Does anyone else hate hearthstone?

  • 119 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#51 Posted by BisonHero (6521 posts) -

@qawsed said:

@slaps2 said:

The video Patrick did made it look suuuuuuper pay-to-win.

All of the cards he thought were pay-to-win were actually basic cards that are included for free.

Or there was the case of Patrick having his mind blown by Max Temkin's Explosive Trap, which isn't a free starter card, but is still common, and relatively quick and easy to craft if you really want a copy of it.

At least among the games Patrick has streamed, I'm not sure he has even encountered any epics or legendaries, and he still seemed to think that anybody who wasn't just using the (mostly crummy) starter cards had "bought those cards". Like, yeah dawg, after a while, most of your deck should be cards you got from booster packs, because (depending on the class) the starter cards really ain't all that.

#52 Posted by FinalDasa (1726 posts) -

If you don't like a game, don't play it.

Hearthstone is very approachable and easy to grasp for new comers to the CCG genre.

I also played MtG for years but not competitively and only with friends. I found that competitive scene often closed to newcomers and outsiders. Every player I met in a competitive, or even drafts, never wanted to slow down or explain cards. They would take actions and any inkling that I didn't understand every card or wanted them to explain what they were doing was met with contempt, frustration, and occasionally open anger.

Hearthstone is deliberately built to avoid those complications that can often times run off new players and only further insulate a niche gaming product. So I can't blame people for seeing Hearthstone and flocking to it.

Moderator
#53 Posted by GorillaMoPena (2130 posts) -

@gorillamopena said:

@bisonhero said:

@aajf said:

@little_socrates said:

(That said, the game is waaaaay too reliant on zoo right now, and Hunter/Warlock running the entire game is getting old.)

Forgive my ignorance: what do you mean when you say zoo here? I keep seeing the word cropping up around Hearthstone.

My understanding is that zoo decks are based around just constantly playing creatures/minions, and overwhelming your opponent with sheer numbers.

Hunter can do this by drawing a zillion cards with Starving Buzzard + Release the Hounds, and continuing to play creatures. Warlock can do this by just using his hero ability while playing out all of the efficient creatures that are hard to deal with (and due to his hero ability Warlock also combos pretty well with Molten Giant and Mountain Giant if you choose to go that route).

Basically I have a zoo warlock deck that is 4 removal cards and 26 creatures with most of them costing 3 or less.

Starving Buzzard+Unleash the Hounds is rampant right now and it seems you can build a deck that stops that but is bad against most other heroes. (Although I'm not great and am bouncing around ranks 13-10 right now). They have said that they would like not to change cards now that game is officially released, but they are looking to see if Unleash the Hounds is a problem.

But I think many people forget this is still young CCG that is fine but obviously needs more cards. Like the pirate cards don't even make sense unless there are most pirates.And classes like Priest clearly need a bump to viable.

I don't think Starving Buzzard + Unleash the Hounds is THAT good, but it's rampant (and so is Warlock Zoo) because it's one of the only decent decks you can make that largely relies on just having the right commons in your deck. Basically, it's cheap to build, while most other 90%-common decks are much worse.

Every good control deck requires that you have a zillion rares, epics, and legendaries, pretty much. I think getting much higher than around rank 10 does require that you grind out enough gold to have access to a decent number of epics and legendaries

Yeah I'm not sure it is that great either, it might just be a case that the Hunter synergy is just so much higher than everything else and more a case of making other classes better. Tracking to get a Buzzard or Unleash and having a Timber Wolf is a powerful combo right now. That unless you are playing a bunch of big taunts are hard to deal with. Even something like Timber Wolf+ Double Kill Command is great right now.

There is some grinding for upper level cards. Trump was able to do it without them, but that doesn't seem practical for common players. You do need to grind gold/dust for those but at least grinding to arena isn't hard, and I at least love the chaotic messes of decks you can build there.

#54 Posted by MB (12389 posts) -

@slaps2 said:

The video Patrick did made it look suuuuuuper pay-to-win.

A lot of the cards Patrick was like "Did he pay for that? I don't have that." He actually had that and just didn't know it because he never looked at the deck builder. As far as P2W, Trump has a Mage series, and is currently uploading his Shaman series, in which he made it to legendary rank without spending a cent. It is possible.

