thewoof2's picture
By: thewoof2, Christopher Gallon
Jan 06 2014 1:07pm
0
Login to post comments
5246 views


As many of you know, the Trading Card Game (TCG) genre has long been dominated by Magic the Gathering and online with MTGO.  Well that might be changing, several companies are now looking to enter this space with TCG games of their own.  So I decided to check out one of the competitors, Blizzard's Hearthstone, to understand the differences found and explore the pro's and con's in those differences.  Lastly I will shed some thoughts on Hearthstone appeal as compared MTGO.

Before jumping in I wanted to first share my overall thoughts on new entrants into the TCG space and the way I fundamentally think about comparing games.  First, the whole reason we play games is for entertainment and I think the following characteristics contribute to how fun a game is, the balance between these characteristics is more personal preference.

  • Engagement - engage the user by taking them into a new world and absorbing them in a story/fantasy.  Engagement is captured with a full feature interface, amazing graphics, intuitive controls and an immersive story/plot.
  • Competition/Challenge - challenge the user in many ways and offer very diverse gameplay/game interactions.
  • Camaraderie - join players to compete with and against one another while providing a social environment to meet and discuss the game interactively.
  • Outcomes/feedback - provide a user with certain outcomes such as expanding cards/trophies, levels, in game gold, monetary appreciation (personal money) or win-loss feedback with strong emotional and ego-gratification implications.
  •  Problem solving/creativity - spark problem solving and creativity for interesting game playing, re-playing and doing crazy things within the set game structure.

While there are variants to the above, I look at games with these characteristics in mind.  In terms of new entrants, I welcome them with open arms and hope they build strong products.  The obvious risk is new products could segment the market therefore reducing overall MTGO users which one could argue in the long run hurts some of the characteristics above.  But I think the opposite will occur, new TCG's will offer increased competition and improve all the games for us players.

Blizzard's Hearthstone

Those unaware Hearthstone is currently in Beta but using Battle.net one can easily sign up and play for free.  Much like Magic, Hearthstone only costs money if you wish to buy cards or enter arenas.  After putting in many hours of play on Hearthstone (I played maybe 50 matches so am in no way an expert yet), I found key differences that impact the gameplay however the game closely resembles Magic in many ways.  So let's look at the differences and I will discuss each ones pro's and con's and opine on the impact if MTGO implemented similar changes.

Mana

Hearthstone has a few critical changes to its mana system than MTGO.  These changes greatly impact play.

1.  In Hearthstone every turn you automatically get 1 more mana crystal (card).  There are cards that you can cast that will increase that number or decrease it but normal play is every turn you get 1 additional mana.  You do not need to play mana or put mana in your deck.

Comparison

Pro
Con
No longer will you get mana screwed or flooded which eliminates many frustrations players have with mana issues. Removes the randomness factor lands have on the Magic game.
Deckbuilding is easier as you no longer need to think about your mana curve and adjust lands accordingly. Eliminates the strategic element in deckbuilding to change number of mana producing spells based on the deck's mana curve.
(Both pro or con depending on preference) there is less mana denial strategies, at least currently in Hearthstone with land destruction cards like wasteland, obviously this could change.

General thoughts if this was adopted in Magic

Magic gets a lot of complaints with players upset about mana issues, so at first thought the Hearthstone play seemed like a potential solution.  My analysis is for players who highly value play consistency and "flow" this change would be welcome.  They would no longer have to worry about losing just due to "bad mana luck" and games no longer are decided by this luck factor and/or mana denial strategies like land destruction.  However, for those players that more value challenge and strategy in deckbuilding this change greatly impacted that entire aspect in Magic.  What I found is when it happens in Magic you are upset/irate, but for me after playing Hearthstone's mana system I felt like the game was missing an entire aspect Magic presents.

2.  In Hearthstone there is no color wheel, instead you have a "hero class" (e.g. Mage, Rogue, etc..) where certain cards are only available for those hero classes.

Comparison

Pro
Con
No longer do you get mana color issues, so all cards accessible to your class can be used.
Removes the randomness factor of getting the right mana for your spells.
There is more reliance on building a deck to your hero's class where your winning strategy aligns to that classes available card pool.
Eliminates the strategic element in deckbuilding and in play where players can splash many colors and leverage all color wheel strategies by taking on the color risk.
(Both pro or con depending on preference) decks are more restrictive to the hero class so decks are not able to leverage all cards and Hearthstone can more easily balance the power level of decks.

