I stopped playing for weeks because it was gone boring, this expansion has brought me back to playing HS ... for how long? I don't know, but it's fun for now I think. What did you expect? A whole new game?
Control/Beast Hunter maybe becomes a thing, but Deathrattle will be deemed more effective.
Death Metal Warlock. Deathrattle, Mechs all in one horribly hybrid zoo.
Control Priest/Warrior stronger then ever.
Control Paladin gets a boost but still doesn't rank very high. Shaman/Mage become weakest classes.
Druid remains in it's solid spot in the meta.
Handlock slightly weaker, still viable.
Demonlock maybe becomes a thing.
The list of not quite viable decks that will nonetheless be tried: Rogue/Druid mill, Mimiron's Head Miracle Rogue, Murlocs, Pirates.
All the classes will try out dedicated mech variants. Only a couple will ultimately make the cut, Warlock for sure.
It's easy to predict that things will stay mostly the same. The big changes are hard to predict and there may well be some big changes that no one sees coming.
It takes a bit of time for a new deck to get discovered, tested, publicized and multiplied so that it makes a splash in the meta. There may be several decks that end up doing so and then it will take more time as decks that counter these new decks are developed and multiplied and so on. I believe there are exciting days ahead.
I'm ready to accept being wrong. But I'm just not seeing much that will result in completely new decks. Quartermaster Paladin looks like it's going to be a thing, so that'll be nice. And mech zoo does admittedly play differently from normal zoo - trading is a whole different game with Fel Canon. But at the end of the day I think it will be Hunter/Warlock rush vs. Priest/Warrior/Druid/Paladin control and Shamans, Mages and Rogues left behind.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I wouldn't anticipate seeing much of doctor boom" - Trump 2014
"I myself am not too hopeful about the Grim Patron deck" - Trump 2015
"(Secret Paladin) didn't work out and I don't think Mysterious Challenger will change that." - Trump 2015
"(Darkshire Councilman) takes a bit too long to get set up...bad" - Trump 2016
And yet again, most folks don't have enough cards to make new deck types. Thus augmented versions of current types. It really is a little early for judging. Jeesh, during naxx we thought Thad Bros Shaman was going to overwhelm everything.
130 new cards a year is way more than enough to keep the game going. Frankly, I'm worried that after a few years of that, the game will lose some of its elegance due to 90+% of the cards being completely unviable with all the competition.
Keep in mind, Hearthstone's 30-card limit to your deck is very different (very small) compared to most other CCGs. And it makes the threshold a card has to meet in order to be playable harshly high. The number of cards that used to be good, that have already been essentially pushed out of the game by Naxx and the beginning of GvG, is scary high.
(I would actually love to see the deck size increase by just a couple cards each time they release a new batch of cards, in order to combat this effect.)
On a different note, the more cards come out per year, the more the game becomes "pay to win," because it becomes ever harder for the "free to play" players to ever catch up to the players with all the cards.
And yet again, most folks don't have enough cards to make new deck types. Thus augmented versions of current types. It really is a little early for judging. Jeesh, during naxx we thought Thad Bros Shaman was going to overwhelm everything.
Those decks are being tried out now, and may even be viable. But in a couple of weeks things will settle down and the best decks will prevail. I mean I've ran into several Murloc Shaman decks today, and I've been beaten handily by them. But I have no doubt that ultimately Shaman Murloc will be weeded out simply because Siltfins cannot compete with the Warlock's card drawing power. And if Warlock Murloc isn't viable, neither will Shaman.
Pirates are being tried, but there simply isn't enough pirate synergy for a dedicated pirate deck to work.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I wouldn't anticipate seeing much of doctor boom" - Trump 2014
"I myself am not too hopeful about the Grim Patron deck" - Trump 2015
"(Secret Paladin) didn't work out and I don't think Mysterious Challenger will change that." - Trump 2015
"(Darkshire Councilman) takes a bit too long to get set up...bad" - Trump 2016
130 new cards a year is way more than enough to keep the game going. Frankly, I'm worried that after a few years of that, the game will lose some of its elegance due to 90+% of the cards being completely unviable with all the competition.
