Discuss all of your questions, concerns, comments and ideas about Second Edition.
User avatar
 
By monty42 (Benjamin Liebich)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
2E World Quarter-Finalist 2023
Chancellor
2E European Continental Runner-Up 2023
2E German National Champion 2022
#592857
Image
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#592858
monty42 wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 3:07 am Image
Wrong thread. This should be in the discussion threads I posted that everybody said they wanted but that nobody is responding to.
User avatar
 
By monty42 (Benjamin Liebich)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
2E World Quarter-Finalist 2023
Chancellor
2E European Continental Runner-Up 2023
2E German National Champion 2022
#592860
Armus wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 3:08 am
monty42 wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 3:07 am Image
Wrong thread. This should be in the discussion threads I posted that everybody said they wanted but that nobody is responding to.
Nah, I think it's spot on. Everybody's still waiting for your response to @Latok.

I couldn't care less about the actual discussion, I've moved on from that three threads ago.

I just dislike when the actual aggressor eventually tries to get away by putting up a smoke screen.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#592863
monty42 wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 3:40 am
Armus wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 3:08 am
monty42 wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 3:07 am Image
Wrong thread. This should be in the discussion threads I posted that everybody said they wanted but that nobody is responding to.
Nah, I think it's spot on. Everybody's still waiting for your response to @Latok.

I couldn't care less about the actual discussion, I've moved on from that three threads ago.

I just dislike when the actual aggressor tries to eventually get away by putting up a smoke screen.
You're one of the people who asked for the actual discussion threads!

Can't take yes for an answer?!

:lol:

If you want a productive discussion, I'll be happy to meet you there.

Here's the funny part: you call me the aggressor, but nowhere in any of these threads has anyone actually said anything good about the cards from the "fanboy" era. Y'all are caught up on the handful of problematic cards from the Process era, some of which, according to people who were there, weren't actually part of The Process (looking at you, Enemy of my Enemy)... and instead of actually saying anything good about the cards, y'all circle the wagons and shoot the messenger.

If anything *I've* said the most positive things about the Fanboy Era when I called out two AoY cards that I actually liked.

But if all you're going to do is read what @Latok says I said, instead of what I actually said (e.g., nowhere did I say Aussie players were shit and their decks don't count), then what I say doesn't really matter. Print the legend.

Hell, if we're being real, nothing I say really matters anyway. I'm not on Design, Playtesting, Rules, Errata/Balance, or even Creative. I have zero control over what happens with the future of the game.

What I find telling is the people who *do* have all of these things feel the need to rush in and defend each other because some random nerd ranted on a nerd message board. Why is that such a threat to their sensibilities when they're the ones in control.

(This is also true of Latok. He's just a guy as well unless he got hired on and I missed the memo... actually that would make his rant make more sense...)

And it's not like Tjark is going to get voted out. Why would he? He's presided over the game for over two years now, been through three periods of review, and at no point was his job in any jeopardy. The staff all votes for him, there's enough people even on the relatively thin org chart to offset any random removal votes that come in, everybody stays fat and happy and the band plays on...

So why worry?
User avatar
 
By monty42 (Benjamin Liebich)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
2E World Quarter-Finalist 2023
Chancellor
2E European Continental Runner-Up 2023
2E German National Champion 2022
#592864
Armus wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 4:04 am Yadda yadda yadda
That's all good and fun.
You still haven't responded to anything that @Latok mentioned.
Honetly, I like your rethorics but the smoke screen is still alive.
User avatar
Second Edition Rules Master
By Latok
 - Second Edition Rules Master
 -  
1E Australian Continental Champion 2019
2E Australian Continental Runner-Up 2019
#592913
Here's the funny part: you call me the aggressor, but nowhere in any of these threads has anyone actually said anything good about the cards from the "fanboy" era. Y'all are caught up on the handful of problematic cards from the Process era, some of which, according to people who were there, weren't actually part of The Process (looking at you, Enemy of my Enemy)... and instead of actually saying anything good about the cards, y'all circle the wagons and shoot the messenger.
You haven't said anything positive about the cards from 'The Process' either you're just using it as a cudgel to attack current Design, therefore people are responding on those same terms.

Personally I don't think those cards (TEomE and Casualties) were broken, I don't really know anything about NeuNeuDominion and I doubt post-Caretaker Voyager is broken (even prior to the Tricia Jenkins errata).

My problem, and I will say this very explicitly since sarcasm is apparently strawmanning, is your persistent agenda to frame 'The Process' as better than current Design, or rather current Design as bad in whatever way possible. I think your personal grievances (and I think you had some even prior to getting 'canned' yourself) completely blind you from the similarities, in terms of results, of the last two Design paradigms (and really Design prior to 'The Process' too).

