|
On August 30 2013 22:22 RagequitBM wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2013 20:28 lastshadow wrote:On August 30 2013 07:46 TheTenthDoc wrote:On August 30 2013 04:18 calgar wrote:On August 30 2013 04:01 HolydaKing wrote:On August 30 2013 03:57 SarcasmMonster wrote:On August 30 2013 03:43 HolydaKing wrote:
Kungen played TB twice, they went 1-1. After I watched Trump losing to a Rogue deck.
Definitely feels like Rogue are the strongest from what I've seen in the last days. Warlock and Priest feel the weakest. You mean in Arena right? Yeah. I'm mostly watching Arena and not premade stuff on streams and those are my average feelings so far. That's interesting because I feel like 2 life for a card is the best ability because it helps you overrun early with card advantage. The nice thing about the Rogue is that the hero ability is spending 2 life+2 mana for a card (of your opponents) a lot of the time. While rogue is tier 0, anyone who says warlocks ability is bad just doesn't understand TCG's at a high level. Warlock will be broken if he gets more support in the future, as for now he probably is sitting at a realistic tier 3 due to people not understanding his core power, whereas realistically he's tier 1. I think rather than his ability being bad, it's the warlock specific cards that are not so good. They really are not that impressive.
I think a well built Zoolock (currently no one plays it) and Full lock-control are tier 1. Jarraxus needs to go to 8mana or something. also sideboarding would make warlock tier 0 (bo3 ladder format w/ sideboards)
|
On August 30 2013 20:24 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2013 13:21 rezoacken wrote:On August 30 2013 12:13 SarcasmMonster wrote:
IMO the main advantage of Hearthstone over Magic is the sounds and visuals. The game feels more alive then paper TCG.
Starcraft Edit: Colossus card would hit two adjacent enemies per attack. MTG was designed as a material CCG, Heartstone is a video game first. So yeah of course Heartstone looks better on our screens. Heartstone made paper would suck pretty bad compared to MTG once you remove all the prettiness, sounds, computer calculations of life, etc. I'd just hoped HS had more complexity, maybe after some patches I'll see how it does (but Blizzard being so slow at releasing anything... I dont know). Right now It looks fun for a couple of hours but after watching some hours on stream I don't see myself pouring hours into it so even less spending money. Comparing a CCG that is over ten years old to one in beta is silly. Complexity grows with time and people playing the game, not being "pre-baked" into the game. Meta games don't develop without players.
I'm not really comparing (unless you're referring to me saying that hearthstone in paper version would suck and that its advantage is that its a video game first with all its prettiness and quick gameplay, which is fine I'm not hating on that... if you don't agree I'm not sure what to say).
However, I think, regardless of the format, the game has little complexity and can't see myself spending that much time with it let alone money, period. MTG or not. I'm judging the game fairly, based on a lot of mechanics that I think won't help this game in the long run. But that's just my opinion and I can see a lot of people are excited, good for them.
As for complexity not being pre-baked into a game I whole heartedly disagree on that comment. While the metagame surely develops with players, a game has its own independent complexity. The metagame is just the other half of it.
|
Pre-baked complexity always seems backfire and I would rather they focus a clean, fun game that can be played in a reasonable period of time. The complexity will be built up over time as they introduce new cars, characters and mechanics. Right now, they are in the basic format of the game and balancing. I don't want them to go the route of Scrolls, which I enjoyed, but ended up being to slow paced for me to play seriously. Those games are more complex that Heath Stone, but at the price of pacing and enjoyment.
|
Actually yeah that's why I said I will wait to see how it grows, because in its current format... meh. Sadly it will be a slow growth due to Blizzard being in charge.
|
On August 31 2013 02:24 rezoacken wrote:
Actually yeah that's why I said I will wait to see how it grows, because in its current format... meh. Sadly it will be a slow growth due to Blizzard being in charge.
I would not count on that, they seem to have a pretty quick turn around on this one. The game was announced at Pax East(which I was at) and is already in Beta. That is the fastest I have ever seen a Blizzard game get into the hands of anyone. I would not be surprised if they crank out the cards and gameplay from here out.
|
So after playing for a few days I've noticed that Hearthstone has a bit more depth than I originally would have thought. It doesn't compare to already existing card games, but for a game in beta with only its first set there's plenty of room to grow. Take into account also that we are kinda spoiled by games like Magic which really set a high bar for card games (just like how WoW sets the bar for MMO's).
