Magic: The Combattening - Hearthstone

[Numtini]

When this game comes out for iPhone and Android, it will destroy all of its competition.  It's light-years better than any of the other F2P card games in that space and it has a much more player-friendly business model, too.  Maybe if it does well it will show Wizards how much money they're leaving on the table by not allowing real, affordable drafting in Duels of the Planeswalkers.

This.

Also, really, TCGs are, to me, the best option for getting a "real" game on a tablet. I don't think you lose anything in the translation, which you can't really say for many games.

[Simond]

Another patch today - frozen mage nerfed by increasing mana cost of most of their freeze spells. Oh, and the arena bug is supposed to be fixed.

[Merusk]

This game vexes me.  I'm not aggressive enough by half at least. I try to do more than just throw shit out there for damage and it just doesn't work.  Charge and high damage creatures are the best route.  At least for those of us who haven't ground out a full set of cards.

[Der Helm]

Is there an NDA ? My key came in an email that was 100% Korean.

[Merusk]

No NDA.

Also, based on the lack of chatter.. no fun! 

[koro]

To be fair, this is pretty much the only community I've seen that isn't head over heels in love with Hearthstone.

[Simond]

Didn't you get the memo? You're not supposed to admit to liking Blizzard games on this forum. 

[Malakili]

I'm practically a resident blizzard fanboy and I think hearthstone is boring.

[Falconeer]

I "hate" Blizzard but I am really liking Hearthstone a lot. Granted, the lack of depth is blatant at the moment, and I really miss choices that go beyond deckbuilding to beat absolutely random decks, but it's perfect for very quick (5 to 10 minutes) card game fixes without feeling too inept for losing. Basically, I am liking this for all the reasons I usually dislike Blizzard games. But I feel it is a format that works for card games. Especially considering that if what you want is depth you are probably sticking to Magic anyway.

Small derail: has anyone tried Shadow Era? Opinions? Seems cool at a first glance.

[schild]

I played Shadow Era for a bit on the iPad. All of these games tend to do the same obnoxious thing though, which is change the combat style of Magic from defensive strategies to offense. It's another game where you can attack anything on the board instead of making the player on defense decide who to throw under the (attacking) bus. That said, Between Hearthstone and Shadow Era, I'd pick neither. While the mana accumulation method is different, the parts beyond that are nearly identical.

To be fair, this is pretty much the only community I've seen that isn't head over heels in love with Hearthstone.

Yes, it's the Titanic of online card games.

[Merusk]

My problem with it really is that there's only one playstyle.  Throw out monsters, aggro as hard and fast as you can and PRAY that you pull the right card out of your deck when you need it or your opponent doesn't.  2 max of each makes that tricky.

I've lost games to my son randomly throwing shit out because I didn't pull anything other than low-value cards after the first few turns, and my deck was balanced.  I beat another player with a total shit deck because he didn't get lucky enough to pull his azzrape monster until I'd had a removal for it.

[Lakov_Sanite]

I was SUPER into this game for about a week but while it's very pretty and fun to play it lacks depth and I burned through it quickly.

[Rendakor]

To be fair, this is pretty much the only community I've seen that isn't head over heels in love with Hearthstone.

It gets mixed feelings on /vg/, while the Hex community predictably hates it.

[Paelos]

Hex has basically ruined rational discussion on several forums about the game.

[Malakili]

Maybe.  But if I wasn't part of the "Hex community" I'd be bored with the game as a member of the "Magic community." Goodness knows even with the money spent on Hex it pales in comparison to 20 years of on and off Magic. 

Hearthstone is just what you get when you remove most of the interesting interaction between players.  Hearthstone might as well be played against AI for all the difference playing against an actual person makes.  That's boring.

[tazelbain]

What is there to discuss?

