Effects of MTG Arena?

Play Mode Discussion
Prev 1 4 5 6 9 Next
10/06/2018 07:15 AMPosted by Lykos
That sounds fairly informative. Thanks.

As much as I want to get into magic, it's a bit too complex for me, which is understandable considering I am not accustomed to analyzing much of the cards in the game and understanding how they all interact. I could learn it, and maybe someday I will, but to find that will is challenging.

That said, there's something cool about figuring out a 60 card deck in all its complexity, providing more options and branches for what just one deck can do. And I've known what two colors I'd mostly want to deal in (blue green). I even have a blue green physical deck form a few years ago, Khans, some store bought cards and help from a friend opening a huge pile of boosters or rewards. I like don't know how he won it all or whatever but he finally caved and busted out all sorts of cards.

In the back of my mind, it's super interesting, but my motivation doesn't have a consistent enough rate.

10/05/2018 11:13 PMPosted by Slickriptide
Arena is deliberately designed to be as different from Hearthstone as they can reasonably make it. WotC is NOT attempting to cater to the Hearthstone crowd and poach customers from Blizzard. In fact, they basically prefer to treat Hearthstone as if it's invisible.

Arena is aimed at everyone who played Magic in their youth and who fell away from it due to time or monetary costs, or lack of access to a playgroup. Arena is meant to appeal to people accustomed to paying $15 to draft at a local game store, so that paying $5 to draft and play online at your leisure looks like a bargain

Reagardless, no, there is nothing for Hearthstone players to be "worried about". Maybe BLIZZARD worries but I doubt it. Arena will force Blizzard to put more effort into making their player base feel satisfied with their time and money investments.


Like I said, people who play Hearthstone like simplicity. Hearthstone is very simple. The game does 99% of the work and the player just has to drop the cards or play the 1 tech card for the win (1%) effort.

Would like to see if any Hearthstone World Champ could make it onto the MTGA championships. Doubtful.
10/07/2018 02:59 PMPosted by Slimjim
10/06/2018 07:15 AMPosted by Lykos
That sounds fairly informative. Thanks.

As much as I want to get into magic, it's a bit too complex for me, which is understandable considering I am not accustomed to analyzing much of the cards in the game and understanding how they all interact. I could learn it, and maybe someday I will, but to find that will is challenging.

That said, there's something cool about figuring out a 60 card deck in all its complexity, providing more options and branches for what just one deck can do. And I've known what two colors I'd mostly want to deal in (blue green). I even have a blue green physical deck form a few years ago, Khans, some store bought cards and help from a friend opening a huge pile of boosters or rewards. I like don't know how he won it all or whatever but he finally caved and busted out all sorts of cards.

In the back of my mind, it's super interesting, but my motivation doesn't have a consistent enough rate.

...


Like I said, people who play Hearthstone like simplicity. Hearthstone is very simple. The game does 99% of the work and the player just has to drop the cards or play the 1 tech card for the win (1%) effort.

Would like to see if any Hearthstone World Champ could make it onto the MTGA championships. Doubtful.
I don't know about his record in the Hearthstone competitive scene, but if you're a serious MtG fan I'm sure you know exactly who Brian Kibler is.
10/07/2018 02:40 PMPosted by WarrenBleezy
10/07/2018 02:01 PMPosted by Wick
...

Sorry if I misinterpreted that, but it looked like you were saying that most decks are the same aside from 10 different non-land cards.

Didn't realize you were trying to argue that the increased RNG factor of HS is a selling point. If that's your stance, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. As someone with notorious bad luck, the less RNG involved the better for me!

Personally I encounter a lot more varied decks in magic, but I play casually with friends for paper magic as opposed to online ladder for HS, so that obviously skews it.

I would say that currently in Arena I'm playing against a decent variety of decks, especially as it has a strong emphasis on limited game modes, which pretty much guarantees it.

One main point is, 3 turns into HS and I know the exact deck listing of my opponent, because net decking is more prevalent. In Magic, even if I know the archetype people throw curve balls at me.

Again, I like both games. I want both to succeed, and there's plenty of room for both. Just very aware this is a HS forum, so trying to dispel a little bit of the bias.