That said, there is a cap on the complexity that Hearthstone can reach due to the basic mechanics of the game. Not being able to play spells or abilities during your opponents turn certainly takes away half or at least a third of the thought-process that goes into playing a card game. This basically leads to games where the first player to draw their combo wins. Additionally, not having the ability to respond leads to things snowballing or flipping quite dramatically.
One thing that I can't help thinking about: If ever there was a game that should have a lan feature, this is it. Considering the relatively low system requirements (low enough for light laptops/intel tablets) and how Bliz will be porting this to mobile devices, I really really really want to see a lan or adhoc feature implemented at some point. Of course Blizzard isn't going to want people pirating cards for offline play so this is probably a pipe dream.
As for gameplay, the only major thing I don't like are some of the taunting creatures. It isn't really a balance issue since everyone has access to them. I just think that some of the creatures with taunt are too well rounded. (Take into account that I've only played like 12-16 hours).
Other than that class balance kinda reminds me of WoW lol. There is a clear favoritism among a few classes and some disdain for others. From what I've experienced (again with only 12-16 hours played and 7 boosters opened):
warlocks, hunters and shamans are on the top of the food chain.
warriors and mages come next.
priests and paladins
rogue and druids
Warrior I think is the easiest class to just jump in as a new player and learn the game. It is pretty easy to crush new and inexperience players right out the gate. It did taper off (after winning like 14 games in a row) once I started encountering players with more cards etc.
I haven't played warlock, shaman or hunter yet, but vs them make up 75-80%-ish of my matches. These appear to be the clear favorites (not necessarily due to balance, but perhaps also do to player preference in WoW etc). The most annoying imo to play against in order: hunter, shaman, warlock.
Rogues I'm never worried about, at least not with the classes I've played (mage, druid, warrior, priest). I partially blame taunting minions for this (especially the booty bay bodyguard and shield master, both freebee starter cards so might taper off later on). Rogues will try to clear the board, but you really just need a buff taunter and they cant do much.
Druids really are the jack of all trades master of none. My favorite class in WoW, but least favorite among those I've played in Hearthstone. I feel druids will get better as my collection increases, but with the starter cards and cards I pulled in the first few packs I've gotten so far there just aren't a lot of good options. Plenty of options, but no real good ones. I've basically been going with aura buffs like raid leader, getting some other creatures, then blowing two savage roars for hopefully game crippling damage.
Priest is my favorite class at the moment. It isn't really that strong from what I've seen, but priests just play well if you like games of Magic that involve lots of Swing to Win. Playing a priest is basically fighting a war of attrition. Buff your taunt minions to make them meatier, snipe your opponents key minions, and just slowly wear down your opponent while keeping your minions healed.
As for paladins... well... no one plays paladins so.... 
Overall I'm enjoying Hearthstone. It is shaping into a game I feel I could play and drop a few bucks every once in a while when I'm feeling the WoW itch but don't really want to play WoW.
|
The mana system mixed with the color decks, is definitly what makes MTG the more complex game, and there is no way the "meta" or whatever you do makes it more complex on HS. It is what it is. To be honest, that's what i feel makes MTG the deeper game, the mana, the rest are just extra skills, and of course the interrupts.
|
So apparently tomorrow there will be a Hearthstone tournament! You can read more here, link courtesy of a mod in Trump's chat.
Rooting for Trump and reckful =D !!
Also to chime in on the game, I've never played a TCG/CCG before nor cared for anything of that sort, but I must say that this game looks really fun to play and is really fun to watch (at a high level) IMHO. And +1 to the "Blizzard did a great job with the production/aesthetic" sentiment. ^^
|
On August 31 2013 03:31 Godwrath wrote:
The mana system, is definitly way more simple than MTG, and there is no way the "meta" or whatever you do makes it more complex. It is what it is. To be honest, that's what i feel makes MTG the deeper game, the mana, the rest are just extra skills, and of course the interrupts. Magic also has 20 years of trial and error testing, refinement, new card sets, and card mechanics. This together adds way more depth than making mana a card IMO.
|
On August 31 2013 03:37 calgar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2013 03:31 Godwrath wrote:
The mana system, is definitly way more simple than MTG, and there is no way the "meta" or whatever you do makes it more complex. It is what it is. To be honest, that's what i feel makes MTG the deeper game, the mana, the rest are just extra skills, and of course the interrupts. Magic also has 20 years of trial and error testing, refinement, new card sets, and card mechanics. This together adds way more depth than making mana a card IMO.