It's possible, but not likely. I was a Legends ranked Hearthstone player for more than one season and I experimented with "Free" decks, only using basic cards and those unlocked through the tutorial mode. I had a nearly impossible time at higher levels playing against people with built decks full of legendaries and expert cards from either packs or crafting. At high level play, my experience was that winning with a "free" deck was almost exclusively based on luck. Against an opponent of equal skill, if they have a "pay" deck and you have a "free" deck, you are going to lose way more often than you are going to win. Some of the cards and combinations of cards that are possible in constructed are just too good.

After hundreds of hours of Hearthstone throughout the beta, for me, that game is definitely pay to win. Or grind like hell to win, whichever you prefer. I stopped playing because I came to the realization that no matter how good I got at the game or how refined my decks were, sometimes there was just nothing I could do to avoid losing. I think that's just the nature of card games. This isn't to say that putting a little money into Hearthstone is a bad investment if one has fun with the game, but there is no way decks without certain legendaries or expert cards can be competitive in Legends. I also don't think it's fair to compare anyone to Trump, a guy who seemingly plays 12-16 hours of Hearthstone a day and gets paid for it. Saying it's possible because Trump did it may be true, but that is akin to saying a Honda Civic can beat an F1 car in a race because a pro was driving the civic and an amateur in the F1 car.

All of this is why I eventually came around to seeing Arena as the only competitive mode in Hearthstone that was worthwhile to me. Even then, win rate is hugely dependent on one's draft. I have had plenty of 0-3 and 1-3 arena runs due to poor drafts, and I have also had tons of 12-0 and 12-1 runs after drafting 4 Flamestrikes or 5 Truesilver Champions, or whatever.

Moderator
#55 Posted by slyspider (1226 posts) -

Idk I like it purely because it means I don't have to run around and collect cards from real places. The magic video games are kinda awful

#56 Posted by BisonHero (6521 posts) -

@mb: Yeah, you've summed up Constructed and Arena pretty well, I think. Arena operates much more like "sealed deck" from Magic than it does "draft" from Magic, since a draft usually implies you have a common card pool with other people where you're each taking your turn picking from that card pool. Sealed is pretty much "here's a buttload of cards for you and you alone to choose from, hope they aren't all crap", which is basically Arena.

#57 Edited by spraynardtatum (2944 posts) -
@mb said:

@spraynardtatum said:

...I played it almost non-stop for a full weekend and realized I was wasting my time.

But was your time wasted if you were having fun...for free?

Yes. In fact, most wastes of time are free. Counting to a billion out loud would be a complete waste of time and that's free. Learning how to fart on command would be really fun and free but I don't think it would be a good use of time. At least for a large portion of society. We could think of a million more fun, free wastes of time.

I would agree that it wasn't a waste of money but it was 100% a waste of my own time.

#58 Posted by ChrisTaran (1609 posts) -

As someone who used to play Magic when I was in high school... Hearhtstone is way better.

#59 Posted by Icicle7x3 (1180 posts) -

@mb said:

@icicle7x3 said:

@slaps2 said:

The video Patrick did made it look suuuuuuper pay-to-win.

A lot of the cards Patrick was like "Did he pay for that? I don't have that." He actually had that and just didn't know it because he never looked at the deck builder. As far as P2W, Trump has a Mage series, and is currently uploading his Shaman series, in which he made it to legendary rank without spending a cent. It is possible.

It's possible, but not likely. I was a Legends ranked Hearthstone player for more than one season and I experimented with "Free" decks, only using basic cards and those unlocked through the tutorial mode. I had a nearly impossible time at higher levels playing against people with built decks full of legendaries and expert cards from either packs or crafting. At high level play, my experience was that winning with a "free" deck was almost exclusively based on luck. Against an opponent of equal skill, if they have a "pay" deck and you have a "free" deck, you are going to lose way more often than you are going to win. Some of the cards and combinations of cards that are possible in constructed are just too good.

After hundreds of hours of Hearthstone throughout the beta, for me, that game is definitely pay to win. Or grind like hell to win, whichever you prefer. I stopped playing because I came to the realization that no matter how good I got at the game or how refined my decks were, sometimes there was just nothing I could do to avoid losing. I think that's just the nature of card games. This isn't to say that putting a little money into Hearthstone is a bad investment if one has fun with the game, but there is no way decks without certain legendaries or expert cards can be competitive in Legends. I also don't think it's fair to compare anyone to Trump, a guy who seemingly plays 12-16 hours of Hearthstone a day and gets paid for it. Saying it's possible because Trump did it may be true, but that is akin to saying a Honda Civic can beat an F1 car in a race because a pro was driving the civic and an amateur in the F1 car.