Keep in mind, Hearthstone's 30-card limit to your deck is very different (very small) compared to most other CCGs. And it makes the threshold a card has to meet in order to be playable harshly high. The number of cards that used to be good, that have already been essentially pushed out of the game by Naxx and the beginning of GvG, is scary high.
(I would actually love to see the deck size increase by just a couple cards each time they release a new batch of cards, in order to combat this effect.)
On a different note, the more cards come out per year, the more the game becomes "pay to win," because it becomes ever harder for the "free to play" players to ever catch up to the players with all the cards.
I'm with you, I would LOVE to see HS deck size bump up to the MTG draft size 45...heck even 35-40 would make me happy.
130 new cards a year is way more than enough to keep the game going. Frankly, I'm worried that after a few years of that, the game will lose some of its elegance due to 90+% of the cards being completely unviable with all the competition.
Keep in mind, Hearthstone's 30-card limit to your deck is very different (very small) compared to most other CCGs. And it makes the threshold a card has to meet in order to be playable harshly high. The number of cards that used to be good, that have already been essentially pushed out of the game by Naxx and the beginning of GvG, is scary high.
(I would actually love to see the deck size increase by just a couple cards each time they release a new batch of cards, in order to combat this effect.)
On a different note, the more cards come out per year, the more the game becomes "pay to win," because it becomes ever harder for the "free to play" players to ever catch up to the players with all the cards.
but that problem only remains true if they keep this ridiculously simple design philosophy. with the way the game works right now, theres not really many "real" strategies. you make a 30 card deck, a new set comes out, and you just upgrade a card thats strictly superior and call it a day. if they made more heroes, and just introduced more niche cards that only work a certain way, there would be strategies for them to explore easily. what if there was an actual totem deck to play thrall in? what if there was a shaman with a really good ability, but it had overload? what if there were heroes that didnt have an activation effect, only had a passive effect that would be vital to the way you build your deck? and in turn making less desirable cards playable?
I dont know i think theres so much blizz could do while still making this game "no child left behind" proof.
Those decks are being tried out now, and may even be viable. But in a couple of weeks things will settle down and the best decks will prevail. I mean I've ran into several Murloc Shaman decks today, and I've been beaten handily by them. But I have no doubt that ultimately Shaman Murloc will be weeded out simply because Siltfins cannot compete with the Warlock's card drawing power. And if Warlock Murloc isn't viable, neither will Shaman.
Pirates are being tried, but there simply isn't enough pirate synergy for a dedicated pirate deck to work.
We don't WANT a murloc deck to work really . Murlocs are THE pure form of a rush deck. The day that Murlocs become viable enough to take a top spot I'll take a break from the forums: I can only handle so much rage.
Pirates.. I don't see a DEDICATED FULL ON pirate deck, but DEDICATED FULL ON deathrattle decks didn't work either (see reincarnate shaman). 'deathrattle' decks of today use only a few deathrattle cards mixed into an established deck. A viable pirate deck will need to be similar. Whether it is.. we'll see.
But (#)$#, I remember when Miracle rogue was mocked and 'giants warlock' wasn't standard enough.
I'm not going to go "OMG THIS WILL CHANGE EVERYTHING!" It may not. But it may. We'll see.
Personally, I'm very curious as to what the top top legendary ranks will do. Miracle was only JUST recently knocked off the ledge.
Oh btw, for those who hate hunter.. there's also word of Feign Death Hunter being too insane for words. It's not Facerush at least ;P
i'm having fun experimenting with new cards and themes, but i predict next month things will go mostly to what they used to be because most cards in this set are pretty weak sauce, and mech decks aren't as good as undertaker deathrattle decks. i've made some pretty fun decks but i think that the only ones that are better than the old ones are the priest( wich only has 2 new cards) and paladin that was in my opinion too weak. the other ones although fun are not as good as the old ones i think.
are you serious? so one 100 card expansion and one 30 card expansion a year? that sounds.... horrible.