The base of the mana system was already in place. And i am not talking about funnier/better game. To each their own, i stopped playing magic more than 10 years ago. And i don't plan to play it again.
|
On August 31 2013 03:37 calgar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2013 03:31 Godwrath wrote:
The mana system, is definitly way more simple than MTG, and there is no way the "meta" or whatever you do makes it more complex. It is what it is. To be honest, that's what i feel makes MTG the deeper game, the mana, the rest are just extra skills, and of course the interrupts. Magic also has 20 years of trial and error testing, refinement, new card sets, and card mechanics. This together adds way more depth than making mana a card IMO.
Magic prime was a broken pile of non-sense with poorly written rules, unclear cards that broke said rules and a sluggish feel. Some people love it, as a game we can view it as objectively bad and imbalanced in so many ways. It was improved and refined over time, but when it first it, it was a hot mess. Hearthstone as good of a game as Magic prime was, with a faster pace as a whole.
Games grow over time. Chess did not start out with all the pieces we know today. The game Go only had on type of move and a couple rules.
|
On August 31 2013 03:44 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2013 03:37 calgar wrote:On August 31 2013 03:31 Godwrath wrote:
The mana system, is definitly way more simple than MTG, and there is no way the "meta" or whatever you do makes it more complex. It is what it is. To be honest, that's what i feel makes MTG the deeper game, the mana, the rest are just extra skills, and of course the interrupts. Magic also has 20 years of trial and error testing, refinement, new card sets, and card mechanics. This together adds way more depth than making mana a card IMO. Magic prime was a broken pile of non-sense with poorly written rules, unclear cards that broke said rules and a sluggish feel. Some people love it, as a game we can view it as objectively bad and imbalanced in so many ways. It was improved and refined over time, but when it first it, it was a hot mess. Hearthstone as good of a game as Magic prime was, with a faster pace as a whole. Games grow over time. Chess did not start out with all the pieces we know today. The game Go only had on type of move and a couple rules.
Early magic wasn't non-sense rules it's just the use of damage on the stack and triggers for key events like you dieing made things not intuitive and very rule dependent. It also lead to wonky situations leading up to Urza's saga which was off putting to alot of players took awhile to correct those mistakes of power creep and hard to grasp rules. Want a great mechanic that was poorly understood, madness was a great mechanic but very few people outside of people who plays in GP understood the mechanic in full.
|
On August 31 2013 03:54 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2013 03:44 Plansix wrote:On August 31 2013 03:37 calgar wrote:On August 31 2013 03:31 Godwrath wrote:
The mana system, is definitly way more simple than MTG, and there is no way the "meta" or whatever you do makes it more complex. It is what it is. To be honest, that's what i feel makes MTG the deeper game, the mana, the rest are just extra skills, and of course the interrupts. Magic also has 20 years of trial and error testing, refinement, new card sets, and card mechanics. This together adds way more depth than making mana a card IMO. Magic prime was a broken pile of non-sense with poorly written rules, unclear cards that broke said rules and a sluggish feel. Some people love it, as a game we can view it as objectively bad and imbalanced in so many ways. It was improved and refined over time, but when it first it, it was a hot mess. Hearthstone as good of a game as Magic prime was, with a faster pace as a whole. Games grow over time. Chess did not start out with all the pieces we know today. The game Go only had on type of move and a couple rules. Early magic wasn't non-sense rules it's just the use of damage on the stack and triggers for key events like you dieing made things not intuitive and very rule dependent. It also lead to wonky situations leading up to Urza's saga which was off putting to alot of players took awhile to correct those mistakes of power creep and hard to grasp rules. Want a great mechanic that was poorly understood, madness was a great mechanic but very few people outside of people who plays in GP understood the mechanic in full.
The difference is that playing T/CCG on a computer are not subject to rule interpretations from the players.
