Magic: The Combattening - Hearthstone

[Ginaz]

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.

It won't be around as long as Magic has been if thats the case.  I highly doubt 5, 10, 15 years from now people will still be playing HS.  Not that it matters much.  As I mentioned earlier, Blizzard is still going to make a fuck tonne of money no matter what.

[Paelos]

Under no circumstances do I believe Blizzards goal is for this to be around as long as magic, compete for magic players, or even worry that magic exists.

[trias_e]

Malakili, I used the word 'seemingly' for a reason.

Johnny Gee, I know CCG archetypes, and you're wrong about the dominant arena deck style in HS.

Just because you are playing every turn doesn't mean HS is an agro-game, and especially in arena, it's not.  Most arena decks in Hearthstone will be control, not aggro.  In constructed you will see a good mix of control, aggro, combo, and tempo (which is kind of control but in a lame way) decks.  

Some of the best cards in arena are frostbolt, fiery war axe, and wrath, and they aren't good because they hit the person in the face.  Both players have to spend their mana every turn in an effective way to effect the board, or rush the person, or gain tempo, whether in constructed or arena  (which is not to say that actually playing the board takes no skill:  It takes plenty, and is probably the #1 reason I'm still a 57% winrate player and not a 70%+ winrate player).  However, in arena, it's unlikely to get the cards you need to make a good rush or tempo deck, so you almost always have to pick for value and control.  Mages are disliked because they break the rules of HS control which is what makes the game interesting and fun to play.  Mages sit around, freeze all your shit and ice block to get a few turns, and then nuke your guy directly.  They don't play by the same rules as everyone else, and the game mages play is pretty lame (if HS was all mages I'd agree that it's a terrible and stupid game).  They are a badly designed class because that shit takes no skill.  I'm also not a fan of warlock agro, but at least you really only see that in constructed.  Control is beautiful in HS, and luckily, control is most of the game.

I would sort of agree that most cards in arena can be ranked as generally better than one another, but when actually drafting you will pick cards that are 'worse' fairly often, due to curve, class, or (admittedly rarely)synergy.

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

I mean, you can sit in your high tower and say whatever you want.  It's frustrating to read that, as it's entirely wrong, but believe whatever you want.  

Honestly, I'm the biggest dork for mechanics and builds that exists.  Shit, I theorycraft builds for games I don't even play all of the time.  Yet I love HS, and I read and watch more HS than I play, and have done so for 3 months pretty obsessively now.  I'm not saying this shit because I'm a casual donk who loves silly games.  It just turns out you don't need 10 years of wonky mechanics to make a good game!

[schild]

Trias, I can tell you where Johnny is gonna stop reading.

Some of the best cards in arena are frostbolt, fiery war axe, and wrath, and they aren't good because they hit the person in the face.

Right there. You can't go from telling him you understand CCG archetypes and then assume he thinks all burn goes straight to the face.

We're all very shocked that removal is relevant in a game where the primary wincon is beating with dudes. Shocked.

[schild]

I really want to be nice about it, but we're going around in circles.

I'll break it alllllllll the way down for funsies:

If you're good at Magic, Hearthstone won't do it for you. It's ONE part of Magic (and they really couldn't even get that right) and the tournament structure isn't even remotely good and there's no secondary market.

If you're bad at Magic AND arbitrage, Hearthstone may be the game for you. The class system makes building ideal decks ridiculously easy if you're willing to toss money into a fire, and the average player is going to be terrible at card games (and, likely, combat math).

[Setanta]

I enjoyed Hearthstone (full set of cards plus quite a few golds) but it got old very quickly. The limited card base was painful and the meta is quite limited. Combat needs work as the "fly past non-blockers" makes it a cheese speed race and to be honest, it gets old quick. I haven't touched it in over a week which is telling but then again, the Magic Planeswalkers (I have all of them) series doesn't do it for me after playing Hearthstone - Wizards could learn a lot from Blizzard about making a virtual card game look good.