[Kail]

As someone who's not really interested in Hex, Hearthstone seems kind of boring, too.  I dunno, maybe I'm just cooled on card games in general, but there's this real sense of disconnect here that I don't get in a lot of other games.  I haven't played much of it, and only against the AI, so maybe this becomes clearer with time or something, but I'm never really sure what I should be doing or why or what kind of strategy there is in this game or if I just made a mistake or what's going on.  When I win, I don't know why, and when I lose, I'm not sure what I did wrong.

Which was kind of surprising for me, given that Blizzard has built it's business on being the company that takes inscrutable niche games and makes them immediately understandable to the retarded masses such as myself, but maybe I'm asking for too much, here.

[Merusk]

It's not just you. That's the feeling I've gotten, too, except my reasons for losing are clear.  I didn't get the right cards pulled. That's it.

The guaranteed ramp-up of mana means decking multiple 1 & 2 cost creatures is nearly useless.  Deck 3 & ups, 1 & 2 are for character abilities or weapons & buffs.  If you've got a class AOE deck it to clear the board.  Creatures without a battlecry are near useless.  Taunt only delays the inevitable go for creatures that deal damage instead.

After that it's pray you draw the right cards and be playing the right class.  There's a reason the 'champ' at Blizzcon played a Paladin deck, then a priest.  Shits overpowered.

[Tannhauser]

It's a fun game.  But I feel so constricted with 2 copies per card of a 30 card deck.  Hard to build really cool synergies.  It's simple, casual, colorful and fun.  But it just doesn't have the stickiness for me.  I played it tonight for the first time in 2-3 weeks.  It will settle into a game I love playing once a month.

The no-trade irks me still.  Makes it pay 2 win.

[Paelos]

Does anyone actually doubt they won't fine-tune it to make it a roaring success for the guy who doesn't want to deal with the MtG or HEX rules?

[luckton]

Does anyone actually doubt they won't fine-tune it to make it a roaring success for the guy who doesn't want to deal with the MtG or HEX rules?

No, but again, it's because of the fine-tuning (read: simplification of grander mechanics) that will keep me and others away.  If they copy/pasted the WoW TCG as it was from paper to digital I'd have some serious second-thoughts regarding my investment into HEX.  Since they didn't, who cares? 

[Lakov_Sanite]

Even the most casual of fans do want "some" depth in their games, simply because constantly repeating the same formula will get tiresome.  MMO's do this by changing the scenery, the npc's and the(lol) storylines but a card game can never change that much so the gameplay needs to have a bit of diversity. 

Right now in hearthstone ten different matches are hard to tell apart regardless of which classes are being played.

[Paelos]

Even the most casual of fans do want "some" depth in their games, simply because constantly repeating the same formula will get tiresome.

I totally disagree with you on that premise.

How much true depth is there in a game like Candy Crush? Or Angry Birds? These are casual gamers, and they eat this shit up over and over again with very little true change to the overall formula.

My basic point is that if you invested in HEX, contemplated HEX, played MtG semi-seriously, or MTGO, you are not going to understand this market.

[Merusk]

How much true depth is there in a game like Candy Crush? Or Angry Birds? These are casual gamers, and they eat this shit up over and over again with very little true change to the overall formula.

A lot, actually, you should play them sometimes.  The rules are simple, yes, but it's what you can do with them that make them so addictive.  Hearthstone lacks the ability to do that because of the restrictions put on it.

Interrupts slow down gameplay, but you can limit them to quick actions at the start of your part of the phase and limit the "stack order" nonsense of MTG to only one interrupt and still have more depth and ability framework than Hearthstone has.   

All you can do to win in HS is throw out big creatures.  Guy with the biggest creature(s) out the most turns wins.  The end.  No milling your enemy or outlasting his deck or turning his assets (which are only creatures) against him.   

Unless they alter that rule set, that's all it's going to be and they have said they don't intend to do so.

[luckton]

How much true depth is there in a game like Candy Crush? Or Angry Birds? These are casual gamers, and they eat this shit up over and over again with very little true change to the overall formula.