No, I was saying there are only about 10 different nonland cards per deck. RNG has upsides and downsides. This is an upside.

In MTGA netdecking is just as common at higher ranks. I am pretty sure that the longer the game exists, the more it will trickly down to lower ranks as well, especially once players will have enough cards to build without a budget.

I really hope MTGA will succeed as well, but right now, I just don't see it.


I'm not sure how having more RNG in HS makes people play more varied cards though? My usual HS deck has around 15-20 unique cards, my usual MTG deck has around 10-15, but there's less "staples" there, and the lands themselves do actually make a difference, if you're playing with mythic lands, which evens out the "unique" entries into the decks.

And I agree! net-decking is as common in Magic! but the fact that there's a much bigger card pool, and the stickiness of cards making more strategies viable, means that a) you get a larger variety of decks and b) even the net decks have some variance, people are more likely to put their own spin than in HS, as it currently stands at least, and is my experience IRL.

And I'm not sure why you're talking like Arena is struggling at present - it's doing just fine, but it's no concern to hearthstone, because they aren't in direct competition.

That being said, Arena has its problems. The economy is a bit wonky, as they're using paper magic for their comparison base, which is way off given that you can't get the same resale value as you can IRL. The client is pretty, but lacks basic features.

However, as far as game design goes, Magic is leaps and bounds ahead of hearthstone - it created the genre, its had decades to perfect it, and despite its pricing model its still going very, very strong.

In the online space? Yeah, it needs to work some stuff out.
10/07/2018 03:07 PMPosted by Wick
'm not sure how having more RNG in HS makes people play more varied cards though?


hes talking about rng making games different not the decks
10/07/2018 03:38 PMPosted by Boreas
10/07/2018 03:07 PMPosted by Wick
'm not sure how having more RNG in HS makes people play more varied cards though?


hes talking about rng making games different not the decks


Cool, if so, then as I've said we'll have to agree to disagree on whether reliance on RNG is good game design or not! As someone who is notoriously unlucky I prefer games where I have more control of my own luck than RNJesus, but obviously other people will feel differently.
10/07/2018 04:06 PMPosted by Wick
10/07/2018 03:38 PMPosted by Boreas
...

hes talking about rng making games different not the decks


Cool, if so, then as I've said we'll have to agree to disagree on whether reliance on RNG is good game design or not! As someone who is notoriously unlucky I prefer games where I have more control of my own luck than RNJesus, but obviously other people will feel differently.


This is sort of the essence of it. If you like quick, fast, and heavy on RNG than Hearthstone is your game. There is NOTHING wrong with that. If you like being able to easily collect ALL the cards and play ALL the deck than Hearthstone is your game.

Magic is a totally different game and plays a totally different way. I hope both games thrive and I hope both games make their respective player bases happy. I for one really enjoy the Magic Arena experience so far and hope that the market supports a wide variety of games.

I also hope that Team Five (or whatever remains of it) sees the competition as a reason to think about what they want Hearthstone to be five years from now. Hearthstone feels unmoored to me and I hope they choose to find a niche and design the game around it and own that market.
10/07/2018 03:07 PMPosted by Wick


I'm not sure how having more RNG in HS makes people play more varied cards though? My usual HS deck has around 15-20 unique cards, my usual MTG deck has around 10-15, but there's less "staples" there, and the lands themselves do actually make a difference, if you're playing with mythic lands, which evens out the "unique" entries into the decks.


Let me give an example. Highlander Priest vs Quest Mage. The matchup was pretty terrible for Highlander Priest. You had to hope that you get your combo asap and your opponent has his combo at the bottom of his library.

But if you ran Lyra, you had a back-up win condition, because Lyra could give a lot of random stuff and sometimes that random stuff was good enough to turn your Combo deck into a pseudoaggrodeck.
You could also sometimes Dirty Rat out their Antonidas, but then Quest Mage also had a weird backdoorwincon: If random effects gave him enough burn, he could play out his 4 Apprentices, hit for 12 during his extra turn and deal the remaining 18 with burn.
And what if you played Glimmerroot and got IceBlock... now suddenly the Mage also had to come up with a new plan.

