What I'm saying is it should be easier to get current players to accept some changes than it is to get new players to play without those changes. The goal is to get more players in... not just satiate the current player base (which has been the modus operandi for the last 4 years). UDE is a business... and in a business... if something you do gets 3 new clients but loses you 1... that's fine... or even getting 1 big client to lose 2 small clients. That's how you build longevity.

Pokemon is a good example... they dumped the entire WoTC card base yet it still thrives today. Clix is about to do the same thing with their game system in June. You said yourself that Raw Deal is experimenting with changes.

I never said change "everything"... just change the things we can. I don't think the cost of the IP can allow VS to exist at a Raw Deal / Legend of the Five Rings / Vampire / [insert niche game here] level and UDE would rather cut back or dump a product than continue to pour money into it (see any QuickStrike game).

The current changes are great:

- The new Hobby League Marquee system is excellent (except for being late).
- The Elite Series
- Mega Weekend in Columbus

But MTU did not sell out... despite the rumors. I would like anyone who owns a store to either prove or disprove that remark. In fact... many stores still do not carry VS any more... but do carry Raw Deal etc.

Change is good. At this point... **any** change is good.

Except for the OP issues, pretty much everyone on these forums disagrees with you. We do not want them to change the mechanics and make it simpler like WoW. We do not think it is neccesary for the game to survive. We think Vs. System will carry on into the future as a strong game just the way it is, obviously with improvements and expansions whenever possible.

And many of us think that this year is the best yet, the product is better than ever.

My only beef here (to reiterate) is that I don't think we need to "throw out the baby with the bath water."

Let's see World's Finest and the Legends sets. Let's see what changes are made using the existing rules/parameters to address these concerns. They know what the problems are, they read all these posts. I am willing to give it a little more time to turn around before we talk about tearing it all down and starting over.

Remember, I respect erick. This is in no way meant to flame him. I am simply offering further discourse on his idea.

I've seen similar things mentioned several times in this thread and I'd like to know how many people believe this to be true. I don't think the WoW engine accurately portrays the mechanics of the online game at all. I don't run back to Orgrimmar and ask Thrall to bust some heads because I can't find my weapon... the online game has nothing to do with allies (barring pets) unless other players are involved, and I sure as heck don't have to root around in my backpack mid-fight because I forgot to put my armor on.

IMHO, WoW TCG is just a Magic knock-off with the WoW theme slapped on. I could go along with it if they called it the Warcraft TCG, but it just doesn't bear much similarity to the WoW experience apart from the names.

As for the question at hand (Would Vs. be better if it used the WoW engine?): I don't think so. Having one central character works fine for some things, but you still end up with fights like Spider-Man vs. Superman where Spidey should have no hope in heck of winning.

I'd like to see an engine where you pick a team of characters at the start of the game using a point cost system (so the Fantastic Four may cost 15 points altogether, while the Superman costs that by himself), and those characters stay in play until they are knocked out in combat. This would allow for some team flexibility (perhaps a roster card that says which characters could be on the Avengers, F4, etc. and gives some bonus for "pure" team play), while still having enough focus on single characters that you could have signature attack/power cards for them ("It's Clobberin' Time" for Thing, "Dead Aim" for Deadshot or whatever).

Have a good one!
Jay

I'm not all againt changing some aspects of the game (seeing those timeshifted cards in Futuresight kinda makes me wonder how they would redesign the card template), but as everyone else said, WoW's engine doesn't really work for what VS is going for. As much as we like the main characters, I think it's much cooler to lead a team of equals (in a sense) against another in a climatic battle for the fate of the universe, or something along those lines. Heroclix works the same way.

Oh, and if we're suggesting ideas: a loyalty system similar to Shadowfist.

I think it's safe to say that more people play VS than just those who have a screen name on VSRealms. Did you ask the people who quit playing VS? Did you ask the people who tried to play VS? And aren't we trying to target the players who don't even know what VSRealms is?
UDE does. Why would they produce a core set? Why would they try to simplify game text and not introduce any new keywords (ala MTU)?

I already know they can't change the engine (how many times have I said that?)... but they need to change *some* things in order for the game to survive. Whether it's focusing on main characters, reprinting cards, creating a core set, putting bomb EAs into the Hobby League kits or introducing alternate-format decks... these are all designed to do one thing... make VS more accessible. If you don't believe that... then this is the same optimism that got us here in the first place.
How do you define improvements? I call that change. Isn't that what I've been talking about?
That's relative... or did you miss all those people who yelled in agony went VS OP went belly up? Maybe you don't miss the pros but when I hear local players talking about getting into The Spoils because VS died... it doesn't make this year look that good. You can't say this "is the best yet" but then say "except for the OP issues".

