I don't understand this post. VSed is a completely different animal from Octagon. I thought we were comparing MWS and Octagon. I love VSed for building decks. You can't realistically practice draft with it since it does not use real pack data and whatever algorithm they use doesn't make realistic packs, but the actual program is awesome for deck building. I personally would be mad if someone thought VSed and Octagon were one in the same. VSed actually looks like the programmer took time to make it. Octagon? Not so much.

Eh? You don't have to send it to the KO pile. Most people I know just right click the card and send it to their hand. You've been showing your KKK's all this time?

1 - Allowing you to have multiple spectators in a single room.

2 - No peeking at opponents face down cards.

3 - Freedom in placing and playing effects/resources without being constrained by a specific grid.

4 - No Graphical attacking display. I know some people like the red arrows but I find them incredibly annoying. Furthermore, OCTGN does allow you to do the same thing (ie, Attack - is Targeted feature) without having to clear the board between every single attack/effect.

5 - No Ads.

6 - More control over in game options.

7 - Larger graphical display for cards, with the ability to read the text on a drop down text for the card box as opposed to having to scroll over the card and depend on looking at a "larger" image.

8 - Better heads up interface that isn't interfered by a "tool bar" that has no use for VS players.




That's about all I can think of right off the top of my head, but that's just a start.

And it's not that I'm a bllind OCTGN supporter - but in my few attempts to use MWS I find myself becoming increasingly frustrated. ;)

OCTGN does have graphical attack display.

Right click the character you want to attack with, and select "Attack Without Tapping", then "middle mouse button" over the intended target.

Then ask "Legal?" in chat. (Just like you would in MWS)

I like the arrows too, but that's really a nitpick, imo. I would much rather have the larger images of OCTGN. I frickin hate the images in MWS.

Anyway. I can see why people like MWS over OCTGN. I just don't. They are both great programs really. Look at how easy it is to add-on a game that isn't MTG into them :)

Also, I don't think you can draw from the bottom of your deck in MWS, but you can in OCTGN... and I don't think you can create tokens on the fly in MWS. I could be wrong about the tokens though.

you indeed can draw from bottom and make tokens in MWS, it doesn't makes MWS better than OCTGN, just sayin'....

^You can in OCTGN too.

I'm an OCTGN man myself, but I must admit that it is buggy as all hell. MTGPlay was pretty solid, but the "revamped" software is pretty awful. Constant crashes and bugs. It's not enough to make me switch to the (IMHO) inferior MWS, but it's enough to be annoying.

Sigh.

they are both fine programs IMO.

MWS has the best test deck feature around and is probably the biggest draw to that program. Being able to test matches myself is the coolest thing.

OCGTN has a great server system that allows you to watch games in progress, which I think is fantastic. Nothing better than having 20 minutes to kill and jumping online to watch a random match.

Other than that they are both good, I usually use whichever program I can find an opponent on at the time. Using both generally increases your odds of being able to play someone.

A note on the draft algorithm in VSED... part of the reason it takes a while after set release to get things right is i know Eek gets gathered data on opened packs to build the algorithm as accurately as possible. Boxes and boxes of data normally. I have even volunteered to help with this in the past... and if I coudl ever afford to buy another box outright again, I would gladly help more.

If a program DOES do drafting, and they are releasing a few days after a sneak, I am thinking they in no way, shape or form can come close to simulating the pack algorithm. Maybe they just default to the past aglorithms. But they can change. The print setup on the masters can change which cards are more likely to appear with which others. Ever notics there are a few commons that always seem to be with each other in packs? These differrences are based on how those cards are assigned to the master sheet, how they are cut, and how they are then sorted.

They seem toc hange with each release, and there is a lot done behind the scenes to try to make this as accurrate as possible.

I for one greatly appreciate the effort.