Obviously games where things like that happen are rare, but they are common enough to turn otherwise very preditable and boring matchups into really awesome games on a somewhat regular basis.

In MTG effects like these don't exist. This is especially bad for streamers, since these games have a really high entertainment value. A Trolden video of MTGA highlights would probably be pretty boring.

And I agree! net-decking is as common in Magic! but the fact that there's a much bigger card pool, and the stickiness of cards making more strategies viable, means that a) you get a larger variety of decks and b) even the net decks have some variance, people are more likely to put their own spin than in HS, as it currently stands at least, and is my experience IRL.


If you only take cards into consideration that meet the minimum powerlevel for constructed play, the de facto cardpool in MTG is not that big either, at least for standard. After all, you probably won't take Giant Spider into consideration when it comes to building your deck. What good is a big cardpool if most of the cards are useless junk.

And I'm not sure why you're talking like Arena is struggling at present - it's doing just fine, but it's no concern to hearthstone, because they aren't in direct competition.

That being said, Arena has its problems. The economy is a bit wonky, as they're using paper magic for their comparison base, which is way off given that you can't get the same resale value as you can IRL. The client is pretty, but lacks basic features.


There are a few reasons why I don't think MTGA will succeed:
- It has competition from both MTGO and Paper Magic. Players who already have a collection in real life or MTGO will probably prefer playing there. Most notable MTG players have pretty much ignored MTGA alltogether so far.
- It is late to the party. A lot of players are already invested in other CCGs and might not be willing to jump ship after investing a lot of time and money or building up a network of friends to play with. In HS I have a huge collection, but in MTGA I would have to start from scratch.
- As you mentioned, some things about the game are a bit wonky, especially the economy. They would have to step up their game, but I doubt they will.
- MTGA is just not a good game for streaming and in 2018 that is a real problem.

However, as far as game design goes, Magic is leaps and bounds ahead of hearthstone - it created the genre, its had decades to perfect it, and despite its pricing model its still going very, very strong.

In the online space? Yeah, it needs to work some stuff out.


In some aspects Magic is still amazing, but in others it is a bit dated. The mulligan rules are a good example of that.


Currently yes, that is what it is like on the lower mtg arena ranks, but it isn't really sustainable. Unless you want to drop boatloads of cash, the progress towards getting significant cards is so agonizingly slow. You can't "dust" cards you don't want. Currently F2P players have 2 Mythic wildcards. That's the hearthstone equivalent of half a legendary. It will be months and months of playing before a F2P could even assemble something remotely close to the cheapest of the cheap almost meta decks.

The regular play mode has no rewards. There is no reason to gain ranks. The daily freebie quests can be completed in any mode. You can't try for more rewards in a constructed event, because THOSE players are certainly not playing the freebie decks.

Case in point, I played on the very first day of the open beta and went 7-1 with the free deck, it placed me in tier 1 bronze. My next 10 or so matches were all blowouts against full meta decks and I dropped rank like a stone all the way down to tier 4 bronze. Currently I made it back to tier 1 bronze and I'm almost silver using the free decks, and I haven't seen tons of meta decks, but it is only a matter of time.


You start with two free mythic wild cards which is the equivalent of TWO legendarys (not 1/2 as you stated).

You can get random wildcards from packs, and every pack opened also advances the counter towards another free uncommon, rare and mythic rare wild card btw.

Just doing the daily quests rewards enough gold for 1.5 packs, 5 free cards (random) and the weekly quest rewards 3 free packs. This is in addition to the complete decks you get as rewards (10 given out in the first 2 weeks of open beta alone) which are all quite good decks.

As for not being able to "dust" cards, each copy of a card beyond the 4th advances a hidden counter that when full rewards the player with a plethora of wild cards (both rare and mythic).

There is no reason to ever spend a dime on MTG:A unless you want to play sealed or draft (via gems) and even then the break even point is quite achievable in those formats (plus you keep all cards you draft for both those formats).

It takes know where near "months and months" as you stated to become competitive, Since open beta (as a FTP) I'm already silver rank 3. Care to guess how long it takes a FTP to get to rank 5 in HS? If you said less than a year then you're delusional.