Loved the deck construction but the fact that my most successful deck is/was murloc based is telling. Strangely, the deck was Druid/Murloc which I'd written off.

Then again, I like control decks in MTG and loved being ittitating with Millstone/Jesters caps or Humility/Prayer/Outpost/Cap decks (which pretty much sums up when I gave up on the physical MTG game).

[Falconeer]

I have a weird, hypotetical, tricky question.What would the game be like if Blizzard pushed out tomorrow an expansion, a completely new set of 200 cards?

[luckton]

I have a weird, hypotetical, tricky question.What would the game be like if Blizzard pushed out tomorrow an expansion, a completely new set of 200 cards?

200 cards of what?  The same minions/class-locked spells and abilities without any new mechanics or changes to game operation?  It'd be the same game as it is now, except people would have a larger card pool to choose from.  Being limited to 2 copies of a card and a 30 card max deck would bring more emphasis to choosing wisely, but I imagine that in a pool of 200 cards being dropped in, there a pretty good chance there's gonna be a duplicate or two.  Maybe it'll be a murloc instead of a raptor, but the tangible stats would remain.

[Ashamanchill]

I don't get what all the hate is about. For those of you who are fans of the more complex CGs this is going to draw a lot of people to them. Anecdotally, two of my friends picked this up, played it til they got bored of it (cuz like you guys said, it's mighty simple), and are now looking towards other, deeper games. I directed them towards (what I knew of) Hex.

[Merusk]

You're confusing criticism of limitations and scope with hate.  I think the only thing people have hated on is the class system, which is legit.  There's no good reason for it and it only confuses the balancing more.

[Falconeer]

I have a weird, hypotetical, tricky question.What would the game be like if Blizzard pushed out tomorrow an expansion, a completely new set of 200 cards?

200 cards of what?  The same minions/class-locked spells and abilities without any new mechanics or changes to game operation?  It'd be the same game as it is now, except people would have a larger card pool to choose from.  Being limited to 2 copies of a card and a 30 card max deck would bring more emphasis to choosing wisely, but I imagine that in a pool of 200 cards being dropped in, there a pretty good chance there's gonna be a duplicate or two.  Maybe it'll be a murloc instead of a raptor, but the tangible stats would remain.

That's the thing. Considering where the game is now, and, regardless of "success", the criticism about its lack of depth and lack of strategy, if they announced an expansion tomorrow where would you think they'd be going with it? Just more of the same? Or where to?

[Rendakor]

If they announced an expansion tomorrow, I'd expect them to add the 200 cards by early 2015.

[schild]

An expansion would just fuck up the game.

I don't say that blindly. Right now, the game is clearly a card game for total casual card gamers. As I said, people who aren't good at Magic. People like that tend to get overwhelmed by choice. The number of bad players would increase and the number of good players would decrease as a result of choice paralysis. Right now, the only strategy in the game is to pick the actual best cards out of your limited pool. Decks are small enough and the number of good cards is small enough that right now there's a bit of wiggle room on the best deck. Combine that with the fact matches are one game without sideboards, it limits the scope of what they can print even more.

End of the day, it's too easily solvable a game and more cards would just make it even easier to solve if actual "good" card gamers are making picks on what should go in the tier 1 decks.

Top to bottom, the design blows.

The presentation is 100% of what is carrying the game. Good on Blizzard for being Blizzard in that regard.

[Johny Cee]

Malakili, I used the word 'seemingly' for a reason.

Johnny Gee, I know CCG archetypes, and you're wrong about the dominant arena deck style in HS.

Just because you are playing every turn doesn't mean HS is an agro-game, and especially in arena, it's not.  Most arena decks in Hearthstone will be control, not aggro.  In constructed you will see a good mix of control, aggro, combo, and tempo (which is kind of control but in a lame way) decks.  

