Hearthpwn

everybodies deck is similar. the card pool is way too small for them not to be. why everybody keeps saying stuff like "this is trump's deck" and such is beyond me. decks are 30 cards and the card pool is ridiculously small, of course people will be running the same/identical decks.

cant wait when blizzard runs into the issue of great staleness when theres best drops at certain mana cost and theres no way to change people from just playing the best cards because there is no risk to running a high drop or whatever.

believe it or not there IS a flaw to hearthstones mana resource system. 

only way this wont happen is like every card released from now on is based around different archetypes, and i highly doubt blizzard is going to do that with their limited knowledge of card games.

Quote from Banquetto »

Quote from Slachtbeest »

Also you don't need the grasp the finer complexities of MTG to enjoy playing it. You don't need to be a pro player to have tons of fun in MTG. How many threads on this website alone are there of brand new hearthstone players who are upset that everyone they play against has a ton of legendaries and can't get past rank 20? 

There's some colossal logical inconsistency in that paragraph.

Sure, you don't need to be a pro player to have tons of fun in MTG. 

But then you take the fact that some new players of Hearthstone whine on the forums as some sort of evidence that you do need to be a pro player to have fun in Hearthstone?

I can tell you for a fact that you can be a completely noncompetitive HS player and still have tons of fun playing weird decks and losing most of the time. I know some personally.

Here's a question for you: those players whining on the Hearthstone forum. How much fun do you think they would have if they picked up MTG right now, given the attitude and personality you see them displaying?

he never said you had to be a pro in HS..... you're basically putting words in his mouth.... not sure if troll or if people are that tunneled on things they want to believe...

it is definitely an interesting discussion even tho i completely disagree with the group of people who think hearthstone has more depth than magic. but to each his own.

Quote from twistedspine »

I created an account just to post my two cents because of how passionate I am about this topic, but i'll try and keep it short and to the point.

First of all, anyone that says Hearthstone uses way more RNG than Magic is using that as an excuse for sucking at the game, period. Even when random elements are involved, there are SO many ways to manipulate the board in a way in which the random events happen in your favor. Also, last time I checked, Magic revolves around playing land, what's more RNG than topdecking 4 consecutive lands for the auto-loss? So yeah, that's a bad argument. Besides, random elements are a part of ANY card game, so just learn to accept it. As a matter of fact, I take the stance that Hearthstone has significantly LESS RNG than Magic, and I stand by that statement simply from not requiring land and the hero power ability coming into effect. Brilliant implementations I might add. I've never had a game of Hearthstone that I didn't enjoy because of how amazing hero powers and mana crystals are, and it's a huge problem for Magic. It's just like poker in that it's a game of incomplete information and even with randomness (luck) involved, you can still push big edges and crush the competition.

Secondly, simplicity is SORELY underrated. I played magic for over ten years and loved it, but after a certain period of time, having 10 billion different cards to choose from and 200 different abilities is incredibly overwhelming. To say that more options is better is true for the most part, but come on, at some point it's way too much. Pretty much the only way to keep the game reasonable is to stick to playing the standard format or block constructed formats, leaving old cards far behind. Hearthstone, when my friends turned me on to it right before launch was so incredibly refreshing. Hearthstone being simple is EXACTLY why I love it, yet it still remains extremely deep at the same time. One tiny mistake can cost you a game, I see it time and time again. In essence this idea that complexity + more cards = less luck + better game is complete horseshit.

Hearthstone is phenomenal for a million different reasons and I continue to find more each and every day. The UI is super sexy and non-resource hungry *cough* MTGO *cough*, the crafting ability is pure genius, the fact that I can play the game for free FOREVER is pretty dope considering MTG card prices are outrageous, the fact that you can take cards as slowly as you want in arena and not wait for a round to finish like in draft on Magic and play at your own pace, the list is endless. I mean really, Hearthstone's arena variant is a BETTER implementation of Magic's drafting format, and it's free instead of costing $15 for a draft (when you aren't going infinite on MTGO.) Why in the world would I ever play Magic again? Often times Hearthstone is so well put together I'm starting to think Ben Brode sat down and asked himself "how can I take magic, improve on ALL of its shortcomings and blow it out of the water?" because that's pretty much what he's done.

