Hi mapsters, I tried Hearstone and I wanted to know if anyone else around here tried it and what are the opinions on it. I'll share my thoughts to get it started.
By just downloading and playing it I found the game is fun, and as Blizzard likes to say it is simple to learn and hard to master. But I got "stuck" too fast by being beaten by other players, so I decided to take a break and read a little about it. What do I find in the forums? Unfortunately a too familar discussion about "pro builds" and "current metagame".
Yes, SC2 ladder experience all over again, but I think it will be worse for Hearstone. Why? In SC2 all players can choose 1 of 3 races, and during a match can try a few options on how to play it, and I mean few because we all know there are these "builds" that fit the "current metagame" and if you don't have them decorated you're already behind. In Hearstone you pick one of (I don't know, 8 classes?) and create a deck for it with a strategy in mind. Then you pick one of your decks BEFORE you go find a player to fight. That means your strategy is already set, the build is or isn't already there. To make things worse in Hearstone you can spend money, real money, to have more and better cards available which means new players have one more (strong) disadvantage.
I think this all comes from a specific design in strategies from Blizzard's teams: There are 2 design extremes where in one multiple strategies are good or at least viable, and hardly ever one is better than most of the others. And the other extreme where most strategies aren't viable at all, only a few are any good, and there's at least the potential for an ideal strategy, the one you should be following. It seems Blizzard games are going towards the second extreme... too much in my opinion.
So, in my conclusion: with ideal builds/strategies, plus real money making your options better I foresee that once more it will be an unwelcoming environment for new players. If this scenario is already present during beta, it can only become stronger after release.
But as I said I started the thread to know your own opinions, and see what I can learn from them.
To make things worse in Hearstone you can spend money, real money, to have more and better cards available which means new players have one more (strong) disadvantage.
To me, that alone is enough reason not to play it.
All cards can be acquired overtime. If you want to shorten the process you can spend money. Since it's completely free to play I think it's fine.
The Arena is incredibly fun, if you win about 6-7 games each time you can keep playing it over and over and get a free pack. That's not even including quests.
i spent 0 money and its fine for me you can make good decks even with the basic cards and with quests and arena etc you can have enough income to at least get 1 pack per day.
it has matchmaking so you will never just get owned every game since u'll get matched with people with decks of similar level.. (yes you will get owned sometimes)
Hi mapsters, I tried Hearstone and I wanted to know if anyone else around here tried it and what are the opinions on it. I'll share my thoughts to get it started.
By just downloading and playing it I found the game is fun, and as Blizzard likes to say it is simple to learn and hard to master. But I got "stuck" too fast by being beaten by other players, so I decided to take a break and read a little about it. What do I find in the forums? Unfortunately a too familar discussion about "pro builds" and "current metagame".
Yes, SC2 ladder experience all over again, but I think it will be worse for Hearstone. Why? In SC2 all players can choose 1 of 3 races, and during a match can try a few options on how to play it, and I mean few because we all know there are these "builds" that fit the "current metagame" and if you don't have them decorated you're already behind. In Hearstone you pick one of (I don't know, 8 classes?) and create a deck for it with a strategy in mind. Then you pick one of your decks BEFORE you go find a player to fight. That means your strategy is already set, the build is or isn't already there. To make things worse in Hearstone you can spend money, real money, to have more and better cards available which means new players have one more (strong) disadvantage.
I think this all comes from a specific design in strategies from Blizzard's teams: There are 2 design extremes where in one multiple strategies are good or at least viable, and hardly ever one is better than most of the others. And the other extreme where most strategies aren't viable at all, only a few are any good, and there's at least the potential for an ideal strategy, the one you should be following. It seems Blizzard games are going towards the second extreme... too much in my opinion.
So, in my conclusion: with ideal builds/strategies, plus real money making your options better I foresee that once more it will be an unwelcoming environment for new players. If this scenario is already present during beta, it can only become stronger after release.
But as I said I started the thread to know your own opinions, and see what I can learn from them.
Welcome to CCG :D
The former situation of many strategies being viable is the best meta. But yes, the latter situation can arise. Wizards of the Coast (makers of Magic The Gathering, the first TCG) has 2 mechanism for dealing with this. 1st is the Future Future League, which takes cards in design and purposely tries to break them (this is in house). Other is to alter the card pool, by rotating (making no longer format legal) cards (usually entire sets), or in extreme cases, banning them. Since Blizzard has the luxury of no real world cards, they can probably just tweak existing cards. The main solution for solving meta imbalances will be just creating more cards, making more strategies available.
