MTG Arena vs Hearthstone

[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.

[Spaceboytg]

Seems like this article is relevant to the thread: Hearthstone loses viewers on Twitch as Magic: The Gathering Arena closes the gap

And the Reddit thread about it has some good conversation that touches on some of the topics being discussed in this thread.

[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.

[Eroginous]

Sorry, but you're solely responsible for choosing the cards in your deck. Solely responsible for making sure you play your deck well. Solely responsible for making the choices that you've given yourself, based on card choice, which is again, 100% on you. I don't see how you can find yourself in a situation where topdecks matter more than a tiny fraction of the time. You're either grossly overblowing the factors rng contributes or experiencing something fixable by just doing a better job building and playing your deck. Like I said before, rng only really matters when you want it to be the reason you lost. This is no less than true in every other situation where you didn't lose. You don't attribute your wins to rng. When your deck functions properly, you don't thank rng. When you make a good play in a situation that can affect major change, you don't say 'thanks rng.' Rng, is quite literally ignored as a factor in anything you do until you lose because of a bad topdeck or draw. So then you have the occasional match where you didn't topdeck 'for the win' and you say it's because of rng, and then want to ignore any and all opportunities to display skill, because gosh darn it, you didn't get the specific card you wanted.

I've won the game with cards I never intended to win the game with... Such as topdecking a barbarian ring. A land card. For the win.

[Mahourai]

Biomega is obviously correct and belaboring the point about skill "solely" affecting the outcome when it plainly does not is ridiculous.

[xenogear3]

I had some fun on MTG.
However, just like hearthstone, the game starts to show its age.
I start to face tier 1 deck at the lowest rank.

"land" is an uninteresting part of the game.
It is unfair that we have to pay for the rare multicolor land.

I also hate the "one card kill all". It creates more stall decks.
Hearthstone requires two cards. Even Deathwing, you have to discard your hand.

As for the economy, Hearthstone was very new player friendly at launch.
MTG has all 5 sets at the launch. It is very expensive.

[Spaceboytg]

As for the economy, Hearthstone was very new player friendly at launch.
MTG has all 5 sets at the launch. It is very expensive.

I would absolutely dispute this.

I'm still playing in unranked with the decks the game gave me as part of the New Player Experience and hitting about a 50% winrate with them. That's good daily play for exactly zero money put in, plus i'm gaining gold from that that allows me to make constructed decks for ranked if I want.

And I did want, so I made a simple mono-red deck for ranked and it wins consistently at the low tiers so far. This took a bit more time investment to earn the wildcards to make, but not excessively so.

The starter decks in Hearthstone are utter trash that will get you nowhere.

[Bovinity Divinity]

Sorry, but you're solely responsible for choosing the cards in your deck. Solely responsible for making sure you play your deck well. Solely responsible for making the choices that you've given yourself, based on card choice, which is again, 100% on you. I don't see how you can find yourself in a situation where topdecks matter more than a tiny fraction of the time. You're either grossly overblowing the factors rng contributes or experiencing something fixable by just doing a better job building and playing your deck. Like I said before, rng only really matters when you want it to be the reason you lost. This is no less than true in every other situation where you didn't lose. You don't attribute your wins to rng. When your deck functions properly, you don't thank rng. When you make a good play in a situation that can affect major change, you don't say 'thanks rng.' Rng, is quite literally ignored as a factor in anything you do until you lose because of a bad topdeck or draw. So then you have the occasional match where you didn't topdeck 'for the win' and you say it's because of rng, and then want to ignore any and all opportunities to display skill, because gosh darn it, you didn't get the specific card you wanted.

I've won the game with cards I never intended to win the game with... Such as topdecking a barbarian ring. A land card. For the win.

It's funny because you try so hard to sound like this smug, superior player, but every time you post in this thread you just betray a gross lack of actual understanding of the game or the concepts being discussed.

[Nymrohd]

The think I love with MtG is that the rules are build with enough complexity that you can break them in so many ways. While Hearthstone was built to be so shallow that the design space for it is so limited. I honestly feel that the reason so many things are random is that it is the only way it can function a the TINY Hearthstone board that has to be tiny to be displayed in your mobile adequately. I mean some recent cards that utilize a pseudo graveyard zone by giving you resurrections or returning discarded cards pretty much necessitate third party support to play adequately (or just memorizing what has died/been discarded). I can't even imagine how declaring defenders could work.