If you prefer HS then that's your privilege of course (and more power to you) but please refrain from attempting to sway others by posting things that are simply not true.
10/07/2018 04:30 PMPosted by Grimm
You start with two free mythic wild cards which is the equivalent of TWO legendarys (not 1/2 as you stated).

You can also run up to 4 of that legendary in a deck and not one. Now, it completely depends on how many legendary cards you'd run in your deck but 2 Mythics is roughly equivalent to 1 legendary in HS as there are very few lists in Standard that only run a one of. There are a few that run 2 (most will do 3 or 4).

10/07/2018 04:30 PMPosted by Grimm
Just doing the daily quests rewards enough gold for 1.5 packs, 5 free cards (random) and the weekly quest rewards 3 free packs. This is in addition to the complete decks you get as rewards (10 given out in the first 2 weeks of open beta alone) which are all quite good decks.

The per day reward feel is much better

10/07/2018 04:30 PMPosted by Grimm
As for not being able to "dust" cards, each copy of a card beyond the 4th advances a hidden counter that when full rewards the player with a plethora of wild cards (both rare and mythic).

In beta, at least, I wound up with the issue of still feeling very short on Mythic and Rare Wild cards while Uncommon was decent. I feel that Rare would have eventually been alright after I finished my lands; however, reset occurred then.

10/07/2018 04:30 PMPosted by Grimm
There is no reason to ever spend a dime on MTG:A unless you want to play sealed or draft (via gems) and even then the break even point is quite achievable in those formats (plus you keep all cards you draft for both those formats).

I'd highly disagree here. Right now Arena ladder is decent but during closed beta you really had to be running one of the four dominant archetypes to consistently get above break-even. So just like in HS if you want to experiment and play fun/theme decks you'll either need to not worry about competitive or spend $$

10/07/2018 04:30 PMPosted by Grimm
It takes know where near "months and months" as you stated to become competitive, Since open beta (as a FTP) I'm already silver rank 3. Care to guess how long it takes a FTP to get to rank 5 in HS? If you said less than a year then you're delusional.

Honest question, what is Silver Rank 3 even equivalent to? I have a feeling you're comparing rank 5 and rank 15 equivalent here.

By the way I'm enjoying MtG:A but I just wanted to point out from my PoV playing during beta and now I feel you're looking at MtG:A with a bit of rose-colored glasses.
10/07/2018 04:25 PMPosted by WarrenBleezy
Let me give an example. Highlander Priest vs Quest Mage. The matchup was pretty terrible for Highlander Priest. You had to hope that you get your combo asap and your opponent has his combo at the bottom of his library.

But if you ran Lyra, you had a back-up win condition, because Lyra could give a lot of random stuff and sometimes that random stuff was good enough to turn your Combo deck into a pseudoaggrodeck.
You could also sometimes Dirty Rat out their Antonidas, but then Quest Mage also had a weird backdoorwincon: If random effects gave him enough burn, he could play out his 4 Apprentices, hit for 12 during his extra turn and deal the remaining 18 with burn.
And what if you played Glimmerroot and got IceBlock... now suddenly the Mage also had to come up with a new plan.

Obviously games where things like that happen are rare, but they are common enough to turn otherwise very preditable and boring matchups into really awesome games on a somewhat regular basis.

In MTG effects like these don't exist. This is especially bad for streamers, since these games have a really high entertainment value. A Trolden video of MTGA highlights would probably be pretty boring.


Day9 does fine, Trumps had a few videos, Kibler - plenty of people make entertaining Arena videos.

If RNG is what makes things entertaining for you, watching a draft surely fulfills this requirement?

I won't talk through how a magic game could be interesting. That would just be patronizing.

10/07/2018 04:25 PMPosted by WarrenBleezy
If you only take cards into consideration that meet the minimum powerlevel for constructed play, the de facto cardpool in MTG is not that big either, at least for standard. After all, you probably won't take Giant Spider into consideration when it comes to building your deck. What good is a big cardpool if most of the cards are useless junk.


Both games have jank cards. HS still has a smaller card pool.