|
On August 31 2013 03:54 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2013 03:44 Plansix wrote:On August 31 2013 03:37 calgar wrote:On August 31 2013 03:31 Godwrath wrote:
The mana system, is definitly way more simple than MTG, and there is no way the "meta" or whatever you do makes it more complex. It is what it is. To be honest, that's what i feel makes MTG the deeper game, the mana, the rest are just extra skills, and of course the interrupts. Magic also has 20 years of trial and error testing, refinement, new card sets, and card mechanics. This together adds way more depth than making mana a card IMO. Magic prime was a broken pile of non-sense with poorly written rules, unclear cards that broke said rules and a sluggish feel. Some people love it, as a game we can view it as objectively bad and imbalanced in so many ways. It was improved and refined over time, but when it first it, it was a hot mess. Hearthstone as good of a game as Magic prime was, with a faster pace as a whole. Games grow over time. Chess did not start out with all the pieces we know today. The game Go only had on type of move and a couple rules. Early magic wasn't non-sense rules it's just the use of damage on the stack and triggers for key events like you dieing made things not intuitive and very rule dependent. It also lead to wonky situations leading up to Urza's saga which was off putting to alot of players took awhile to correct those mistakes of power creep and hard to grasp rules. Want a great mechanic that was poorly understood, madness was a great mechanic but very few people outside of people who plays in GP understood the mechanic in full.
I played magic when it first came out and we still have the old rule book from back then. The rules were crap, poorly written and did not provide clear instructions for how cards reacted. Of time they were "ironed out" but when the game was first released, they were non-sense and there was no clear rulings on a lot of the interactions. Of course, today, we know what the rules were. But one month after release, at age 13 and with no real internet to turn to, they were pretty junk.
On August 31 2013 04:13 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2013 03:54 semantics wrote:On August 31 2013 03:44 Plansix wrote:On August 31 2013 03:37 calgar wrote:On August 31 2013 03:31 Godwrath wrote:
The mana system, is definitly way more simple than MTG, and there is no way the "meta" or whatever you do makes it more complex. It is what it is. To be honest, that's what i feel makes MTG the deeper game, the mana, the rest are just extra skills, and of course the interrupts. Magic also has 20 years of trial and error testing, refinement, new card sets, and card mechanics. This together adds way more depth than making mana a card IMO. Magic prime was a broken pile of non-sense with poorly written rules, unclear cards that broke said rules and a sluggish feel. Some people love it, as a game we can view it as objectively bad and imbalanced in so many ways. It was improved and refined over time, but when it first it, it was a hot mess. Hearthstone as good of a game as Magic prime was, with a faster pace as a whole. Games grow over time. Chess did not start out with all the pieces we know today. The game Go only had on type of move and a couple rules. Early magic wasn't non-sense rules it's just the use of damage on the stack and triggers for key events like you dieing made things not intuitive and very rule dependent. It also lead to wonky situations leading up to Urza's saga which was off putting to alot of players took awhile to correct those mistakes of power creep and hard to grasp rules. Want a great mechanic that was poorly understood, madness was a great mechanic but very few people outside of people who plays in GP understood the mechanic in full. The difference is that playing T/CCG on a computer are not subject to rule interpretations from the players.
Also this, back when Magic was first out, before Ice Age, there were few ways to get any information about the game. It was in the early days of the internet, around the time of AOL and when they charged by the minute.
|
So, any news about BETA for Europeans ?
|
Germany25658 Posts
I fucking need this game man.
|
On August 31 2013 03:01 Rowrin wrote:
That said, there is a cap on the complexity that Hearthstone can reach due to the basic mechanics of the game. Not being able to play spells or abilities during your opponents turn certainly takes away half or at least a third of the thought-process that goes into playing a card game. This basically leads to games where the first player to draw their combo wins. Additionally, not having the ability to respond leads to things snowballing or flipping quite dramatically.
You do get a small amount of the mind games that interrupts provide through the trap mechanic.
Personally though I think it's a very intelligent design move by the HS team.
Without interrupts, or mechanics that activate when enemy cards come into play etc... you don't have to ask the off-turn player for inputs every time anything happens, this speeds the game up dramatically and this is incredibly important in my opinion. Magic online is too slow for my personal taste.
|
Is it true that you can't trade cards? Kind of puts me on the fence when it comes to spending money on this.
|
On August 31 2013 08:01 gullberg wrote:
Is it true that you can't trade cards? Kind of puts me on the fence when it comes to spending money on this.
As of now you cant trade but you can dissenchant. Aint that good enough? Personally I couldnt care less about trading.
|
On August 31 2013 08:11 DaCruise wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2013 08:01 gullberg wrote:
Is it true that you can't trade cards? Kind of puts me on the fence when it comes to spending money on this. As of now you cant trade but you can dissenchant. Aint that good enough? Personally I couldnt care less about trading.
K so you like the idea of removing the secondary market in consoles as long as they had a self ran trade in system in place? It ultimately makes obtaining every card more costly and much more random as you only get dust from arena and cards, and buying a pack of 40 doesn't equate to enough dust for the cards you want vs just costly to obtain cards of value directly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
