Anyways, I see no difference between Hearthstone and Magic, except that Magic is even more expensive. Unless you are some god-like trader who can routinely profit, otherwise you are not going to make much of anything back. It's cardboard crack vs virtual crack.
And two, if I pull a valuable card in Magic, it's mine. It's an investment I can lay away, trade, re-sell...in HS, I feel like I'm renting my damned cards. Blizzard has produced some wonderful games, but they have enough of my money, and they don't spend much effort to create community or kindness.
I will stick with Magic, I think. One, people who play Magic aren't always kind by any means...but getting together to actually play means people form relationships and treat each other like people, as compared to the nerfed-chat shit-taunt-fest that HS is.
I don't much like it, for the reasons already discussed. Basic HS is a free-to-play game. But ranked HS is a $100+ commitment...and one where none of that value comes back to you, either.
If you think Big Game Hunter "counters" Dr. Boom, I'm not sure what your understanding of the game really is, Aaron. Boom's not dangerous because he's a 7/7; he's dangerous because he's a 7/7 that comes WITH two 1/1's that deal 4-8 damage when they themselves die.
@Andrew Hall: BGH counters it just fine. It's a big tempo loss for the opponent. Card advantage isn't the only thing that matters in this game. Besides, Boom is going out of rotation anyways.
Actually, I'll amend that. There are rwo ways to counter a Dr. Boom boardstate in a single card...but they're both class-specific. You can Lightbomb if you're playing Priest, or Twisting Nether if you're playing Warlock. But even then you take Boom Bot damage.
In HS, there's literally no way to counter the board state after a single-card Dr. Boom without wasting two or more cards in removal - often three or four by the time the Boom Bots are through.
And that's by Blizzard's design.
It's their choice, it just makes me not want to play the game.
You're also missing my point about overpowered cards defining the format. In Magic, even the most broken cards have counters, often among cards that anyone can obtain...meaning that it's the skill of play that defines success.
Aaron: Actually, no, these days you can't just play aggro decks (Facehunter et al) and expect to win - not with Reno Jackson, Refreshment Vendor, and Healbot in the format. I wouldn't anyway. I don't enjoy decks that a bot could play, not in HS or Magic.
Hey guys Codex is really fun and good.
It's also on kickstarter right now.
(No seriously, I like it a lot. I did also enjoy Hearthstone and MTG, so I'm not really a hater; I simply stopped playing because I wasn't a fan of the payment model. No use complaining though.)
@Humanoid Mimisippo: To me, aggro is not boring, aggro vs control is, from both sides. Aggro vs aggro is a tricky match up where you have to constantly ask "How much should I trade". It's like a knife fight. Though, I won't argue any further since you have probably made up your mind long ago.
And if HS didn't pretend to be anything but "F2P agro simulator", I wouldn't have any problem with it. But it doesn't. It just says "use this boring tactic for the next few months, then maybe, with the right drop, you'll be able to do something fun".
@Aaron Chan, well, I tended to play Warlock, with crafted decks for most other classes (aside from 1 or 2 that I disliked most) for dailies. Getting roflstomped even in non-ranked mode by someone who uses online "pro-decks" instead of figuring it out themselves is not something I'd call "fun"
@Humanoid Mimisippo: You don't have to pay to get a reasonable budget deck with that archetype, and even if you do the deck power doesn't grow much. It's fine if you think aggro is not fun for you, but don't use it to claim the game is nigh unplayable without paying.
@Humanoid Mimisippo: The issue is never Hearthstone is or isn't P2W. It's your refusal to play certain archetypes because of your perceived bias. I started my first month playing zoo, and I had fun playing zoo. I won a fair share and I learned a lot. In fact, I still play zoo today.
(...)instead of, you know, HATS, like in Valve games. HS is, undoubtely, pay to win, since Blizzard made sure that the game would be nigh unplayable if you don't sink either time, or money in it, and most players don't have enough time to invest into a game that promises to be fun in distant future.
(...)know what you are buying, and even then, if you TAKE both versions of the same gen, you've still got a fixed price to pay, instead of amorphic loan to Blizzard that can vary from several tens to hundreds of dollars just because you were not lucky enough to get your virtual weapons (...)
(...)but you're NEVER supposed to pay an extra just to own a Pikachu. Sure, maybe Pokemon is not the PERFECT example (they've got different versions, up to 3 in generation), but you get my idea. And even Nintendo've started to lay out demos for their new games, so it's not like you DON'T(...)
@Aaron Chan, on-disc DLCs and other shady politics of AAA publishers aside, if you get a game, you get all the content in it. If you buy a Pokemon game, you're entitled to every single wild pokemon that you meet (some of them may be obtained via special conditions (...)
@Humanoid Mimisippo: Besides, matchmaking will ensure you that you will win ~50% of your game after a little while, so C will hold regardless of how much you pay. On your analogy: If the store only have mint for you to sample for free, will you complain that they won't let you sample chocolate?
