[Armus]

Quick Q - why is Varria Corona a 2-span space mission? There are less than two dozen in the game, and very few are inside a region on top of it. The attributes alone are the carrot to get people to use it, we did not need it to be low span on top of it. I just don't get it.

Kressari Rendezvous has entered the chat...

How many YEARS did that mission serve as a lynch pin for how many different decks? Especially Cardassian decks where the HQ is a mere 2(!!) Range away from the HQ?

However, the actual answer to your specific question is what I've been saying with a lot of cards that break the game: Because Designers fail to learn from history. Whether they think they can do better or are just ignorant of history, the result is the same.

[abargar7510]

I think what @LORE is saying is, given the rarity of space missions with 2 spans, the designer needs to make conscious decision to move away from the default of 3. Presumably, you would make it lower to offset other inherent weaknesses in the mission, or higher to offset inherent strengths. In this case, what were the perceived inherent weaknesses that necessitated the move away from the default? It couldn't possibly be the mission requirements, point box, or placement of the region. Was it the personnel bug that's actually really a feature, as Danny put it? Only the designer, whoever that is, could answer that question.

[Armus]

I think what @LORE is saying is, given the rarity of space missions with 2 spans, the designer needs to make conscious decision to move away from the default of 3. Presumably, you would make it lower to offset other inherent weaknesses in the mission, or higher to offset inherent strengths. In this case, what were the perceived inherent weaknesses that necessitated the move away from the default? It couldn't possibly be the mission requirements, point box, or placement of the region. Was it the personnel bug that's actually really a feature, as Danny put it? Only the designer, whoever that is, could answer that question.

That's a great guideline... something that should be in a Design Bible, along with a costing table and other such things that would standardize how cards are made and create a framework for balanced cards.

It'd be great if something like that existed, and I suggested it years ago, but to my knowledge nobody has put the effort in to create such a document on the 2e side of things (there's a least a working draft on the 1e side that was built a few years ago and continues to be developed, and while it's not perfect, it's also not nothing).

[LORE]

I think what @LORE is saying is, given the rarity of space missions with 2 spans, the designer needs to make conscious decision to move away from the default of 3. Presumably, you would make it lower to offset other inherent weaknesses in the mission, or higher to offset inherent strengths. In this case, what were the perceived inherent weaknesses that necessitated the move away from the default? It couldn't possibly be the mission requirements, point box, or placement of the region. Was it the personnel bug that's actually really a feature, as Danny put it? Only the designer, whoever that is, could answer that question.

You put it a lot more eloquently than I did, thank you. I look at this mission and do not see an obvious weakness. The 6 people dumped at the planet more or less offsets the low attribute requirement. It being in a region with that planet mission means it is pretty easy to get to, as is. Moving it from a default 3 range to a spicy 2 range just feels like it is being Over Sold as it were.

[The Guardian]

I've had a lot of time to think about these guys and I tend to agree with a lot of what has been said (thank you to Lucas for getting this discussion started).

It's absolutely true that the rationale of the missions to do "two missions at once." That seemed like a big investment with a lot more crew than normal to get started, so lower requirements seemed logical. If you think the designers simply didn't notice that the requirement level was at the 40-point level, you're mistaken. In addition, asking someone to do that and then go and do something else (or do something else other than the aforementioned build-up before the attempt, for that matter) seemed odd too, thus the 50 points. Finally, the missions have to be played together, so I could make the argument that it's akin to a 4-span space mission. (I know it's not and there are significant advantages to having your two missions be in the same Region and both with 2 span - and, of course, 3 span for the space mission probably wouldn't make that much of a difference with most arrangements - but it's a point to be made.)

In playtesting, the focus was on seeing if those requirements balanced the time commitment (as well as finding any wiggle room around the intention). That's what we found was pretty solid.

Now, what are the cracks that players have taken advantage of?