As for the pay to win aspect, live with it, it is inherent to the genre. If you want to truly avoid pay to win, Blizzard will need to introduce a draft format, where you are given a set of randomized cards, you choose 1, pass the remainder to the next player, and go around until all cards are picked. Rinse repeat a couple of times. This eliminates pay to win, and makes both the deck building and playing into skill based aspects. Or they can do other forms of draft (Give you a bunch of random cards, far in excess of deck size, and build a deck from it).
@MasterWrath: Go I could still play it if it wasn't for the feeling that I'll have to learn a constantly changing ideal build in order to have a chance.
@Fullachain: Go Yes, with infinite time you could acquire all cards by luck, but there is no comparison against a player that will spend money, and get them way faster. And gold can only buy the cheapest pack.
@GizmoPT: Go My experience with ranked matches is that they are most often than not one-sided. Either I crush my opponent, sometimes ending the game with full life, or get steamrolled the same way. I think about 10% of the matches I played were not like that, and as I climbed the ranks I quickly hit a stone wall.
@ArcaneDurandel: Go I hope Blizzard will go that way, but considering SC2 is all about that design, I don't think they even realize the other extreme exists. No, I don't think Blizzard has any interest in avoiding the pay to win scenario, because that where their profit will come from.
@SoulTaker916: Go Yes, the cards are simple, but I don't thin that is a big issue, complex strategy can arise from the combination of simple elements if well planned, but I understand that TCG players may find them boring.
Yeah, I've... I've played it. I haven't been bothered by pay-to-win it might be because It's not shown whether someone is a paying player, or because I only play arena or that it's their only current monetization strategy. I've gotten increasingly frustrated with pre-built though, balance issues of course but in the sense that you don't get matched with someone of an equal deck and no real motivator I only play it to get gold for arena runs. I mean if you get over 3/3 when playing arena every time there's no point in buying boosters.
And have some suggestions:
Card testing against a very fast AI, set cards and mana yourself, pause menu have your deck so you make adjustments etc.
Card trading through a betting system, you bet cards you don't want and if you win you can get cards you do want. Entirely with player submitted cards. Either with arena-style draft or your pre-built decks.
Its simple but fun. Lacks depth. Good to kill time here and there. A card game, meaning RNG shouldnt be something you complain about. Balance is good, I wouldnt say there are "better" cards, as all cards have counter play and different cards work in different builds and synergies. Its hardly pay to win. But paying money is a much better and faster way of getting the cards you want, as grinding them takes forever.
It sounds like you're comparing the game to Starcraft. It would make no sense if you could just change your deck in the middle of a game. Personally I like it and I'm not having too many problems with the matchmaking system, though only the lack of depths in the game troubles me. The fact that there's a meta does suck but every game has one so you just have to get used to it. All in all, it sounds to me like Hearthstone isn't your type of game.
@Soul Flincher, I have been playing since December, I have spent $0, I already have 3 legendaries, just about every non legendary needed for good decks. If you're smart and play optimally you can acquire cards very quickly.
Saying that I still find Arena more fun than constructed.
I have some decent warlock decks, all card earned ingame for a very short while, and I fare rather well. The game makes certain to rank you fairly. Make certain your heroes are at least level 10 so you can have the good cards. Crafting helps a lot, because you can acquirethe caards you want.
You really dont need legendary cards to fare well, some well assembled combos can be a beast, just look how crazy op a gurubashi berserker can be on a well assembled pirest deck, or a simple hyena on a disposable minions hunters deck.
I fared well over the arena over a poorly assembled warrior deck.
@SheogorathSC: Go I got bored to face the AI, my Mage deck beats the expert AI most often than not but AI fails to so horribly to simulate a real match that it can't be considered practicing.
@EternalWraith: Go Well, grinding vs paying is what many players hated in D3 wasn't it?
@Spoolofwhool: Go No, I'm not comparing it to SC2, I said the strategy design of an ideal build is present in both, but it affects them in different ways, I think in some cases it might be worse in Heartstone. The fact that there are ideal builds and a metagame puts a barrier if you don't follow it, exactly like SC2. Right now I'm rank 19 with my mage deck.
@Fullachain: Go How much have you played? How many packs have you opened so far?
@Alevice: Go My mage is over level 20, my rank is 19. What is your rank? So far I have found very few sinergies with Wizard spells, the Violet Teacher plus spells is the only one I remember, not enough to keep me alive vs minion spamming decks.