Can you explain why you think it sounds horrible? Too many? Too few? etc. (I looked it up Magic: The Gathering does release about 2x this many every year, but then again that probably counts lands and such too so I think they are pretty close)
MtG releases 1 "Block" and 1 Core set each year. A block is usually 2 times a big expansion (about 240 cards) and 1 small expansion (150 cards). Each block contains about 5-10% reprints. A Core set is also big (about 250 cards) but half of the set is reprints. Next to that they release special products like the Commander decks which also contains about 100 new cards. So I estimate about 750 new cards are added each year.
Note: next year they are going to skip the core set and release 2 "Block" set each year. Then the blocks will be one big set and one small set.
About the OP: I think first people will try to make the existing decks stronger with new cards before new deck types will emerge. Let's give the brewers a few weeks before we draw any conclusion.
There is one main difference though, in Magic you can't always play all the cards they launched, because as you said, it's by block. In Hearthstone the idea is to keep all cards playable for a very long time, and for that I think it works.
And seriously, with just this new expansion you have to buy a really high number of packs to get all the cards and enough dust if you didn't saved tons before, so I think it's pretty fair to have one adventure + one expansion each year. And who knows, they may add more than that, but I sure hope it doesn't keep being as expensive then.
I may have missed t, and apologies if I did, but no one has mentioned the other huge disparity between MTG and Hearth, that being the 15 cards per pack. 100 cards per expac isn't quite as anemic given the smaller pack size. I also like things being a little slower because unless you're a very dedicated player keeping up with a very large number of card releases per year becomes either a) impossible or b) boring. There is such a thing as too much new stuff. Magic hit this point in the last couple years with all the new products re-releases and expansions. There comes a point where option fatigue sets in and a never ending tide of new exciting product just becomes overwhelming and then, as people stop trying to keep track of it, impenetrable and boring. Last year Magic had three expansions, two duel decks, a core set, a Commander deck set, and a From The Vault release. That's waaay too many cards for a casual or even moderately enthusiastic collector to viably keep track of. I really don't want Hearthstone to start churning out cards that fast. We used to be satisfied with one or two content additions to a game for the entire duration of it's existence. Times change but damn, people. We can be happy a game that charges us nothing to play it is making long term additions to it's content at all. Let's just enjoy the goddamn mechs and goblins, shall we?
Those decks are being tried out now, and may even be viable. But in a couple of weeks things will settle down and the best decks will prevail. I mean I've ran into several Murloc Shaman decks today, and I've been beaten handily by them. But I have no doubt that ultimately Shaman Murloc will be weeded out simply because Siltfins cannot compete with the Warlock's card drawing power. And if Warlock Murloc isn't viable, neither will Shaman.
Pirates are being tried, but there simply isn't enough pirate synergy for a dedicated pirate deck to work.
We don't WANT a murloc deck to work really . Murlocs are THE pure form of a rush deck. The day that Murlocs become viable enough to take a top spot I'll take a break from the forums: I can only handle so much rage.
Pirates.. I don't see a DEDICATED FULL ON pirate deck, but DEDICATED FULL ON deathrattle decks didn't work either (see reincarnate shaman). 'deathrattle' decks of today use only a few deathrattle cards mixed into an established deck. A viable pirate deck will need to be similar. Whether it is.. we'll see.
But (#)$#, I remember when Miracle rogue was mocked and 'giants warlock' wasn't standard enough.
I'm not going to go "OMG THIS WILL CHANGE EVERYTHING!" It may not. But it may. We'll see.
Personally, I'm very curious as to what the top top legendary ranks will do. Miracle was only JUST recently knocked off the ledge.