1. Dilemma avoidance. Whether you're talking about Carolyn Palamas or Field Studies (or several other methods, often including multiple headquarters, I've heard about and I'm sure you can figure out), the objective here is to blank out one or both missions and get an easy complete, sometimes letting a player just focus on one 40-point set of requirements. Obviously, not the intention. It occurs to me, however, that this set of missions isn't the only missions that can do this. MVB has done the Palamas and FS tricks before (as noted). Pick two other 50-point missions and you might have the same issue. I'd venture the problem here is the dilemma avoidance cards, but I understand the stance to not exonerate the Varrias yet (and they shouldn't be).
2. Mission attempt avoidance. This one I think is pretty clever. Since Varria III only requires an attempt be made, the idea is to use the Vidiian Kes to avoid the space attempt with a minimal effort and focus on the planet. From there, you can do other missions or just focus on an easier 50-point space mission. Bajorans could do it with Tox Uthat (and probably one personnel on a ship) and anyone else can use Wesley Crusher, Apprentice Traveler to do it. Kes just has the best return value.
3. Borg shenanigans. This is the one I opted for. Borg can be cheap, but get their best effect from the Borg Queen. I played an Annexation Drone and breathed some life into Indomitable to get the Queen (and Quantum Drones) in to both attempts. This is probably the closest to the design intent, but it isn't exactly two crews doing the mission at the "same time." The spans also help, as Sphere 634 can go from the Unicomplex to Varria III to Varria Corona and back to Varria III in one turn. A span of 3 on the space mission make this harder.

Did I miss one?

If I was getting this feedback during playtesting, I think there would be ways to try to re-establish the gameplay intent and that should be the focus. Though, of course, I've had situations where the gameplay intent wasn't good for the game and you have to move on, but I think given the idea of the hoops the players are expected to jump through, the idea isn't the issue here.

What can be done? Well, I think we should take a look at dilemma avoidance stuff. Those decks don't need Varria to work; they just facilitate in a way that the synergy is bad. We could also extend the six-personnel minimum to the space mission and maybe should take a look at Kes. That's probably why cards like Wesley and the Tox Uthat make you replay them. There was also a bit of text on one of them during playtesting that was taken out requiring that the planet mission start right after the space mission. It's a change that makes the Borg option available. I remember thinking that wasn't a bad change at the time since "who would want to not make progress on the planet?" I'm not sure it's necessary to put it back, though I'm all for the discussion.

One thing I haven't touched on is Reprimand. I know that's a hot topic, but the idea is still having to invest a lot in the missions, meaning your opponent will probably get a head start, so I'm not against the high point synergy (which works with several dilemmas as well, but we all focus on the counterspells). Maybe an additional cost or effect on Reprimand is called for. A simple "nope" isn't that great for the game. Varria might have revealed that one, but it's been true without them, just like the dilemma avoidance problems.

That's been my thoughts anyway.

[Armus]

That's a lot of words to say you designed cards that are bad for the game.

Next time a simple "yeah that was me. My bad." Would be a lot easier and a lot more honest.

[abargar7510]

, the missions have to be played together, so I could make the argument that it's akin to a 4-span space mission. (I know it's not and there are significant advantages to having your two missions be in the same Region and both with 2 span - and, of course, 3 span for the space mission probably wouldn't make that much of a difference with most arrangements - but it's a point to be made.)

If, for the sake of argument, since they have to be played and attempted together, so we're conceptually adding the ranges together to create a theoretical 4-span space mission equivalent, wouldn't you have to also combine the points? Should a 4-span, 100 point mission (that I guess would also bypass the planet/space win requirements) ever be designed?

[tjark]

That's a lot of words to say you designed cards that are bad for the game.

Next time a simple "yeah that was me. My bad." Would be a lot easier and a lot more honest.

The Varia missions were controversial from the beginning, but they passed playtest - so blaming just one person seems to be pretty unfair. The basic idea
is still interesting even if we have to adapt it now. If you cannot afford failing, don't do anything new or innovative. This is even worse for the game.

Brian I always wonder why you can t making justified criticism without getting personal.

And "bad for the game" can be questioned from several aspects.
Any harm done yet? I think the tournament statistics speak for themselves.

Finally the cards are on the watchlist and balanced department is aware of it.

Tj

[tjark]

....Should a 4-span, 100 point mission (that I guess would also bypass the planet/space win requirements) ever be designed?

WE WILL SEE

Tj

[GooeyChewie]

MVB has done the Palamas and FS tricks before (as noted).

I would not be opposed to making Palamas unique, regardless of what happens with Varria missions.

There was also a bit of text on one of them during playtesting that was taken out requiring that the planet mission start right after the space mission.

I think that change might have been bigger than anticipated. The fact that you don’t have to make the second attempt means those personnel can avoid the risk of being culled by dilemmas, and don’t have to be stopped at the end of a mission attempt and left vulnerable to combat/assimilation/capture/etc.. Having to have two crews isn’t as much of a challenge when those two crews aren’t both facing danger. I suppose that’s the point of the “mission attempt avoidance” thing as well.

[Armus]

That's a lot of words to say you designed cards that are bad for the game.

Next time a simple "yeah that was me. My bad." Would be a lot easier and a lot more honest.

