| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Once you've registered and completed email validation, you'll need to reply to the thread in The Welcome mat before you gain full access to the site. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| The Players Council: A proposal.; please read and comment | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Feb 16 2009, 03:12 PM (3,380 Views) | |
| Kamiza | Feb 16 2009, 03:12 PM Post #1 |
|
The originator
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It’s only been a couple of weeks since word came from Upperdeck Entertainment that they would no longer be producing or supporting the Vs. System trading card game. Since then many members of the online community have been pulling together to try and keep the game ticking over. Perhaps the most focused move has been the creation of VSSYSTEM.ORG. Miguel Rodriguez (aka CarlostheDwarf) brought a few people from the vast online community together to try and work on a central web-presence for our game. With the steady demise of Vssystem.com, the online communities – VSRealms.com and VS.TCGPlayer.com have picked up some of the slack. VSRealms (and the whole Realmsworx network) has been beset by problems since a massive hardware failure hit the community. TCGPlayer has been ticking along with no problems, but with a significantly smaller community. Both sites are commercial properties, built to capitalize on interest in a TCG. The point of these communities (for the owners) is to generate income via community activity (ad hits, page views etc). I and Miguel are very mindful that these commercial entities could decide to pull the plug on the VS communities with little or no notice should they decide that they cost of running them outweigh the financial benefit of keeping them alive. This site, will keep going regardless. Because our financial commitment is small (Miguel pays for the domain and I pay for wordpress upgrades) this site will keep running regardless. However, I think it is obvious that with little focus, the community and game will slowly evaporate over time. I think that to try and help prevent this, we need to establish a Players Council of some form. For those who doubt the ability of any such organised body to do well, just take a look at the guys that run the Star Wars Trading Card Game. The role of any council should, in my mind, be that of guidance rather than dictatorial. Suggestive rather than demanding. In my mind a council would develop formats, rulings, “new” cards and offer them up as a suggested direction to anyone looking for a little guidance or inspiration. I would suggest that any council be made up of the following as a minimum: • High level judge/Rules Expert (someone with deep understanding of all Vs. System Rules) • Active, experienced Tournament Organiser (Someone with practical knowledge or running high level/large events) • Online Play expert (someone with technical abilities required to build patches for MWS or any future online play platforms) • Expert player (someone with high level tournament experience) • Dedicated community rep (someone who is well respected within the community and able to act as a spokesperson) We could of course have more than one person filling these roles, but I see them as a minimum. I also feel that there should be some mechanism in place to refresh the council if so desired (bi-annual votes or something?) I also see there being some scope for the council to try and raise funds/product to provide some tournament sponsorship for both “real” and online events. As for the subject of new cards, I believe that our approach should be very cautious. For one thing we need to be careful about any potential legal repercussions that might come from using copyrighted material. Whilst I would like to think that UDE, Marvel, DC etc would ignore any use we might make out of the Vs engine and their proprietary characters, I would like to limit any possible exposure that those involved would have. The first step I see is to test the water with DC universe Alter Ego cards. We could develop 10 (or so) that would be available via download and offer people an interesting and fresh opportunity. Step two is something I think we copy the Star Wars guys with. Rather than design completely new cards they instead release new text boxes for existing cards. A PDF document is downloaded and the new text boxes slipped over the top of the existing cards. I see this as a good way to refresh our game. I propose that we start this process with Man of Steel. The reasons for this suggestion are: • We haven’t had a DC release for a while. • DSM is incredibly cheap to buy. • The set is fairly small. • DSM is widely regarded as a very underwhelming. I would suggest that we muster a team as soon as possible to start work on this project. I believe any design team should have people in the following roles: • Lead designer – Responsible for co-ordinating the design, development and release of the expansion. • Creative Lead – Responsibly for ensuring that any release is as thematic as possible. • Ruling Lead – Responsible for ensuring that all cards are solid from a ruling perspective. • Gameplay Lead – Responsible for checking for broken loops, functionality etc. • Developers – General card design. I propose that Clifford “Captain Comet” Parmeter (should he be willing)take on the role of Creative Lead for DSM-2 (for lack of a better name). After DSM-2 I think we should work on redesigning the card text for MSM. For this, I suggest Squire “Homer J” Kershner take on the role of Creative Lead. Both guys have worked tirelessly for the game. Both guys have huge affinity for the teams in these sets and both have extensive knowledge. I welcome any comments or suggestions on anything I have written here. |
![]() |
|
| stubarnes | Feb 16 2009, 03:34 PM Post #2 |
![]()
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Very well written, very much needed. Again, as I stated on Realms a while ago, I would like to decline any nominations in advance. I wish everyone well, and I hope to be able to contribute in many ways. I will pay close attention and cheer everyone on as much as I possibly can. Good luck to all, be kind to each other when problems arise. I can't wait to be part of the New Era of Vs. System.