My basic point is that if you invested in HEX, contemplated HEX, played MtG semi-seriously, or MTGO, you are not going to understand this market.

On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being "A monkey could code/enjoy this" and 10 being "superior master race shit", Candy Crush/Angry Birds hovers around 1-2, Hearthstone's around 5-6, and HEX/MtG would be up there at 9-10.

I understand the market quite well.  I just don't see the appeal of Hearthstone when compared to HEX when I want my TCG itch scratched.

As far as Candy Crush/Angry Birds go, like most casual games of that caliber, they see a grand success for a while, and if they tend the fire well with more content, bug fixes, etc, they carry on for a while.  But I agree with Lakov; even the most stalwart fans of these games get bored and move on until they add something new mechanic-wise.  Every mass-success casual game has evolved over time as it's popularity soared.  Maybe someday Hearthstone will evolve and add back in the stuff they stripped out from the original WoW TCG.  Until then, pass.

[Paelos]

I guess it doesn't shock me that the doom-casting/criticism and HEX/MtG player lines are going to cross.

We shit on a lot of things here because it's what we do. To me, simplifying the game seems to be the way to go, even if it does remove what purists think of as big strategic gameplay. I also think it will have massive appeal that HEX can't possibly match.

[luckton]

I guess it doesn't shock me that the doom-casting/criticism and HEX/MtG player lines are going to cross.

We shit on a lot of things here because it's what we do. To me, simplifying the game seems to be the way to go, even if it does remove what purists think of as big strategic gameplay. I also think it will have massive appeal that HEX can't possibly match.

I'm sure MtG pines for the popularity that Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokemon have.  Doesn't mean that they're all not successful, it means the market's big and diversified enough for all of them to co-exist.  HEX and Hearth will probably follow the same suit.

[Paelos]

Oh I agree they can absolutely co-exist, and that there is a market for both. I just roll my eyes a little when I see HEX/Mtg players try to tell me why Hearthstone isn't good.

[Quinton]

I think  Hearthstone clearly shows that streamlining the gameplay helps -- things move faster, there's less waiting, and that's fun.

My complaint is the same as many others: this really limits the gameplay, which at the end of the day makes it less interesting for me.

It'll be interesting to see if Blizzard figures out how to allow for more diverse tactics while still staying super streamlined or if Cryptozoic will bend (further) toward streamlineing their client.  I think there's got to be some middle ground between the extremes of choice and quick play... it's a question of who figures it out first.

[luckton]

I think Hex will have incredible appeal for casuals once they get PvE implemented per their vision.  Hearthstone is just simple combat 1v1.  HEX is bringing dungeons, raids, characters w/talents and gear, and more.

[Paelos]

I think Hex will have incredible appeal for casuals once they get PvE implemented per their vision.

I think the interface and pacing makes that tough, tbh. I watched an early video of HEX, and if they changed all the incessant turn button mashing it would certainly help.

[Malakili]

I think Hex will have incredible appeal for casuals once they get PvE implemented per their vision.

I think the interface and pacing makes that tough, tbh. I watched an early video of HEX, and if they changed all the incessant turn button mashing it would certainly help.

It is something they are working on trying to solve actually.  I think the best system is to allow people to auto pass certain cards on the table (right click card, pass priority when this triggers) and allow people to set their pass priority preferences in the options (which you can already do some).  Perhaps they should have LESS of it by default and have a tutorial for turning them on if people want the "full experience" as it were.

PvE will be a big draw in my opinion as well.  I think the idea of dungeons + collecting cards + gear/character progression seems like it might tap into that progress thing people seem to love.

[schild]

(on Hex: Magic Online lets you decide where the priority stops happen.

Hex would do wise to implement the exact same thing. Shame they put the steps in the middle of the goddamn playmat.)

(On Hearthstone: Game still sucks. Boy is it shiny right when you start playing.)

