Magic: The Combattening - Hearthstone

[Simond]

I'm done with ranked play until Blizzard gets their thumbs out of their asses. Sick of finding decks with multiple legendaries slumming at level 19 or 20.

Flat-out "Good in almost all decks" Legendaries: Cairne, Leeeeeeeeeeeroy.

Good but situational: Bloodmage Thalnos, Black Knight, Raggy, probably a couple more I'm forgetting.

Gimmicky: Most of the rest, varying from "Good but even more situational" (hello class legendaries and dragons) via "Used to be awesome but got nerfed" and "Yeah, it might work but you'll need to build a deck around it" to "Even if you do build a deck around it, it's probably not going to be very good" (Hi, Illidan!) and "Silly but fun" (ETC, Nozdormu)

Pretty much terrible: All of the gnomes.

To be honest, I'd rather have a Yeti in most cases.

[Morat20]

These were expert/rare decks with thoroughly thought out legendary placement.

[Lakov_Sanite]

No deck "full of legendaries" is well thought out.  Look at all the top decks and you'll likely see two legendaries at most with many containing none.

[Morat20]

No deck "full of legendaries" is well thought out.  Look at all the top decks and you'll likely see two legendaries at most with many containing none.

It was mostly rares and experts, although I kept running into games where they'd drop two legendaries inside of maybe three turns.

But from their cards? They'd either dropped a ton of cash or been playing since beta, and their playstyle and decks fit. They weren't making casual mistakes or shoving in cards that didn't work.

They didn't buy their decks, and they weren't rank 19 because that's just how bad or good they were.

I get better, more accurately matched opponents in casual than I do in ranked play. Something is fucked up.

[Lakov_Sanite]

You have two problems, the first is that HS is a pay to win game, as are ALL card games when it comes down to it.  You will always be at a disadvantage to the people who collect the rare and powerful cards.  Forcing the matchmaking system to put you against similar value decks in any kind of ladder play is ridiculous in any gaming format. 

HOWEVER

HS is very shallow when it comes to player skills so cards trump skill almost any given day which is definitely not how a good card game should be.  With much worse cards you should be at a disadvantage but in HS it's an almost insurmountable one.

[Johny Cee]

You have two problems, the first is that HS is a pay to win game, as are ALL card games when it comes down to it.  You will always be at a disadvantage to the people who collect the rare and powerful cards.  Forcing the matchmaking system to put you against similar value decks in any kind of ladder play is ridiculous in any gaming format. 

Card games aren't pay to win, unless ridiculously poorly designed.  In general, depending on the prevailing meta, there is a barrier to entry based on card value....  but that barrier can be anywhere between reasonable and crazy, and once you are over the barrier card value doesn't matter.  At various times, for instance, the MtG meta has been low cost decks, a mix, or a bunch of ridiculously priced decks.  One of the most broken decks of all time, Ravager, only required 8 value rares for many builds.

Going back to one of Schild's points, card cost isn't a problem if you can trade.  Plenty of players are competitive in MtG while spending relatively little on the game because they have the ability to trade into the current first tier decks.  The great circle of life in MTG is Spikes (competitive players) trading to Timmies ("fun" players, play big monsters types) and Johnnies (build decks around cool interactions), where relatively everyone is better off because they get the cards they want without shelling out the supposed market price to a store or online retailer.

Without trading, HS just has the system where you break down a card for half the dust cost to create it which further freezes out more casual players.  If you could trade that shiny in demand Legendary that slots into a deck you will never play for the rares/experts that make up the majority of a good deck you would play, you would be far better off than with the only option being break it down for half its dust cost.

[Paelos]

Yes, I'd say the largest problem with HS is there's no trading.

[schild]

That would help you make decks, sure. But the largest problem with HS is that the game design promotes luck over skill. No amount of trading or a singles store would help that.

[HaemishM]

Not just luck, but the surrounding meta stuff around it is just so fucking shallow. Everyone has to have the same amount of cards. There is only one way to block damage (taunt) with critters. The matchmaking is woefully bad, in that it doesn't take all the important factors into consideration (or if it does, it does so VERY BADLY). The draft mode (arena) is a bit of a joke. There is no trading.