|
![]() |
|
| HomerJ | Feb 16 2009, 03:49 PM Post #3 |
|
Elite Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I willingly accept ANY role I'm asked to take. Let's do this, and do it right! |
![]() |
|
| CaptainCuba | Feb 16 2009, 03:56 PM Post #4 |
![]()
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Awesome. Awesome. Awesome. I just have 3 words...I want in! CC |
![]() |
|
| I_Avian | Feb 16 2009, 04:01 PM Post #5 |
|
Regular
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The DSM2 idea is absolute gold. I'm willing to offer services as a playtester, and a designer if we need some more people. On the council, I'm very much swayed by this proposal - I've had my reservations, but I'm being convinced, and I think the proposed form is the best way to do it. |
![]() |
|
| Orange_Soda_Man | Feb 16 2009, 04:03 PM Post #6 |
![]()
Yolo Boros
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Since it'll have a new name [DSM2] could we use the older text if we want to? I'm gonna assume yes because of the whose suggestiveness rather than dictorial thing the Players Council is gonnal strive for. |
![]() |
|
| stubarnes | Feb 16 2009, 04:22 PM Post #7 |
![]()
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It's an interesting idea, and I would vote yes... but you cannot "assume" something that the whole community should decide. Sounds like a great way to start, it could be the first "official ruling" decided by direct community vote! |
![]() |
|
| Roswell | Feb 16 2009, 04:23 PM Post #8 |
![]()
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
So if I am reading this right, we will be able to download the new text to all of the cards, but will be limited to what cards we get in the box we get??? If that is the case, I love it. I never liked the idea of everyone having all the cards up front, due to the fact that part of the greatness was due to trading and building with what you have. If we all get the cards upfront, we will all be building the same cookie cutter decks that work. The pocket idea is fantastic!!! |
![]() |
|
| Kamiza | Feb 16 2009, 04:24 PM Post #9 |
|
The originator
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
My plan would be that DSM2 would be a "new" expansion and therefore be the most recent set for Modern Age, Silver Age etc. Of course that would only be for people who wanted to use the Council's definition of the "ages". There is one potential problem there though. Just updating card text and leaving the names and versions as-is (which I think we would have to do for legal reasons) could lead to problems with GA formats. Could we allow four copies of Superman, Blue (DSM) and four copies of Superman, Blue (DSM2) in the same deck? This is something that would need a lot of discussion. The other reason I think re-using old sets is good, is that in ecourages sales. If we say that you can only use the new text slip if you have the original card, surely UDE would be fine with that as it creates new demand for exsisting product? |
![]() |
|
| Roswell | Feb 16 2009, 04:25 PM Post #10 |
![]()
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Maybe getting pockets for some of the banned cards would get the idea out and we could see what it will look like for a full deck???