All of this is why I eventually came around to seeing Arena as the only competitive mode in Hearthstone that was worthwhile to me. Even then, win rate is hugely dependent on one's draft. I have had plenty of 0-3 and 1-3 arena runs due to poor drafts, and I have also had tons of 12-0 and 12-1 runs after drafting 4 Flamestrikes or 5 Truesilver Champions, or whatever.

I guess it depends on how fast you want to get there. I just play for dailies and that's it, all my cards are from that and I have a fairly decent set of cards with a half dozen legendary cards. This is over the course of let's say 4 months, but I am fine at going at this pace. I don't feel the need to rush to legendary rank or any rank really, I just like to have fun with it every couple of days and that's it.

...and yeah, comparing people to Trump is a bit unfair. I just used him as an example that it was possible, but it's hard to beat the Mayor of Value Town.

#60 Posted by MB (12389 posts) -

@spraynardtatum: you weren't having fun that whole weekend you played nonstop, though? I guess I am missing your point.

Moderator
#61 Edited by Karkarov (3102 posts) -

In all honesty I have played a lot of competitive card games from Magic, to Pokemon, to some others I am too ashamed to talk about and I will say this..... Hearthstone feels like a cheap knockoff game. It isn't bad, it really isn't, so don't feel like I am saying it sucks. It just also isn't very deep, feels sort of boring, and strikes me as Blizzard wanting to cash in on the mobile market easy money where competitive card games make a literal killing in profits.

So to be honest I agree with the OP and by pure coincidence I did describe hearthstone earlier today to a friend by saying, and I quote, "It is a poor man's Magic the Gathering." Simply put there are better card games with deeper mechanics that are more fun to play, even in the mobile scene. This game like many others will likely succeed, not because it is great, does something better than other similar games, or pushes it's genre.... but because it is made by Blizzard and the Blizzard fans will double down on anything they make good or otherwise.

EDIT: I will also point out this is not a new genre by any stretch of the imagination and there are plenty of very good "quick match" card games out there already that do as good or better a job than Hearthstone.

#62 Posted by Wolfgame (738 posts) -

I don't usually play these type of games. I did enjoy it though, at the very least its worth checking out to see what high production values look like in a card game, casual such as myself will stay for a visit. If you hang out too long you will be mauled by the pros!

#63 Edited by crusader8463 (14422 posts) -

I don't enjoy it so I don't play it. I wouldn't say I actively hate it or spend any amount of time thinking about it. I just find it simplified in all the wrong ways and after many years of playing Magic TCG I want that complexity.

#64 Edited by Ben_H (3355 posts) -

In terms of viewing it in the context of "This is something I will play once in a while on my iPad while I watch TV", I quite like it. I do not play it in a competitive way, Just for fun. I don't ever intend to spend money on it. I had it on my PC but never played it. It seems like it is much better suited for a tablet.

In terms of these turn-based card games, I like Ascension way more. Sure it is purely random deck rather than constructed, but I feel, even still, it is less luck based. Doesn't mean I don't like Hearthstone, I just like Ascension way more. I can usually tell pretty quickly in Ascension when I have screwed up and shouldn't win, or the opposite. In Hearthstone I have one games that I had no right to win. Yesterday I had a game where I won purely because I just happened to draw a card that did 2 damage to the opponent (we were both at 2 health). Any other card and I would have lost.

#65 Posted by WasabiCurry (422 posts) -

@christaran: Careful with that comment, it seems many MTG people here will burn you at the stake!

But in all serious, I only play MTG with friends because playing competitively will cost more than the entirety of my student loans.

#66 Edited by spraynardtatum (2944 posts) -

@mb: My point is that Hearthstones progression when playing for free is aggravating, mind numbing, addictive, and a waste of time. It sucks. It's the crystal meth of videogames (I assume). Hearthstone feels exactly like any other standard free 2 play game that offers a free experience that is a waste of time unless you buy things to speed up the bullshit. Which it then isn't free anymore and is in direct contradiction with itself. Also, it sucks.

#67 Edited by geirr (2569 posts) -

I don't dislike good games usually, however I don't like this one and I choose not to play it. Amazing I know.

#68 Posted by AyKay_47 (293 posts) -

Sounds like you need to, as they say, "git gud" and then you might enjoy it more.