There are a few reasons why I don't think MTGA will succeed:
- It has competition from both MTGO and Paper Magic. Players who already have a collection in real life or MTGO will probably prefer playing there. Most notable MTG players have pretty much ignored MTGA alltogether so far.
- It is late to the party. A lot of players are already invested in other CCGs and might not be willing to jump ship after investing a lot of time and money or building up a network of friends to play with. In HS I have a huge collection, but in MTGA I would have to start from scratch.
- As you mentioned, some things about the game are a bit wonky, especially the economy. They would have to step up their game, but I doubt they will.
- MTGA is just not a good game for streaming and in 2018 that is a real problem.


I think this is the thing that's really affecting your viewpoint... If you're invested heavily, that's fine, but don't try and influence others opinion just to justify your own purchases.

People can play and enjoy both quite easily, and both have pro's and cons, no point misrepresenting it.
In beta, at least, I wound up with the issue of still feeling very short on Mythic and Rare Wild cards while Uncommon was decent. I feel that Rare would have eventually been alright after I finished my lands; however, reset occurred then.


So weird, I do fine for Mythics and rares and always wanting a few more uncommons lol!

10/07/2018 04:51 PMPosted by Lykotic
Honest question, what is Silver Rank 3 even equivalent to? I have a feeling you're comparing rank 5 and rank 15 equivalent here.


At the minute ranking is a bit bugged, so yeah I believe silver 1 is the current top rank until its resolved. So previous poster was about right in his estimation.

Day9 does fine, Trumps had a few videos, Kibler - plenty of people make entertaining Arena videos.


Guess we will have to see until the novelty wears off.

If RNG is what makes things entertaining for you, watching a draft surely fulfills this requirement?
I won't talk through how a magic game could be interesting. That would just be patronizing.


This is not about what is interesting to me personally. I like watching MTG streamers. This is what appeals to casuals. The complexity of MTG really hurts it and so does the lack of epic "WTF" moments.

10/07/2018 04:25 PMPosted by WarrenBleezy
If you only take cards into consideration that meet the minimum powerlevel for constructed play, the de facto cardpool in MTG is not that big either, at least for standard. After all, you probably won't take Giant Spider into consideration when it comes to building your deck. What good is a big cardpool if most of the cards are useless junk.


Both games have jank cards. HS still has a smaller card pool. [/quote]

I compared stats from HSreplay to stats from MTGtop8.

In HS more than 200! cards show up in at least 3% of decks.
In MTG less than 110 cards show up in at least 3% of decks.

Yes, both games have junk cards, but the percentage of junk cards in MTG is off the charts compared to HS. (Which is fine, since they are designed for limited play)



I think this is the thing that's really affecting your viewpoint... If you're invested heavily, that's fine, but don't try and influence others opinion just to justify your own purchases.


And I think you are completely wrong about this. I am completely f2p in HS, but the fact that people are more attached to something, once they've invested money is pretty much common knowledge.
5 second MtG rant....

Nothing in HS do I hate as much as RDW in MtG >.>
10/07/2018 05:55 PMPosted by Lykotic
5 second MtG rant....

Nothing in HS do I hate as much as RDW in MtG >.>
Yep. MTG is more complex and it has more counterplay. But it still has RNG and BS decks. MTG has some SERIOUSLY degenerate stuff, especially if you dip your toes in legacy. I really think people would know this if they actually played the game instead of just harping on about its superiority with little to no experience. Few games of land screw, few games against RDW, or a few games of blue black decks countering and picking apart your hand, and you might be wishing you were playing HS again. XD Not insulting MTG it is a great game, but I played it for years and honestly it frustrated me more than HS ever has lol. MTG is not a magical flawless wonderful experience all the time. I'd say generally it is a good one, but I feel the same about HS. They do different things and there is definetly room for both, but I seriously doubt that it will be a major threat to HS. Simply put its complexity, pricing, and mana system will turn off the casual crowd I suspect.
Just wanna point out, and sorry if it was already mentioned, that arena will more be more likely to ban out a true problem card more quickly since the current standard scene is being heavily monitored in mtg. At the same time problem cards are less likely to be a problem because control can actually do some nasty stuff compared to hearthstone control of "play every boardwipe!" style play.