General thoughts if this was adopted in Magic

Similar to number 1 above the Hearthstone hero class system is more straightforward which helps with play consistency and flow.  Also I feel like Hearthstone will have more of an opportunity to adjust hero power levels as needed to ensure any individual hero/card does not warp the game. For instance they currently have a class with access to cards that give players "free mana" similar to the moxes or black lotus but the other cards in the classes pool are weaker than other classes.  So unlike Magic not every deck automatically just adds in Black Lotus because they won't have access to it due to their class restrictions.  That said, this change also significantly impacts the challenge and diversity of decks, no longer can you splash black mana for those turn 1 thoughtseizes.  In the end, since I value strategy highly I felt like Hearthstone was lacking in this strategic element.

Mulligans

Hearthstone presents the player with his opening hand, that player is able to selectively choose 1 card to up to all your cards to be replaced without penalty. 

Comparison

Pro
Con
Consistently every game you are able to get a more optimal starting hand.
You tend to get very similar starting hands every game.
Without any penalties you always selectively mulligan cards to fit your early mana game, so you replace those higher mana cost spells.
With no penalties, you do not need to make a decision on whether mulliganing your hand is worth having one less card.
(Both pro or con depending on preference) Starting hands are almost always more explosive, and you consistently get hands with early game impacts.

General thoughts if this was adopted in Magic

This is an interesting one, I feel that again those people that like consistency and flow would like this change to Magic.  I also think implementing this in Magic would go a long way to helping to address the mana screw/flood issue mentioned above.  In Magic, multiplayer games also give you free mulligans but you can only get a new 7 cards not selectively choose.  For me I am torn on this one, I do think it is worth considering and at least playtesting more for impact.

Going First Advantage

Going second in Hearthstone gives the player both another card and a free mana card (think of this as a free lotus petal).  This additional mana makes many people in Hearthstone actually wish to not play first unlike in Magic.

Comparison

Pro Con
Unlike in Magic going second with this advantage can be desired. The extra mana might actually tip the scales to making going first an actual disadvantage.
Hearthstone recognizes that going first needs something more than 1 additional card. An additional card and an additional mana is very powerful for quick explosive decks.

 General thoughts if this was adopted in Magic

Everyone seems to agree that one extra card does not compensate for the play advantage gained by going first in Magic.  However, using the Hearthstone rules might actually balance this more effectively.  In Magic having this extra lotus petal and card could result in very explosive plays especially when thinking about classic or vintage.  My fear would be this extra mana would really increase the power of combo decks and similarly as in Hearthstone make going second overpowered.  Again this is one where extensive playtesting would need to be done to understand its impact, so it is a possible improvement for MTGO.

Attacking and Blocking

1.  Hearthstone has another interesting twist here, if you attack a player with your creature even if the defending player has a creature they cannot block with that creature.  Also a player may decide to attack an opponent's creature.  Hearthstone does have creatures with the ability named Taunt that makes you attack that creature with Taunt first.  This eliminates the need to "tap" anything, so this concept of tapping is not used.

Comparison

Pro
Con
Combat seems easier to understand and to some may make more sense. You need Taunt creatures to stop an attacking creature from dealing you damage making it harder to stop a large threat.
If you play a large creature you get the opportunity to have it deal damage to a player even if they have many smaller creatures.
I more often get that helpless feeling that with low life I have little to no chance of actually making a comeback.
(Both pro or con depending on preference) You can attack a creature directly to kill it.

General thoughts if this was adopted in Magic

Making this change to Magic would be significant and greatly impact play.  My general impression is the changes would make aggro even more powerful because rather than dealing with blockers many times they could ignore them and attack the player.  In general especially with the current card pool on Magic I do not think this rule change could be implemented.

2.  If a Hearthstone creatures toughness is 2 and you deal 1 damage to it than its toughness goes to 1 and stays at 1.  This also opens the door to healing your own creatures that have been damaged.

Comparison

Pro
Con
This change seems more intuitive and allows smaller creatures to kill creatures over 2 or more turns.
Makes creatures with high toughness less valuable.
Adds some new strategy on combat moves and allows for interesting healing strategies on creatures.
Slightly hurts all creatures compared to MTGO because they keep damage.
(Both pro or con depending on preference) In conjunction with the ability to attack creatures, this rule makes it easier to kill creatures in general.

General thoughts if this was adopted in Magic

Of all the Hearthstone differences this one seems most interesting in MTGO.  From a problem solving perspective and strategic perspective it adds to the game and from an intuitive play perspective seems to make sense.  It does decrease the overall power of creatures in general but probably not significantly.  This one actually would be interesting to implement from my perspective.

Hearthstone vs MTGO

Rule Differences

Like I mentioned above games provide entertainment based on many characteristics and each player will place more value on what they find fun.  I spoke about a few rule differences that I think directly contribute to entertainment differences between games.  From a rules differences perspective my general conclusions are as follows:

  • If you are player that wants an intuitive, consistent TCG experience that has shorter games, that are more face paced and use a simpler rule set then check out Hearthstone.
  • If you are more interested in a strategic, challenging, creative game that plays to your strong emotional and ego-gratification side then stick with Magic.