#69 Edited by AdequatelyPrepared (508 posts) -

I got into Magic via Magic 2014 on Steam only last year. It was my first card game, and I loved it. I really recommend that as an introduction to Magic to anyone who finds the competitive scene off-putting, as the tutorial it takes you through is pretty great, and there are a lot of pre-built decks to play with so you can understand the underlying principles in how decks are built and what the primary focus of the colours are. Whenever you examine a card in-game and it has a one-word effect (e.g. Trample, or something like that), you can immediately bring up a help box that tells you what it is. Plus you invest no actual money outside of what you spend to buy the game (there are expansion card packs though, as well as 1 dollar investments in case you feel like unlocking all of the cards in a particular deck immediately, otherwise you just have to win 30 games with a deck to unlock all the extra cards for it). Playing with friends online is great too, though the stuff surrounding the game (connecting to other players, editing decks, etc) could be improved, and I hope it will be for Magic 2015 on Steam. Learning how the progress of play of a game usually played only in real life is interpreted by a computer is tricky at first though. Freezing the timer to play cards is your best friend. I actually haven't played a single game of MtG in real life, it that makes me a casual, then so be it.

That being said, I played a few games of Hearthstone, and I just didn't really enjoy it. I see how some many enjoy it, but for me, the complete lack of control compared to MtG is what got me. Though Hearthstone most definitely has it's own meta and strategies, it is easily a less complex game overall compared to MtG, and I just found card options lacking. It is F2P though, so at least if you don't like it, you haven't spent any money.

Online
#70 Edited by OhDearAudrey (33 posts) -

@aykay_47: there's a few comments referring to player skill, when did i say i was bad or lost more than i won, but on a pure, you don't know the facts and are assuming what my skill must be basis, why would i want to get good at a game i don't like, isn't that a flaw in logic? You hate this but play more of it, maybe you will like it.

#71 Posted by Slag (4354 posts) -

For a card game I liked it ok. Just too grindy for me

I just don't want to spend a dozen or so hours it takes to learn the nuances and build a decent enough deck to be reasonably competitive. Or maybe I just suck at it, either way it's not my thing.

#72 Edited by phampire (285 posts) -

Hearthstone is great for people who aren't into CCGs but I have also heard that it also appeals to people who have played MtG, including streamers who play at a competitive level. It's also free and I have yet to spend any money on it. From my experience the randomness seems to be pretty random, you might have just gotten unlucky. I generally avoid random effect cards in constructed and only really use them in arena. I've enjoyed my time with Heartstone to the extent where I might consider getting into MtG in the future.

#73 Posted by StarvingGamer (8235 posts) -

Just play Hex instead.

#74 Posted by Generic_username (611 posts) -

I don't hate Hearthstone, but I do hate that people who have always been completely dismissive of MTG are praising it so highly.

MTG is one of my hobbies, and seeing what is barely more than a simplified version of the game show up and be lauded as some fantastic thing while MTG is still shoved into this "too nerdy for me" closet by a lot of video game people is frustrating.

Online
#75 Posted by BambamCZ (139 posts) -

I don't hate it, I just tried it and never played it again. I love card games but here I don't know why it has just failed to grab my attention and lost me shortly after the tutorial. Maybe it felt too simple compared to the other games I've been playing over the years.

#76 Posted by StarvingGamer (8235 posts) -

I don't hate Hearthstone, but I do hate that people who have always been completely dismissive of MTG are praising it so highly.

MTG is one of my hobbies, and seeing what is barely more than a simplified version of the game show up and be lauded as some fantastic thing while MTG is still shoved into this "too nerdy for me" closet by a lot of video game people is frustrating.

I dunno, I don't think I've heard anyone claim that Hearthstone is an objectively better game than MTG, just that for people who have found traditional TCG's too intimidating/cost-prohibitive, Hearthstone is much more their speed.

#77 Edited by BisonHero (6521 posts) -

@starvinggamer said:

@generic_username said:

I don't hate Hearthstone, but I do hate that people who have always been completely dismissive of MTG are praising it so highly.

MTG is one of my hobbies, and seeing what is barely more than a simplified version of the game show up and be lauded as some fantastic thing while MTG is still shoved into this "too nerdy for me" closet by a lot of video game people is frustrating.

I dunno, I don't think I've heard anyone claim that Hearthstone is an objectively better game than MTG, just that for people who have found traditional TCG's too intimidating/cost-prohibitive, Hearthstone is much more their speed.

