We should stop pretending like MTGA is killing hearthstone

Multiplayer Discussion
1

Hearthstone and MTGA are both digital card games, but they exist on different planes. Both can exist in this universe though, as they are differently designed card games and both have their strengths and weaknesses.

Many people complain about the hearthstone meta and it could get boring. But it would be disingenuous and wrong to say that this same thing does not happen with MTGA. Are there more combinations and potential for deck diversity in MTGA, yes, buy you are still going to get rolled by the top 4-5 decks that are on top of the meta. I swear when people complain about aggro in hearthstone and then talk about how MTGA is so different, they really never got higher than bronze rank. Mono red in MTGA can steam roll anything if it has a great opening hand, and you can be dead by turn 4. MTGA also has many counter and destroy spells which could become tiresome after awhile. Especially when you have Teferi decks that just counter and destroy your board and their only win condition will take 35 minutes. This control teferi deck is a top tier deck BTW.

I just want to say what i like about both of them.

Hearthstone
-Fast games
-Enjoy the RNG in moderation
-Interactions and overall play just feels so tight.
-Deck themes that start to emerge. I still have fun playing bomb warrior.
-Can be played on multiple devices.
-No counters so you don’t have to worry about everything being nullified straight from you hand.
-They made it so it’s very rare that aggro can roll you before the game even gets going.
-You don’t have to worry about mana

MTGA
-Longer games and potential for best of 3. This allows counters to the deck you are playing and adds more tactical depth.
-More tactical depth.
-Deck diversity is bigger
-Potential to counter your opponents plays so they can’t pull some frustrating shenanigans on you.
-Very low potential for nonsense RNG card generation. You usually* have to play whats in your deck.

So the 21st century gentleman/woman can have both of these games in their life. As they hit different notes for different folks. One can exist if the other one does also. You can enjoy both without wanting the other one to die or being in some sort of ultimate competition. I promise.

24 Likes
2

Is it possible to super like a post?

7 Likes
3

Yes, but it wont have those feelings about you.

6 Likes
4

I don’t know why anyone attributes mutual exclusivity to these kinds of things.

Like console wars, the real winners have one of each :grin:

5 Likes
5

I would play MTG but i only play on mobile cause of work. I played back from beta to like 4th edition or something,made a small fortune of the cards, good times good times.

6

As, from observation, I think I am one of the people who talks more about MtG:A I thought I’d go through this =)

Correct, both games can easily coexist. If it wasn’t for the cost factor (in terms of both time and money) maintaining both would be easy. Since those do exist as actual resources the two game swill obviously compete some. I do agree 100% thought that both games and (and will) coexist.

In Bo1 RDW is extremely strong choice; however, Magic at it’s core is more designed around Bo3 and in Bo3 RDW isn’t even the top aggressive deck as it can be sideboarded against with some ease. It is rare for me to ever see RDW in Bo3 ranked ladder (Gold => low Diamond)

This is also true and the core deck is good in both Bo1 and Bo3. Esper Control (which Moar is describing) is probably the top Control deck in the meta; however, a month ago it was much better than it is now with the rise of Gruul strategies and, to a lesser degree, Abzan. I tend to play Esper MR and Sultai MR for my serious climbing decks and I’ve made changes to my Sultai deck that have taken the Esper mathcup from 40/60 to 50/50 and that is what is great about the Bo3 format… tweaking is a lot more rewarding =)

As for your benefits of both I agree with them all. The only thing I would add is:
Hearthstone:

  • Better game for relaxing
  • Better use of the digital medium (art, voice, etc.)
  • Easier to build decks

Magic Arena

  • Plethora of game modes which adds a lot to the gameplay experience
  • Right now (key) most color combinations have a strong advantage
  • The reward system I feel is better for playing the game
1 Like
7

Still? After all these long years? Maybe it’s because each game can last for almost a century it feels like you’ve been playing it since the dawn of time.

1 Like
8

I think the scale has tipped back to hearthstone. Magic was by far the leader prior to this expansion, but now hearthstone is far more fun then the prevent blue decks that just sit there and waste your time for 40 minutes that infest every avenue of the game now.

9

Don’t forget mtg is an actual card game and HS is just a video game.

10

I believe the comparison was being made with MtG:Arena, which can exist even if the physical card game doesn’t.

A digital CCG is a digital CCG.

1 Like
11

They can co-exist if you own a PC. I do not own a PC.

While I am happy players found a game they can enjoy, its frustrating that it hasn’t reached mobile.

