Magic: The Combattening - Hearthstone

[Paelos]

It sounds easy enough to change the draft method if they wanted to go that way.

[schild]

It's not. They would have to rebalance the entire set, which is an unbalanced mess right now.

[trias_e]

http://www.twitch.tv/ek0p/b/485865623

80% winrate after around 4000 arena games played.  It is close to impossible that that winrate is due to luck.  (although don't watch the stream, it's terrible.)

http://www.local.se/trumpstats_oldpatch.pl

Trump's stats pre-patch. 2100 games, 76% winrate (a winrate he has been very consistent at post-patch as well).  Also a stream worth watching, as Trump isn't obnoxious.

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.

Perhaps it's because I was a poker player, but I really enjoy games where you have to do your best given randomness that may or may not be on your side (but WILL even out in the long run).  Second, arena is not all hidden information.  Players have a very small chance to have the option to draft legendaries or epics.  Players are highly likely to draft good class cards and neutrals that aren't legendaries and epics.  You can easily play around things in arena and guess the plays of your opponent (I'm a bad player and I do this all of the time).  Yeah, you'll lose to some random legendary bullshit now and then, and if that sort of thing pisses you off too much then arena is not for you.  However, considering how often the good streamers go 9+ wins (almost every run), these games decided by luck are fairly rare if you are a strong player.

Wrong to the nth 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).

I suppose it depends on your definition of depth.  Mechanics and card interactions are very simple, and given the small card pool, I've memorized every card in the game and its rarity.  In that sense, yeah, little depth.  But you can have a deep and interesting game from very few mechanics (chess).  Obviously, hearthstone aint chess, but still, it's hard to play well.   I'm constantly learning about how to actually play the game successfully.  Again, if you're not winning most of your games, you are playing or constructing your deck poorly (probably both).  To be honest, this is something I wouldn't have probably believed if I didn't watch the top streamers constantly get to 9 wins.  I think it's hard to realize this because Hearthstone is a game of inches in a way that MTG just isn't.

Is Hearthstone more casual friendly than MTG?  Of course.  Is there a lower skill cap?  Probably.  Is there still plenty there to sink your teeth into for serious players?  Yes.

[Simond]

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).

So why isn't everyone at Legend rank if player skill doesn't matter?

[Malakili]

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).

So why isn't everyone at Legend rank if player skill doesn't matter?

Skill and knowledge matter. But the skill ceiling is very low when compared to something like Magic.  If you enjoy the game I don't care, but let's be realistic, there is just WAY LESS going on, way fewer decisions to make (in terms of deck building and actual gameplay) and less ways to interact with your opponent.   

But regardless, it's just boring to me because of such limited interactivity. 

[schild]

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).

So why isn't everyone at Legend rank if player skill doesn't matter?

Legend Rank does not account for losses. I hit Legend in my first sitdown with the game.

It's the equivalent of Planeswalker points. Which, if they couldn't qualify you for a Pro Tour, would be completely ignored in Magic. It's a metric of precisely nothing other than "how much you play."

I think it's hard to realize this because Hearthstone is a game of inches in a way that MTG just isn't.

Are you actually saying the margin for error in Hearthstone is lower than Magic? You clearly seem to like Hearthstone a good deal, which is bully for you. But it's still not a very good game in the pantheon of card games. No matter how much you write or how often some people get lucky, nothing is really going to change that. Worse yet, it doesn't actually equip the player with the skills needed to succeed in other card games because the actual set and gameplay itself is absurdly shallow. Combat math, along with the class system, makes for a very small decision tree compared to Magic. Or any other card game for that matter.

I will concede that there's "skill" involved in winning Hearthstone with regularity, but that level of skill is hilariously low. As a poker player, you should really see that immediately.

[Simond]

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).

So why isn't everyone at Legend rank if player skill doesn't matter?

Legend Rank does not account for losses. I hit Legend in my first sitdown with the game.

Apart from the bit where you need to be Rank 1 to start getting Legend ranks, you mean?

[Paelos]

I will concede that there's "skill" involved in winning Hearthstone with regularity, but that level of skill is hilariously low. As a poker player, you should really see that immediately.

That's sort of the point. I see the skill level involved in HEX or MtG as a hilarious waste of time for a ton of the market. I think the more the competitive players rail against this sort of thing as a bad game or poorly designed, the more I'm likely to put money back in ATVI and ride the stock again.

[Johny Cee]

I will concede that there's "skill" involved in winning Hearthstone with regularity, but that level of skill is hilariously low. As a poker player, you should really see that immediately.

That's sort of the point. I see the skill level involved in HEX or MtG as a hilarious waste of time for a ton of the market. I think the more the competitive players rail against this sort of thing as a bad game or poorly designed, the more I'm likely to put money back in ATVI and ride the stock again.