Yeah, I guess it's just filling that niche of "beginner digital CCG" nicely, but it does frustrate me that it gets sooo much attention almost purely for its visual and audio polish while mechanically it's just not very interesting compared to its competitors (all of which is pretty much the Blizzard specialty at this point).

#78 Posted by Jesus_Phish (784 posts) -

@generic_username: MTG costs a lot of money to play. I have a suit case full of old cards, most of which will never see play again because a) I don't intend to start playing MTG again and b) most of them are common and uncommon cards that are now well into legacy format. I've probably spent in excess of $1000 during my few years playing it.

Heartstone is free. You can always get into any format of the game, it might take you a bit longer to get that 100 gold, but you can still earn it. The same might not be true for the $20 you need to go play FNM. Heartstone takes up no room (see my previous comment about a suitcase). You can get rid of cards you don't want in Heartstone and turn them into cards you do without having to trade or convince someone to swap dual lands.

Having said that, I bounced off Heartstone and haven't gone back to try it again. I played through unlocking all the starter decks and then thought I'd seen enough of the game. Went and played a couple of games and then turned it off. I agree that in that time I didn't see enough interaction between players, but then I'd say the same thing about MTG. MTG has more interaction than Heartstone sure, but a lot of it isn't fun and with some decks you can limit it to the point were it doesn't really exist. I'm big into Netrunner nowdays and that gives me everything I want in a card game.

#79 Edited by ervonymous (1297 posts) -
@bisonhero said:

@starvinggamer said:

@generic_username said:

I don't hate Hearthstone, but I do hate that people who have always been completely dismissive of MTG are praising it so highly.

MTG is one of my hobbies, and seeing what is barely more than a simplified version of the game show up and be lauded as some fantastic thing while MTG is still shoved into this "too nerdy for me" closet by a lot of video game people is frustrating.

I dunno, I don't think I've heard anyone claim that Hearthstone is an objectively better game than MTG, just that for people who have found traditional TCG's too intimidating/cost-prohibitive, Hearthstone is much more their speed.

Yeah, I guess it's just filling that niche of "beginner digital CCG" nicely, but it does frustrate me that it gets sooo much attention almost purely for its visual and audio polish while mechanically it's just not very interesting compared to its competitors (all of which is pretty much the Blizzard specialty at this point).

The new MTG Online client will never be as shiny and accessible as Hearthstone but the latest iteration is actually pretty nice, apart from the occasional broken cards and interactions. Every once in a while I create a new account and just do the new player drafts for as long as the $10 worth of new player and event tickets take me, starting from scratch in that established economy is just too daunting. Duels of the Planeswalkers is easier to approach but the interactions and cards there are so bare bones it makes the game feel a lot more stilted than it actually is. I think the best way to get into online Magic is to have a friend teach you over Skype on Cockatrice and that's terrible.

#80 Posted by TobbRobb (4646 posts) -

I don't hate the game. But I also don't enjoy it because the curve of getting gold/new cards is completely fucked/unengaging and there are a tad bit too many RNG-reliant elements.

So meh.

#81 Posted by bemusedchunk (692 posts) -

@ervonymous: ugh - i would LOOOVE to actually play MODO but that interface is such crap. And I can't stand some of the meta bullcrap that has cropped up.

I enjoy playing modern and pauper formats - but the amount of friggin grapeshot/storm decks was too much for me to take.

#82 Posted by Johnkeys (1 posts) -

Ranked is boring, everyone plays the same boring decks...

The only interresting thing about hearthstone is Arena.

But that makes me SO VERY SICK TO MY STOMACH... Hearthstone is already 90% luck 10% skill without having to pick 1 out of 3x random cards. ITS JUST RNG, RNG RNG... First in Draft next in draws... Hearthstone is a game you play on your tablet / iphone while on the move.... Personally im done doing anything but dailys in Hearthstone...

Fix to hearthstone arena = entry fee = 75g, 4-5 card choices pr select. (Cards rewarded at 4-5+ wins).

#83 Posted by C0V3RT (1377 posts) -

@johnkeys said:

Hearthstone is already 90% luck 10%

That couldn't be further from the truth. Yeah RNG comes into play, but play in a way or design your deck that mitigates it and can play a deck consistently well.

#84 Edited by HurricaneIvan29 (582 posts) -

You say it's so random, but then say it's not random.

