MTG Arena vs Hearthstone

[Biomega]

Well, I'd pick a different word, if I hadn't seen time and time again, skill beating bad draws and RNG. I've watched people win with cards that have been sitting dead in hand whole game. I've seen plays that have convinced me that RNG really doesn't exist, and yes, skill is the deciding factor in MTG...

And have you also watched, oh, say the final game of the final Pro Tour?

Again, I'm not saying skill isn't a factor - but to say MtG is SOLELY decided on skill is simply fallacious.

[ohwell]

Until HS implements declare blockers, it's going to remain a braindead mongo fest. The number of times I got a free kill at rank 5 with OTK Priest(only using 5 minions in the decks total) when tardo people playing odd pally/rogue or zoo ignored a velen on the board to go face is hilarious. They've been conditioned to play this way because they're typically rewarded. Hearthstone has next to no skill involved for most top decks.

[Mahourai]

Not sure how the MTG Pro Tour is "rigged".

Being "high variance" is not really a value judgment either. If every game in Hearthstone or MTG was preceded by you stacking your deck, variance would greatly decrease - and the games would also get worse.

[Mahourai]

Even top level players will tell you that you often only have control over the outcome of a fraction of your games.

Will they tell you this after they admit the Pro Tour is "rigged"?

[Mahourai]

Yes, yes, "rigged" was a bit of a strong word.

But the fact is that there have been several systems in place over the years to attempt to ensure greater consistency of results from prolific players. There have been several different names, several different programs, and several different methods, but in general the goal is to allow players who are highly prolific or visible to have greater consistency in their results. (Generally via a number of free wins in each tournament they attend)

Professional MTG players earn byes based on past success via the pro points system (or whatever it's called now), which is not uncommon in competition. Professional American golfers can acquire sponsor exemptions or tournament eligibility based entirely on being former champions and not recent results, while players who are not champions must meet recent success qualifiers. CSGO teams who win a major tournament do not have to play the next tournament's qualifier rounds.

There are events like the Invitational which are invite-only and not based on pro points but they're the exception, not the rule, and are basically just expensive show matches (which again are quite common in other competitive areas, i.e. in golf, Tiger Woods was invited to the Ryder Cup in 2018 over other higher ranked players on the basis of his fame and past success).

[Naramag]

To get back to the Topic: I played Arena for a while now and it is definitely better than Hearthstone. Hearthstone is pay to win. If you don't have the right cards, you simply can't do anything. Arena has a limited amount of cards compared to the real game, but enough to give you a lot of possibilities. The major point is how you get new cards. In Hearthstone, you really have to pay money or play insanely long time. In Arena, you get 2-3 booster with no efford and a Wildcard every time you get a card for the fifth time. In Hearthstone you can turn cards to crafting material, but the amount to craft a new card is way to high. In Arena a rare card to much gives you a rare wildcard.

[Mahourai]

Arena has a worse economy than Hearthstone. The free to play rewards are worse than Hearthstone and the paid economy is more expensive. This isn't really debatable, not sure if you're trolling or what with "HS is pay to win".

[Mahourai]

That's all true, but none of it affects performance in events.

CSGO Legends status is a bye for the qualifier rounds, the same as pro players in MTG receiving byes in a tournament on the basis of their pro points. No different than earning a bye in American football playoffs either, to go for a "real" sport.

Tiger Woods getting automatic eagles or whatever would be like if Owen Turtenwald started games at 30 life. The MTG bye system is not "rigging" or notably shifty in comparison to other competitions.

[Priestiality]

Arena has a worse economy than Hearthstone. The free to play rewards are worse than Hearthstone and the paid economy is more expensive. This isn't really debatable, not sure if you're trolling or what with "HS is pay to win".