Oh btw, for those who hate hunter.. there's also word of Feign Death Hunter being too insane for words. It's not Facerush at least ;P
Yep, just watched Kripp playing that "Feign Death" deck on one of his YT vids, it is mos def OP and looks like hunter will not be going anywhere. YAY! (/sarcasm)
People need to stop comparing HS to MTG. These are completely different games imo.
yes, they might seem the same at first, but so many things are actually different that you can never make a comparison. Deck size is one, in MTG you can have 1-4 of the same cards in a 60-card deck, whereas in HS you can only have 1-2 in a 30-card deck. MTG has lands, and land cards to deck ratio varies depends on whether you are playing aggro or control, whereas HS doesn't have land and have mana capped at 10 per turn. MTG has spell stacks and interaction with enemy during his turn is the core of the game, whereas HS limits your interaction to only during your own turn. MTG allows decks with mixed "colours", like blue-black, red-white, blue-red etc, that's the equivalent of having a rogue-hunter deck or warrior-priest deck, which HS doesn't have.
so many difference that you cannot use the same logic in terms of card production and set releases to compare these games.
Well I've playing HS for 4 seasons and MtG for about 10 years and i would like the deck size in HS to go 40-45 and a SIDEBOARD that we could interact with, also if they really want the meta to change eventually they'll have to make a rotation imho.
People need to stop comparing HS to MTG. These are completely different games imo.
yes, they might seem the same at first, but so many things are actually different that you can never make a comparison. Deck size is one, in MTG you can have 1-4 of the same cards in a 60-card deck, whereas in HS you can only have 1-2 in a 30-card deck. MTG has lands, and land cards to deck ratio varies depends on whether you are playing aggro or control, whereas HS doesn't have land and have mana capped at 10 per turn. MTG has spell stacks and interaction with enemy during his turn is the core of the game, whereas HS limits your interaction to only during your own turn. MTG allows decks with mixed "colours", like blue-black, red-white, blue-red etc, that's the equivalent of having a rogue-hunter deck or warrior-priest deck, which HS doesn't have.
so many difference that you cannot use the same logic in terms of card production and set releases to compare these games.
Do you just believe that Hearthstone is uncomparable? You can compare Hearthstone to MTG the same way you can compare Yu-Gi-Oh to MTG. The ban format is different, the number of duplicates and deck size is different, the combat is different, the resources are different etc. Yet they are still comparable because a lot of the same concepts apply since they are both trading card games. The same goes for Hearthstone. Sure there are a lot of cases where you can't compare the games such as resource generation. How could you compare gaining a mana crystal to a fetch land? Despite the differences I believe there is still a lot of transferable concepts, you can't say the games are completely incomparable.
People need to stop comparing HS to MTG. These are completely different games imo.
yes, they might seem the same at first, but so many things are actually different that you can never make a comparison. Deck size is one, in MTG you can have 1-4 of the same cards in a 60-card deck, whereas in HS you can only have 1-2 in a 30-card deck. MTG has lands, and land cards to deck ratio varies depends on whether you are playing aggro or control, whereas HS doesn't have land and have mana capped at 10 per turn. MTG has spell stacks and interaction with enemy during his turn is the core of the game, whereas HS limits your interaction to only during your own turn. MTG allows decks with mixed "colours", like blue-black, red-white, blue-red etc, that's the equivalent of having a rogue-hunter deck or warrior-priest deck, which HS doesn't have.
so many difference that you cannot use the same logic in terms of card production and set releases to compare these games.
Do you just believe that Hearthstone is uncomparable? You can compare Hearthstone to MTG the same way you can compare Yu-Gi-Oh to MTG. The ban format is different, the number of duplicates and deck size is different, the combat is different, the resources are different etc. Yet they are still comparable because a lot of the same concepts apply since they are both trading card games. The same goes for Hearthstone. Sure there are a lot of cases where you can't compare the games such as resource generation. How could you compare gaining a mana crystal to a fetch land? Despite the differences I believe there is still a lot of transferable concepts, you can't say the games are completely incomparable.
whatever you want to compare will be proven to be pointless simply because the cards are played in different environments.