Also, the whole "he always gets the card he needs!" part - in hearthstone decks are small (30) for a reason. It's so that every card has a good chance of being played. That's what makes deck construction a big part of the game. The image of opponents pulling "that one card they needed" just in the nick of time is most likely them getting their powerful card they put into their small deck which would have just swayed the game into their control had they pulled it earlier. Players build their decks around playing powerful cards/combos at the most advantageous point in the game for them (based on their deck construction & mana curve).

Which leads to another reason why I like hearthstone, mana/resource is consistent and even. This isn't a black and white point that makes the game good or not, but it certainly gives it distinction open to opinion. Some games rely on the players to decide how resource intensive they want their deck to play, this one relies on the players to build decks AROUND the consistent and even resource availability.

With so many other CCGs out there, Hearthstone sets itself apart with different mechanics of the game. If another game nailed it how some/most people like it, what would be the point in copying that/those games if they already exist, rather than making some new and fresh for a different audience.

If you prefer something other than Hearthstone then that's okay, Hearthstone isn't for you, find the game that fits your style & enjoy it. You don't have to like the new kid on the block just because others do, but at the same time you don't have to express you hate for him just because everyone likes him, either.

#85 Posted by Relkin (114 posts) -

I used to get angry at Hearthstone as well; just a few months ago, actually. One day I decided to play the game while running something else (music/video/podcast), and when it was not my turn I would minimize the game, keeping an eye on the games taskbar thumbnail preview to see when it was my turn again. This has helped immensely. I'm still interested in winning the match, but doing/watching something else at the same time distances me from the game somewhat. When a match swings around real hard I find it funny now, regardless of who wins. This Warrior's Brawl just took out all five out my guys and left his only minion on the board? Wow, lucky. Mage topdecked the Pyroblast to kill me? Oh well.

Hope you figure out something; even if it is just not playing HS anymore.

#86 Posted by yoshisaur (2723 posts) -

How can someone hate a game? Feels wrong.

Anyway, no, I don't hate Hearthstone. However, from the original post, it seems its just another symptom of people wanting other games to be exactly like the one they enjoy. I've felt this before, mainly with World of Warcraft. Always disliked games that didn't what they did, and maybe that was the beauty of them being different.

#87 Posted by StarvingGamer (8235 posts) -

Also, the whole "he always gets the card he needs!" part - in hearthstone decks are small (30) for a reason. It's so that every card has a good chance of being played.

Just wanted to point out that while decks in HS are comparatively small, cards are also limited to 2-ofs or, in the case of Legendaries, 1-ofs. In most standard 60-card CCG's cards are limited to 4-ofs, so the chance of drawing a single card is not mathematically any higher in HS than it is in other games, and the chance of drawing a clutch Legendary is 50% lower. Also, because of the non-interactive nature of play and the "attacker's advantage" battle-system, it is significantly easier to score a topdeck blowout in HS than a game like MtG.

#88 Posted by C0V3RT (1377 posts) -

@hurricaneivan29 said:

Also, the whole "he always gets the card he needs!" part - in hearthstone decks are small (30) for a reason. It's so that every card has a good chance of being played.

Just wanted to point out that while decks in HS are comparatively small, cards are also limited to 2-ofs or, in the case of Legendaries, 1-ofs. In most standard 60-card CCG's cards are limited to 4-ofs, so the chance of drawing a single card is not mathematically any higher in HS than it is in other games, and the chance of drawing a clutch Legendary is 50% lower. Also, because of the non-interactive nature of play and the "attacker's advantage" battle-system, it is significantly easier to score a topdeck blowout in HS than a game like MtG.

A perfect illustration of this is miracle rogue. The deck is designed to consistently mill through your cards until you can get the double shadow step Leeroy combo. No auctioneer and it doesn't work. Card advantage, and even card draw is such an overlooked mechanic by people who have never played a CCG/TCG before or people who play casually. I would challenge anyone who thinks they always lose to top decking to hover your mouse over your opponents deck and then yours and see how much more of their deck they've gone through. Even if you are losing to top decks, it's likely your opponent has milled through more of their deck and had a higher percentage of drawing that one card in their deck that would kill you.

I won't even get into get into the right and wrong way to mulligan and how those decisions play a huge role in how your game will unfold...

#89 Posted by StarvingGamer (8235 posts) -

@c0v3rt said:

@starvinggamer said:

@hurricaneivan29 said:

Also, the whole "he always gets the card he needs!" part - in hearthstone decks are small (30) for a reason. It's so that every card has a good chance of being played.