After 2 days of playing I opened over 12 packs and became near unstoppable. the game is stupidly easy, but fun to kill some time.
The pay 2 win is for morons, i mean only a complete idiot would put money into it, as its not a TCG, now if they doubled the number of cards and added in a trading/ auction house(money/gold) than it would be fine to put money in as you could take money out.
Also they need more effects there are only like 5.
Easy:yes
Boring: only if you play it for long periods of time
I only got to say that I like these card games, but not for to long. Not getting in to it too seriously simply because there is a high level of unluck involved if the right cards do not show up, or your enemy gets a streak of perfect cards.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hi mapsters, I tried Hearstone and I wanted to know if anyone else around here tried it and what are the opinions on it. I'll share my thoughts to get it started.
By just downloading and playing it I found the game is fun, and as Blizzard likes to say it is simple to learn and hard to master. But I got "stuck" too fast by being beaten by other players, so I decided to take a break and read a little about it. What do I find in the forums? Unfortunately a too familar discussion about "pro builds" and "current metagame".
Yes, SC2 ladder experience all over again, but I think it will be worse for Hearstone. Why? In SC2 all players can choose 1 of 3 races, and during a match can try a few options on how to play it, and I mean few because we all know there are these "builds" that fit the "current metagame" and if you don't have them decorated you're already behind. In Hearstone you pick one of (I don't know, 8 classes?) and create a deck for it with a strategy in mind. Then you pick one of your decks BEFORE you go find a player to fight. That means your strategy is already set, the build is or isn't already there. To make things worse in Hearstone you can spend money, real money, to have more and better cards available which means new players have one more (strong) disadvantage.
I think this all comes from a specific design in strategies from Blizzard's teams: There are 2 design extremes where in one multiple strategies are good or at least viable, and hardly ever one is better than most of the others. And the other extreme where most strategies aren't viable at all, only a few are any good, and there's at least the potential for an ideal strategy, the one you should be following. It seems Blizzard games are going towards the second extreme... too much in my opinion.
So, in my conclusion: with ideal builds/strategies, plus real money making your options better I foresee that once more it will be an unwelcoming environment for new players. If this scenario is already present during beta, it can only become stronger after release.
But as I said I started the thread to know your own opinions, and see what I can learn from them.
To me, that alone is enough reason not to play it.
All cards can be acquired overtime. If you want to shorten the process you can spend money. Since it's completely free to play I think it's fine.
The Arena is incredibly fun, if you win about 6-7 games each time you can keep playing it over and over and get a free pack. That's not even including quests.
i spent 0 money and its fine for me you can make good decks even with the basic cards and with quests and arena etc you can have enough income to at least get 1 pack per day. it has matchmaking so you will never just get owned every game since u'll get matched with people with decks of similar level.. (yes you will get owned sometimes)
Welcome to CCG :D
The former situation of many strategies being viable is the best meta. But yes, the latter situation can arise. Wizards of the Coast (makers of Magic The Gathering, the first TCG) has 2 mechanism for dealing with this. 1st is the Future Future League, which takes cards in design and purposely tries to break them (this is in house). Other is to alter the card pool, by rotating (making no longer format legal) cards (usually entire sets), or in extreme cases, banning them. Since Blizzard has the luxury of no real world cards, they can probably just tweak existing cards. The main solution for solving meta imbalances will be just creating more cards, making more strategies available.
As for the pay to win aspect, live with it, it is inherent to the genre. If you want to truly avoid pay to win, Blizzard will need to introduce a draft format, where you are given a set of randomized cards, you choose 1, pass the remainder to the next player, and go around until all cards are picked. Rinse repeat a couple of times. This eliminates pay to win, and makes both the deck building and playing into skill based aspects. Or they can do other forms of draft (Give you a bunch of random cards, far in excess of deck size, and build a deck from it).
I played it, i don't find myself wanting to go play it. The cards also seem to be a bit too simple unlike predecessors.
@MasterWrath: Go I could still play it if it wasn't for the feeling that I'll have to learn a constantly changing ideal build in order to have a chance.
@Fullachain: Go Yes, with infinite time you could acquire all cards by luck, but there is no comparison against a player that will spend money, and get them way faster. And gold can only buy the cheapest pack.
@GizmoPT: Go My experience with ranked matches is that they are most often than not one-sided. Either I crush my opponent, sometimes ending the game with full life, or get steamrolled the same way. I think about 10% of the matches I played were not like that, and as I climbed the ranks I quickly hit a stone wall.