[trias_e]

There's plenty of depth in Hearthstone.  It's easy to think that the game comes down to what you draw since there aren't many mechanics, but how you construct your deck and how you play your turns is by no means easy in HS.   I've played ~1000 games of Arena, and I don't feel like I'm very good yet.  Unless if you have an 75-80% winrate like top end players, the reason you are losing is not because you didn't draw the right cards, it's because you are drafting and playing poorly.  Even the top end players are still making plenty of mistakes as well.   From a long-time (but off-and-on, and not ever serious) player of MTG:  Hearthstone has been a great revelation to me.  It's taken out all of the shit you don't really need to have an interesting and difficult competitive card game.  HS still remains a great, interesting, and difficult game despite its streamlined nature.  Is it AS deep as MTG?  No.  Is it still plenty deep for 99% of the CCG playing population?  Yep.  It should only get better as well, assuming they don't fuck it up with future expansions.

I think most of the comments in this thread are pretty laughable.  Sorry I'm going to pick on one person here.

It's not just you. That's the feeling I've gotten, too, except my reasons for losing are clear.  I didn't get the right cards pulled. That's it.  

Nope.  It's usually because you played badly or constructed a poor deck.  Sometimes you can lose due to pure cards.  The two cases where this is often true are against super-agro decks where you don't draw AoE, and mage decks where they draw the perfect combo of iceblock/fireball/pyroblast fucking bullshit.  But usually, there are tons of reasons you could have lost:  Didn't correctly anticipate common class removal/AoE clear/commonly played cards with big impact on the game.  Didn't trade efficiently with your cards.  Didn't play aggressively enough when you were actually the 'beat-down' deck.  Didn't play defensively when you were the 'not-bead-down' deck.  Poorly constructed deck (either in constructed or arena).  Played your own removal/AoE cards at the wrong time.  There are many more things you could be doing wrong.  Remember, top end players have 75-80% winrate.  If you don't have that, most of the games you lose are due to your own poor play/deck construction.

The guaranteed ramp-up of mana means decking multiple 1 & 2 cost creatures is nearly useless.  Deck 3 & ups, 1 & 2 are for character abilities or weapons & buffs.  If you've got a class AOE deck it to clear the board.  Creatures without a battlecry are near useless.  Taunt only delays the inevitable go for creatures that deal damage instead.

The best Warlock and Rogue decks right now use a ton of 1 and 2 cost creatures.  There's also top end paladin and mage rush decks as well.  AoE is really important, yeah.  There are plenty of very useful creatures without battlecry, although many of the best neutrals are the battlecry buff minions (they nerfed SSC, but they need to nerf defender and dark iron as well IMO).  Taunt does kind of suck but can be good in some decks in the 4-6 mana spots.

After that it's pray you draw the right cards and be playing the right class.  There's a reason the 'champ' at Blizzcon played a Paladin deck, then a priest.  Shits overpowered.

Priest is currently considered one of the worst classes in the game, and Paladin is generally considered right now around 4th best behind mage, warlock, and rogue.  Mage being the most overpowered is pretty much accepted as fact currently.  Pyroblast and Fireball are stupid fucking cards.

[schild]

I couldn't get past your first paragraph. The entire premise of the arena is flawed. First of all, you aren't drafting. It's ALL hidden information. You're choosing the best of three cards for your deck, which doesn't remotely help with drafting because other players aren't choosing the other two. Add to that the card pool is entirely too random and other players are not playing decks balanced against yours by nature of how packs are opened in a traditional draft, all you're doing is participating in a game that's poorly designed from start to finish.

The top players in the arena have more luck than skill.

Edit: OK, a little more.

It's taken out all of the shit you don't really need to have an interesting and difficult competitive card game.

Wrong to the n^th level. This game has less depth than pokemon and what that depth does (or should do) is separate the casuals from the competitive. This game is entirely for the former and not the latter. If you like it, that's fine, but that plants you firmly in the former group than the latter (which isn't a crime).