Edited by Roswell, Feb 16 2009, 04:25 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Orange_Soda_Man | Feb 16 2009, 05:56 PM Post #11 |
![]()
Yolo Boros
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
As far as the GA formats go, imo it should be one or the other, or a mix of both not exceeding 4, with wiggle room. Like if someone ran 4x of one and 1x of the other as tech I'd be fine with that. The people who want to use the DSM2 cards can, and those who don't can still use DSM. While that bit of combining them will require discussion, the idea as a whole sounds pretty good. |
![]() |
|
| LordMalinari | Feb 16 2009, 06:06 PM Post #12 |
Regular
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Just slap a new version, and text on the DSM-2 card and you have effectively a whole new card with the same art as the original DSM card. There's no reason why you shouldn't be able to run 4 of each in this case, unless the change between DSM and DSM-2 was to just update the ATK or some other minor change which leaves functionality essentially unchanged, in which case have the rule as: - If a DSM and DSM-2 card share the same name and version, the deck builder chooses one or the other, and puts up to four copies of that card into his deck. - If a DSM and DSM-2 card share the same name but not version, the deck builder can put up to four copies of either card (or both cards) in his deck. For example: Spider-Senses Version: Tingling - Target Spider-Friends character with evasion you control can't be stunned this attack. That character must evade this combat phase if possible. This card would use the original Spider-Senses artwork, but as it has a different version and is vastly functionally different four copies of both versions can be played in a deck (provided one playset had the updated text in the sleeve to tell the two versions apart). Spider-Senses Version: None - Target Spider-Friends defender you control gets +4 DEF this attack. This card serves exactly the same purpose as the original Spider-Senses, and has just had a single variable modified slightly. This means it should have the same version as the original card, and players can choose to run the updated version (with sleeve insert) or the non-updated version (without sleevei insert), not both or a mix of both to save confusion. Just my thoughts. (Disclaimer: Neither of the above cards are properly balanced, they're just examples) |
![]() |
|
| Shadowtrooper | Feb 16 2009, 06:20 PM Post #13 |
![]()
I Hate Rebel Scum!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I was wondering about what exactly are we really going to change? Is it the text box alone, or just about everything? 1) Name and Versions - We can't use the same versions as that would complicate things for: Golden Age, BYOT, BYOTT, and Clone Saga. What about PT? I mean we would have to add a version to the PT in order to make them a different card from the ones that already exist, this would also apply to Locations and Equipments. 2) ATK and DEF - Some of the printed ATK and DEF values of the cards in DSM are very low for their costs thanks to how crappy cosmic used to be. Simply put these characters would not do well against the newer cards if we don't keep cosmic as a theme. 3) Affiliations - We might want to create characters with dual affiliations or perhaps add new affiliations, or change their affiliations. 4) Concealed - This can be fixed rather easily if we reintroduce concealed and concealed optional as "keywords" rather than symbols on the card. Which would have to be the case because of the cards template. That would still leave the issue of black bordered and red bordered on hand though. 5) Costs - Are we going to keep the same costs rather than change them? 6) Rarity - Are we going to follow the same guideline of common, uncommon and rare that was presented by DSM? Don't know if you are getting the idea of what I am trying to tell you guys with this, but basically all that we would be keeping is the card art. I mean nothing else will stay the same or should stay the same. That being the case why not just change the art too and come up with an entirely new set? I'm more than pleased for new sets to be introduced to the game. God knows we will need new material every now and then if we hope to keep the game alive for more than a year or two. I understand that we need to make baby steps while still trying to figure out how not to mess things up beyond repair, but with so many changes to be made to DSM I honestly think it would be better just to do a new set altogether. Just my 2 cents on the matter. |
![]() |
|
| Locke | Feb 16 2009, 06:21 PM Post #14 |
![]()
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I suggest coming up with separate names for the counsel-defined ages. I would think calling them both some form of "silver" age would make things more confusing and thus harder to get everyone on the same page. |
![]() |
|
| BatHulk | Feb 16 2009, 06:43 PM Post #15 |
![]()
Elite Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
These are suggestions only: 1. DSM-2 cards should retain the original name and version, just the text and/or characteristics are modified. 2. Events where DSM-2 is legal, the original DSM is not. It either replaces it (for a Golden Age-type event) or is in a format where DSM is not legal (ie Modern). 3. Not all cards in DSM-2 need to be changed from DSM... this probably can go unsaid but people might be thinking that they are going to have 165 new cards. 4. Try to keep the borkiness based on rarity levels. Don't make Play Time - Exhaust all characters your opponent controls, and then do nothing to Superman-8. 5. Make a list of DSM cards that suck and start there. I really like this idea over brand new fantasy cards. Revising crappier older sets is a simpler path and has less copyright/legal issues. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Vs. System General Discussion · Next Topic » |




![]](http://z5.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)










6:58 PM Jul 11