If MtG had a decent online game or if Hex was out and well done, I'd not be playing this game. As it is, it's a decent time waster with a lot of frustrating and badly-thought out mechanics.

[schild]

Uh, you always want to play with the minimum number of cards required. So, that's not really "shallow." Being able to play with more cards in Magic is a terrible rule.

[HaemishM]

I get that the smaller decks are more efficient, but it also means the variety of decks you face is going to suffer. I remember when Legends came out, I built like 150 card decks just because. It helped that we weren't playing 1v1 Magic in my group, we'd do these big 5-7 player games that to me were a whole lot more fun than 1v1 tourney style.

[Ingmar]

Lack of deck variety is a card design issue, not a 'let people build worse decks if they want' issue.

[Paelos]

Blizzard reported 10M users of Hearthstone as of middle March. It's done pretty well for a F2P designed by a small team inside Blizzard.

[Morat20]

I'm already getting pretty sick of the game. And it boils down to "Shit draws" and "Shit choices".

If 70% of my goddamn deck is under 4 mana, why do I keep drawing 5+ mana cards? And then tossing them and drawing more?

It's not fun to draw a hand, toss and redraw and know I've lost unless my opponent is a moron. It's doubly shitting to basically have the game decided by turn three or four.

Assholes slumming at the bottom of the ranks or fuckers who don't end turn until the last second are just the obnoxious cherry on top.

Edited to add: Seriously, where's the "HURRY THE FUCK UP FUCKER YOU'RE OUT OF MANA AND HAVE ONE GODDAMN CREATURE. FIGURE IT OUT" emote.

[Johny Cee]

Assholes slumming at the bottom of the ranks or fuckers who don't end turn until the last second are just the obnoxious cherry on top.

Edited to add: Seriously, where's the "HURRY THE FUCK UP FUCKER YOU'RE OUT OF MANA AND HAVE ONE GODDAMN CREATURE. FIGURE IT OUT" emote.

If I had to take a wild guess, this is less "people being assholes" and more "people playing at work" or other versions of people screwing around and playing the game from where they aren't supposed to.  Used to see this sometimes on MODO, asked a guy why he was taking so long in a nice way, said he was playing from work and had to hide the game.  This was in a draft, by the way, so basically he was fucking over his chance to win packs so he could (badly) draft from work.

[Jeff Kelly]

In HS it's also a griefing strategy to get players to forfeit out of impatience and boredom. As long as you do something by the time the counter runs out it will reset and run the same amount of time next turn.

Since games are short chances are good that players will quit when they are made to wait.

[Simond]

Also if it's Miracle Rogue they're probably doing about a dozen recalculations of "What if?" plays to figure out whether they can start rolling yet or not.

[Venkman]

It's also far more pronounced an issue on PC than mobile.

On PC we're used to realtime or it's too slow. We're used to tuning out the world to focus on the game we're playing (consoles tool).

On mobile everyone assumes we're splitting attention. The most successful mobile games are specifically the opposite of PC titles in that they don't require laser focus for hours on end. Just a high quantity of momentary check ins.

I've been enjoying the iPad version a lot. It's also already hit the Top Grossing chart, beating out a few titles that have been there almost since Apple launched the Top Grossing chart

All in all, good for Blizzard to try and experiment like this (a new type of game for them and a new type of development process) and be successful at it.

[Jeff Kelly]

The arena RNG is ridiculous.

After three times in a row not getting a single relevant class card and losing 0:3 every time I now have a Mage deck with.

3 fireball
3 frost bolt
flame strike
hogger
Ysera
and  whole lot of other supporting cards.

I'll probably still lose 0:3 though 

[Morat20]

Also if it's Miracle Rogue they're probably doing about a dozen recalculations of "What if?" plays to figure out whether they can start rolling yet or not.

Dare I ask what a Miracle Rogue is?

