Talk:Vs. System

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Archive 1

Strategy depth[edit]

Does the majority agree with the current stated "Strategy Depth" of "High" in the box-out? Personally I disagree with this and wouldn't classify it any higher than "Medium" but if I'm in a minority then no worries, leave it as is. What're your thoughts? --Stenun 19:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well as it's been 6 weeks and no one has commented either for or against reducing the "Strategy Depth" I've gone ahead and done it. If you disagree then please say so here and say why before reverting it back, thanks. --Stenun 13:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article on Magic:The Gathering lists its strategy level as high. Using that as a standard, do you think that VS System's strategy depth is medium? I think a game like Yu-Gi-Oh! or Dragon Ball Z would be considered medium. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 16:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think Magic should be Medium as well. High should be reserved for such games as the original Middle-Earth TCG (NOT the Decipher version) or Babylon 5 CCG or possibly even the original Star Wars CCG. This is no way you can say that both Magic and the VS System have the same strategy depth as the Babylon 5 CCG. Creating more rankings might be a decent solution, possibly giving them a rating from 1 to 5 or something. As for Yu-Gi-Oh! and Dragon Ball Z, they should be Low. Bear in mind that this is a rating purely for CCGs/TCGs and as such just because a game is slightly more complex than Snap it doesn't mean it shouldn't be rated as Low. --Stenun 12:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that MTG out-of-the-box is not very complex and should probably be listed as medium. The same with VS. It's not like either game is chess. But I wouldn't want to be the one to go over to that article and try to convince the editors there that their game isn't "hard." -- Malber (talk • contribs) 12:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But just because that article is wrong, it doesn't mean every other one should be too. Besides, if we make sure that every other article is correct and THEN try and change the Magic article to be more accurate and less fan-boyish it will help our arguments if we can point to the changes already made. --Stenun 06:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I say there's a difference between strategy depth and a game's complexity. As for VS System, it's 'high enough' in my opinion. NorrYtt 18:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ratios[edit]

Can someone explain the card ratios? For instance, what do 13:1 and 1:1 mean? Thanks. --Chris Griswold 19:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you see that in the article? -- Malber (talk • contribs) 13:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not in the article, nut I think it should be; it's on the card packs. :--Chris Griswold 02:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The ratios refer to the statistics of finding a particlular type of card in a pack. For example, every pack has a foil and a rare, so the ratio for both is 1:1. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 20:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibook[edit]

Would anyone be interested in working on a WikiBook Vs strategy guide? :--Chris Griswold 06:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

This article has been tagged a couple of times for cleanup and I have removed the template both times because the editor did not properly list it on the cleanup page. I do believe the article needs tidying and I would have listed it there myself if not for a few reasons. First, I didn't have the time to fully analyze the article enough to point out specific areas that the article needs cleanup. Second, I don't think the article would get the attention it needs from the cleanup crowd as the article requires attention from people knowledgable about the subject. A year ago, when I was a less tenured editor, I listed the article on the cleanup page and received no responses. I considered including this in Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics, but I'm not sure where to start there, or even if it is appropriate. I looked at the M:TG page, but they have their own project going. I was unable to find a broader category for TCGs. I will try to develop a to do template for the talk page. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 20:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. There's a cleanup page? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is so in need of a clean up it almost would be easier to start from scratch. For one thing it is far to large, and contains much repeated and unencyclopedic infomation. But would hate to see useful info thrown out. Really I am just agreeing here. I may try fixing a few bits but feel I am not familiar enough with the game to do it all justice. - Waza 00:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of clean-up would people suggest? SeventhSoldier (talk) 02:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For cleanup, the first thing I would suggest (after you look at and comment on the new starting paragraph I have written below) would be to consolidate the History sections. I don't know why there are 2, or why they are so long, because, as an outsider to the game, I don't want to spend that much time reading the history. Mathman1550 (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need more team descriptions[edit]

The descriptions of the team themes needs to be updated. Marvel Defenders and Wild Pack are also missing.

The descriptions are very helpful. I don't know all the affiliations nor what their themes are, or in some cases how prevalent they are in tournaments. NorrYtt 10:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence[edit]

To someone (like myself) unfamiliar with this subject, the first sentence has some problems. What is a "gaming system" and how is it different from "a game?" What is "endurance?" Can't the first sentence be simpler? (John User:Jwy talk) 03:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't play VS System, but I'm familiar with CCG's, so I'm going to try adjusting the lead paragraph. I need feedback from those who play the game to make sure it is accurate and from those who don't play to make sure it makes sense. The paragraph currently reads...
VS System (pronounced "Versus System") is a rules set and turn-based gaming system designed for collectible card games (CCG's). In the system, players build and play a deck of VS System cards in an attempt to wear down their opponents to 0 or less endurance, the game's intrinsic victory condition. It was first published in 2004 by Upper Deck Entertainment and is currently used for superhero games, though as a system rather than an individual game it could be applied to other genres in the future.
And here is my attempt at the paragraph...
VS System (pronounced "Versus System") is a set of rules designed by Upper Deck Entertainment for collectible card games (CCG's). In the system, players build and play a deck of VS System cards in an attempt to win a game against their opponent. It was first published in 2004 and is currently used for superhero games, though as a system rather than an individual game it could be applied to other genres in the future.
The term VS System or simply VS can also refer to any of the games that are playable using the VS System set of rules. These games include...(someone knowledgable in this content, please add the most prominent games here).
Please leave your comments, and if you really like it as it is, put it in the article. Mathman1550 (talk) 22:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one has commented, I will change it to my new version. If you don't like it, make it better. By the way, in the second paragraph I just used names from the later list that I recognized, if these are not the most prominent, please change it ro reflect the most widely used of the games. Mathman1550 (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this whole description is that no other CCG was ever released that used the Vs. System, so saying that it can refer to any of several games is distorting and misleading, both on a factual (no other CCG was ever released that used it) and theoretical level (the rules system of any CCG could in theory be used for another game in a different genre/setting). Singling the Vs. System out as a CCG system rather than a CCG is promotional/advertising/commercial puffery. —Lowellian (reply) 22:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Vs. System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vs._System&oldid=1205959800"