TL;DR - Hearthstone CRUSHES Magic in my opinion and it isn't even close for me. Hearthstone is the game I ALWAYS wanted Magic Online to be, but it never became or was. Oh, I must point out again that Hearthstone's interface and level of polish/quality takes a huge steaming dump on Magic Online. Yes, this stuff is very important, for the amount of money Wizards has made over the years, their software is absolute garbage and inexcusable; it should have the same level of polish as Hearthstone in the least. I played MTGO for 5 years if not more and god that software is garbage. When they updated to the new 2.0 a several years back it started going downhill and has been ever since. Not to mention bots make trading a life-less and depressing experience.

For the record, I play poker for a living and was a high level competitive magic player for almost 10 years. I have left Magic for Hearthstone, and I'll never look back. It blows my mind that anyone would want to play Magic if they've given Hearthstone a fair shot. Wizards would have to make some monumental changes to even gain my attention again.

- Sorry I got off-topic a bit haha, but my first paragraph pretty much sums up how I feel on the skill vs luck factor.

hearthstone crushes magic? no offense but are you one of those fnm scrubs that get beat by "net decks" every week and complains?

i know its your opinion, but its pretty asinine. hearthstone is fine for what it is, but the fact that you actually think with 1 set thats actually a better game than magic... ya. theres some hate for magic flowing through your veins.

Quote from avatarx0 >>

Just play casual games and you'll be fine.

Quote from Wibles >>

Simple... I've got some dust to spend on golden cards, and wondered what card is going to be the most used in the LoE expansion set. always nice to have some bling when you're playing.

I suspect Djinni of Zephyrs might be a go-to card for Paladins with [card-gold]Blessing of Kings[/card] or a Druid with an deck full of  Mark of the Wild and Mark of Nature cards.

Clearly Brann Bronzebeard will be a much used card with its double battlecries.

Anubisath Sentinel will be a strong card, and will inevitably be played like Dark Cultist - enemies must kill everything first so the deathrattle doesn't trigger a benefit.

What's your recommendation for golden glory?

 If you post a reply - gold cards only please ;)

Quote from TheWamts >>

Is Conceal no longer a card for you people or something?

Seen streamers run Entomb Priest as if it was something amazing ... it's one card - and hardly groundbreaking. Everyone's tried some kind of dodgy murloc set up, I think that was a great troll by Blizz. Murlocs were done, dusted, forgotten, this was Blizz just messing with the meta to show they can, whenever they please. It won't last, they're mostly dirt cards. 

To me, your example sounds like one where the game's overall design worked: a suboptimal deck played well (presumably) beat a common deck piloted by an idiot (or a bot, sounds like).

Is the argument here that everyone you face should be a good player? That isn't an outcome I'd want, frankly: All sharks and no fish does not make for a healthy ecosystem.

If you really want to prove your mettle against good players, then it seems like ladder provides that opportunity. But, yes, you have to win your way into that company, and part of that process involves winning consistently enough against good decks with mediocre pilots.

I don't think there is a huge difference skillwise... there are tons of players in legend who are worse than some players at rank 7-8, but also tons of players who are better

it really comes down to:
"is Hearthstone your main game? do you play something else? How much time do you even have to play video games?"

with Fallout 4 being out, I really don't see myself even going for rank 5 this season... an hour each 2-3 days is basically all I invest this season and it won't even be enough for rank 5 this time ^^ Just the imagination having to play another 10-20 hours after rank 5 to grind for legend makes me not want to do it... ever :D

legend is something for the people that really love this game above any other and invest a lot of time into it and don't play much else

I think it comes down to time. You simply have to play a lot to reach legend.