Looking at the rules differences, I would say there are three key ones to consider to be used in MTGO, in order of potential:

  1. Make damage inflicted on creatures stay even after that turn is over.
  2. Try giving the player going second a free lotus petal/or 1 colorless mana in addition to the card draw.
  3. Try letting users selective pick which cards to replace in their opening hand without penalty.

Engagement

Hearthstone's interface, ease of use and graphics are superior to MTGO.  While the game itself is not nearly as complex, after playing the Hearthstone interface you have troubles going back to MTGO.  One has to wonder if Blizzard was to develop a MTGO client how much better it would be.  That said Hearthstone does have a cartoonish look and feel to it and seems to be built to attract a younger crowd with its Warcraft noises and orcish feel.

Camaraderie

I fully admit this can take time, but that said I do not feel like there is a strong social aspect to Hearthstone.  You can speak 6 pre-set phrases but other than that I never had any communication with other Hearthstone players.  I think the complexity of MTGO naturally increases the communications between players for idea generation and play discussions.

I assume most MTGO players enjoy games that are strategic, challenging and spark their creative side which leads me to state that I doubt you will find Hearthstone replacing the game space MTGO fills.  That said it is certainly an entertaining game one can play free of charge so I recommend checking it out.  It will not replace MTGO for you, but I do think some of the rule differences have potential for MTGO as mentioned.  At the very least this game and other TCG's such as Hex and SolForge offer us more products that the bar for this genre.

14 Comments

I think it is good that other by GainsBanding at Mon, 01/06/2014 - 19:33
GainsBanding's picture

I think it is good that other digital card games are coming along and innovating on the genre. There is a lot of design space in digital that Magic can never explore because it is tied to paper (creatures retaining damage through turns being one thing). I think most of these changes here do seem to be reactions to casual players' frustrations with Magic and have been proposed many times as ways of "fixing" Magic. After 20 years though, rules changes that hit the foundation of the game this much aren't possible. Even the M10 rules changes didn't change things as much as these mulligan rules would. As long as the makers of Hearthstone design with these rules in mind, it will work out for that game though.
Hopefully all these new games coming out will push the MTGO team to step up their game.

Totally agree - competition by thewoof2 at Tue, 01/07/2014 - 21:17
thewoof2's picture

Totally agree - competition in my mind usually makes everyone step up their game.

Interesting analysis. To me, by Psychobabble at Tue, 01/07/2014 - 02:23
Psychobabble's picture

Interesting analysis. To me, hearthstone is appealing to a broader, more casual, audience in a way that DoTP does. I think those two products are much more analogous than Hearthstone and MTG, and for that reason it is unlikely to seriously cannibalise MTGO's market.

On a couple of specific points, I think you undersell just how much strategic depth you lose with the "infintely increasing resources" system. Being able to build decks that can deal with mana screw/flood, and being able to play effectively under those conditions, are huge parts of the strategy of magic. Many intense, interesting games of magic occur because these are features of the game and they hugely add to the variety of experiences that you get when you play. Variance reducing features like this, and the mulligan one, massively increase the sameness of each individual game and matchup, enhancing the ever-present and fundamentally unattractive "rock paper scissors" matchup element that always exists in TCGs.

Also, that mulligan rule should in no way be explored in any format of magic where combo or highly synergistic decks exist. It should be easy enough to see that the randomness of your opening draw is part of what keeps all of those "nut draw" combo or synergy decks in check, whether we're talking about legacy belcher or standard BTE+nykthos decks.

Finally, you didn't mention that there's no instant speed interraction in Hearthstone. This alone dramatically changes the fundamental nature of the game, and hugely reduces the game's strategic depth. I absolutely understand why it's necessary in a more casual/mobile game, but it's a really, really large difference and reduction in depth.

thanks - yes I tend to agree by thewoof2 at Tue, 01/07/2014 - 21:21
thewoof2's picture

thanks - yes I tend to agree with your "infintely increasing resources" system and mulligan rule.

On the no instant speed spells, yes I should have mentioned this in the article because it greatly diminishes Hearthstone to MTGO from a gameplay/strategy perspective.

I disagree with the free by MarcosPMA at Tue, 01/07/2014 - 02:56
MarcosPMA's picture

I disagree with the free lotus petal or colorless mana for going second. I think it takes away the advantage of control going first in control v aggro matchups since now the aggro player can make up the lost initiative from going first by playing 2 creatures on turn 1. I think Hearthstone was designed in such a way that having 2 mana on turn 1 isn't inherently broken. I think in a game where creature based combat is the primary win condition, this is okay since players are expecting those draws where you got 1 drop 1 drop on the draw. Constructed Magic is not the case however, with players employing combo, control, aggro-control, etc type strategies. Not all decks will be able to handle 2 1 drops on turn 1, and it makes creatureless/lite strategies hard to play. I do agree with a better mulligan system, but free mana I do not.

