiliations either didn't get help, or got "help" that didn't move the needle.
But why argue facts and extrapolations from those facts when you can just set up a strawman and have it say whatever you want to make a sarcastic point. Amirite @Latok ? Amirite?
One more thing about
: I DEFINITELY never said it was shit... to the contrary, I spent most of the summer working with it because I was going to play it at Worlds before life happened. It was actually @tjark who said at a Board Meeting earlier this year something to the effect of "We need to do something with KCA, becasue they clearly need help" ... do they? Really?
The fact is, KCA is one of the most versatile affiliations in the entire game right now. At one point I had 4-5 different KCA decks that were all good and all did different things. Working with them was one of the most engaging and interesting deckbuilding exercises I've undertaken in recent memory. They're the opposite of LEGO Design, which I have a LONG history of railing against (at least LEGO Design that makes the LEGO deck a Worlds contender from jump by making powerful cards that all work well together and are already optimized and don't require any deckbuilding skill). LEGO is an ok starting point from a Design perspective, but it should get better as people figure out what other cards in the game can work with it and how.
Added in response to the below post about how I've said nothing positive about The Process: So even if we leave all the other stuff aside, the fact that The Process produced KCA as a deck option with that level of sandbox potential puts it in a better light than almost any other Design "Era" in recent memory. And maybe it was "Fanboy Design," but if so, it's a nice fusion of making something you want to make that can fit into the game without upsetting the apple cart in the process (No pun intended), and should be looked at as a model of how to do it right if the plan is to introduce more affiliations down the line.
Latok wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 8:15 am
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.
Yeah there's a lot of netdeckers out there, though I'm not sure what that proves. Hoffman got handed that NeuNeuDominion deck straight from da Gr0up Chat, got coached up on how to play it, and piloted it to a World Championship after being out of the game for half a decade+. Nothing says you have to be an original deckbuilder to win.
Meanwhile, John cracks the code on
in 2022 and surprises everyone with how stupid fast that deck can be when built a certain way.
Either way, the Known Corbett Associates (KCAs) have figured out how to turn the current Design products into Worlds winners. Part of that comes from having 10 people in da Gr0up Chat with probably 150 years of collective knowledge and experience playing this game, but that knowledge and experience clearly isn't important to those in charge of things...
Latok wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 8:15 am
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?
See above on Caretaker. Was it a good faith miss? Maybe, but I'm not sure that's relevant. It should be evaluated on what it did vs. what it was trying to do. The goal was to make Voyager, Equinox, and to a certain degree, Relativity better, as well as add more toys for other Delta-quadrant-related themed stuff. Leaving the rest aside, the boost that was supposed to help Voyager AND Equinox AND Relativity helped Voyager so much MORE that Equinox and Relativity are more or less strictly worse in comparison. So the best of the three got a huge boost upwards that opened the gap between it and the other two. So even if the other two are better than they were before the set released, they're LESS likely to see play because of that relative difference.