I think it was because Blue was so frowned upon in the format that the "can't be countered" clause didn't matter much. I always felt that the Instant speed should have been useful enough, but usage to this point disagreed.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Why didn't I sac Revoker in response to your StP to move the counters? That had to have been a misclick. You're right, I should have sac'ed Mana Crypt then as well. I think I kept Wasteland up for the mana in upkeep since that can't be paid with Workshop and using Academy can be inefficient. I didn't realize you had Batterskull in hand, and when Stoneforge revealed nothing I thought Jitte was your only equipment. It's possible I didn't even see Batterskull in your decklist - I'm pretty sloppy about looking at the decklists. Call me anytime you need some coins flipped.
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.
SekKuar only plays Pure decks even in non-Pure weeks. :)
Reanimator is only one soul of that build, which is polyfunctional. I believe he won more than one game riding on Azor's Elocutors.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Zach, I agree about sloppy play among paper Vintage players. The worst thing I remember from watching Vintage champs was someone trying to use Forbidden Orchard on his own upkeep to get Oath to trigger. How do you not know how the main card in your deck works? We're going to kick their butts when they come online.
Apparently, this submission (minus this here sentence) is triggering the spam filter from three different browsers - frustrating.
Hey, if we're going to return to 4-round swisses for the year, it's ideal to do it as soon as possible. As I understand it, others had a great advantage in the POTY standings last year since they were able to feast on points with the four-rounders for the bulk of the year, while I showed up late with mostly three-rounders. Just saying what's ideal, I realize this all depends on your generous time commitment. Thanks as always for hosting and reporting.
Why do you think the PREs are doing a pretty good job of covering niche formats?
From what I can tell Gatherling.com is the only site really hosting events and it only hosts 10-15 events a week. Over half of those weekly events are for WotC fully sponsored formats like Modern and Standard.
2-man commander and tribal have PREs even though those formats need a lot of help in terms of their banned list.
Formats like Heirloom are nice social exercises but there is no room for growth in them because you can't have an officially recognized format based on card price.
PREs do a lot to foster community and provide free playing options for a lot of players, but they don't really support niche formats. At least not in the way that providing 2-man queues and 8-man queues could support a niche format and generate a secondary market for cards and provide a profitable revenue source for WotC.
Suggestions for the D&T/Hatebears section:
Hate Vials
Heroes and Vial-Ins
I think it was because Blue was so frowned upon in the format that the "can't be countered" clause didn't matter much. I always felt that the Instant speed should have been useful enough, but usage to this point disagreed.
I love Volcanic Fallout. The "can't be countered" clause makes it an all-star in my book, and I always wonder why it doesn't see more play.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Totally agree - competition in my mind usually makes everyone step up their game.
Why didn't I sac Revoker in response to your StP to move the counters? That had to have been a misclick. You're right, I should have sac'ed Mana Crypt then as well. I think I kept Wasteland up for the mana in upkeep since that can't be paid with Workshop and using Academy can be inefficient. I didn't realize you had Batterskull in hand, and when Stoneforge revealed nothing I thought Jitte was your only equipment. It's possible I didn't even see Batterskull in your decklist - I'm pretty sloppy about looking at the decklists. Call me anytime you need some coins flipped.
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.
SekKuar only plays Pure decks even in non-Pure weeks. :)
Reanimator is only one soul of that build, which is polyfunctional. I believe he won more than one game riding on Azor's Elocutors.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quicksilver plus Gideon is awesome!
Zach, I agree about sloppy play among paper Vintage players. The worst thing I remember from watching Vintage champs was someone trying to use Forbidden Orchard on his own upkeep to get Oath to trigger. How do you not know how the main card in your deck works? We're going to kick their butts when they come online.
Did Zach get a new mic for Christmas? He's super loud now.
Apparently, this submission (minus this here sentence) is triggering the spam filter from three different browsers - frustrating.
Hey, if we're going to return to 4-round swisses for the year, it's ideal to do it as soon as possible. As I understand it, others had a great advantage in the POTY standings last year since they were able to feast on points with the four-rounders for the bulk of the year, while I showed up late with mostly three-rounders. Just saying what's ideal, I realize this all depends on your generous time commitment. Thanks as always for hosting and reporting.
Why do you think the PREs are doing a pretty good job of covering niche formats?
From what I can tell Gatherling.com is the only site really hosting events and it only hosts 10-15 events a week. Over half of those weekly events are for WotC fully sponsored formats like Modern and Standard.
2-man commander and tribal have PREs even though those formats need a lot of help in terms of their banned list.
Formats like Heirloom are nice social exercises but there is no room for growth in them because you can't have an officially recognized format based on card price.
PREs do a lot to foster community and provide free playing options for a lot of players, but they don't really support niche formats. At least not in the way that providing 2-man queues and 8-man queues could support a niche format and generate a secondary market for cards and provide a profitable revenue source for WotC.
nice work this week.