Some of the best cards in arena are frostbolt, fiery war axe, and wrath, and they aren't good because they hit the person in the face.  Both players have to spend their mana every turn in an effective way to effect the board, or rush the person, or gain tempo, whether in constructed or arena  (which is not to say that actually playing the board takes no skill:  It takes plenty, and is probably the #1 reason I'm still a 57% winrate player and not a 70%+ winrate player).  However, in arena, it's unlikely to get the cards you need to make a good rush or tempo deck, so you almost always have to pick for value and control.  Mages are disliked because they break the rules of HS control which is what makes the game interesting and fun to play.  Mages sit around, freeze all your shit and ice block to get a few turns, and then nuke your guy directly.  They don't play by the same rules as everyone else, and the game mages play is pretty lame (if HS was all mages I'd agree that it's a terrible and stupid game).  They are a badly designed class because that shit takes no skill.  I'm also not a fan of warlock agro, but at least you really only see that in constructed.  Control is beautiful in HS, and luckily, control is most of the game.

I would sort of agree that most cards in arena can be ranked as generally better than one another, but when actually drafting you will pick cards that are 'worse' fairly often, due to curve, class, or (admittedly rarely)synergy.

1. It's Johny Cee.  With a C.
2. What is it with people trying to make a point based on things I never actually said?  I gave an example of aggro decks using a traditional staple (sligh or red deck wins) with spells being used for reach.  There are dozens of other traditional aggro decks.
3. I have not played the game, but have watched a fair amount of arena drafts (mostly Trump or Total Biscuit, so one good and one not very good player) and I'm interpreting that through the lens of having a shitload of MtG games played in most formats....  literally around 1,500 Limited events and thousands of constructed matches in various formats.

What you are describing as control or combo would be called aggro or aggro-control in MtG, or a "mid-range beats" style deck which is a slightly beefier aggro deck.  You are playing efficient creatures and putting damage on the opponent while controling his board with removal/favorable trades.  Even mage decks usually play an aggro-control game. 

Aggro doesn't just mean rush down or classic burn.  It means a concentration on the board state with the aim of constantly working towards a finish.  Traditional control and combo decks focus on advancing your card selection, your resources, denying your opponent resources, or your hand until you either take full control of the game or you combo out.  Are there still some combo and control strategies in HS?  Sure!  The druid has spells to increase his resources, there are damage combos, etc.  These strategies aren't powerful enough on their own to carry a deck, which means you still have to graft them on the aggro framework rather than make them the focus of your play.

[Johny Cee]

I have a weird, hypotetical, tricky question.What would the game be like if Blizzard pushed out tomorrow an expansion, a completely new set of 200 cards?

200 cards of what?  The same minions/class-locked spells and abilities without any new mechanics or changes to game operation?  It'd be the same game as it is now, except people would have a larger card pool to choose from.  Being limited to 2 copies of a card and a 30 card max deck would bring more emphasis to choosing wisely, but I imagine that in a pool of 200 cards being dropped in, there a pretty good chance there's gonna be a duplicate or two.  Maybe it'll be a murloc instead of a raptor, but the tangible stats would remain.

That's the thing. Considering where the game is now, and, regardless of "success", the criticism about its lack of depth and lack of strategy, if they announced an expansion tomorrow where would you think they'd be going with it? Just more of the same? Or where to?

HS has a streamlined and simple set of mechanics.  This makes it easy to understand and for new players to pick up.  The problem is those choices severely limit your design space for going in new directions or introducing novel strategies unless you throw out what your originally designed your card game for.

Creatures are limited to come into play effects (battlecry), leave play effects (deathrattle), and some triggered abilities (imp master, questing adventurer).  Activated abilities on creatures (tap this creature, do X like draw a card or create a minion) aren't in the game at all.  With the present mechanics, we have no idea how the game would actually handle that.  Creatures don't tap, so limit to one a turn?  How does summoning sickness work in? Etc.

It creates another layer of complexity and card choice (is this 3/5 with ability better than this 5/4 at the same resource cost?).  That's good for making a deeper game.  It's bad because HS is completely designed around intuitive and simple game play that people can quickly pick up.  Would it increase retention, or would it drive off casual players who find the basic mechanics changing?


Just adding a couple hundred cards in the existing set of mechanics wouldn't particularly do too much, as they have pretty well explored that design space.  This is the area where most other CCGs have fallen down as it just generally leads to card inflation as new sets are introduced into the limited mechanic pool.  MtG gets around this by constantly switching up mechanics with new sets and rotating older cards out. 

[Ingmar]

And making a point specifically about rotation, the fact that they've tied the cards to evergreen class abilities from the MMO means you're never going to see much in the way of a change in how the classes play. They can't get away with rotating a lot of the stuff in the game because they're married to the setting and the other game.

[trias_e]

Apologies for getting your name wrong, Johnny Cee.  The main point of confusion/contention in the agro/control distinction is the 'putting damage on the opponent' bit, which is usually irrelevant in HS unless if you are actually playing an agro deck.  Agro usually means trying to damage at the expense of control of the board/resources/good trades.  By that metric, HS is definitely far more control than agro oriented in arena.  In HS you obviously must play more proactively every turn than in magic.  But your goal in doing so isn't to do damage to your opponent.  You play proactively, not because you need to damage to your opponent, but because you must make sure that you retain card and board advantage, (mainly due to the fact that mana is equal and minions are attackable).  That's the very definition of control, regardless of whether you are using minions or spells to do so.  HS isn't MTG. Playing a minion almost every turn has nothing to do with what agro means in HS.  Playing a minion every turn, the right minion, and playing them well over multiple turns is most often how you suffocate your opponent through card disadvantage and then defeat them through attrition.

[K9]

From my point of view outside of the bubble I have to agree with Malakili; Blizzard's biggest coup here is getting coverage of a game that to the best of my knowledge they view as an experimental side-project, not a major franchise. Pretty much every single SC2, DOTA, or LoL caster I follow on Youtube has put out one or more hearthstone videos; some are putting out a LOT of hearthstone content. You can't do anything but discover this game. In contrast trying to find Hex gameplay requires you to know about the game beforehand, it doesn't just fall into your lap.

That said, I think this is a bit of an apples to oranges comparison. The games are pitched at completely different markets. What I see Hearthstone doing best is opening up CCGs to people who are looking for something to play for 5-10 minutes at a time, on their mobile device, or while they cook supper, or while they wait for their DotA/LoL/SC2 queue to pop up. It's going to do really well there. Hex is going to cater well to people who want a game like Hex, but I don't see it opening up massive new playerbases in the way that Hearthstone will. But perhaps that's half the point.

[Drai]

That said, I think this is a bit of an apples to oranges comparison. The games are pitched at completely different markets. What I see Hearthstone doing best is opening up CCGs to people who are looking for something to play for 5-10 minutes at a time, on their mobile device, or while they cook supper, or while they wait for their DotA/LoL/SC2 queue to pop up. It's going to do really well there. Hex is going to cater well to people who want a game like Hex, but I don't see it opening up massive new playerbases in the way that Hearthstone will. But perhaps that's half the point.

This - totally apples to oranges here.  Of course Magic and Hearthstone are different; that's the point.  Just as some people would rather play Civ than some meticulous, statistical strategy game, there is a market for a more casual CCG.  I am in that market - I played the hell out of Magic for a few years when it first came out in 1994-96, but I don't have the time to invest in figuring out the quite likely thousands of cards now, nor is the game particularly fast to play.  With Hearthstone, K9 hit it on the head - I can crank out a game while making dinner (or commuting home once it hits tablets).  It scratches the itch without so much investment and overhead.  By definition it has to be a simpler game; that isn't a bad thing nor does it make a game just for people who suck at other CCGs.  Just different games for different people.

[Falconeer]

The problem isn't just that it is simpler than Magic: The Gathering or, you know, the WoW TCG (which had the same classes but was awesome). The problem, at least for me, is that it is too random. The skill ceiling seems too low given the current card set, and I am under the impression that the higher win% rates are more related to being up to date with the -limited- meta than any particular skill.