It's like trying to compare filet mignon to mcdonald's cheeseburger. Yes they are both food, both have beef, u can compare the taste and the price. But that's about it. Trying to go into details like what kind of beef they use and why they don't serve the cheeseburger with filet mignon's condiments is ridiculously futile.
People need to stop comparing HS to MTG. These are completely different games imo.
yes, they might seem the same at first, but so many things are actually different that you can never make a comparison. Deck size is one, in MTG you can have 1-4 of the same cards in a 60-card deck, whereas in HS you can only have 1-2 in a 30-card deck. MTG has lands, and land cards to deck ratio varies depends on whether you are playing aggro or control, whereas HS doesn't have land and have mana capped at 10 per turn. MTG has spell stacks and interaction with enemy during his turn is the core of the game, whereas HS limits your interaction to only during your own turn. MTG allows decks with mixed "colours", like blue-black, red-white, blue-red etc, that's the equivalent of having a rogue-hunter deck or warrior-priest deck, which HS doesn't have.
so many difference that you cannot use the same logic in terms of card production and set releases to compare these games.
MTG will always be the measuring post for CCGs owing to it's long-running success, depth of play and casual appeal. There's plenty that can be learnt and meaningfully inferred from MTG, why dismiss it like this? Sure there are a bunch of superficial differences and similarities, plus some key mechanical design principles where they've diverged, but the only core difference is that Hearthstone is in the digital domain and so has a bunch of tricks up it's sleeve that aren't possible in paper cards - and even that isn't that unique. It's just another CCG in a long-running industry.
A key strength of HS (although most players complain about it) is that Blizzard can nerf (or boost) cards as they see fit. WotC (M:tG) are totally unable to tweak cards once they are printed and loathe banning cards in the Standard format. Thus, they can only heal an unsatisfactory metagame by introducing new cards to counter existing strategies. If HS were restricted in this way then the planned release schedule would lead to a very poor game but, fortunately, this is not the case.
This means that there is never a need for the meta to remain stale or imbalanced. If GvG leaves the meta largely unchanged then Blizzard is fully able to nerf Undertaker (make it a 1/1, hopefully), nerf Mad Scientist (increase cost and health to 3) or whatever else they deem appropriate.
Sure, some players will bitch about nerfs but Blizzard's policy of offering cost-price in dust for a limited period goes a long way to countering any criticism and allows us to enjoy a healthy metagame most of the time.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I stopped playing for weeks because it was gone boring, this expansion has brought me back to playing HS ... for how long? I don't know, but it's fun for now I think. What did you expect? A whole new game?
I'm ready to accept being wrong. But I'm just not seeing much that will result in completely new decks. Quartermaster Paladin looks like it's going to be a thing, so that'll be nice. And mech zoo does admittedly play differently from normal zoo - trading is a whole different game with Fel Canon. But at the end of the day I think it will be Hunter/Warlock rush vs. Priest/Warrior/Druid/Paladin control and Shamans, Mages and Rogues left behind.
Rogue Pirate is proving to be a thing.
Warlock Control is very much a thing.
Priest DOES have an aggro variant.
And yet again, most folks don't have enough cards to make new deck types. Thus augmented versions of current types. It really is a little early for judging. Jeesh, during naxx we thought Thad Bros Shaman was going to overwhelm everything.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
130 new cards a year is way more than enough to keep the game going. Frankly, I'm worried that after a few years of that, the game will lose some of its elegance due to 90+% of the cards being completely unviable with all the competition.
Keep in mind, Hearthstone's 30-card limit to your deck is very different (very small) compared to most other CCGs. And it makes the threshold a card has to meet in order to be playable harshly high. The number of cards that used to be good, that have already been essentially pushed out of the game by Naxx and the beginning of GvG, is scary high.
(I would actually love to see the deck size increase by just a couple cards each time they release a new batch of cards, in order to combat this effect.)
On a different note, the more cards come out per year, the more the game becomes "pay to win," because it becomes ever harder for the "free to play" players to ever catch up to the players with all the cards.