@Humanoid Mimisippo: In a way you are correct, but doesn't that hold for all games? Most of the games you play simply have A and D, without even letting you have B or C as an option. You need to pay $60 upfront if you want to play the way you want it, or even to play it at all.
Split it up isn't ideal, but manageable, we still have Wild. What's really bad is that they're making Wild irrelevant in an official sense. No tournament support means they can just pump out a flavor of the season whenever they want and not worry about previous balance.
(...)Basically it comes down to a choice between A: Sinking your vallet in the HS pool, B: playing a deck that's boring to you, C: losing a LOT and D: playing something else. So far, I've found the latter option the most acceptable.
(...)except for, in HS, he won't be able to do so. You either've spent a ton of monies or a ton of time on the game to get all the good cards, and if you don't spend cash and don't use cheap tactics, you lose, A LOT(...)
@Aaron Chan, if you like chocolate chip icecream and come to Baskin Robbins, you usually expect to be able to get that chocolate chip icecream, not a mint, or a cherry flavour. If a new player doesn't like playing aggro decks, he should be able to play something else(...)
At the comic itself. IMO it's just all buzzword people use when they lose to something they consider "cheap". I would normally link the Playing to Win article here, but I have found a even better one. Greedy Goblin's "Play to win" vs "Play for ego"
@Andrew Hall: You can always kill your opponent before they play big fancy things. It's a perfectly valid counter. IMO the biggest problem with new players is that they somehow should be able to play every archetype from the get-go, and blames P2W when it is told that they can't.
And this is why I refuse to play MTG with the guys on campus: all of their decks are optimized commander builds that they ripped from the internet. One guy has a 3 turn win condition if he draws well. How is that fun for anyone?
@Erik Yin: I thought people generally complain about the 30 hour tutorial. But ya, the only way to get good cash in the game is to kill those Cie'th for Scarletite outside of the hall. At least, that's until you can farm turtoises.
So the amount of salty people are all equal in every games huh?
It's funny they dare to say unfun to a game where you have the liberty to create your own rule/deck/skills. This people shouldn't try games like FFXIII, the amount of 99h grind on same place is too damn high!
Ooh. Super Mario Card RPG. I'd definitely go for that. And I bet I'd be hard-pressed to find someone here that wouldn't at least a stab at it other than Sony/Xbox fanboys and earnest PC Master Race.
It incorporates elements of MTG and Hearthstone, as well as RTSes like Warcraft.
It's pretty good! (I have played it, and many of my friends enjoyed it.)
@Andrew Hall and @Humanoid Mimisippo At least in the next coming month we'll starting having a format to play in so that veteran players don't auto-stomp on new people. Sad Death's Bite is leaving but I am willing to play non-Aggro Warrior without it.
But then again, it's Blizzard we're talking about, and Blizzard can't quit while it's ahead. This is a company that won't stop milking an idea until its bones crumble into dust
(...) I draw the line the moment my somewhat fun Mecha Druid deck is stomped for 3 hours in a row in non-ranked play so hard that I can't even finish my Druid daily.
2 Andrew Hall, this is the exact reason why I stopped playing HS. The game WOULD've been relatively fun if it was "pay 40$ once, get everything", but it's more like "pay 100$ once, then continue to pour your money into it for a CHANCE to get the card that you need to play competitively". (...)
Now I know this is somewhat common to all CCG's - but let's take Magic as a counterexample. In Magic, a Cryptic Command is a $40 card, and yes it gives advantage - but I can counter it with a 15c Dispel, and still enjoy the game.
It's the way certain legendaries and expansion cards are literally must-have cards in order to play in ranked at all. These days you see Dr. Boom showing up in Rank 20 games; and cards like Sludge Belcher are literally designed to put players who don't pay for every expansion out of the running.
Speaking as someone who logged into Hearthstone today for the first time in months - then logged off, frustrated, and angrier than if I hadn't turned it on at all - what makes HS un-fun for me is not any given OP deck. (cont)
... and now comes the funny part of it. The only class that never used 12+ DMG finishing combos is Paladin. Guess what is called OP right now ?
I think it is a good sign to see Paladin be the strongest class , because they always fought for boardcontrol , which is fun and interactive.
Jesper Bendixen
almost 9 years ago
Combo Druid is noninteractive because ramping ahead on mana lacks counterplay. An early Wild Growths into Innervate for a turn 4 Dr. Boom is difficult to answer, then combo closes the game before the opponent can stabilize. Hearthstone is generally less interactive than most card games.
If I lose to a control player, well he got more lucky (it works both ways, because hey, it's a card game), he played better, or he just built his deck better. And if that's the case, the other player deserves the win.
Aggro is NOT a thinking man's game, if secret pally bots are to show anything.
I get what yer saying Jo, but I'll say that my criteria for 'unfun' are very specific: I REALLY don't find an aggro metagame to be fun. I'm a control player who likes to think through long games because each individual action has MASSIVE repercussions. (cont)