[Draegan]

The same argument could be had about HOTS vs. Dota/LOL.

[luckton]

The same argument could be had about HOTS vs. Dota/LOL.

Sure, but in this case I'm willing to give HotS an honest effort after taking so much burn from LoL.

[Falconeer]

The same argument could be had about HOTS vs. Dota/LOL.

Lower skill ceiling, sure. But it's the random element that bothers me about Hearthstone. And that's not gonna be that obvious in HotS since fingers tend to mix things up a little bit more than turn-based.

[Rendakor]

The lack of trading also makes (constructed) HS much more pay to win than M:tG/Hex, which is a huge turn off for me.

[K9]

The problem isn't just that it is simpler than Magic: The Gathering or, you know, the WoW TCG (which had the same classes but was awesome). The problem, at least for me, is that it is too random. The skill ceiling seems too low given the current card set, and I am under the impression that the higher win% rates are more related to being up to date with the -limited- meta than any particular skill.

I wonder whether Clash of Clans or Sim City made more money in 2013?

The problem is that Hearthstone isn't for you; whether that requires a whole thread shitting on it (not pointing at you here btw) is debatable 

[Falconeer]

So there's some clownshoes eSport show going on in Berlin that managed to hire both the Champion and vice-Champion from the BlizzCon tournament, Artosis and Kripparrian. Supposedly, they are two of the best Heartstone players "in the world" at the moment. What I like the most is that even though Kripp loves the game, he never misses a chance to say that luck plays a very big role in Heartstone. Not that anyone doubted that, but it's kind of relevant when one of the best players stresses it -and keeps repeating how casual of a game it is- every time he gets a chance, whether he just won or lost a big match.

Anyway, if you are into eSports, and Hearthstone, this video might interest you.

[schild]

"Best" at Hearthstone is like being a bully on the short bus for a blind school.

[Malakili]

Artosis spent 10 years playing Brood War.  I always got the impression his decision to "train" for Blizzcon and Hearthstone was basically just him realizing that he could figure the game out with a small amount of effort and then just beat everyone.

But since it actually seems to be attracting attention as an "eSport" I can't help but think he decided "screw it, I'm going to run with this."

[tazelbain]

Backroom deal by Blizzard to manufacture some eSports cred?

[trias_e]

 keep circlejerking wihile other people make shitons of money.

There's no backroom deal.  There's just a good game.  Blizzard happened to get one right.

I understand you are invested in this not being the case.  Sorry, it's the case.

[trias_e]

"Best" at Hearthstone is like being a bully on the short bus for a blind school.

Reminds me of brad mquaid laughing at WoW.  You're totally delusional. 

[Job601]

The skill ceiling for Hearthstone is clearly lower than MTG, but it's high enough that nobody at f13 is ever going to reach it.  That makes it a non-issue as far as I'm concerned.

[Falconeer]

I understand Kripp is not the word of god, but are you deliberately choosing to ignore the part where one of the highest ranked players says RNG is a huge factor (not the only one of course) in this game? He even goes as far as saying that when certain classes face each other is basically a coin flip... how 'deep' is that exactly?

[trias_e]

I understand Kripp is not the word of god, but are you deliberately choosing to ignore the part where one of the highest ranked players says RNG is a huge factor (not the only one of course) in this game? He even goes as far as saying that when certain classes face each other is basically a coin flip... how 'deep' is that exactly?

God knows RNG never has anything to do with card games.  Ever.

Most (all) of the decks you see in these decks are not viable at a this point. While I won't say it's *deep* because of this, I will say theres definitely changing metagame

[luckton]

Most (all) of the decks you see in these decks are not viable at a this point. While I won't say it's *deep* because of this, I will say theres definitely changing metagame

It's about as meta as Yugioh, and even that game is more engaging and strategic. 

When this guy shows up at the Hearthstone Grand Tournament, maybe they'll have something?