[Simond]

One of the versions of this sort of deck: http://www.hearthpwn.com/decks/44113-burstdown-miracle-rogue

[Jeff Kelly]

My arena run ended 3:3. It's simply ridiculous just how huge the swings are. I've curbstomped three players by turn 4 and I've been curbstomped by three other players with even more luck than me also by turn 4 or 5. Basically if my initial draw and mulligan were bad and my opponent's weren't I lost and vice versa. I never once lost because of a bad play and I never turned things around because of a good play. By turn 2 it was a foregone conclusion unless my opponent made an error (which they didn't)

I've now played HS on and off for a few weeks and I still maintain my original opinion. It's too limited in mechanics and scope and therefore too much reliant on luck. The classes are also not really on par and some classes are much better designed than others.

I usually play mage and usually the free to play deck that Trump made but I also use a net deck that's decent. I usually lose the same amount of games I win and I end up pretty much stuck at rank 17 this month. I also made a hunter and warlock netdeck to do the daily quests and it is much easier to win with those classes even when you get a bad draw. I won games with hunter that I would have badly lost with both mage and paladin or warrior decks.

Incidentally I quite like the hunter and warlock decks, those classes feel most like they 'flow'. So I'd be unhappy if they nerf them,I'd be much happier if the other classes had a similar flow to them. I can also see why people hate to play against them so much now. With my mage decks I pretty much know by turn 4 if I have lost or not because once you are behind you'll never catch up. Not so with the hunter and warlock decks I've played.

[Jeff Kelly]

I could imagine that the way the game is working right now will drive casual players away from the game after the initial hype has worn off because the potential to get reamed is huge. Especially when you are likely to get matched against much more expensive decks and experienced players in both casual and ranked. Blizzard will need the causal player base though, they are the only ones that likely pay money. The semi-pros and 'in it since beta' players likely won't but they will drive new players away if Blizzard doesn't change things.

Maybe someone has realized that already and that is why they implement PvE with Naxxramas.

Regardless of them changing anything they need to improve their crappy matchmaking. Hearthstone needs an ELO type system that matches you against people of similar strength and that cannot be as easily manipulated as the current matchmaking in casual and ranked. Only if no player of similar strength is available should you get matched to players that are outclassed by you or that you outclass.

They should also reduce the influence randomness has on the game. That's why other games play best of three, have side-boards and other mechanics.

Because right now the game is focused entirely too much on turn 1 - 5. 80% of my games are over before I'm half way through my deck of 30 cards. Probably more than 60 percent are over by turn 6.

Depending on class and deck type you can very likely not have anything to play until turn 3 or 4. Which means that you've already lost.

[schild]

It doesn't matter how many words you write, my initial description was accurate:

The best description I can come up with is it's like, an 8 year olds interpretation of Magic with cards still designed by professionals.

[HaemishM]

I don't say this often, but you aren't wrong.

[schild]

Of course I'm not fucking wrong, I know card games.

[Jeff Kelly]

It doesn't matter how many words you write, my initial description was accurate:

The best description I can come up with is it's like, an 8 year olds interpretation of Magic with cards still designed by professionals.

Are you still confusing me with someone else? Because I never said you weren't

[schild]

No, I was just tl;dr all your jibber-jabber.

[Jeff Kelly]

Ah, OK, carry on then.

[Ironwood]

He also does a fine line in pitying the fool.

[Typhon]

It was schild's other post that was accurate: this game is decent for playing on a tablet while sitting on the crapper.

A little something to distract while, ahem, 'multi-tasking'.  But also something that you'd want to limit, which allows you to avoid physical or psychological harm.


Edit: you know, even that is too harsh.  If you like the idea of card games like this, but have never actually played one, this isn't a bad first pass.  It's a decent gateway card game if you've never played anything deeper before (I'm actually using it this way to prep a friend for when Hex goes open beta).

[ezrast]

Yeah, I basically used arena as a Baby's First Card Valuation program prior to Hex being available since I don't have experience with limited formats. It seems passable for that purpose.

Not that it's helped me win any Hex drafts.

[Paelos]

While Schild is right that the game is simplistic and lacking skill, i stand by my assessment that it will be very successful given the small cost and revenue generated.

[Tannhauser]

In other news, 'Unleash the Hounds' has been nerfed.  It now costs three mana to play instead of two. 

[Jeff Kelly]

It shows that Blizzard doesn't really know what makes Hunter good if they chose that as a change