I think it is actually demonstrable that 'The Process' and post-Process have created broken cards (using your framing of 'solvers that are a bit better than other solvers' AND my framing of 'lockout enabling cards'), some good and interesting cards but mostly... just meh stuff. Basically 'The Process' wasn't special, it had a similar or equivalent track record as almost every other Design paradigm, AND current Design isn't really worse than any other period.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#592920
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 [DS9-E] help over [TOS]. You framed making stuff for [TOS] as designers doing what they want rather than what is needed and contextually its clear you think stuff for [DS9-E] is 'needed' more than [TOS] 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.

[TOS] is one of the most powerful, verstile affiliations in the game. There's plenty of ways to build a tier 1 [TOS] deck.

Meanwhile, [DS9-E] 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 [DS9-E] get expanded on while I don't think [TOS] 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 [Car] 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 am
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.
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 [DS9-E] (the affiliation you think needs help more than [TOS] ) is as good as [Voy] 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 [Rom] interference against [SF] .... but that was Australia, everyone knows there are only shit players in Australia, so you're right that doesn't count. Then again [Rom] 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 [Rom] do at the last two Worlds? They were terrible yeah?
[Bor] didn't do any good either...
[KCA] ? They were shit, completely unviable.
No one bothered with [TNG] 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 [Voy] 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 [Car], [Rom] , and [Fut], and [Dom] (NeuDominion) in 2019, with a splash of [TNG] , [Bor] and [KCA] tossed in. That's what, 7 HQs? Out of 25?

Let's look at 2021: A TON of [Dom] (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 [TNG] , [Bor] , [Rom] , [Kli] , and [DS9] ... 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 [Voy] , 2x [DS9] , [Bor] , [Car] , [TNG] , [Rom], basically all speed solvers. Expanding to Day 1 I'm seeing 2x [KCA] and one [Dom] in the top 8 and 2x [Kli] 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? [Baj] , [DS9-E] , [Fer] , [Maq] , [SF] (either version), [TN] , [TOS] , [Fut] , and [Voy] (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 [KCA] : 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 [Voy] 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 [Voy] 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.
User avatar
Second Edition Rules Master
By Latok
 - Second Edition Rules Master
 -  
1E Australian Continental Champion 2019
2E Australian Continental Runner-Up 2019
#593095
OK, let's look at this statement in context: I said that ideally all affiliations would be equally viable.
You left out some context.... Originally you said that (not in these exact words...) the idea of making Paranoia stuff for [TOS] ahead of [DS9-E] or [TNG] is an example of Design making cards they want rather than cards the game needs.

So yeah I get it, in that context specifically you want [DS9-E] stuff over [TOS] stuff that's not really what I care about. The problem is how you use that to frame Design negatively. You are using something you want (contextually) as an unfounded attack on Design ie. "This is an example of what I mean when I say Design makes the cards they want instead of making cards the game needs."
[TOS] is one of the most powerful, verstile affiliations in the game. There's plenty of ways to build a tier 1 [TOS] deck.

Meanwhile, [DS9-E] 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 [DS9-E] get expanded on while I don't think [TOS] 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.
Here you throw out a couple of opinions about affiliation power/balance and then make a carefully conditioned statement suggesting that Design doesn't care about affiliation balance.
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:
Yeah, yeah, yeah. I changed my other mentions of Tricia Jenkins to Tricia Jenkins/Caretaker and I missed that one, moving on.
Sounds a lot like the Casualties/TEOME situation to me.
Yeah it does, and that is my main point.... The results from the different design paradigms are not significantly different.
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.
Which just further proves my point. The fact you claimed sets 40-49 under 'The Process' when apparently only 1/3 of them were from 'The Process' shows that the different design paradigms are not significantly different. You couldn't tell the difference....
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.
I think you are significantly overstating the amount of derision. As I said in my post that went up while you were probably writing this, you set the initial level of the conversation as negative. You attacked current Design by claiming 'The Process' was better ('you'd take it over current design's sets that break the game'), not anything specific about 'The Process' though just generally better. So obviously people are going to respond to your post about 'The Process' being better because current Design often 'breaks the game' by pointing out that 'The Process' also broke the game.
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.
Except Tjark is, as you said, the Director of Second Edition not the head of Design. What Tjark says is equivalent to what Ross said while John was head of Design, right? So if Ross had said that he lets design do what they want (and it seems probable to me that he said something similar to that) I can then infer from that that John and the other designers were just making cards they wanted to as fanboys?