I suppose your perspective depends on the class you main.
For Paladins, we got a huge boost off of GvG so I'm more than satisfied.
Vision without action is a dream. Action without vision is a nightmare.
Those decks are being tried out now, and may even be viable. But in a couple of weeks things will settle down and the best decks will prevail. I mean I've ran into several Murloc Shaman decks today, and I've been beaten handily by them. But I have no doubt that ultimately Shaman Murloc will be weeded out simply because Siltfins cannot compete with the Warlock's card drawing power. And if Warlock Murloc isn't viable, neither will Shaman.
Pirates are being tried, but there simply isn't enough pirate synergy for a dedicated pirate deck to work.
I'm with you, I would LOVE to see HS deck size bump up to the MTG draft size 45...heck even 35-40 would make me happy.
but that problem only remains true if they keep this ridiculously simple design philosophy. with the way the game works right now, theres not really many "real" strategies. you make a 30 card deck, a new set comes out, and you just upgrade a card thats strictly superior and call it a day. if they made more heroes, and just introduced more niche cards that only work a certain way, there would be strategies for them to explore easily. what if there was an actual totem deck to play thrall in? what if there was a shaman with a really good ability, but it had overload? what if there were heroes that didnt have an activation effect, only had a passive effect that would be vital to the way you build your deck? and in turn making less desirable cards playable?
I dont know i think theres so much blizz could do while still making this game "no child left behind" proof.
We don't WANT a murloc deck to work really . Murlocs are THE pure form of a rush deck. The day that Murlocs become viable enough to take a top spot I'll take a break from the forums: I can only handle so much rage.
Pirates.. I don't see a DEDICATED FULL ON pirate deck, but DEDICATED FULL ON deathrattle decks didn't work either (see reincarnate shaman). 'deathrattle' decks of today use only a few deathrattle cards mixed into an established deck. A viable pirate deck will need to be similar. Whether it is.. we'll see.
But (#)$#, I remember when Miracle rogue was mocked and 'giants warlock' wasn't standard enough.
I'm not going to go "OMG THIS WILL CHANGE EVERYTHING!" It may not. But it may. We'll see.
Personally, I'm very curious as to what the top top legendary ranks will do. Miracle was only JUST recently knocked off the ledge.
Oh btw, for those who hate hunter.. there's also word of Feign Death Hunter being too insane for words. It's not Facerush at least ;P
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
i'm having fun experimenting with new cards and themes, but i predict next month things will go mostly to what they used to be because most cards in this set are pretty weak sauce, and mech decks aren't as good as undertaker deathrattle decks. i've made some pretty fun decks but i think that the only ones that are better than the old ones are the priest( wich only has 2 new cards) and paladin that was in my opinion too weak. the other ones although fun are not as good as the old ones i think.
There is one main difference though, in Magic you can't always play all the cards they launched, because as you said, it's by block. In Hearthstone the idea is to keep all cards playable for a very long time, and for that I think it works.
And seriously, with just this new expansion you have to buy a really high number of packs to get all the cards and enough dust if you didn't saved tons before, so I think it's pretty fair to have one adventure + one expansion each year. And who knows, they may add more than that, but I sure hope it doesn't keep being as expensive then.
I may have missed t, and apologies if I did, but no one has mentioned the other huge disparity between MTG and Hearth, that being the 15 cards per pack. 100 cards per expac isn't quite as anemic given the smaller pack size. I also like things being a little slower because unless you're a very dedicated player keeping up with a very large number of card releases per year becomes either a) impossible or b) boring. There is such a thing as too much new stuff. Magic hit this point in the last couple years with all the new products re-releases and expansions. There comes a point where option fatigue sets in and a never ending tide of new exciting product just becomes overwhelming and then, as people stop trying to keep track of it, impenetrable and boring. Last year Magic had three expansions, two duel decks, a core set, a Commander deck set, and a From The Vault release. That's waaay too many cards for a casual or even moderately enthusiastic collector to viably keep track of. I really don't want Hearthstone to start churning out cards that fast. We used to be satisfied with one or two content additions to a game for the entire duration of it's existence. Times change but damn, people. We can be happy a game that charges us nothing to play it is making long term additions to it's content at all. Let's just enjoy the goddamn mechs and goblins, shall we?