[Cizr]

I would absolutely dispute this.

I'm still playing in unranked with the decks the game gave me as part of the New Player Experience and hitting about a 50% winrate with them. That's good daily play for exactly zero money put in, plus i'm gaining gold from that that allows me to make constructed decks for ranked if I want.

And I did want, so I made a simple mono-red deck for ranked and it wins consistently at the low tiers so far. This took a bit more time investment to earn the wildcards to make, but not excessively so.

The starter decks in Hearthstone are utter trash that will get you nowhere.

Some of the free decks are very good,like the Merfolk (blue/green) one. You can get to gold with it and maybe even plat.

Also I think you are getting more free boosters compared to HS.

Its not new player unfriendly at all.

[Mahourai]

Some of the free decks are very good,like the Merfolk (blue/green) one. You can get to gold with it and maybe even plat.

Also I think you are getting more free boosters compared to HS.

Its not new player unfriendly at all.

It's the most new player unfriendly game of any of the major cardgames - Hearthstone, Gwent, Shadowverse, Eternal, the Elder Scrolls cardgame are all more generous. Hearthstone is perhaps comparably bad, but the actual time-to-deck in Arena is astonishingly poor if you don't just randomly open cards for the exact deck you want to play.

[Shanknasty]

Just discovered Shadowverse and find it to be super fun.

[Eroginous]

Biomega is obviously correct and belaboring the point about skill "solely" affecting the outcome when it plainly does not is ridiculous.

But it's true. Skill is a large factor when it comes to building and playing your deck. It's not just a pile of cards that randomly gives you a win here or there. That would be the definition of a bad deck. I would strongly urge you and any other magic players to consider what I'm saying here. Think about this from the perspective of a high level player. You've had a hand in designing your deck from list to play test. Unless you were playing a list you didn't pick or some other odd scenario, the outcome of your games should not frequently come down to what you topdeck. It's just not typical. In all but a few games you should either win or lose outright, with some close ones here and there and the occasional topdeck-for-the-win game. It's not a problem to the point where the very foundation of the game needs to be changed to accommodate for players who can't otherwise play because 'land screw all day.'

I'm not saying anyone is suggesting a rules change or that RNG doesn't exist. Or even that RNG can't come along once in awhile to laugh at you. What I am saying is that the outcome of each game is determined solely by you. By what you do with what you are given. If you don't get the thing you need to win the game, and it came down to needing that now or losing, well you have to either admit defeat to a good matchup, better luck next time, or you have to go back to the drawing board and tweak your deck to be more reliable.

Nothing wrong with either scenario. But whining about RNG? Can't really do anything with whining...

It's funny because you try so hard to sound like this smug, superior player, but every time you post in this thread you just betray a gross lack of actual understanding of the game or the concepts being discussed.

I'm trying hard to sound like a smug, superior player? You just responded with this nonsense about how I am carrying myself... which is in and of itself, you trying hard to sound like this smug, superior player, betraying a gross lack of actual understanding of the game or the concepts being discussed, with every post you make. It's honestly not up to me to prove anything to you or fit into your box of what an ideal forum poster is.

I've done nothing here outside of discuss game concepts and my actual understanding of the them. You've done nothing but try to belittle that, as evidenced yet again, by another one of your posts. Thanks for that.

[Mahourai]

What I am saying is that the outcome of each game is determined solely by you.

You mistakenly said "solely" instead of "primarily", that's no reason to make 10 more posts defending your obvious error.

[Eroginous]

I don't know if it was a mistake. The only time I haven't been solely responsible for the outcome of my matches, is when Mindslaver lock was a big thing. /shrug.

[xenogear3]

I have a hard time to justify buying/crafting these "boring" rare land cards.
They rotate out too.

20 rare lands for Four-Color Dreadhorde deck.
That is crazy.

[Th3Scourge]

How are drafts being handles in MTG Arena? Is it just an artificial draft or are other players drafting from the same pool? It seems artificial compared to MTGO

[Mahourai]

How are drafts being handles in MTG Arena? Is it just an artificial draft or are other players drafting from the same pool? It seems artificial compared to MTGO

They're bot drafts like Eternal, not player drafts like MODO.

[Th3Scourge]

They're bot drafts like Eternal, not player drafts like MODO.

Where's the fun in that. I've really enjoyed MTGO drafts because of the format