I do agree that things are looking up... but I'm not going to let that satisfy me. Maybe my expectations are too high... but it's when you set the bar too low and settle... you are left with an inferior result.

Consider where Magic started out:

Being a D&D 'card game' essentially, [which in turn started out as a Roleplaying Game based on Lord of the Rings].

Considering that D&D and WoW are VERY similar ... it makes a lot of sense that WoW would be similar to Magic in many ways. The big difference being that you get to focus on your single character, much like in the normal game.

Did you?

Is Stu crticizing any of those changes they are making?

Do we know they aren't going to work?

The problem with changing EVERYTHING is that it becomes hard to figure out what worked. You throw EVERYTHING against the wall and when it finally sticks, it will be hard to figure out what was the thing that fixed the 'problem'.


Except you are suggestion SPECIFIC changes [i.e. changing the engine] that people are STRONGLY against.

Some people have criticized other changes.

However, many more people are against huge changes to the IP and huge changes to the engine.

Most everyone else is FINE with the changes that UDE is implementing. It's the ADDITIONAL changes you are suggesting.

Even Stu has said he isn't against ALL change anyway.

So, they have to keep changing things until they can get the OP back to what it once was?

So the OP is the one thing that we CANNOT change, it must be changed back to please the people that were pissed off when it was changed.

The pros that were slighted need to be satisfied by returning OP back to what it once was, so what if it means slighting other people in the process.

Attempting to clarify what I think is a point of contention over the use of a word...

Erick, when you use the word "change" in a broad, general sense, I think it may not be coming across as you intend it - at least not to everyone. When you say the game needs to "change", at least how I interpret that is that the actual game set up, the mechanics, the engine, need to be altered.

Some of the things you've mentioned later, such as focusing on characters with names of import (which I think it should be pretty clear is something I'm all for), don't fall under my "definition umbrella" of "change" when used in reference to the game, as it is simply an employed strategy in the natural and expected expansion of the card pool. I see this, and other things like it, as a change in the direction in which the game is heading, but not a change in the game itself, which is what I infer you are talking about when you make general statements such as "Any change is good".

So in this sense, I don't consider an improvement employed in such a manner to be a 'change' in the context of the conversation arising out of this thread.

Note how, despite the fact you cut it out of the quote, you said 'change' (in general) and Stu came back saying specifically that "we do not want them to change the mechanics". Which you then replied to in general again outside of the "conversation-bubble" of the game engine, while Stu was still being specific to the concept of altering game mechanics.

In short, I think there is some miscommunication of concept going on here.

Yes. And I do so as often as possible. I may not have 50 rep points or over 10,000 posts but I am absolutely sure I've done and continue to do more VS-related things outside of this forum than stu does.
Yes he has. He criticized any call for change or results... he calls it "the whining of spoiled babies". But whenever UDE implements those changes he's all gung ho about them as if he were for them all the time. I'll list some examples:

• I complained about PCQ dual-format a while ago and how hard it was on organizers, judges and even players. stu and others were, of course, against me... then UDE decided to change PCQs to single format.
• Tim complained about how the prize payout for a WoW event was, stu bashed him. stu was subsequently bashed by everyone on the planet but in the end UDE agreed with Tim. And of course stu was all "UDE would have fixed this anyways whether or not Tim complained".
• I've been asking for information about a PCQ-replacement for a few months, stu criticizes me because I should be basking in the glow of City Champs and be happy with it. Now we have the Elite Series... of course I'm sure that was all stu's idea.

So point out where I asked to change EVERYTHING? I'm not even asking UDE to change the engine to WoW... again... (for the X number of times)... this thread wasn't about changing to the WoW system... it was about would VS be playable if it used it. It was about trying not to be to resistant to change just because of what you are used to... which was spurred on by reactions to the announcement of the Legends set.

Walter... you really need to read ALL my posts if you are going to try to respond in an accurate way.
Sigh... R.I.F.
Fine. Name them. We already threw out the engine changes.
Uhh... is that what I said?

It would be nice but we all know that's not going to happen any time soon. Right now, I just want VS to be more accessible so that casual players can get into it to ensure that VS will still continue to be produced by UDE. Why do you guys think we test all these alternative formats? Is it because we're not happy with the current one? No... it's because we want to figure out more ways to make VS interesting to other players... players who don't have time to buy playsets of every card from every set... players who can just come in... buy 2 packs of VS and play.

As for my desire for OP? It would be good if they can do occasional 25-50ks and maybe 2 PCs a year but I honestly don't think the sales numbers can support that.