The Varia missions were controversial from the beginning, but they passed playtest - so blaming just one person seems to be pretty unfair. The basic idea
is still interesting even if we have to adapt it now. If you cannot afford failing, don't do anything new or innovative. This is even worse for the game.

Brian I always wonder why you can t making justified criticism without getting personal.

And "bad for the game" can be questioned from several aspects.
Any harm done yet? I think the tournament statistics speak for themselves.

Finally the cards are on the watchlist and balanced department is aware of it.

Tj

"They passed playtest" isn't saying much these days. How many playtesters do you actually have? Whatever the number is, it's lower than it was a few years ago unless you suddenly got an influx of people banging down the door to help playtest.

Also, I won't bring up quotes from the playtest forum, lest I get thrown in Moderator Jail, but let's just say that "passing playtest" isn't the bar it appears to be on your watch.

But none of that is new. What's really not cool is having these two cards inserted into a set by a "mystery designer" without the endorsement of the named Designers on the set. That leaves them to catch the flack for ... let's politely call them "controversial" ... cards. The fact that @Danny called it out speaks to how not cool that is.

Richard's above thesis basically tells me these cards were his babies. Makes sense. As the Design Director he's in a position to insert cards into a set, but it's a shitty way to do business and a good way to alienate the Designers working for you.

[tjark]

That's a lot of words to say you designed cards that are bad for the game.

Next time a simple "yeah that was me. My bad." Would be a lot easier and a lot more honest.

The Varia missions were controversial from the beginning, but they passed playtest - so blaming just one person seems to be pretty unfair. The basic idea
is still interesting even if we have to adapt it now. If you cannot afford failing, don't do anything new or innovative. This is even worse for the game.

Brian I always wonder why you can t making justified criticism without getting personal.

And "bad for the game" can be questioned from several aspects.
Any harm done yet? I think the tournament statistics speak for themselves.

Finally the cards are on the watchlist and balanced department is aware of it.

Tj

"They passed playtest" isn't saying much these days. How many playtesters do you actually have? Whatever the number is, it's lower than it was a few years ago unless you suddenly got an influx of people banging down the door to help playtest.

Also, I won't bring up quotes from the playtest forum, lest I get thrown in Moderator Jail, but let's just say that "passing playtest" isn't the bar it appears to be on your watch.

But none of that is new. What's really not cool is having these two cards inserted into a set by a "mystery designer" without the endorsement of the named Designers on the set. That leaves them to catch the flack for ... let's politely call them "controversial" ... cards. The fact that @Danny called it out speaks to how not cool that is.

Richard's above thesis basically tells me these cards were his babies. Makes sense. As the Design Director he's in a position to insert cards into a set, but it's a shitty way to do business and a good way to alienate the Designers working for you.

From my point of view, there was no "mystery designer" running the set.
My design lead and I are responsible for every set - so consider us part of every design team without beeing credited, But to give everybody the opportunity to adress the right designer with concerns I will be more precise in the future here.

It `s my call to vote a card (or gimmick) finally in or out of a set (and my call only to do so). If I do so, there is reason and I don t use this wild card easily. I did that for three cards in Phage (if I remember right) - one of those was cut by playtesting, another was changed anyway and Lucas convinvced me not change the last in question.

I also put two cards in Hamlet - adressing the designers to solve a game problem by design and offering me an option here. (and you will not find me on the credit list if they make it).

I initiated "Continuing Mission", asking Danny to create a few missions (giving him some ideas that could be interesting - but his call) Later I put Ben in the team to top that off.

When Richard wanted to add missions to that set he got my approval as long as
he coordinates with Danny. This was done. Next time Richard will be listed as designer to avoid confusion.

Tj

[The Guardian]

When Richard wanted to add missions to that set he got my approval as long as he coordinates with Danny. This was done. Next time Richard will be listed as designer to avoid confusion.

I don't know about that, Tjark. I didn't write on the boards here that I was the "uncredited contributor" (as Dany justly put it) because I think it gives the wrong impression of the process. I wasn't trying to hide it; I'm not trying to be sneaky. After all, I told people at Worlds that they could blame me for these missions, but I also explained the idea's origin and the intention and the responses I got were mostly, "Okay. I respect the idea, but..." which is totally fair.

As for what actually happened: Danny got the green light for his mission set. I pitched him some missions that I had previously cooked up with difficulty levels at which I took a educated guess (no intention to make something strictly better and if playtesting said I had aimed wrong, no problem). We discussed back and forth for awhile (I'm not sure I sold it very well at first). Danny asked questions; if he decided, "No," that would have been the end of it and I would not been offended. I also told him that it was his set. Change stuff, cut it; he didn't need my permission. He let it go through the process and the playtesters played it. Not much was changed based on honest feedback.