Just saying if Ghalta was in hearthstone (12/12 trample that can cost 2 as early as turn 3) it would wreck the game yet in mtg no top 8 competition deck has contained it (let alone the color green lately sad face)

Arena is just more likely to have a healthier spread of games that also doesnt magically spoon feed a player an 8 mana curve in a majority of their games.
10/07/2018 06:27 PMPosted by Hazama
or a few games of blue black decks countering and picking apart your hand, and you might be wishing you were playing HS again.

*looks at Thief of Sanity Graveyard Denial deck*
Yeah... that.. Blue-Black thing it is so bad to play against and the Pirates, argh! At least there is no *starts sobbing* I need you back in my life Scarab God! *sobbing* Muldrotha just isn't the same

10/07/2018 06:37 PMPosted by Zlumpy
Arena is just more likely to have a healthier spread of games that also doesnt magically spoon feed a player an 8 mana curve in a majority of their games.

True and it is basically by design.

MtG uses the randomness of land (and color) to cause decks to not always play the same the entire time. HS can't rely on mana to cause this so HS relies on RNG of card generation and, for Shaman, even on the card damage themselves.

Both drive me nuts at times so I'm playing both, lol

Posted by Lykotic
Honest question, what is Silver Rank 3 even equivalent to? I have a feeling you're comparing rank 5 and rank 15 equivalent here.

At the minute ranking is a bit bugged, so yeah I believe silver 1 is the current top rank until its resolved. So previous poster was about right in his estimation.

Thank you for the info =)
10/07/2018 04:25 PMPosted by WarrenBleezy


There are a few reasons why I don't think MTGA will succeed:
- It has competition from both MTGO and Paper Magic. Players who already have a collection in real life or MTGO will probably prefer playing there. Most notable MTG players have pretty much ignored MTGA alltogether so far.
- It is late to the party. A lot of players are already invested in other CCGs and might not be willing to jump ship after investing a lot of time and money or building up a network of friends to play with. In HS I have a huge collection, but in MTGA I would have to start from scratch.
- As you mentioned, some things about the game are a bit wonky, especially the economy. They would have to step up their game, but I doubt they will.
- MTGA is just not a good game for streaming and in 2018 that is a real problem.

[/quote]

Arena is late to the party, yes. But it lucked out in that 2 of the bigger CCGs are having issues of sorts...
- TESL. Tons of unhappy players due to the change of client and dev. Essentially its in beta again. Such a shame.
- Gwent. Game is overhauled in the upcoming Homecoming update. Basically its like a new game now. Players are uncertain about its future.
10/07/2018 09:46 AMPosted by PUPU
MTG Arena is positioned itself as a direct competitor for Hearthstone and intentionally trying to steal away professional Hearthstone streamers.

Just look at Savjs for example, he confirmed on his Twitter that he gave up HS and would play Magic from now on. This is a great loss for HS because Savjs is one of the best streamers out there.


No great loss to me.

Anyone imagining a unicorn fantasy world where "all the problems in HS are just magically gone in Arena" is a bloody fool completely undeserving of the views.

Now, should you simply want a change of scenery...sure. You can logically enjoy Arena with it's own meta decks, OP nonsense, RNG garbage, toxic players, and disconnected developers.

But they will be there, rest assured. Worse, Magic historically has even fewer "good" cards. It's own metas were solved faster than ours have been lately, and that was back before the freaking internet. Yeah. So few good options that word of mouth and logic locked a meta down faster than fiber optic cables sharing information at the speed of light.

Enjoy what you want! But remove the blinders. If they had really tried to reimagine their core game to better exist in a digital world, I could see the draw. But no matter how glossy the shine or efficient the execution...its the same game and that carries with it the same core issues.
Magic arena has the additional draw of being able to practice the irl standard meta without having to go out and actually trade for/ buy new cards. Which is the biggest reason everyone I know is playing it. You don't have to worry about a 4 mana instants reliability at fnm if you can just play a digital version of the same game. It also cuts out sleeving, shuffling, talking, judge calls, slow play, and a bunch of real life problems. So you can get way more games played with different decks then you ever could in at a local game store.

And as far as meta and plat modes go since it has sealed tournaments and such the getting a high rank in the main mode isnt the end all be all for many players.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum