Multiple formats is only bad when the actual content of what can be played changes often. That's why the old 2-set Modern was horrible. Only 2 sets (and they were branded sets, so 6 months apart) and it lasted only 2-3 months.

There are really only 2 formats in most TCGs, Constructed and Sealed pack. It's in Constructed where you get the most variation and in that regard, Silver and Modern are the ones that are problematic in the fact that it changes every 3 months (athough the impact is less on Silver). In Golden Age, Random Punks and Single Set... the decks you've built will essentially stay playable with minor tweaks whever a new set comes out. The block sets are the ones that actually can be more confusing since decks get phased out... but... it makes it easier for new players to jump in since they only need to build from the most recent sets.

Building for archetypes is different than building for formats... if the general template of archetypes is constant, than it's just a matter of using newer cards. But when new archetypes are introduced every single set, that's where the differences between the formats are more glaring.

What I don't seem to get is the opinion that multiple formats is more of a barrier than infinite teams/archtypes.

Could not agree more. This is especially true for areas where there is a small player base. In these areas VS players will come together and find that they have been playing different formats and don't really have decks with each other.

Several people have mentioned that a local hobby store can just pick a format and go with that. However, this only really works if you have a hobbly league in place. I believe on area in which UDE has really erred with VS is by not endorsing a default format. Having a default format allows people with poor local scences to remain connected to the game thru the larger community by websites, following tournaments etc. It allows people to stay tuned in until that local scene to develope. Also a default format helps ensure that when you meet people locally who are playing the game then you will have compatiable decks.

I could make a Yugioh deck and walk into any hobby league in America and be able to play a game since they have a default format. I could do the same thing with Magic since they essentially have a default format. However, I really could not do this with VS and this is a problem.

UDE keeps talking about how they want to grow the local casual scene yet they do not want to define what their game is. Currently it is sorta golden, silver, modern (which has changed), random punks, bring your own set....VS seems more like an engine than a card game to me.

Countless formats will never foster a casual scene since you can't casually follow and play the game. It requires way too much effort to stay half way current with VS. To have a good casual base you need to be able to stay involved while only devoting a minimal amount of time outside of the local tournametn each week. A constant stream of differnt formats is not conducive to this.

Well, when you're getting into Vs., you have to know 1 of 2 things: either a) what team(s) do I like, or b) what kind of deck do I like to play? Either way, it's simple. You've figured it out. You can go buy the set that features that team, or for whatever archetype you wish to use.

So, let's say your favorite team is Avengers. Well, there's conveniently a set by that name. You go buy it, and you build an Avengers deck. Now, you go to a local hobby league that you got the address from on the UDE website. Well, sorry, you can't play, because you have rares, or because you aren't playing MTU, or the deck isn't Modern legal, or you didn't print out an Alter Ego...oh well.

That seems to me like a much larger barrier. I've never once heard of someone getting into the game and saying, "Man, I really like Spider-Man, but how am I going to choose what to play between all these 55 (not infinite) teams?"

I'd like to think that people are smarter than you give them credit for. I'd like to think that your average human being is not going to throw a fit because there are a lot of cards, or a lot of teams.

However, I am not optimistic enough to think that your average human being will be happy about being told that they can't play in a hobby league because Vs. has 10 formats, and their deck is only legal in 3 of them. Hell, if I could never play any of my decks, I would stop playing the game.

It has nothing to do with 'complication', Erick. Despite having to learn a slightly varied rule set for some special formats, I think your average human is smart enough that that won't be a problem. It has to do with how much you actually get to play with the deck you made.

Absolutely agree.

I think VS would be better off with less teams but, that is not the real problem.

Your average person will also not be happy once they learn that the deck they have spent time and money building, buying cards for and trading, is no longer legal. They will not be happy to learn that they will have to repeat the process for a new format and get to have that format rotate out once they have the deck complete.

The biggest obstacle to playing VS is not the complexity of the game, but the instability of the game.

Here's an Idea. Lets ask people who play Vs. Sytem plus another game such as MTG who write articles for a website about that other game, to write about their experiance playing Vs. System. Clearly this would grab the TCG community's attention.

Edit: Crap, Darrius must have forgotten to log out of my computer... This is Exiledforcefrea

Wait... this is a bit misleading. There are multiple formats in MtG also... current block, Type II, Extended, Type I... etc. Any game with a long tenure has multiple formats. The difference is that in these games, because of the limited archetypes... almost any deck can be modified to fit the format... not so with VS.

The infi teams in VS is part of the reason why there are so many formats, because the cardpool interactions makes it difficult to control the various archetypes. Had there been less sets, less teams... it would be easier to handle.
I actually agree that the constant changing of formats is problematic. Making the constructed format standard for a season is helpful but the only problem is for formats like Modern... the format will change mid season. Which is why they should switch the seasons to coincide with the releases of sets. Not knowing the future of PCs past Indy, this could very well stabilize with a defacto constructed format.

However, for Hobby League... these multiple formats have been good for the local scene. You are always going to get both sides of the fence... there are players who complain about Golden Age or Silver Age and how at every HL tournament... the same decks dominate the scene. With multiple formats, it allows for variety... it shakes up the meta. The City Champ Silver Age format was very active as is Random Punks.

And again... stability goes back to the archtype system. Of course it's going to be hard to stay current with a system that adds 4-5 new archetypes every set.

One thing to think about... what if... the Legends set is the start of a standard format? Golden Age will encompass everything of course... but say there was a Standard Age that only included cards from Legends on. That would help right? That would of course anger people whose teams don't get featured in the new sets but you can't complain about rotating format AND get to pick and choose what teams you want to see.