If you have seen Richard New saying that designers are free to make whatever they want without any real plan or structure in place....?
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?
Surely you can read the next few words... I literally added "or masters and up" for this very reason.
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.
That was partly sarcasm and partly a counter to your claim that the same four decks have been at the top for the last 4 Worlds, since for that claim to be even remotely true you would just have to ignore the non-US Worlds.
That's what, 7 HQs? Out of 25?
I am presuming your criteria for consideration is that multiple people played an affiliation, regardless of how well they placed?
Any way, OG [Dom] did as well as NeuDominion so that'd make 8? Is the 25 HQs counting the ones that came after that Worlds eg. NeuNeuDominion?
Either way, one third of affiliations does seem quite good to me... Do you think the game has been more balanced than that in the last 10 years? Like half of all affiliations were viable?
Now let's look at 2022: 2x [Voy] , 2x [DS9] , [Bor] , [Car] , [TNG] , [Rom], basically all speed solvers.
Wait, so your ideal was to have 8 people playing 8 affiliations on Day Two of Worlds, you got 6 affiliations and is that particularly bad? Obviously it isn't the ideal (and it's never going to be really) but that seems pretty good to me....
That's still less than a third of the options available seeing play at a serious level. You know what I'm not seeing? [Baj] , [DS9-E] , [Fer] , [Maq] , [SF] (either version), [TN] , [TOS] , [Fut] , and [Voy] (Equinox)... and the last two were straight up pushed in Caretaker, which was out well before Worlds.
Right and you also said that [TOS] has plenty of tier 1 builds, so what is your point here? That what people play isn't really the best measure of what is good? I would agree with that and further I think what people win with isn't a good measure for what is broken/OP (due to player skill), particularly for solvers.
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?
Except I was using those facts to point out that [Bor] , [KCA] , [Rom] , [TNG] all did quite well at the last few Worlds..... YOU originally claimed we were seeing the same 4 decks at the top (one being 5SV, which was very weird because it hasn't done well for years) and I, sarcastically, added 4 more decks that you ignored to make your point.
One more thing about [KCA] : I DEFINITELY never said it was shit...
I suspect you only added this paragraph to take a pot shot at Tjark, no ego involved I am sure...

However, again, I was using sarcasm to illustrate how you just ignored an affiliation that did well to make your nonsense claim about seeing the same stuff at the top for years (really the only correct one of the four was [Car] so when 'The Process' 'breaks' an affiliation it stays broken apparently?).
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.
Yeah, again, that is my point. When a significant number of people just copy decks and then you point at a tournament and say "Look lots of people are playing X and/or the player/s that win often won with it so it must be too good", that is just unhelpful.

I'm not really interested in discussing the current state of affiliation balance because my point is that there is no significant difference between now and pretty much any other period in the CC era, certainly 'The Process' era. Whatever metric (if it is objective) you are using to claim a serious imbalance currently, I claim I can use that metric to show the same was true in 2013-2015 or 2016-2018, etc.
Meanwhile, John cracks the code on [Voy] in 2022 and surprises everyone with how stupid fast that deck can be when built a certain way.
Again, presumably Phil Schrader had a similar deck (triple Tricia, etc.) and he didn't do very well on Day Two, so it is not the same as NeuNeuDominion, right?
I still question if it is even broken, what is the problem with Corbett winning Worlds with [Voy]? According to Ken's tournament report he was a turn off beating him in a very close game. Is [Voy] just as good as [Car] now?
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...
Speaking of strawmanning....
It should be evaluated on what it did vs. what it was trying to do.
So lets do that within the framework of your ideal of trying to balance every 'affiliation'. As you said the goal was to help Voyager/Equinox/Relativity and all of those decks hadn't been very good in terms of placing well or winning high-level events. So the goal of the set fits with what you want Design to be doing, right? They helped Voyager much more than the other two and maybe too much overall... they 'missed'. So do we still have a pretty good game?
User avatar
Executive Officer
By jadziadax8 (Maggie Geppert)
 - Executive Officer
 -  
2E North American Continental Semi-Finalist 2023
ibbles  Trek Masters Tribbles Champion 2023
2E Deep Space 9 Regional Champion 2023
#612412
rferries wrote: Wed Jan 03, 2024 6:10 pm Any updates on the next set? I'm jonesing bad, man. (And thanks again for everything the 2e team does, of course!)
I've seen a set promo go into proofreading, if that helps get the monkey off your back. :shifty:
 
By rferries
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#612425
jadziadax8 wrote: Wed Jan 03, 2024 6:26 pm
rferries wrote: Wed Jan 03, 2024 6:10 pm Any updates on the next set? I'm jonesing bad, man. (And thanks again for everything the 2e team does, of course!)
I've seen a set promo go into proofreading, if that helps get the monkey off your back. :shifty:
Ha many thanks!
1EFQ: Game of two halves

Or maybe keep your unsolicited snark to yo[…]

Vulcan Lander and its ability

What constrains this strategy is the number of c[…]

Ignoring point losses & Timing

I would be interested in the answer to this as wel[…]

Greetings 'trek fans! As discussed in our Februar[…]