It’s extremely fun. The trading in MTGO is what players want in MTGA, but they don’t allow for you to have more than 4 of a card, so trading isn’t a thing in the Arena version. But it’s a massive request.
But the way they implement “trading” in MTGA is through the wildcard system, something that I think is better than the dust system of Hearthstone.
I might be alone in this opinion, but I just feel as if trading is completely useless in Hearthstone and MTGA, as with golden cards in HS and Wild cards in MTGA, you can already craft any deck you want pretty easily, you already get all commons and rares every expansion, and it would be too easily exploitable with making multiple accounts.
I don’t think the biggest problem is the in-game economy, but the design philosophy. The last preorder I bought was Ashes of Outland, since then I’ve been buying only the tavern pass and my collection is almost complete + 12k dust + 3,5k gold. It’s more expensive than the competition, but cheaper than it used to be. IMO the playerbase is dwindling because a large portion of it misses the slower, unpredictable games that are gone since UiS released. There are still too much solitaire/OTK decks around.
The new player experience seems to indicate that you cannot just craft any deck you want pretty easily. There are players NOW who have been playing for a year or so who cannot craft any deck they want easily.
And yes, the trading could be exploited which has to be factored in. The “free” cards you get always end up as less value than anything else for this reason.
You can ask almost any new player what their biggest complaint is, and most of them will tell you that the game is too expensive. If you compare what you have to pay into this game to get a big collection compared to any other game out there, Hearthstone is extremely expensive.
There are better ways to make it easier for new players to start playing than to add a system that would negate the other currency systems.
MTGO also has actual supply issues because if not enough people draft or open packs there will just not be enough of specific cards to meet demands. It is usually cheaper than paper because MOST of the time this isn’t an issue but there are times you will run into situations like with Ragavan where the card actually costs more than in paper because there was just too much demand and not enough supply. It still costs more than it does in paper and probably always will.
Sure but that is a minority of the cards right?
People who are dedicated enough to inject money in the product deserve their trophies.
Anyway i think that there is something being missed here.
Any card that is more expensive on MTGO than in paper, really. I don’t have a comprehensive list but there is a decent amount.
That’s what some people ask for. People ask for literally everything they can think of. Because they think they’re going to scam the company.
I can imagine the nightmare. Now the Legend players Smurfing get to give themselves all the cards they want to their new apprentice accounts. Putting even more pressure on actual new players to spend money.
We had a competitor that was based on trading cards, Artifact. When it released Hearthstone was at a low point, Rastakhan. Some streamers quit Hearthstone for Artifact, and then they actually had to deal with trading, which ended up being a nightmare.
Because there’s going to be a flexibility loss for trading to ensure company profits. I don’t know what this is in MTGO, but I know it has such a cost that it’s not considered a cheap game.
Maybe the problem is the factual card price and not the acess to cards.
It feels like the same but It isn’t.
Let’s put in the equation also the Smurf issues highlighted recently.
They are literally making new accounts without even care about dust rates because in the end of the day it not affects their main collection but for a new player it’s just not feasible to dust cards so ridiculous agressively both because this is their main collection and they not have the know how to just get a deck from the start.
Even if they “netdeck” there is a decent chance of get the situation worse by not taking an actual good one.
For me there is no excuse for the common dust ratio to not be atleast 1 to 4 anymore.
Hearthstone cards are actually too expensive.
Trading would be fun and community building, but require a lot of resources to implement properly. I think a more reasonable option to help out new and returning players is a dust grace period, where everything can be dusted for a full refund.
This could be time limited (e.g. 2 weeks) to juice sales, or limited to a fixed amount of dust (e.g. you can trade in a total of 10k dust before you have the regular rates).
This might exacerbate smurfing a lot of you can’t implement it properly, tho. But I think at this point that’s a trade off they might be willing to make.
Or they can have the matchmaking fix it by using MMR in Apprentice, so the smurfs start facing better players in the Bronze-Legend Ranks.
And the actual new players who will be losing games not face them as often.
Yeah, that’s not a problem I’m familiar with so I have no idea about how it should be fixed.
Because the game became a standoff of who gets luckier
It has always been like that, to an extent.
I think Chronicle: RuneScape Legends had a shot. It was a unique take for a card game, I thought, and I really quite enjoyed it, personally. Sadly, it didn’t survive very long. 
RuneScape +1
/20chars
No, why would it be an insult? As the kidz say “it is what it is” I was just stating it.
And there were no errors in my statement, they took my statement and went off the deep end with it. No perceived attack.
Even those who love Yu-Gi-Oh that I know have stopped playing it as much. It’s a new visual medium that was released recently. But it never had the following of Magic, nor the simplicity of Hearthstone. Interest will wane for all but super fans.
Hearthstone is fine, though I haven’t enjoyed standard since nax honestly. Standard will rise and fall with expansions - battle grounds will rise and fall with updates. Not sure what the point of mercs is but I’ve lost interest in it after week one. They’ll continue to recoup their profits and churn out more content.
Every game has a decline over an infinite length of time. It’s the way of any entertainment.
Yep just like faeria … both had unique tcg genre compared to the mass yet both died out …