Your point?

-Mike

Vs. is a second generation game, designed in part knowing the issues with Magic like mana-screw, etc.

Perhaps one of the problems is that Vs. is too similar close to Magic. While the idea was that by being similar to Magic, they could pick up Magic players that were looking for something knew ... it might ultimately be an issue where most people, given the option of Magic or Vs., will pick the game with more players, and a longer history, especially once other "features" like the OP went away. And the OP really was targetting "good" Magic players that could make a bit of a career out of playing Vs. at a certain skill level.

If I understood yours through the bile you spewed:

If a puzzle has an answer, it's less complex than something without puzzles.

VS Complexity > Chess Complexity

It should be known I'm not even bothering arguing with anyone. You'll never convince me that VS is more complex, and I'll never convince you that Magic is. Everything else is trolling.

This thread is dull and has been done to death.

No. I'm saying that a turn of magic is about as complex as most attacks in VS.

-Mike

Like I said, not arguing with you. Though I am curious what that has to do with the puzzles you posted about earlier. As you said:

"Brainteasers are puzzles that have answers, the simple fact is that VS doesn't have answers the way Magic does."

On Chess puzzles:

Most chess puzzles require you eliminate the opponent from the equation (specifically, you have to force the opponent to make specific moves through checking, thus the opponent has no options).

Similarly, Vs. puzzles (as seen in the video game) eliminate the opponent's options (i.e. available resources).

While a Chess puzzle is more likely to come up in a game than a Vs. Puzzle ... in general, they use the rules of the game without being something that would really exist during a game. Sort of like the barn door challenges of creating "perfect draws" to do infinite loops, or similar concepts.

No need to answer Ranma, WaKo did it for you.

Thanks all. Enjoy the thread!

The point was that in Magic you can answer a game much easier than in VS. Thus you see "Magic Puzzles." Anyone can throw one together and hey, there's an answer. With VS, we've SEEN puzzles and if you don't remember they more often than not had (many) answers that took 3-4 pages of text to explain.

-Mike

EDIT: Walter's point is also valid, but it's valid for Magic as far as I know too. ::Shrug::

On the part of VS being too smart...

We got a few Yuckio players to try it out. They bought cards, assembled decks, won a few games...and then said it was "boring." BORING?? HOW CAN IT BE FREAKING BORING???...ahem.

The problem is with Yuckio they can go and win the game on the second turn, whereas VS is a lot more tactical and subtle. So I don't think its too smart for them, I think its too slow for them.

Bloody whippersnappers. I remember when a game of Legend of the 5 Rings would take us a solar year to complete. No patience these youngsters. :D

Like mating someone with 3 knights =/

Speaking as a Yu-Gi-Oh player myself, I don't find VS boring. I'd just kill to be able to play the plot twist version of Sakurestu Armour or Trap Hole (especially when I'm playing "Mavel Trading Card Game" and the AI pulls out 7-drop Submariner).

:D

Solar Year? In my day, if you hadn't prenatally shuffled your deck, you'd be unable to finish games due to the onset of senility.

Vs is a far more skill intensive game than Magic, for all the reasons Adam Prosak already noted. Pay particular attention to the fact that the Vs top pros were consistently the top pros. From a statistical perspective, this means that "Who the the player is" is a significant factor in Vs, where as it is not in Magic. This implies that traits inherent to the player (ie skill) are more relevant in Vs.

The only way that argument can be more airtight is with some actual statistics done on the numbers. (If someone gives me the data for, say, the Top 20 Pros in Vs and the Top 20 Pros in Magic for a given year, I'll run the analyses for you)

You could have 10 knights, hypothetically speaking. And pawn for knight swap is at least more logical then getting a rook or bishop when you could just get a queen ... at least a knight provides different options.

But that's neither here nor there ... and a bit of a "stacked deck" type situation.

Yeah I know what you're saying getting a queen would be best in the end. However, mating with three knights is something special.