Just wanted to point out that while decks in HS are comparatively small, cards are also limited to 2-ofs or, in the case of Legendaries, 1-ofs. In most standard 60-card CCG's cards are limited to 4-ofs, so the chance of drawing a single card is not mathematically any higher in HS than it is in other games, and the chance of drawing a clutch Legendary is 50% lower. Also, because of the non-interactive nature of play and the "attacker's advantage" battle-system, it is significantly easier to score a topdeck blowout in HS than a game like MtG.

A perfect illustration of this is miracle rogue. The deck is designed to consistently mill through your cards until you can get the double shadow step Leeroy combo. No auctioneer and it doesn't work. Card advantage, and even card draw is such an overlooked mechanic by people who have never played a CCG/TCG before or people who play casually. I would challenge anyone who thinks they always lose to top decking to hover your mouse over your opponents deck and then yours and see how much more of their deck they've gone through. Even if you are losing to top decks, it's likely your opponent has milled through more of their deck and had a higher percentage of drawing that one card in their deck that would kill you.

I won't even get into get into the right and wrong way to mulligan and how those decisions play a huge role in how your game will unfold...

Actually, the point I was trying to make was that the deckbuilding rules actually make HS decks less consistent when compared to other CCGs which, combined with the quirks in game design I mentioned, makes RNG top-deck FTW situations more common on average. That said, I do agree with you that Miracle Rogue plays much more like an MTG deck with all of its cantrips and cycling making it much more consistent when played correctly.

#90 Posted by Neonie (438 posts) -

Meh, I find the art on the cards of games like this and Magic super ugly and boring. I'd give it a shot if they looked like Wixoss or Sword Girls or something.

#91 Posted by HurricaneIvan29 (582 posts) -

@starvinggamer: But in games like MTG you have to have resource cards included whereas in HS you can have more pivotal cards in the deck. Plus there's a LOT of draw opportunity in this game.

#92 Edited by StarvingGamer (8235 posts) -

@hurricaneivan29: Sure, but that just affects your ability to draw a card that does something, not necessarily a card that causes a blowout and wins you the game. All of that is immaterial to the fact that, in terms of mechanics and play-structure, HS is a game that is designed to create more situations and grant more cards the power to generate a top-deck win than most other CCG's.

#93 Edited by HurricaneIvan29 (582 posts) -

@starvinggamer: Which goes back to my point that the original post complained about how it seemed that the opposing player always got a pivotal card just in time, but really he could have gotten it earlier anyways. Good decks can go through 15 cards on average easily and with 2 of just one pivotal card, the chances are in the player that he draws that pivotal card and saves it until the perfect opportunity to play it. And I won't argue with the notion that HS is geared towards top decks at all.

#94 Edited by Junpei (760 posts) -

I just started a few weeks ago and it is a mixed bag for me so far. I enjoy playing against the computer, though after getting a few additional cards they become pretty easy (I haven't bumped up to expert ai yet though) and I enjoy playing in the arena for the sealed deck nature of it. The first time I entered Play mode I played about 10 Casual games. 3 players either timed out or quit and the other 7 were all playing nearly identical Priest decks (they were different user names, I checked). If Play mode is just going to be a bunch of people using recommended builds from the "Pros" all the time then I will most likely avoid playing that mode at all unless I need to complete some dailies to gain gold for Arena. The whole point of collecting cards and building a deck is kind of ruined if the majority of people just play the same deck.

#95 Edited by bakoomerang (85 posts) -

I enjoy it most of the time (just about), but sometimes I do hate it, which is quite sad really because it is just a game after all.

@junpei said:

If Play mode is just going to be a bunch of people using recommended builds from the "Pros" all the time then I will most likely avoid playing that mode at all unless I need to complete some dailies to gain gold for Arena. The whole point of collecting cards and building a deck is kind of ruined if the majority of people just play the same deck.

This is the part that kinda sucks about the whole thing. Especially when those decks contain Legendaries that I just can't compete with. I must have opened easily upwards of 50-60 packs by now (all from grinding) and so far I've only pulled one Legendary (Sylvanas Windrunner, which can be useful but is nerfed pretty easily).

Also, why does everyone insist on being a huge dick when they're about to win? They have to play every card possible and destroy as many of your minions on the field as possible before dealing the killing blow even though it makes no fucking difference whatsoever (with the possible exception that they might be doing it to complete a daily, but I'm pretty sure most of the time it's the dick thing).

#96 Edited by BisonHero (6521 posts) -

@bakoomerang said:

I enjoy it most of the time (just about), but sometimes I do hate it, which is quite sad really because it is just a game after all.