I've been playing a slightly modified (dropped hybrid lands for better hybrid lands, replaced one big creature with a Planeswalker) version of the BW starter deck offered once you hit level 25 in MtG:A. It's a deck that, by design, is meant to be played by new/inexperienced players. I've only lost 3 games in ranked, with over 50 played, and all 3 were to Merfolk Aggro. Show me one pre-made deck "recipe" in Hearthstone that can pull that kind of winrate with only modifying 3 cards. MtG:A has worse free to play rewards because the cards they give you for free are actually useful.

[Axxil]

After playing both and hitting diamond in MTGA and rank 4 in HS, MTGA is better.

[zenzaliv]

For years, MTG video games have come out. For YEARS. I'm talking since the 90s, when the card game was still brand new and had less than 400 cards released, there have been attempts at MTG games. With every single version of the game, a developer attempts to capture the essence of playing MTG (flinging spells, outwitting your opponent, the excitement of customization and collection, ect) in the video game space. With every single attempt, we end up getting something that is more like a demo of MTG than an actual game like the cardboard version.

It's been a disappointment, rather than a blessing, to have any video game version of MTG. Even MTGO, which has been online since early 2000s, is as close to paper MTG as any dev has ever come. It has a vast card pool that streches back almost to the very first sets of the game (power 9 and other really good cards printed before 7th edition are not available because of the negative effects they would have on the game, not just in terms of playing with them, but the detriment to the secondary market). Nothing, not even MTGO, comes close to paper MTG on a table top. MTG arena, and any version of digital MTG before it, is basically just a slice of MTG. One or two blocks with some current mechanics and block deck ideas to play with.

Nowhere close to what is possible in the real game.

Anyone remember that weird MTG game on PS1. I'm not even sure how to describe it, but it had an interesting charm to it. I wasted many hours on that.

[Mahourai]

Not having to go through qualifiers isn't nearly the same as getting free wins within a given tournament.

You don't get "free wins" in MTG. You get byes.

I've only lost 3 games in ranked, with over 50 played, and all 3 were to Merfolk Aggro. Show me one pre-made deck "recipe" in Hearthstone that can pull that kind of winrate with only modifying 3 cards.

Well, you cannot realistically win 94% of a 50 game sample with any deck at any MMR in any game. Clearly examples like this, if they occur, should not be taken as representative samples. If I start Arena in Hearthstone and go undefeated 3 times in a row, I should probably not assume I will go undefeated every subsequent time and that Arena regularly returns 10x value in cards and gold and then talk as though this should be a point in Hearthstone's favor.

[Priestiality]

You don't get "free wins" in MTG. You get byes.



Well, you cannot realistically win 94% of a 50 game sample with any deck at any MMR in any game. Clearly examples like this, if they occur, should not be taken as representative samples. If I start Arena in Hearthstone and go undefeated 3 times in a row, I should probably not assume I will go undefeated every subsequent time and that Arena regularly returns 10x value in cards and gold and then talk as though this should be a point in Hearthstone's favor.

I don't expect it to be sustainable, but my point is that skill matters a lot more in MtG than it does in HS because people that can't pilot a deck in MtG usually don't live past turn 5 where in HS they can just run ZooLock or Face Hunter or w/e the current FotM never-trade-always-face deck is to single digit rankings.

[Ausr]

I don't expect it to be sustainable, but my point is that skill matters a lot more in MtG than it does in HS because people that can't pilot a deck in MtG usually don't live past turn 5 where in HS they can just run ZooLock or Face Hunter or w/e the current FotM never-trade-always-face deck is to single digit rankings.

I dunno, man. I consider those people who can't pilot a deck to be mono red players.

[Eroginous]

And have you also watched, oh, say the final game of the final Pro Tour?

Again, I'm not saying skill isn't a factor - but to say MtG is SOLELY decided on skill is simply fallacious.

Just because what you got on the top of your deck isn't ideal (or exactly what you wanted), doesn't mean RNG is this thing that ruins your game, to the point of needing a major overhaul to the way the game is designed and played (which is the implication of most who mention land screw as a thing in their lives). Hundreds of playtest games before tournaments usually end up with an overwhelmingly large number of games that produce ideal results, right? To the point where you remember with unmistakable clarity when you have a match in a round that doesn't. It's a sort of confirmation bias.

It's just as much a matter of choosing the right cards in your deck as it is a matter of skill to play them when you see them. So to say that regardless of skill, RNG will decide games for you from time to time... is true, but it's not what happened in this one instance of play that really matters. Because there's always next game. And the next game might be different.

[Biomega]

Just because what you got on the top of your deck isn't ideal (or exactly what you wanted), doesn't mean RNG is this thing that ruins your game, to the point of needing a major overhaul to the way the game is designed and played (which is the implication of most who mention land screw as a thing in their lives). Hundreds of playtest games before tournaments usually end up with an overwhelmingly large number of games that produce ideal results, right? To the point where you remember with unmistakable clarity when you have a match in a round that doesn't. It's a sort of confirmation bias.

It's just as much a matter of choosing the right cards in your deck as it is a matter of skill to play them when you see them. So to say that regardless of skill, RNG will decide games for you from time to time... is true, but it's not what happened in this one instance of play that really matters. Because there's always next game. And the next game might be different.

I feel we can't continue discussing things until you take the time to look up what the word "solely" means.

[Eroginous]

I feel we can't continue discussing things until you take the time to look up what the word "solely" means.

Because it's not what you drew that matters. It's how you played it. That's solely skill. You aren't robbed of your chance to display skill because you didn't draw the thing that you thought would be a silver bullet.

RNG only really matters when you want to make it the reason you lost.

[Biomega]

Because it's not what you drew that matters. It's how you played it. That's solely skill. You aren't robbed of your chance to display skill because you didn't draw the thing that you thought would be a silver bullet.

No, you're robbed of your chance to display skill because what you drew didn't allow you to do so.

If you draw 5 lands in a row against an opponent who draws 5 gas in a row, chances are you'll lose no matter how skilled you are. Skill skews the long-term percentages in your favor - it doesn't eliminate bad RNG.

RNG only really matters when you want to make it the reason you lost.

That is a breathtakingly facile statement. It's almost insulting.

Ask some of the best player ever to take cardboard into their hands, and they'll all tell you that there are some games where there simply is no way you could have played things to a winning line. You can make 100% perfect decisions and still lose, simply because of random factors outside of your control. That doesn't mean skill isn't hugely important - it is. But skill can't save every game.

[Eroginous]

I think this article is more relevant. https://kotaku.com/magic-the-gatheri...com-1834623872

No, you're robbed of your chance to display skill because what you drew didn't allow you to do so

So, not drawing the specific thing you want to affect the outcome differently, removes your ability to display skill? See, here's where your logic breaks down. If the worst case scenario of topdecking land happens, when you needed a specific card to win instead, chances are you were on a short clock and going to lose anyway. Five turns of nothing but land? Are you playing against a child who just doesn't connect the dots yet and lets you grab land cards for 5 whole turns?

Land for the first 5 turns is almost a wish by any player. Lands in the mid game after you've established board means you need to trim your deck and rethink a faster strat. 5 lands at the end of them game where you should have either won or lost already, means your deck is the worst thing on the table and you should not compete with it.

Even if I concede any of your points about how getting a land instead of another card is bad, you still have to explain to me why you didn't build your deck better -OR- you have to admit that it was a hard match and you did your best. You simply can't win them all. And if you lose to rng as much as I do? It's a non factor. That's why we play best of 3 or 5 in a tournament. Because sometimes you have a game like that. There are poker players who live to make crap cards work. You should try it...

[Biomega]

So, not drawing the specific thing you want to affect the outcome differently, removes your ability to display skill? See, here's where your logic breaks down.

I believe you're still not getting what I was talking about. Have you looked up "solely" in a dictionary yet? Because my issue was solely with your use of the word solely, not with the idea that that skill can't affect the influence of RNG - which I have stated multiple times in no unclear terms.