The idea was that a 'lack of alliance' would be, in effect, their alliance. They could be 'freelancers' ... and perhaps a few other teams could be grouped their as well [Deathstroke, Crisis, Skrull, Wild Pack, Marvel Knights ... teams that encourage teaming up with other groups, or in supplanting other team affiliations.]

O.k., I'll take a crack at this. First, however, the number of teams in the game does not affect the complexity of the game in my opinion, so the super team or alliance or reduction of the number of teams is inconsequential as to the complexity of the game. The number of teams impacts other aspects of Vs. (singles sales, frequency of refeatures, ease of correcting balance issues, etc.).

1. Eliminate threshold costs. Having a number on cards stand for two different things is a level of complexity that isn't needed. On Equipment and Character cards, the number in the uppder left is a resource points cost. On Plot Twists and Locations the same number refers to a threshold of how many resources a player must have in order to play the card. One number used for two different things adds complexity.

Change this number to resource points cost. For cards which shouldn't be played too early in the game, but should have a cost of 0, add a line of text in the top of the text box, "Play only if you control 4 or more resources."

2. Move the traits to the text box. The fewer elements on the card the easier it is to explain. There is nothing so special about "Mutant" that it cannot be at the top of the text box like Willpower.

3. The concept that parts of a card are blank while a card is stunned but other parts of a card are not is a needless rule. The trait box and the introduction of cards that have effects when KO'd, even while stunned, makes this even more unwiedly. So, no element of a card is blank due to being stunned.

4. Reduce the complexity of the phases. The draw and recovery phases have specific actions that occur (draw 2 cards, recover 1 character and KO the rest, respectively). No new effects can be generated in these phases, but effects from other phases can be resolved at the start of the recovery phase before the auto-actions kick-in. Effects to be resolved at teh start of the phase should be designed to be timing independent so that each player just does them without having to worry about the stack.

The Build phase allows you to lay a resource, recruit characters and equipment, and flip locations in your resource row. No plot twists can be played. Plot Twists, Characters, and Equipment placed in your resource row always remain facedown. Ongoing Plot Twists could either be engineered as Locations or Ongoing Plot Twists could be redeveloped, for example:

"Reveal this card from your hand. If there are no stunned characters in play at the beginning of the recovery phase, gain a Dream counter (place it in front of you) if you control at least one X-Men character. If this is your third Dream counter, you win the game. You may only reveal one Xavier's Dream per turn."

The Main phase only allows you to use effects on cards face-up in play or cards in your hand. The resource row is not available in the Main phase. This limits the number of sources for effets and allows players to focus on their hand rather than trying to focus on both their hand and resource row.

5. Eliminate cards that are designed to interact with the stack. Manhunter Conqueror and Rocket Red #4 are cards that are difficult for casual players to use to their utmost because of how their effects work timing-wise.

6. Limit designers to 1 new keyword per set that represents a new mechanic.

7. Increase team-stamping of effects and increase team-stamping that references printed affiliation. Reducing the number of potential interactions among cards reduces complexity of the game.

8. Eliminate reinforcement and breakthrough as rulebook constraints and add Breakthrough as a keyword. Basically move to M:TG blocking and trample rules. Or, I would change reinforcement to be a simpler ability, such as "All characters in the back row have the following ability, 'Exhaust -> reinforce another character you control.'

This one, I would actually want to bring to focus groups and see which option was the easiest for the test groups to pick-up on.

9. Change from drawing two cards per turn to drawing three cards per turn. This allows a reduction in search effects which bog down the game. With the reduction in accessibility to cards in the resource row, this also provides players with more options. Hitting the desired cards makes the decision process for players easier. Warlord is a game where players draw 5 cards per turn, and it has a younger following than Vs. because players get to play the cards they want to and they get the cards they need more often without resorting to search effects.

-Mike Mullins

I wouldn't like "any" team stamped effect that can be applied to any team within the umbrella, but how about versions for affiliations? That way you can distinguish between the MXM version of the X-Men and the MOR version of the X-Men (well you could have if they did this back then). You can also still use your umbrella idea.

I don't think this is all that complicated. Maybe rather than have 5 colors, we could have everything using resource points be predominantly red (at least where the number is) and the other be predominantly blue. Adding text to the box that is basically a game rule will only make it more confusing.

Well, technically yes there is. You're still a mutant if you are stunned. Just like you are still an X-Men if you are stunned. If you are stunned you can't have willpower because your a stunned (i.e. incapacitated) nor can you use abilities (because you are incapacitated). If this is a source of confusion, the best thing to do I'd imagine is reconfigure the trait to be placed near and parallel to the affiliation box, since it functions along the same lines.

This is completely changing the gameplay. Furthermore, there are only a few effects that "work" when they are face-down. And sometimes yes there are cards that are complicated, it happens. I don't see what the big issue with traits is, affiliations have always existed "outside the box" as does attack/defense and flight/range.

The complex build/phase mechanics are really the source of confusion in VS. But reading through what you wrote, I don't see it getting any less confusing. :confused:

But cards like these are necessary for the if we are going to allow stack interaction. How best to understand how to chain off of a recruit effect than an ability that blatantly encourages the player to look in that direction? Sure they didn't know before they knew how the card worked, but now they do know and they have learned to be better players because of it.

I would also like to add that other keywords be limited. Maybe 1 old keyword that is re-featured on a team. Concealed shouldn't be considered in this area though, as it's pretty much a staple mechanic nowadays.

Not for or against this, but I don't see it as reducing the complexity of the game only to effect the balance aspect of the game.

Formations is a lynchpin of the game. And this change would basically make this a different game.

Luck of the draw is part of the game. If people are playing the game intelligently, they will seek to optimize their deck. So it doesn't matter if you draw 2 or 20 cards per turn. I draw 20 cards in a turn? That means I can run X fewer cards at this drop to get the same % of drawing that I would if I drew 2 cards a turn. Which leads to the same desireability in search effects, since search effects can fulfill multiple drops, and also leads to the same % of hitting the drops since % of hitting the drops is a measure of the deck-builders risk-assessment of hitting those drops not a game mechanic.

If we're just assuming uber-casual "pick up and play" then why not just have a player be able to pre-choose their character drops and just have their deck be a pile of plot twists?

It does affect complexity in a way that it provides too many options for new players to build viable decks. Conversely, once a team is chosen, it creates restrictions based on team-stamped abilities and effects that have to be accounted for. I guess by complexity I am speaking to not just the game mechanics but the overall ability to get into the game which includes deck building, archetype distinction etc.
Agreed somewhat... but it was suggested that instead of threshold go to payment or "tap" costs. Another issue is that either player can play as many PTs as they have, which leads to too many decision trees. After turn 4... threshold basically means nothing and VS now becomes a guessing game. Whereas if there were some sort of method where a player is "exhausted" out... options would be fewer. This is why many of the newer PTs say, "Play only if you have played no other Plot Twists... you may play no other Plot Twists this turn"... which just creates a templating nightmare.
This still becomes a templating issue has you have to read the text box to make sure you are playing a PT correctly.
I disagree with this. There are numerous effects on characters and equipment that need to "off" when the character is stunned. This is why certain characters are attacked first... to turn off their abilities.
I somewhat agree with you here for reasons I've stated earlier.
Drawing more cards per turn creates consistency... but it doesn't necessarily improve gameplay. Unless the threshold costing was eliminated, by giving players more options... it increases decision-making time. I still think drawing 1 card per turn is too little but the reasons why certain people feel this way does make sense. To me... drawing 2 cards is a good balance.

This goes to show that there are different approaches based on past experience and seeing posts like these are quite interesting.

Doesn't having threshold cost make things easier?

If you went to a resource type system for plot twists you'd still have situations where players have to tank to decide should they save "mana" for their attack or defense. You still aren't really getting rid of all the complexity inherent in having all plot twists available to you at all because at some point they will be "untapped".

By introducing another level of complexity you just make the game more penalizing for bad players who tap their resources wrong. Now you have to worry about a very confusing combat step, resource management, and the various interactions that come from both... except the good player can't get mana screwed.

I think the whole idea of having threshold was to avoid resource management period, so that players could just focus on combat - which is the heart and soul of the game.

We will just agree to disagree. No first time player has to design any more than a single team deck.

You always have to read a text box to see if you are playing a card correctly. Does it target? Do I have to have a character of a specific team to play it? Do all of my characters need to have teh same affiliation?

This is true of every card in every CCG.

I was basing all of these recommendations off of a relaunch. If the rule was in place, you could properly design/word cards so that the auto-off of being stunned was properly dealt with. To me, this is no greater a change than the mega-team concept which could not be realistically backfitted into the existing card pool.

No setup of card drawing improves game play over any other paradigm. 1 vs. 3 vs. 5 vs. fill-your-hand card drawing mechanics isn't inherently better. Games with more card drawing can survive on fewer card search or more restricted card search abilities without devolving too far into the land of the lucky.

My only experience with card games that were commonly played by a younger crowd is Warlords which allows players to fill their hands every turn, drawing up to 5 cards each turn. This actually eased the decision making process for many players because it was advantaguous to use as many of your cards as possible in a turn. New players like to use cards and teaching them when to be patient can actually be a significant hutdle.

-Mike

Clearly there are too many teams in VS. The infinite color wheel DOES NOT WORK.

While bad cards are needed in every set, there are too many unplayable TEAMS in VS. That means half to 75% of each set is unplayable due to what team they are related to. The remaining portion of the set is at the normal 10%-20% playable that most card games fall into.

Just because you think you are a good player and that VS isn't too complicated, doesn't MEAN you are a good player and that VS isn't too complicated.

You really can't sit down and play VS. at a truly high level and have FUN for more than 1 match.


Bye until the next time i post random thoughts from my random self....

Visual Suggestions:
1) Card visual redesign. One of the main problems that I have when it comes to teach VS to friends is that there are 5 colors, which interact in generically 2 categories, but still need to be explained separately. So rather than 5 colors, only have 2... around the number. The rest of the edges of the card can be the same color as they were before, but have a white circle around the cost that is red or blue. This way you can point out the cards quickly, this card spends resource points, this card counts resources.

2) Reservist/Terraform should get a special colors. Much like concealed they become playable in a different play area. Granted it's not a new play area, but its different than the normal one. This is different than simply a new gameplay mechanic, because it changes how you form your resources (your hand and your row) rather than combat interactions. Again it would be useful to point to a color and say "these are the only colors you should be putting in your resource row."

3) Affiliations and traits should be close to each other. Not in the same area, but the player should be able to look and associate a trait being closer to an affiliation rather than being part of the text box. Though this is not a big deal with me, and may lead to further confusion about them being thought of as affiliations. Maybe they can be moved to the other side where dual affiliations used to be instead. (Though this may again lead people to confusions since some cards have an affiliation there).

Templating Suggestion:
Timing/Declaration/Resolution distinctions. Sometimes clarity is just better. As a templated part of a plot twist or a location (not characters though), there should be templating distinguising: Timing, Costs, and Effects. Timing would just when it could be played, build, in combat, etc. Costs would threshold costs, plus any additional costs including targeting a character. Effect would just be the normal text of the card, if it is a location the effect line would read "location enabled" and then a break and then the locations normal text. Making the cost clears like this, hopefully will make the cards easier to read, since you don't have to wade through a mass of text to figure out the card.

If the new player wants to make the game more complicated than is he is capable of handling, this he's waded out beyond his depth and is going to drown. I don't think there is really anything that can be done about that. Deck building for a new player really isn't that hard, if he knows a generic character count for a curve. Sure it might suck, but hey got to start somewhere. I'd say most curve on curve battles are fairly balanced at that level of play simply due to the fact that stats on characters are typically not that far off from each other.

Just out of curiosity, is the colour wheel really a complexity issue? I realize people might be turned off of the game because their favourite team gets beaten by random team X, but does the proliferation of teams really confuse people?

Certainly the wheel has little to do with game mechanics, strictly speaking. What it does is affect how deck-building works, and I would think that the amount of team-stamped effects would, as a general rule restrict your card pool once you've pick the team(s) you want to build with (EomE non-team decks notwithstanding). As such, deck building should be a bit easier. In fact, one of the big bonuses of having new teams is that new players will have a fairly similar card pool to people who have been playing since Origins (with some obvious notable exceptions) as far as those new teams go.

My suspicion is that drastically reducing the number of teams could have the effect of making the game more difficult by enabling broken interactions as more mechanics become native to a single team. Team separation generally ensures that some extra effort is required to combine certain types of effects.

I guess I could ramble on about that, but most of the posters clearly are of a different mind, so I'll leave it there.

The most complex mechanical issues have been properly identified as formation (including reinforcement) and phases.

Phases is simply a matter of learning. As such, I'll reinterate my suggestion that UDE find a way to make useful introductory play aids available. A simple checklist of phases would, I suspect, go a long way towards clarifying things for new players.

I really love formations, but will admit that it's an area where mistakes are easy to make - especially for players who don't want to spend 5 minutes every turn analyzing all possible permutations. The 'back row characters can reinforce any character' seems the most elegant solution to me, and the one that would involve the least re-tooling of the game. It means you still have to make decisions about where to put characters and whether to reinforce, but makes the decision tree much smaller.

Sure... granted... new players may need to choose only 1 team... but which of the 50+ teams in VS do they choose? Do they test each one to see which one suits their playstyle? Or if the game system is broken down into a somewhat finite wheel of archetypes... is it easier for them to grasp?
Yes... but the goal here is to minimize how much needs to be read. Reading for a target and effect(s) should be all we need to look for... the other text for additional cost, phase restrictions, turn restrictions, timing restrictions etc just makes it more complex right?
This is true... and dependent on the game engine. For cards that have costed effects, more card draw opens up options but the decision making is still minimized due to cost. For thresholds... more cards creates more decision trees since there are no cost barriers, you have to rely on order of playing effects, responses from opponent, etc etc.
True again... but still based on the engine. A "draw up to X" engine would be different in regards to card costing and I would expect it to be a "blow all your cards" type turn system.

BTW: I was demo'd SpyCraft at GenCon Indy a while back and it must have been the person who demo'd it to me because I have no idea how that game is played up to now.

Just to kind of break the long string of ridiculously huge posts.....

More Jessica Alba.

:):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):) Smiley Overload!!!

Makes it easier to play cards... but makes it harder for the players to decide what to play.
Going into the tank to decide how much mana to save takes much less time than trying to map out all the options you and your opponent have since there is no mana to worry about.
Does it add a level or does it create simplicity by limiting options? We have a running joke with a Magic player who at the end of his turn says "Say Go.", and we would respond with "GO!". We understand it to mean "You can go now" but the idea is that once tapped, you can do nothing else, even if you have 12 cards in your hand. The same goes for your opponent, so there will be times when basically you are just doing combat without effects because you can't play them. That's why playing Lex-3 is fairly easy... because you know your opponent can't play a PT (or can only play a single one).
In theory... yes... in practice... not so much. The focus tends to stray between attack order, attack choice, reinforcement, playing pumps, what tricks the opponent has, when should PTs be played etc etc. Of course this has more to do with than just the resource system but it's part of the picture.

Again... I'm sure most players on VSRealms will disagree with me but the few that have demo'd and seen as many games as I have will have an inkling of what I'm talking about. And yes... it is my opinion... but I'm basing it not just on personal experience but what I've seen and heard from players, judges, TOs and game designers/developers.