Does anyone else but me see how the infi teams structure leads to the format problems?

Reducing existing sales is also a change. That would be worse than 'no change'.

Just because something has to change doesn't mean that every change is going to be good.

I don't think anyone has seriously advocated that nothing changes. However, not every change is going to result in increased sales or improvements. And thus, they want to at LEAST be a little skeptical to change.

Maybe it would help if you would explain what you mean by 'archetypes', because I think I am completely missing your point.

When I say it, I mean one of two things: what a team does, and how they do it. Like...rush, swarm, stall, curve or exhaust, self-burn.

So, obviously, from my point of view, truly new archetypes are fairly rare - the last one we had was probably Shadowpact, though if you wanted to claim Legionnaires as a new twist on an old archetype, I'd accept that, but even so, they work extremely well with some older teams.

Also ... there are enough players in Magic to support the multiple formats.

If there are 10 formats, and the people that prefer each format at divided evenly by 10% each... you can support all the formats with enough players.

However, you can't expect LESS players to support the same ammount of formats.

There are 5 formats for Magic, Type 1, 1.5, 1.x, 2 and Block.

Vs. has 3 main formats, plus Pick a Set, and that's before you start including anything like Random Punks, Giant Size, Ego, etc, etc, etc ...

Having the same number of formats as Magic, with less players ... it's going to be less people that prefer each format. You can't sustain as many different formats and have them all be succesful when you have less players in total. Trying to run as many formats at the same time as Magic is like trying to run a pro circuit equivalent to Magic ... if you don't have the player base, you are going to be creating more of a burden.

The 'special events' are well advertised, so they avoid the issue of having to get players to agree on a format ... it's the rest of the time that becomes an issue.

One thing though ... the 'each set is new' actually makes multiple formats better in some cases. Someone could build a 'single set' deck and play it in Golden, Silver, Modern or Pick Your Own Set ... they might change it slightly depending on the format ... but with much of the core strategy being a single team from a single set, most of the deck would be the same regardless of format.

Also to clarify... I think you guys are arguing the problem of constant changing of formats which I agree with. UDE should set a standard format for Constructed. The problem is the rotation of sets changes the metagame in VS because of the team shifting of archetypes.

What I mean by archetypes are team-stamped ones. Sure, there are general archetypes of rush, stall, control etc... but they all can't be clumped together with team-ups w/out losing consistency. Stall can... as can control... but rush/aggro usually does better with a mono-team or a team-stamped aggro team up (ala Faces of Evil).

The presence of multiple formats does not create a higher barrier of entry to me because they are optional. They present an alternative for players who wish to play in them. And as WaKo said, by pushing them as Marquee Events makes it easy for players to know what is being played at what time. It's the rotation of the standard format for Constructed play that is an issue and I wholly agree that it needs to be more standardized and stable.

But it's only optional sometimes. I mean, if you want to build a deck from anything except MTU and you show up at an Alter Ego event, what are you going to do? Maybe someone there will have an extra deck, if you're lucky. Or if they have an odd number of players, you could play whoever has a bye - though them having the Egos and you not having them means that you're pretty screwed.

And, I'd disagree with Faces, seeing how Faces of Evil wasn't as successful as X-Faces, which wasn't as successful as Shadow Faces, which culminated in the banned Chimp Faces. They just kept throwing stuff in there from new teams, and it just kept working.

But we would never know that unless we did something to produce that result. My point is... you have to do something. And yes... maybe it will hurt more than help... but you have to be willing to try to find out.
I disagree. You keep repeating this edict every time I repeat mine but there is a reason I keep repeating mine. There are number of posters on this site who don't want to change ANYTHING. Look at this thread for example, I'm not even touching the game engine... just asking for suggestions to help bring VS to the masses and people are resisting. Look at the Alter Ego threads and you'll see people worry about putting an extra card in a VS pack.

I know I can be stubborn myself (I hated 1-game format) but some of the reasoning I read boggles my mind.

People say that VS is not complex... but I hear Magic Pros say otherwise... and I put more stock into what they say. If VS were not complex, than why don't more people play it? And maybe it's not the complexity... maybe it's the lucksackery. But that's the point... if we can't change the game engine... then how do we get more people to play this game?

My dear friend, that is called "Throwing the baby out with the bathwater". Look it up.

This thread has twenty pages. Half of it contains suggestions. The other half contains you... asking the same questions over and over.

Maybe it will help, maybe it won't. I hope you are having fun with it either way.

This is off-topic but in all the above cases... it still used Faces of Evil... a team-stamped aggro team-up... which is what I originally said.

And back on topic... Marquee Events tell you what kind of deck you are supposed to play. It's the job of the LGS to make sure their local players are informed... the same can be said if a MtG tourney runs Block format and players bring Type II decks.

I suspect that most people here are fine with change. Arguing that we don't like your suggested changes based off of generalizations that we disagree with is not the same as hating change.

Also, I think you're misinterpretting the Alter Egos thing. I don't think most people care if they add an extra slot to the packs...but, if you don't like Alter Egos, why would you want to have that slot filled with one? The bigger issue - would adding another card make the packs more expensive? The game is hard enough to afford without worrying about having to pay more to get something you don't want.

I'm sorry, but I think you're confusing not liking your changes with not liking change.

Edit: Sorry, two things. First, yes, they still used Faces of Evil...but they added a bunch of off-team cards from a bunch of different sets and it made the deck better.

Second, if we're talking about new players, there's a good chance - a very good chance - that they aren't in contact with the local store. Besides, if they go buy a bunch of cards for one deck, then learn that they can't play that deck...well, they're GOING to be pissed off, regardless of whether or not they learn a week earlier, or the day of the tourny.