I’ve tried every other ccg out there for mobile and they all play just like mtg.

Too many lands/sigils.
Only flying can attack flying. eye roll
The constant hand disruption.

You think HS aggro is bad? Have you played a red deck in Eternal? More often than not, I would be dead by T4 without even being able to lay down a minion.

The constant hand disruption and those decks that make it dark that slowly bleed you dry without even having to actually attack you…it would take sometimes 2 to 3 hours to complete “Win X games” in Eternal versus the 20 minutes for HS quests.

I can’t spend that much time on one game. Eternal, MtG, its all the same nonsense.

12

No, please don’t. I like MTGA (after HS), so don’t say it will kill Hearthstone. I don’t want it to become another Artifact.

2 Likes
13

MTGA would have to fall pretty far to become another Artifact. I’m sure MTGA and HS will both be fine.

2 Likes
14

It will they are two different games.

15

Excellent post :clap::clap::clap:

I will add a few things that MTGA does different.

-RNG has to be reproducible in paper, so the tinfoil conspiracy rigged game theorists are much easier to shut down by showing the paper reproduction of MTGA RNG.

-Since paper printed cards can’t physically change, the nerf option is not an available tool.

-You can combine any two cards together. Creating balanced extreme effects is probably more difficult, particularly when nerfing isn’t an option. On the other hand this adds fun for the deck building process.

16

I’ve never played MTG but I have tried Gwent, Eternal, Shadowverse, Artifact and a bunch of other more obscure ones.
Each game has a certain type of player that will find it easier to adapt to, while other types of players may have more trouble trying to get into the game.

For Hearthstone, the wide variety of resources available in articles, streams and videos helped me get into the game in my own way, and now I could say that Hearthstone seems relatively simple compared to some other CCGs.

I tried Shadowverse but couldn’t really get into the ridiculousness of some legendary/gold cards, while I was ok with just playing minions for stats and evolving them for (usually) +2/+2. Shadowverse is more like HS in its attacking, but players only have 20 hp so games can just end very quickly.

In Hearthstone I play a lot and stay around Rank 5, while with Eternal I’ve played it casually every so often over a year and have never ranked above Bronze I. The blocking mechanic and “Fast Spells” are more from what I hear MTG is like with interactions (also with the Power/lands), but overall the game is more streamlined than MTG, and I enjoy the economy of collecting cards in Eternal the most.

I really enjoyed Gwent for a couple of months before their Homecoming update reworked the whole game, and got to Rank 18 on the ladder (highest was 21). Now, everything has changed and it would take more time for me to relearn everything again.

With MTG, I’d look up some cards online and my mind would just baulk at trying to understand some wordy card descriptions. That alone has been offputting for me to want to try MTG Arena.

Realistically, I only have time to play one CCG consistently, and with HS, while you can just play and log in 3 days to complete quests, it’s the only one at the moment where I can keep playing the game for hours and not quite get bored as much. Plus the Art/Animation/VFX brings the immersion up. So I am playing HS a lot and forgetting to get the promo cards from Eternal (Damn I was at 2/4 copies and forgot about the game for a few days)

So with MTG Arena - seems a portion of the people on the forums who are familiar with the MTG on paper are now drawn to that - but it’s not the only option out there if you want something similar to MTG or Hearthstone or a mix.

1 Like
17

If I had the money or time, I would love to play both. Counter spell is one of the most fun things to have ever existed, and I would love to run a deck with an absurd amount of counter spells and draw. However, for the people like me who don’t have money or time to spare, it is not unreasonable to pick one or the other, despite the ability for both to exist. I choose hearthstone, because I don’t wanna start off fresh in another game, and I have every rogue card. Other people may choose mtg for other reasons.

I don’t think hearthstone will recieve 0 dmg from mtg, but I also don’t think mtg will kill hearthstone.

2 Likes
18

All the other card games sounds super cool and all but they just like completely god awful. Nothing comes close to competing with hearthstone aesthetically and I am addicted to it.

I would be much more willing to try any other game if they didn’t all look like garbage.

19

“WE SHOULD STOP PRETENDING LIKE HEARTHSTONE ISNT KILLING HEARTHSTONE.”

#fixed

1 Like
20

MTG:Arena is dying, it’s to slow in making mobile version of the game.

It’s 2019, nobody use PC for entertainment anymore. If a game doesn’t come to a portable device or at least an Apple’s device, it’s dead.