And for now, wizards reward players more for participation(well, except for speed of the prize money)

I've never felt a single bit rewarded for playing magic so this must be something new.

For VS i've gotten free EAs in the mail, and EAs just for participating, tons of chances at money, and every now and again UDE even fluffs my pillows before I got to bed.

Now that's service.

Byes based on ratings.
EAs worth good money given to players(powder keg, psychatog to name a few, balance, intuition, rare, but I own them)
Plane tickets to the PTs.
Discounts based on events(you can get discounts in hotels if you're playing in a GP)
4 PTQ/GPTs a month
Nationals invites
Much deeper payouts in GPs
PT not restricited to US
VS is designed by magic players, they did us a service by designing this game.

Well, what I wa strying to say is that it pays better to be good in magic than good in VS(of course its harder to be good in magic)

I made a small post earlier, but I've been thinking a bit more on this and I've come to some conclusions about this:

VS, as a game, is superior to Magic in resource mechanics and combat. The two cards drawn per turn also make VS games less random than Magic games. In all other aspects, Magic is at least as good and often better than VS.

HOWEVER!

VS sets are much better designed than magic sets. VS and Magic packs retail for the same price in my area, but if you open one of each your VS pack will often yield cards worth twice the cards in the Magic pack. As you get cards, you will notice that you will end up playing a larger percentage of your VS cards than your Magic cards. VS cards are just more playable than Magic cards, on the average. VS also has a much lower incidence of broken cards being printed that break the game in half. Even the most powerful VS cards can't dictate the entire course of a game in the way that Umezawa's Jitte can. VS does not mess around with the resource system very much, making for a game that is does not devolve into two players ramping up mana to accelerate into a broken threat.

I guess the gist of what I am trying to say is that Magic is technically a better game offering more options to its players, but it is executed poorly compared to VS.

While this debate has been raging on throughout the years of all CCG's only time will tell as the only thing to settle what is good and what is second. Its true that Magic has had an established piller and Vs is starting to make one of its own. While both offer BIG advantages in terms of mental play and creativity, Magic does make one wary of all things that are transpiring before him. With Vs there is a lot more leeway in terms of mistakes. It is possible to recover easier from it than it can be in MTG in SOME cases. But is it true that everyone loves a new challenge, even when its learning a new system and can change the way you think of a game? If so, then when does burnout occur within one's self? Keeping pace for both is one hell of a mental****. But then again I love the mental dynamics that both offer. Each is unique in the way the game is played. Given time Vs will need such mental toughness to compete to the level of other games including MTG. But given the time that MTG has been around, game play is not as forgiving as Vs. May the future behold what your creativity will pull out of either game that you choose.

Yes, but Magic doesn't use their characters as the hook to bait gamers. Vs does.

As for the use of this argument on a Vs site, it hardly make it invalid. I personnally don't own a comic but I enjoy the characters and stories I can find on the net.

p.s. I have no idea what snidley and cake muncher mean, care to enlighten?

The major stumbling block for Magic's future growth is its resource system, far and away. It's just too prone to crapping out on you.

The equivalent problem in VS of missing a drop is nowhere near as bad. If you have to under-drop, at least you PLAYED something, and can come back in later turns. Missing a land/color in Magic often means "gg" and waiting around for the next round's pairings.

Duel Masters, or Magic 2.0, updates the resource system to something that can compete with VS in flexibility and consistency.

That said, Magic is just really entrenched, and that's its main advantage over VS. But a decade ago no one thought AOL could be toppled from the top of the internet world, but look at it now.

In Summary
--------------
Mechanics/Design: VS > Magic

Flavor: Tie (Depends what you like)

Prize Support: Tie (Easier to do well in VS, more perks for good players in Magic)

R&D: VS >>> Magic (Compare how long it took UDE to ban Dr. Light v. DCI and Affinity)

Community: Magic >> VS (A lot more people to play against, and more of a casual scene)

I for 1, find that the magic resource system actually makes it more skill testing in terms of deck building and keeping of hands, whereas the VS system mulligan is simply 'digging for key cards', the magic mulligan is 'how worth it is trading a card for a greater chance of winning.'

Just thought I'd chime in again with some more of my thoughts on this.

When I tell someone that plays magic about VS there are always a few things I start out with:

1. You can't lose to mana screw.

This is big, very big. Yes, underdropping in a curve deck sucks, but you can still win. Try winning a game of magic when you only draw 2 lands. This is however off-set a bid by the fact that you play the best 2 out of three.

2. The Rare/Uncommon/Common power distripution is much much better.

If you loos at the majority of deck you will see a MUCh better ratio of R/U/C when you compare a deck to an unopened pack of cards. There are lots of key common, lots of key uncommons, and most decks don't need 20 rares.

3. the game-play is just as complex.

Probably more so due to you never knowing if your opponent will have a response. In magic I can look at his mana and that gives me a lot of information. Mr. Mono-Blue is tapped out? Guess I don't have to worry about a counter (unless you playing T1).

Formation also adds a GREAT degree to the game complexity.


As for the payouts... Technically if you look at nothing but the money you get more in magic. Even tried qualifying for the Magic PT though? It hard as hell. You have to be good, but there is a lot more luck involved as at any time you can get mana hosed...

VS puts everyone on a much more lvl playing ground by making mulligans easier and allowing us to draw more cards. Yes, mulligans take skill in magic, but you can just as easily draw another 1 land hand.

I think VS makes skill a greater factor and luck a lesser one.


So far in VS I have won FIVE!!!! EA Wild Rides... 10 EA Midnight Sons. A EA Genosha. And lots of other stuff that I can't remember.

I'd say the card payouts in VS are extremely better than magic. Foil Rancor... woohoo... When was the last time you saw them handing out Foil Extended Art Pithing Needles?

well i for one stopped playing Magic because its way to competitive. i had somewhat competitive decks but most of mine were for fun and used all the cards people didn't use. it just wasn't fun anymore. everyone played to win and not have fun.

VS is a lot more fun. Yes, its competitive but its fun competition. vs also isn't that old, so its easier to get into and find the cards. not to say the least but ude has a 10yr old contract. there already got sets planned past the 10yr mark.

I've discussed with some of the ex-Magic players that are now the best in the world at Vs about the two games. People like Nick Little, Vidi, Josh Wiitanen, etc. Keep in mind that this perspective is from a bunch of people that weren't good enough at Magic but now make thousands playing Vs. That probably skews things.

If you're among the elite in Magic, you might make money at 60% of the PTs you play in. Noone has the insane consistency that someone like Nick Little can claim. An interesting article for Wizard's site (last weeks Brian David-Marshall column) had a table with the details of all the finishes of the top players. The average finishes for the top players were in the 60s! Only one player in the top 10 had made money at every event they went to(and he skipped an event). Without the Pro Players Club, the reliability in Magic is not there.
(more on the club later)

In Vs. you can reliably do well at every event you go to. The game is that skill intensive. My team had a terrible deck for Indy, and 3 our of 4 still managed to day 2. At a Magic PT, your tournament is sometimes over as soon as you hand in the deck registration sheets. Magic has sustained a power creep over the past couple years that has made games very luck based and swingy. Vs has no such problem. As far as I know, noone has ever won back to back Magic GPs</ego-boosting> , and Magic's been around alot longer.

If there is one thing that Magic has for its top pros, its the Pro Players Club. It's nice to be guaranteed money every time you show up to a PT or a GP, and it will help take the sting out of a bad tournament. But its definitely a what have you done for me now lately type of thing. Kai Budde, the greatest magician ever to cast a spell (and still an active player), doesn't recieve anything from the Pro Players Club. Basically, the Club boils down to additional prize money from the PT that you did well at, paid out over the next events you attend.

The game mechanics in Vs are easily superior. They make for better, more skill intensive matches. If you disagree, go play the slots, you sack of luck.

The rewards for your mid level player are infinitely better. I've gotten nothing but countless worthless pins from qualifiers over the years playing Magic. Some of the most anticipated Magic tournaments (States, regionals), give out nothing but packs (and a plaque, i guess) as prizes. I play in PCQs partially because I like all the stuff you get. Playmats, Deck boxes, EA cards, shirts. A friend of mine went to a PCQ with me a week or so after learning the game. We both made t8, and I beat him in the quarterfinals. At a magic tournament, he would've gone home essentially empty. Here, he was happy that he made more money (selling stuff on ebay) than he got for getting second at states.


I definitely haven't touched on many aspects of the game. This is what I know. I don't know how each game appeals to the "kitchen table" players. However, for tournament players of all levels, Vs is definitely superior. Given the relative newness of the game, entry into the Pro Circuit is definitely much easier. The mechanics reward better players, making money more consistant. The swag for PCQs and hobby league is much better.

I'll finish by sharing that when I played Magic, I had to drop out of college because I barely had enough money to eat, let alone pay tuition. I'm now back in college, tuition paid for almost exclusively because of Vs.

So maybe I'm biased, but I Hate Magic is alot more than a -3 DEF plot twist.

Adam Prosak

And ihatepants is a little more than a useless post. Great opinons Adam!

I am going to play Devil's advocate here, as it seems hard to bring up a decent case for Magic in a VS website.

One of the biggest issues about Magic is the skill curve, brought upon most noticably by the advent of MTGO. Basically, it is easy to go from bad to decent, but rather hard to go from decent to good, and considerably much harder to actually breakthrough to the Tour because there are far too many players who have been playing longer then you. This problem was compounded by MTGO which made sure that EVERYONE could practice 24/7. This basically means that the skill level of your average Magic tournament is considerably much higher than your VS tournament. Is this bad? No, not neccessarily. But it does make it a more attractive option for someone looking to earn a decent number of bucks by playing cards to go for VS instead of Magic. I myself am one of these people.

Another big issue that I don't think is that big is mana screw. I think people on these boards on up-playing the mana screw aspect. It sounds like from what's posted here that everyone's getting mana screwed every other game which is obviously not true. When we bring up mana screw we must bring up a variety of different points:
* Your mana curve - 10 land stompy runs considerably better on one forest then say mono blue. Obviously, depending on your deck type having less lands may often be better. Charbelcher anyone?
*Your opponent can get mana screwed - That's right, you're not the only victim of this.
* 2 out of 3 games - You get two out of three chances a game to play around this and shuffle the best out of your deck.
* Mulligan - This is the kicker. You can mulligan any hand away for any reason. This was one of the biggest differences between your average player and a pro. The pro will aggressively mulligan hands that will seem playable to the average player. Once I started learning to mulligan away hands where the spells and lands don't interact very well together I started winning again. I cannot say this in VS. You get one mulligan and if that hand is worse, well then too bad. This is balanced out by you looking through more cards when you draw, but my point is that you can vastly reduce the damage mana screw does to you by proper deck construction and better playing(Aggressive mulliganing).

In terms of rewards, I must say that VS has really taken care of their hobby league very well. While it seems vastly easier to start up an FNM then Hobby League from what I've heard, it's very nice to know that you can earn good cards playing. Of course, this is no longer the issue, with WoTC giving away good promos like FTK, Fact or Fiction, AK, Brainstorm etc. FNM gives out 4 promos a week. Hobby League gives away 16 good promos and 22+ participation promos a month. This basically comes to about 16 good promos a month. More often then not the participation promo is not playable though it often is - Midnight Sons, Emeral Twilight. The difference however is much smaller then many of the posters here would seem to demonstrate. Deck boxes, mats, yep Magic doesn't do this. However, VS doesn't do fat packs, pre-cons as frequently, giving free airplane rides when you win PCQs as opposed to cash, have a Pro Tour club. Both sides have done fairly good things for their players. I am sure a professional Magic player or a professional VS player would much rather have the benefits the pro Magic player gets then what the current VS pro gets. VS is more friendly toward players at the lower level with deck boxes and mats and what not. Since the average poster here is likely not a Magic pro or VS pro, it is not surprisngly that ths type of support UDE gives to it's player recieves more acclaim then the support WoTC gives it's players. Both sides have merit, it's just which side of the fence you're on.

With regards to MtG's R&D being inferior, I'll have to disagree. My logic here is not neccesarily straight forward but bear with me here. The issue is that every since member of VS R&D minus a couple here and there were professional Magic players who tested extensively with Magical cards. It is in no way a coincidence that the templating of most VS cards are nearly identical to Magic: the Gathering cards. "As an additional cost to play...", and "Exhaust target charecter". Even the chain in VS is more akin to the stack in Magic: the Gathering then YGO. My point here is that we would obviously expect them to deliever a better product because they have had about 9 years worth of experience. Does that neccessarily mean that say, Mark Rosewater is inferior in terms of design to Hummel? No, you can't really prove either way. It just means that VS 's R&D has been given a leg up. They were able to see the mistakes from Urza's block - too faster, to Mercadian block - too slow, and learned from their mistakes and thus if we look at many Magic sets, VS does seem superior.

There also seems to be a huge resentment for Wizards's actions against Ravager Affinity. The general sentiment is that it took VS much quicker to go after Dr. Light and co, then WoTC against Ravager Affinity. Everyone is just outright blaming WoTC without looking to how this game is different. For example, in Magic: the Gathering there have been multiple fairly healthy environments with fast combo decks. Magic can do this because the two out of three game system and sideboard. When you can bring in up to 12+ cards against a deck made exclusively to exploit a narrow loop winning becomes a much more easier issue. In addition thw two out of three game system allows you to adapt and learn on the fly. VS doesn't have this.

Back during trix, I played Counter Oath. I ran an additional Seal of Cleansing as my main answer to them and I was still able to handle them very well. This is because I could sideboard additional things like Pyroblasts, more Seals and whatever I needed.

If you don't play Magic, Seal of Cleansing was a card that was a utility card that was traditionally played as a one-of in deck's like Counter Oath because you could search it out. It is very akin to Flame Trap except against the popular deck at the time, two of them made it literally impossible for your opponent to win.

In VS where you don't have a sideboard, and there is no 2 out of 3 game system, you have to fix distrotions to the metagame very quickly because decks have no natural way to compensate for their weakness without penalties. For example, while Curve Sentinel could adapt relatively easy to beating Dr. Light, Teen Titans had considerable trouble. In essence, in the VS metagame the rock-paper-scissors dilemma is far more pronounced because it is much harder for the weaker deck to fix up it's ways against the tougher decks. You can maybe bring in a couple of cards, but beyond that you are fundamentally changing your deck.Curve Sentinel is the one exception to this rule, and most already consider it degenerate anyhow. Going back to Ravager Affinity: While it was dominant, it wasn't unbeatable. The strangest thing was that the most of the winning decks at the time weren't always Ravager. Ravager was basically the curve sentinels at the time, and you could get a big leg up against it by bringing your choice of however many Disenchants you wanted to. For awhile, R&D were willing to let the metagame adjust itself because it was clear that the metagame had already demonstrated increasing resistance to Ravager. The dilemma of Ravager is exactly the same as it was Curve Sentinels, and if you want to blame R and D for being slower on Ravager then Dr. Light, I would same that VS's R&D is worse for being considerably slower on Curve Sentinels then Ravager Affinity. Now is Curve Sentinels still tier 1? Yeah, but it seems like it's slowly slipping, not far, but it is. HOWEVER, this is due to a case of a power creep, and if there is one thing you can learn from Magic: the Gathering, it is that power creep is never good for a game - Tempest/Urza's era. Most of you probably have not been played around Urza's Block. Wizards banned the bad cards in Urza's pretty fast and pretty thoroughly. One card - Memory Jar - never even made it to the tournament scene before it was banned.

Most of you are failing to mention that when Ravager first came out, Affinity was lauded by many as a great decision by R&D as a way of creating a cheap and affordable deck that could be really good. Back in the hey day a decent affinity deck might cost you as much as 4 cards from another deck.

This is a fantastic thread...I cant stop reading the opinions of all the great players on this board

Thanks for sharing the insight years of pro playing have given you

You're out of your freaking mind.

Typical Magic PTQ:
125 attendees
No prize (except packs) except for first place
Winner gets plane ticket, no cash

Typical VS PTQ:
20 attendees
EAs distributed to Top 8 (easily $15 profit via eBay)
$250 cash prize, immediately available thanks to debit gift card
Also has some random pack prizes to Top 8
Free T-shirts (not really worth much, but hella cool)

Typical Magic Grand Prix:
400 attendees
$25,000 cash prizes
Average cash/person: $62.50 (minus entry fee, usually $30)

Typical VS 10k:
75 attendees
$12,800 cash prizes
EAs distributed to Top 64 (easily $20 profit via eBay)
Average cash/person: $190 (minus entry fee, usually $25)

Typical Magic Pro Tour:
315 attendees
$200,130 cash prizes
Average cash/person: $635

Typical VS Pro Circuit:
340 attendees
Guaranteed EAs to everyone (easily $25 profit via eBay)
$256,250 cash prizes
Average cash/person: $780