For the sake of playing by longtimegone at Tue, 01/07/2014 - 05:35
longtimegone's picture

For the sake of playing devils advocate, making that free mana colorless does a *lot* to eliminate the possibility of 2 1 drops on the first turn.

If we agree that going first by thewoof2 at Tue, 01/07/2014 - 21:25
thewoof2's picture

If we agree that going first in MTGO is an advantage with just the 1 extra card difference then alternatives can be explored. As I say, the lotus petal idea on top of a card might go too far making going second the advantage. So I guess the question becomes is there something between the two that could be explored?

I really really hope that by Wickedrh at Tue, 01/07/2014 - 06:33
Wickedrh's picture

I really really hope that wizard sees all these new games with better interface and does something to mtgo. It is shameful to see a game with such potential to have the worst client outthere

PS: Going second is actually still not good, yes you get 1 mana for a turn but rest of the game you play follow up. And since players choose to attack whatever they want, they will always kill your lesser costing creatures with their higher costing ones.

Totally agree, I really hope by thewoof2 at Tue, 01/07/2014 - 21:29
thewoof2's picture

Totally agree, I really hope these better interfaces make WOTC rethink MTGO v4 and roll out something much more than an "operational" v4.

On going second in Hearthstone, my limited play made me think going second was actually preferred but also there is a large forum post on Blizzard's website where many people agree. That said, you make a good point on the attack difference also helping the player going first.

What Psychobabble said by one million words at Tue, 01/07/2014 - 08:02
one million words's picture

The biggest difference is that Heartstone has no "instants" - no way of directly interacting with your opponent's actions. You play on your turn. Hearthstone is much closer to Duelmasters or Portal than true Magic. It is a huge difference. It is also a huge simplification of the game, which allows for a much simpler interface. A simpler interface means you can make it splashier and cooler, because you can skip a lot of functionality.

The same thing is true of Duels of the Planeswalkers. It is flashier because Duels simply doesn't have - and never will have - a lot of the cooler and more complex Magic cards in the Duels card pool.

Right, I did forget to by thewoof2 at Tue, 01/07/2014 - 21:33
thewoof2's picture

Right, I did forget to mention this in the article, should have! I would never suggest removing instants in MTGO and it does add a huge strategic element to play.

I am not sure I agree though that because there is no instants (and other functionality) that you cannot make a splashier and cooler interface. It is harder yes, but in Hearthstone there is a lot of wasted UI space on the edges that easily could be used to handle advanced functionality. I guess I do not give WOTC any "free" pass on the UI even compared to Hearthstone due to more complex rules.

The evaluations to me just by xger at Tue, 01/07/2014 - 17:42
xger's picture

The evaluations to me just show that the ability to keep people engaged long term isn't there in hearthstone. By removing so much of the randomness the games will all be very similar. If the decks all go towards the best deck it will be even worse.

It was mentioned briefly in other comments, but leaving damage on creatures isn't very feasible for paper magic. Not to mention the very large shift in the way the game works strongly suggests it would not be worth implementing. WotC did do something similar though with wither, so keep that in mind as well.

Your first point is 100% how by thewoof2 at Tue, 01/07/2014 - 21:38
thewoof2's picture

Your first point is 100% how I feel although until playing Hearthstone I suppose I didn't get the fun created from the MTGO randomness. Now I do!

On the damage, it would be more burdensome to implement leaving damage on creatures in paper, but as you mention they already do this with wither and also infect. That said, it is a concern that Hearthstone didn't have to deal with so it is somewhat apples to oranges. I have not playtested it in Magic, and perhaps it would hinder play negatively but it is worth thinking about in my mind.

in my experience with TCGs by Psychobabble at Tue, 01/07/2014 - 22:24
Psychobabble's picture

in my experience with TCGs that have persistent damage (shadow era and MMDOC), it doesn't end up being that big of a change in practice - what tends to happen is that bigger creatures get ridiculous inflation in their HP stat (3/8, 4/10 etc.) to give them a measure of survivability. It obviously weakens burn spells, but means that they still have decent survivability in combat.

speaking of MMDOC, if you're interested in the more casual, online TCG genre then I highly recommend that you check it out. It's been out for over a year now and has had five sets released in that time, it's by far the most fully developed online casual TCG offering around. The biggest thing lacking right now is any sort of limited format (draft/sealed), beyond that it's head and shoulders ahead of the rest of the competition and has the backing of Ubisoft behind it so it's quite polished and well resourced. Hearthstone will probably surpass it eventually, but MMDOC has a pretty good head start.