Here's a reality check:

Just because UDE announced that the 1st 2008 Marvel set is Civil War and even if all the cards have been designed... that is no way a guarantee that UDE will actually even print those cards. They have to be done this far in advance for several reasons. But if WF and the Legends sets don't sell well... the chances of you playing a "I killed Captain America" plot twist card goes down dramatically.

So I urge everyone to continue to complain (I erroneously asked people not to do that in the past and to them I humbly apologize), think up of ideas that would make VS better and more accessible, play in hobby league, buy packs from the game stores that support hobby league, go to your Elite Series... and most of all... keep an open mind. I have no doubt that we all here want to see VS succeed and maybe we don't agree on how that will happen... but if we don't continue "throwing EVERYTHING against the wall"... then nothing will ever stick.

Access you may be correct.

But I'll say this now as MY opinion and everyone will probably disagree with me:

If UDE could go back in time and have a do-over for VS... they would change the game engine.

They would probably also change the way they did OP too.

But back to the point of this thread... would it really have been that bad to do so? Could you imagine a game where your deck is focused on a certain hero/villain and supported by his SuperFriends? Would most of you guys not be here bashing each other if you could only draw 1 card per turn but knowing that your qualifier tournaments draw in more than just 12 players? I think you guys would -- despite not agreeing with me... because flopping spandex is just that cool.

Kind of... Magic was inspired by three main games: Cosmic Encounter, King of the Tabletop and Avalon Hill's venerable Titan. Read the rules for King of the Tabletop (downloadable for free from Boardgamegeek) and you'll see exactly where Richard Garfield got his game engine for Magic.

I see more similarity between Warlord: Saga of the Storm and D&D than Magic (probably because Warlord is basically the D20 RPG system in card game form), but I see what you're getting at. Whichever system works for one can easily be adapted for the other.

Have a good one!
Jay

The only problem I see with that is, as I mentioned earlier, one of power levels. All of your major superheroes would have character cards, but you would have Superman fans complaining that he can be beaten by Wolverine.

In that case we would also have the same legacy issues we have today: characters from earlier sets would be forgotten in later sets and their "teams" would stagnate. The fans of the characters with no support would feel left out, as fans of the old teams often are today.

Sure, if UDE could go back in time they would change the Vs. engine to fix problem areas, but anyone given a second chance at a venture this size would do the same. That being said, as long as the game was not overly simplistic (I'm looking at you, Recharge!), I would have played Vs. just because of the source material and my friends would have done the same.

Have a good one!
Jay

I think the biggest problems with the 'One Hero/Villain + superfriends' thing is that it doesn't work for, let's go with 75% of comics. Vs. has the feel of a game crafted around the idea of 'comic books'. WoW does not. I, for one, would be pissed off if I could only play as Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, or Professor X. I like having leaderless teams like the JLI and Shadowpact, or Kree and Masters of Evil.

I know it's just an analogy ... but if something seems to be hanging by a thread ... throwing MORE stuff at it seems to be a good way to knock it off ;). Also, eventually you throw enough stuff, and you have several layers covering the original wall.

I understand the whole concept of people having to be open to change because stagnation = extinction. Is it wrong for people to dismiss your opinion? Yes. But it's equally wrong to dismiss pepole who are resistant to change and standing in the way of the changes that 'must' be done to 'save' Vs.

There is a REASON that people like Vs. System. While we want it to succeed ... the reason we want it to succeed is because we want to continue playing it. If the game becomes something we no longer playing it ... it may be 'saved' and go on to be greatly succesful ... but if we no longer get to play the game we enjoy ... guess what? The game hasn't been saved.

Just as a species NOT evolving will eventually die out ... a species that evolves too quickly, too far ... can paint itself into a corner it can't come out of.

It's important that both sides have their voices heard ... because once you open a door, closing it doesn't let you go back to the original status quo. Even if they were to bring back PCQs as they were, the Pro Circuit as it was, and regular 10Ks ... it wouldn't have everyone come running back.

That's one of the jobs I have to do with Raw Deal ... we've turned the corner with Revolution and it hit HARD ... a lot of people left, and it's in a rebuilding period. But as well or poorly Revolution ends up doing in the long run, the one thing that ISN'T an option is to just do a 180 on it. You aren't going to get back those people that left when the big change came, and you'll also alienate any new or returning players that liked the new direction ...

The bigger the change, the bigger the commitment. You take a big risk with big changes, and you can't just 'try it out and see if it sticks' because by then it's way too late to 'undo' any damage the experiment might have caused..

As for suggesting that you are advising an engine change for Vs. ... sure you SAY you aren't doing it ... but you have to admit that a thread like this would be the exact way for someone to subtly continue to push that kind of idea?

Perception is reality and all that ... and this kind of thread, at least to some, seems like another "Vs. needs a simpler game engine like WoW" thread.