Yep, just watched Kripp playing that "Feign Death" deck on one of his YT vids, it is mos def OP and looks like hunter will not be going anywhere. YAY! (/sarcasm)
People need to stop comparing HS to MTG. These are completely different games imo.
yes, they might seem the same at first, but so many things are actually different that you can never make a comparison. Deck size is one, in MTG you can have 1-4 of the same cards in a 60-card deck, whereas in HS you can only have 1-2 in a 30-card deck. MTG has lands, and land cards to deck ratio varies depends on whether you are playing aggro or control, whereas HS doesn't have land and have mana capped at 10 per turn. MTG has spell stacks and interaction with enemy during his turn is the core of the game, whereas HS limits your interaction to only during your own turn. MTG allows decks with mixed "colours", like blue-black, red-white, blue-red etc, that's the equivalent of having a rogue-hunter deck or warrior-priest deck, which HS doesn't have.
so many difference that you cannot use the same logic in terms of card production and set releases to compare these games.
"Put your face in the light!" - Tirion Fordring
Well I've playing HS for 4 seasons and MtG for about 10 years and i would like the deck size in HS to go 40-45 and a SIDEBOARD that we could interact with, also if they really want the meta to change eventually they'll have to make a rotation imho.
Do you just believe that Hearthstone is uncomparable? You can compare Hearthstone to MTG the same way you can compare Yu-Gi-Oh to MTG. The ban format is different, the number of duplicates and deck size is different, the combat is different, the resources are different etc. Yet they are still comparable because a lot of the same concepts apply since they are both trading card games. The same goes for Hearthstone. Sure there are a lot of cases where you can't compare the games such as resource generation. How could you compare gaining a mana crystal to a fetch land? Despite the differences I believe there is still a lot of transferable concepts, you can't say the games are completely incomparable.
whatever you want to compare will be proven to be pointless simply because the cards are played in different environments.
It's like trying to compare filet mignon to mcdonald's cheeseburger. Yes they are both food, both have beef, u can compare the taste and the price. But that's about it. Trying to go into details like what kind of beef they use and why they don't serve the cheeseburger with filet mignon's condiments is ridiculously futile.
"Put your face in the light!" - Tirion Fordring
MTG will always be the measuring post for CCGs owing to it's long-running success, depth of play and casual appeal. There's plenty that can be learnt and meaningfully inferred from MTG, why dismiss it like this? Sure there are a bunch of superficial differences and similarities, plus some key mechanical design principles where they've diverged, but the only core difference is that Hearthstone is in the digital domain and so has a bunch of tricks up it's sleeve that aren't possible in paper cards - and even that isn't that unique. It's just another CCG in a long-running industry.
I'm already seeing new archtypes emerging.
The spare part Mage seems like a particularly promising one, as does Demonlock. I look forward to seeing what else people come up with.
A key strength of HS (although most players complain about it) is that Blizzard can nerf (or boost) cards as they see fit. WotC (M:tG) are totally unable to tweak cards once they are printed and loathe banning cards in the Standard format. Thus, they can only heal an unsatisfactory metagame by introducing new cards to counter existing strategies. If HS were restricted in this way then the planned release schedule would lead to a very poor game but, fortunately, this is not the case.
This means that there is never a need for the meta to remain stale or imbalanced. If GvG leaves the meta largely unchanged then Blizzard is fully able to nerf Undertaker (make it a 1/1, hopefully), nerf Mad Scientist (increase cost and health to 3) or whatever else they deem appropriate.
Sure, some players will bitch about nerfs but Blizzard's policy of offering cost-price in dust for a limited period goes a long way to countering any criticism and allows us to enjoy a healthy metagame most of the time.