@ArcaneDurandel: Go I hope Blizzard will go that way, but considering SC2 is all about that design, I don't think they even realize the other extreme exists. No, I don't think Blizzard has any interest in avoiding the pay to win scenario, because that where their profit will come from.
@SoulTaker916: Go Yes, the cards are simple, but I don't thin that is a big issue, complex strategy can arise from the combination of simple elements if well planned, but I understand that TCG players may find them boring.
HEARTHSTOOONE!
Yeah, I've... I've played it. I haven't been bothered by pay-to-win it might be because It's not shown whether someone is a paying player, or because I only play arena or that it's their only current monetization strategy. I've gotten increasingly frustrated with pre-built though, balance issues of course but in the sense that you don't get matched with someone of an equal deck and no real motivator I only play it to get gold for arena runs. I mean if you get over 3/3 when playing arena every time there's no point in buying boosters.
And have some suggestions:
@SoulFilcher: Go
Its simple but fun. Lacks depth. Good to kill time here and there. A card game, meaning RNG shouldnt be something you complain about. Balance is good, I wouldnt say there are "better" cards, as all cards have counter play and different cards work in different builds and synergies. Its hardly pay to win. But paying money is a much better and faster way of getting the cards you want, as grinding them takes forever.
@SoulFilcher: Go
It sounds like you're comparing the game to Starcraft. It would make no sense if you could just change your deck in the middle of a game. Personally I like it and I'm not having too many problems with the matchmaking system, though only the lack of depths in the game troubles me. The fact that there's a meta does suck but every game has one so you just have to get used to it. All in all, it sounds to me like Hearthstone isn't your type of game.
@Soul Flincher, I have been playing since December, I have spent $0, I already have 3 legendaries, just about every non legendary needed for good decks. If you're smart and play optimally you can acquire cards very quickly.
Saying that I still find Arena more fun than constructed.
I have some decent warlock decks, all card earned ingame for a very short while, and I fare rather well. The game makes certain to rank you fairly. Make certain your heroes are at least level 10 so you can have the good cards. Crafting helps a lot, because you can acquirethe caards you want.
You really dont need legendary cards to fare well, some well assembled combos can be a beast, just look how crazy op a gurubashi berserker can be on a well assembled pirest deck, or a simple hyena on a disposable minions hunters deck.
I fared well over the arena over a poorly assembled warrior deck.
Go play Antioch Chronicles Remastered!
Also, coming soon, Antioch Episode 3: Thoughts in Chaos!
Dont like mapster's ugly white? Try Mapster's Classic Skin!
@SheogorathSC: Go I got bored to face the AI, my Mage deck beats the expert AI most often than not but AI fails to so horribly to simulate a real match that it can't be considered practicing.
@EternalWraith: Go Well, grinding vs paying is what many players hated in D3 wasn't it?
@Spoolofwhool: Go No, I'm not comparing it to SC2, I said the strategy design of an ideal build is present in both, but it affects them in different ways, I think in some cases it might be worse in Heartstone. The fact that there are ideal builds and a metagame puts a barrier if you don't follow it, exactly like SC2. Right now I'm rank 19 with my mage deck.
@Fullachain: Go How much have you played? How many packs have you opened so far?
@Alevice: Go My mage is over level 20, my rank is 19. What is your rank? So far I have found very few sinergies with Wizard spells, the Violet Teacher plus spells is the only one I remember, not enough to keep me alive vs minion spamming decks.
@SoulFilcher: Go
After 2 days of playing I opened over 12 packs and became near unstoppable. the game is stupidly easy, but fun to kill some time.
The pay 2 win is for morons, i mean only a complete idiot would put money into it, as its not a TCG, now if they doubled the number of cards and added in a trading/ auction house(money/gold) than it would be fine to put money in as you could take money out.
Also they need more effects there are only like 5.
Easy:yes
Boring: only if you play it for long periods of time
Complete loss: no, its decent enough.
Tragic players can't browse one another's decks; would enjoy seeing their clever combos, or even their names.
@SearingChicken: Go After 2 days I think I opened 4 or 5 decks, but I haven't played arena.
@JademusSreg: Go Didn't even know decks could be named. Mine all use the starting name for each class I guess.
i have played it a day now and getting a little bored, but it was fun at first. Thanks for good advices here.
I only got to say that I like these card games, but not for to long. Not getting in to it too seriously simply because there is a high level of unluck involved if the right cards do not show up, or your enemy gets a streak of perfect cards.