What you're missing is that depth contributes to the long-term stickiness of the game.  MtG has depth at all levels, and so you can play the game differently or get better at different facets as long as you play, even if you never go out of the kitchen table/occasional store event level of play.  Stream-lined games are great for a huge batch of new players but large portions of the player base will eventually get bored with it.  Then, the devs have to try to bolt on other systems/more complexity to keep the player base engaged to a game that was fundamentally designed to be stream-lined and simple, which will largely end with the game sliding downhill or becoming an unweildy mess.

That is the development path of literally every other CCG ever, besides MtG.  Generally what then happens is a huge wave of new customers familiar with CCG mechanics but looking for something more interesting transition into MtG. 

It is perfectly possible to play MtG at a "lower" complexity level for extended periods of time.  One of the core demographics that Wizards caters to is "Timmys", or players that like to play big creatures and/or spells with big effects.  A large portion of the MtG buying public are so-called kitchen table players, who will regularly buy a few boosters or a fat pack just for a couple of cards to plug into the deck they play with buddies on the weekend.

[Paelos]

I don't think this needs to be long term. It needs to rack up huge numbers early, operate for 3-5 years with diminishing results, and then replaced with something else or overhauled completely. If they do that right, it will still make more than enough to be worth doing.

[lamaros]

Tldr: this game is fine but its not what a lot of people want in a game. Also schild hates it so much he misuses the word luck a lot.

[Margalis]

As I said in the older thread it's a Magic-style game filtered through Facebook. It's a good execution of that, but I don't think that's a good concept. As with most "streamlined" games the streamlining takes away more than it adds.

If it weren't a Blizzard games I suspect it would be like Card Hunter - somewhat popular for a week then never heard from again.

[schild]

Tldr: this game is fine but its not what a lot of people want in a game. Also schild hates it so much he misuses the word luck a lot.

I have no problem with the game. What I have a problem with is that people are for some reason thinking there's far more there than there is.

[Paelos]

If it weren't a Blizzard game

Are we really still doing this in this day and age?

 

[Ginaz]

If it weren't a Blizzard game

Are we really still doing this in this day and age?

 

You'd be surprised how many people are playing JUST because its a Blizzard game.

[Tannhauser]

There seems to be a certain aesthetic to Blizzard games that I and many others find appealing.  But WoW had 60 levels and two continents of content where HS has a small amount of cards.  So the Blizzard shiny only lasts so long. 

HS is quite fun to me but it's missing something.  It doesn't have that secret sauce that keeps you coming back.

[Malakili]

I don't think you can underestimate how valuable the fact that a lot of streamers play this, and a big part of that is that it is a Blizzard game.  High profile people got beta keys very early and (in a case that proves no NDA is good if your game is actually decent) streamed it right away.  It generates lots of buzz and lots of exposure.   Lots of LoL pros even started streaming it while waiting for their queue to pop.

I don't know how many people are playing this just because it's Blizzard or just because it is Warcraft, but the fact that Blizzard was able to essentially use popular Warcraft, Starcraft and Diablo streamers for what amounts to free advertising has, I suspect, made a pretty big difference in how the game has caught on.

I don't think there are as many Blizzard devotees as we did say, 5-10 years ago.  So in the sense that people aren't just freaking out over this because it is a Blizzard title then I agree that it probably isn't being played "because it is a Blizzard game."  But because of Blizzard's position in the industry I think the game has taken off a lot quicker than it would have if almost anyone else had released the same thing.

[trias_e]

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).

So why isn't everyone at Legend rank if player skill doesn't matter?

Legend Rank does not account for losses. I hit Legend in my first sitdown with the game.

It's the equivalent of Planeswalker points. Which, if they couldn't qualify you for a Pro Tour, would be completely ignored in Magic. It's a metric of precisely nothing other than "how much you play."

I think it's hard to realize this because Hearthstone is a game of inches in a way that MTG just isn't.

Are you actually saying the margin for error in Hearthstone is lower than Magic? 

Sort of.  Hearthstone forces you to make correct tactical decisions every single turn, where MTG simply does not.   You lose games in Hearthstone because of a seemingly toss-up of what minion to play on turn 3, or because you traded in such a way to allow your board to get consecrated a little bit better on turn 4 (out of a game of 10+ turns).  Of course, what you remember is the topdeck failing after you've lost control of the game, but what went wrong happened earlier when you barely lost control of the board because of a small misplay or two.  Hearthstone is a tug-of-war in a way that MTG isn't. 

As far as training you for CCGs...the game is a genius distillation of CCG basics:  Everything comes down to getting value of your cards and keeping control of the board (except for mages which are fucking stupid).  Since mana is equalized and you can trade minions at will, the game is entirely about the fundamentals.  There are no sneaky interrupts, less cheesy combos (almost all combos are newbie traps in this game) and everything is equal every game from a mana perspective.  You simply must get more value out of your cards than your opponent on a turn-by-turn basis, especially in Arena.  You can't skip turns or not trade/deal with the possibility of trading (since your opponent can attack your minions).  Every single turn is a forced action on you.  It's not a strategically deep game, but tactically, it's difficult and consistently challenging.  It's a great training ground for other CCGs, not the opposite.  You get 2 for 1'd without taking significant board control or bringing your opponent to the brink of death?  You lose.  Value your cards next time.

If you're new, you literally stand no chance in arena.  There is no amount of luck in the universe that could come together to make you win 12 games.  If you're interested in playing Arena and not going 2-3 every time, but you've played enough to know the cards and the basics, this is a pretty decent guide:  http://ihearthu.com/vivafringes-guide-to-arena/

[Malakili]

Sort of.  Hearthstone forces you to make correct tactical decisions every single turn, where MTG simply does not.   You lose games in Hearthstone because of a seemingly toss-up of what minion to play on turn 3, or because you traded in such a way to allow your board to get consecrated a little bit better on turn 4 (out of a game of 10+ turns).

So when you say "Seemingly a toss up" do you mean "actually a toss up."  Because if you really lose games all the time because you played the wrong minion on turn 3 and you really have no information to make the right decision, that is pretty much exactly the kind of luck-based thing people are talking about.

You simply must get more value out of your cards than your opponent on a turn-by-turn basis, especially in Arena.  You can't skip turns or not trade/deal with the possibility of trading (since your opponent can attack your minions).  Every single turn is a forced action on you.  

Again, I don't see how this contradicts the criticism that the game is mostly about just drawing and playing your best cards.  It seems like that is pretty much exactly what you said.

Given that you admit the game has little strategic depth I don't really see any thing you've said other than "I agree, but I like it anyway."  Which is fine, but don't pretend the game is something it isn't.

[Lakov_Sanite]

Bearing in mind that I got bored quickly and haven't played the game in a couple months I should point out that I did in fact drop $50 on it so....good or bad they are going to make a lot of money initially.

[Merusk]

Last thing:

Those 'top players' all have full sets to pull from.  I do not.  I've lost to many cards I just don't have access to because my character is level 4 or 5 with 14/20 class cards and my neutral deck is maybe 25% complete, at best. It's like trying to play Magic using only a starter deck.  You're going to lose more than you win, it's set against you.

Bearing in mind that I got bored quickly and haven't played the game in a couple months I should point out that I did in fact drop $50 on it so....good or bad they are going to make a lot of money initially.

Yeah, same.  I figured, "Meh, it's pocket money."  But I've got a shitload of grinding to do for gold or a lot of money to spend for cards to be more competitive.  No thanks!

[Numtini]

I don't think you can underestimate how valuable the fact that a lot of streamers play this, and a big part of that is that it is a Blizzard game.

I also think people vastly underestimate the power a game has just by virtue of being popular. I've never cared for WoW, but I've played an awful lot of it, up to and including raiding because friends played it, because it was ubiquitous, and because it has such a great third party support network to figure out WTF you're doing.

One of the best parts about HS to me is there's enough people playing that there are people worse than I am.

[Margalis]

Sort of.  Hearthstone forces you to make correct tactical decisions every single turn, where MTG simply does not.  

I have no idea how anyone could claim this. In Magic you basically make all the same tactical decisions you do in Hearthstone, plus plenty more that Hearthstone lacks.

[Merusk]

His definition of "tactics" appears to be centered around only the 'combat' phase attack mechanics.  If you use that metric then he's right.  You have to attack on every turn in HS where you do not in Magic.  There's no blocking, so not attacking means you just passed up the only opportunity to deal damage your turn and nothing more.

[schild]

I'm pretty sure the first time I talked about Hearthstone I said that it was basically just the combat math part of Magic, but even then they simplified it by letting you choose which creature you wanted to clock in the teeth and there were no instants to change the math during combat.

Trap cards, lol. Moar liek Crap cards. Yuk yuk yuk. Really, they're stupid.

[Margalis]

His definition of "tactics" appears to be centered around only the 'combat' phase attack mechanics.  If you use that metric then he's right.  You have to attack on every turn in HS where you do not in Magic.  There's no blocking, so not attacking means you just passed up the only opportunity to deal damage your turn and nothing more.

Choosing whether or not to attack in Magic is itself a tactic, and then there is blocking, instants, etc. I don't see how Hearthstone combat could possibly be more tactical, given that it's basically a strict subset.

[schild]

The problem, as I can see here, bar a few cards is that Hearthstone has rules, and the cards "follow" those rules. Whereas Magic cards exist to break the rules of Magic. This is how Hearthstone was designed, so this is what we're stuck with. Sorceries, stupid traps, and shitty combat.

[Lakov_Sanite]

One big issue is the class constraints in hearthstone.  The only cards all classes get are monster cards so you simply cannot make say a "trap" warlock deck because you just don't get traps. 

[schild]

One big issue is the class constraints in hearthstone.

This ranks as one of the dumbest ideas they had. I understand "why" they did it. They only had to make one very small set of cards and balance all of the other decks against that one. So, outside of minor variations, each class is basically the same and the actual cardcount of "playables" is shit tiny.

[Johny Cee]

One big issue is the class constraints in hearthstone.

This ranks as one of the dumbest ideas they had. I understand "why" they did it. They only had to make one very small set of cards and balance all of the other decks against that one. So, outside of minor variations, each class is basically the same and the actual cardcount of "playables" is shit tiny.

Basically, the mechanics have been streamlined down so much there are a few "strictly better" cards rather than a large swathe of cards that could be "situationally better".  The cards don't have that wide a variance in power, but the limited mechanics mean that if there is any difference one card will be strictly better than the other cards of that mana cost so should never be considered in deck design.

The lack of sideboards and one game matches also feed into this.  It gives generalist cards a big boost over situational cards, as a situational card is just less good in the majority of situations.  In MtG, there is a subset cards that will never be playable main deck in healthy formats (ie not dominated by one deck or archetype) but make great sideboard cards for situational use...  for instance recursive life gain in an aggro environment, or graveyard hate against decks that recur cards from the graveyard.

This is why MtG formats have a feeling of a whole life-cycle:  One deck begins to dominate the meta (aggro with burn as an example), so other decks begin to sideboard hate (recursive life gain), so the aggro deck either adapts with sideboard counter-picks or fades from the meta.

[schild]

One big issue is the class constraints in hearthstone.

This ranks as one of the dumbest ideas they had. I understand "why" they did it. They only had to make one very small set of cards and balance all of the other decks against that one. So, outside of minor variations, each class is basically the same and the actual cardcount of "playables" is shit tiny.

Basically, the mechanics have been streamlined down so much there are a few "strictly better" cards rather than a large swathe of cards that could be "situationally better".  The cards don't have that wide a variance in power, but the limited mechanics mean that if there is any difference one card will be strictly better than the other cards of that mana cost so should never be considered in deck design.

The lack of sideboards and one game matches also feed into this.  It gives generalist cards a big boost over situational cards, as a situational card is just less good in the majority of situations.  In MtG, there is a subset cards that will never be playable main deck in healthy formats (ie not dominated by one deck or archetype) but make great sideboard cards for situational use...  for instance recursive life gain in an aggro environment, or graveyard hate against decks that recur cards from the graveyard.

This is why MtG formats have a feeling of a whole life-cycle:  One deck begins to dominate the meta (aggro with burn as an example), so other decks begin to sideboard hate (recursive life gain), so the aggro deck either adapts with sideboard counter-picks or fades from the meta.

I mean, I know that. But people praising Hearthstone don't seem to.

[Johny Cee]

Sort of.  Hearthstone forces you to make correct tactical decisions every single turn, where MTG simply does not.   You lose games in Hearthstone because of a seemingly toss-up of what minion to play on turn 3, or because you traded in such a way to allow your board to get consecrated a little bit better on turn 4 (out of a game of 10+ turns).  Of course, what you remember is the topdeck failing after you've lost control of the game, but what went wrong happened earlier when you barely lost control of the board because of a small misplay or two.  Hearthstone is a tug-of-war in a way that MTG isn't. 

What you are describing is the aggro archetype in MtG.  MtG has three major (and a few minor) archetypes: Aggro, Control, and Combo.  Aggro plays out it's hand, tries to get damage to the head of the opponent and maintain board position, and finally gets the opponent within range of it's "reach" which is stuff like direct damage to the face or hasty (charge) high power attackers.

Basically Hearthstone mostly plays with one of the archetypes of MtG, aggro, with some aggro-control or mid-range beats type strategies.  It sacrifices long-term board/hand development on the altar of tempo.

You also should specify between Arena and constructed (what do they call it? Using the MtG term here) play.  Limited in MtG (comparable to Arena, you draft a deck from a limited card pool) plays out pretty similarly in emphasizing tempo, board control, having creatures on the field, and card advantage through combat trades.


Also, this play state is pretty much based around the fact that taunt sucks and minions don't heal, rather than the inherent design of the game.  If taunt mechanics get a reasonable boost, you are going to see stalled mid-game states and more emphasis on long-term board/hand development.

[Johny Cee]

I mean, I know that. But people praising Hearthstone don't seem to.

Yah, I know you know.  Just expanding out your statement with wall of text CCG mechanics explanation.   

[Paelos]

I mean, I know that. But people praising Hearthstone don't seem to.

They honestly don't care. They are just playing it. Those players will never be the type who read into mechanics, builds, etc.

[Malakili]

I remember when I could just play a game.  Those were the days.