We also slip other things in to sets from time to time. It's all part of the process. Someone ghostwrites a concept and we ask the Lead Designer of the set if they wouldn't mind including it. I personally have no problem with someone else developing my idea. I think it adds a positive level of blindness to the process. The idea being that designers are less likely to be too attached to their babies to not kill them. I have an upcoming set idea where all the designers get a chance to pitch something and then the ideas will be developed by designers that might not have anything to do with the pitches, but knowing their intention.

And do we really need to assign blame for Varria? Danny, in his post, mentioned pretty popular opinions about them (as I did in my post) and analyzed what to do with them (as I did in my post). And given our similar evaluations, it's rich to suggest that he's disgruntled about them and that I am defending them to my core. I have no problem with Danny's assessment of them; I assume it's developed with consideration, expertise, and a good helping of hindsight. If I have any issue with how Danny presented this issue (sorry, man), it's with even mentioning they weren't his cards. I understand the instinct to distance himself. He was being attacked and he didn't feel it was called for. (It wasn't.) I should have done a Spartacus at that moment, but I don't believe in card ownership.

Let me explain: even in a set that I work on with an idea that I originally wrote, it's hard for me to fully call it "my card." And yet, when I work on a set, they're all my cards. They're all my partners'. Our fingerprints are all over them. This was Danny's card. It was Benjamin's. It was all the playtesters' too. And it was mine. That's why I didn't say anything. I don't think any of us designers should say anything. Our silence is both protective and humble. I'll let you in on a little secret: we don't have bad designers. And even if we did, you wouldn't be able to guess based on all of the things I've mentioned so far. So, let him guess in ignorance. And none of that is to say I wash my hands of anything. It was my idea. So he can blame me. And watch: now it'll be only me, because he's not after truth; he wants to make a statement. Luckily, I don't give a rat's ass what he thinks. I just wish more people felt the same. The only time I end up reading what he wrote is when someone quotes it. And then, I'm only ever justified in my decisions. You can't reason with him. You can't shame him. Your responses just make him feel vital and justified, which he isn't. (I hope you enjoy the sarcastic comment that comes from this. I won't because I won't ever see it.)

As for expansion credits, that's a reasonable discussion to be had. But do we list everyone that suggested text? I understand the desire for transparency, but there definitely has to be discussions behind closed doors that aren't relitigated by the community at large. Right? Can we all agree on that? For the project I discussed above, do I list all my designers or just the ones that took the ball over the goal line? Maybe we should have a contributing section to an expansion's credits, but I don't know where to draw the line on that one either. I'm certainly not about to list what specific cards people think they're responsible for. That seems like a recipe for disaster. Also, does a playtester or Rules person or proofer suggesting a wording to fix a card count for contribution credit? Just designers that wrote some words? I don't know. But I'm fine with the set designers listed on Continuing Mission as it is right now. When I see the designers of a set, I guess I want to see the people that were there, making decisions week-to-week. (And while I had the aforementioned part, that wasn't me on this one.)

[abargar7510]

As for expansion credits, that's a reasonable discussion to be had. But do we list everyone that suggested text?

I think, for me, the idea of being more comprehensive in listing contributors to a set is less about actually taking credit/scorekeeping, and more about closing off the opportunity to create the perception (after all, perception is reality!) that there's something that the team has reason to hide or be squirrelly about.

[The Guardian]

As for expansion credits, that's a reasonable discussion to be had. But do we list everyone that suggested text?

I think, for me, the idea of being more comprehensive in listing contributors to a set is less about actually taking credit/scorekeeping, and more about closing off the opportunity to create the perception (after all, perception is reality!) that there's something that the team has reason to hide or be squirrelly about.

That's reasonable. I listed Anastasia Kalashnikova in the design of All Our Yesterdays because he was around for some of the original meetings. Unfortunately, I didn't get to get to know him that much. But it does break the "rule" about including those that were there "week-to-week." I still feel good about that choice too, but I suppose it's not a hard and fast rule.

Sorry if I came off as being squirrely. It wasn't my intention. I'm going to give serious thought to a section on contributions. I suppose I should also note that if there is a question, my kneejerk reaction is to leave it up to the Lead Designer of the expansion (which could make it even more inconsistent). And that being said, so low was the level of my contribution in my mind that I never even thought to ask Danny if he wanted my name on Continuing Mission.