If you had played MtG at a higher level, you would have known that most of the time it's balance is laughable.
There is usually one dominating deck and maybe a couple counter decks that are designed specifically to beat that one deck, ignoring anything else. It's so bad that oftentimes the discussion is about how to get an edge in the mirrormatch, instead of vs other decks.
Blizzard doesn't balance the game as "well" as WotC. They do it better... usually.
I mentioned that. Every game probably has an optimal strategy at high-level play. The problem is that Hearthstone has that issue even on non-competitive levels. You can't just make what you think is fun and necessarily be successful with it, even at something as low as silver. In HS, I can't just decide to make a deck with just greed, greed and more greed. In MtG, even up to "casual fun tournament"-levels, you can.
Probably because Hearthstone is more accessible online, HS players have more play time, more access to stats, and dare I say it are generally smarter (jk... maybe), but it really is a matter of access. Hearthstone has a large field of competitive players because it's fun, accessible and players put the time in to play well. And still there is room to create your own deck and shoot to legend... but that kind of skill is extremely complex and hard to master.
If anything, MtG has all the examples on how NOT to balance a card game. Its a 30+ year old game after all, you mention any dumb balance/design decision, they've done it. And thats also their major strength imo: experience.
The key to longevity in any game is their developers ability to learn with mistakes and improve, which MtG is also a great example of. The only reason MtG feels more balanced to you its cuz WotC had more time to fuck up and learn. And they fucked up, A LOT.
I play MTG Arena as my second game and I fail to see that balance thing OP praises, especially in Historic. If anything, MTG deck demands more optimization, more cards are unplayable trash, more cards are mandatory. Casual player's homebrew of someone with few cards vs tier 1 deck will have like 15% winrate (most of that coming from opp being screwed\flooded). In Hearthstone few games have that unless your deck is actually horrendous.
What about Vicious Syndicate?
English is not my native language, so, with a high probability, mistakes were made.
Probably because Hearthstone is more accessible online, HS players have more play time, more access to stats, and dare I say it are generally smarter (jk... maybe), but it really is a matter of access. Hearthstone has a large field of competitive players because it's fun, accessible and players put the time in to play well. And still there is room to create your own deck and shoot to legend... but that kind of skill is extremely complex and hard to master.
HS is a joke and it being played at a competitive level is an even more joke.
If anything, MtG has all the examples on how NOT to balance a card game. Its a 30+ year old game after all, you mention any dumb balance/design decision, they've done it. And thats also their major strength imo: experience.
The key to longevity in any game is their developers ability to learn with mistakes and improve, which MtG is also a great example of. The only reason MtG feels more balanced to you its cuz WotC had more time to fuck up and learn. And they fucked up, A LOT.
*cough* Oko *cough*
I play MTG Arena as my second game and I fail to see that balance thing OP praises, especially in Historic. If anything, MTG deck demands more optimization, more cards are unplayable trash, more cards are mandatory. Casual player's homebrew of someone with few cards vs tier 1 deck will have like 15% winrate (most of that coming from opp being screwed\flooded). In Hearthstone few games have that unless your deck is actually horrendous.
i play mtg arena also and they are having this tibalt pandemic there now. its bad..
MTG loves manacheating to the extent that makes wild big priest look like a very fair deck