@junpei said:

If Play mode is just going to be a bunch of people using recommended builds from the "Pros" all the time then I will most likely avoid playing that mode at all unless I need to complete some dailies to gain gold for Arena. The whole point of collecting cards and building a deck is kind of ruined if the majority of people just play the same deck.

This is the part that kinda sucks about the whole thing. Especially when those decks contain Legendaries that I just can't compete with. I must have opened easily upwards of 50-60 packs by now (all from grinding) and so far I've only pulled one Legendary (Sylvanas Windrunner, which can be useful but is nerfed pretty easily).

Also, why does everyone insist on being a huge dick when they're about to win? They have to play every card possible and destroy as many of your minions on the field as possible before dealing the killing blow even though it makes no fucking difference whatsoever (with the possible exception that they might be doing it to complete a daily, but I'm pretty sure most of the time it's the dick thing).

Yeah, this happens in Magic, and every CCG, but in real life CCGs, you can play with friends who have bought a comparable amount of booster packs as you, and have some great fun with each other playing pretty casual decks. And in general, unless you specifically seek out local tournaments, you won't encounter many people playing the top tier decks that require very specific rare cards.

In Hearthstone, I feel like Blizzard has wildly misjudged how easy it is to get like, all of the cards if you just play for a few months and occasionally do well in the arena. Let me tell you, the decks you encounter at ranks 20-15 used to be much worse, but now I regularly encounter people in that range that have multiple of the playable legendaries, and all of the epics their deck would need.

So I enjoy playing Hearthstone, but I do wonder if it's going to start turning away newcomers in the next few months since an increasingly large portion of the userbase has most of the cards and can just obliterate newcomers. It's nearly reached the point where rank 20-15 are people who play the top 8 or so deck archetypes but play them very badly, rank 15-10 is people who plays those top 8 deck archetypes at a mediocre level, and then everything below rank 10 is people playing those top 8 deck archetypes at a more competent level.

#97 Posted by Snowsprite (105 posts) -
#98 Posted by EkajArmstro (386 posts) -

My biggest problem with Hearthstone is that you have zero interaction on your opponent's turn. Granted, that's what makes things like Magic Online play slowly and complicated for beginners but it's also what makes the game fun.

#99 Posted by mjbrune (80 posts) -

My biggest problem with Hearthstone is that you have zero interaction on your opponent's turn. Granted, that's what makes things like Magic Online play slowly and complicated for beginners but it's also what makes the game fun.

The issue I have is that I understand playing slow in magic. I mean when I played Magic 2012 it took 30-40 minutes but that was fine because it was more in-depth and back and forth game. Hearthstone seems alright but it feels like it's going for "simple but deep" sort of thing which never works. When I win I feel like I didn't earn it and when I lose I feel like the other guy didn't earn it. I mean there are only 20 cards max in a desk and I don't know whats in the basic deck, there is no easy way that I saw to view what's in the basic desks either.

Additionally the REQUIRED 5 game tutorial before you do ANYTHING is completely painful and mind-numbing. Whomever thought that shouldn't be skippable in a way that was obvious is insane. Specifically the last battle when they straight up say "This game isn't fair, blame bad game design." made me just turn away from it and not even try the battle. When I lost I thought it would just be like "You lost but you learned some stuff." but nope, makes you play until you win. Only took me 2 chances but a game that states "this fight is unfair and you are required to beat it to do anything else in this game." Is completely bad game design.

#100 Edited by StarvingGamer (8235 posts) -

@mjbrune said:

Additionally the REQUIRED 5 game tutorial before you do ANYTHING is completely painful and mind-numbing. Whomever thought that shouldn't be skippable in a way that was obvious is insane. Specifically the last battle when they straight up say "This game isn't fair, blame bad game design." made me just turn away from it and not even try the battle. When I lost I thought it would just be like "You lost but you learned some stuff." but nope, makes you play until you win. Only took me 2 chances but a game that states "this fight is unfair and you are required to beat it to do anything else in this game." Is completely bad game design.

Really? I think a mandatory tutorial is incredibly smart for a game that is trying to pull in as many newcomers as possible. Even for experienced CCG/DCG players it serves as a good primer for the unique facets of Hearthstone's specific mechanics. None of the fights are difficult, let alone "unfair". Holding people back until they can beat the tutorial bosses makes sense, because unless they can do at least that they'll be eaten alive when they start playing real people.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.