Brian Kibler on Magic’s battle to catch up with Hearthstone

[Jagil]

I usually lurk, but I found this quite interesting so I thought I would share. I feel a discussion on the future of magic has been brewing recently on these boards. Kibler raises some interesting points, which you can read about here:

http://www.pcgamer.com/brian-kibler-on-magics-battle-to-catch-up-with-hearthstone/

a reddit discussion here: https://www.reddit.com/r/hearthstone/comments/3irsum/brian_kibler_on_magics_battle_to_catch_up_with/

Here is a great run down on the awkward history of Magic Online:
http://www.mtggoldfish.com/articles/the-complete-history-of-magic-online

And a tech-savvy discussion on the mtggoldfish article on Hacker News:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10077222

If this is in any way the wrong forum, or just not orderly, feel free to move/delete/pm

All the best,

[Lord Seth]

Before being more streaming friendly or anything like that, shouldn't the most important fix for MTGO just to be make the program good? Fix the bugs, get a better interface (I suppose this overlaps with the streaming thing), make things more pleasant to use, etc. That just seems like the most important thing to fix up.

[bruizar]

In all fairness, Hearthstone is a drag. It's also quiet inaccurate to see Hearthstone as based purely on Magic / paper TCGs. As a game developer I traveled to Japan to meet some of the brightest minds in this space. The modern online card games garnered attention when a group of 15 guys at Konami developed Dragon Collection in 3 months an it made $10 million a month, outperforming Kojima's Metal Gear Solid which took 300 people 3 years to build. This subsequently lead to a race on mobile card games (and the dethroning of Kojima). Hearthstone's roots are a clear mashup of asian freemium monetization systems and western high fantasy paper card games. The inability to trade cards with players cripples the social interaction and economy that has given Magic cards a live of its own regardless of the actions of wizards.

I played Hearthstone upon release and it is totally unappealing to me. It does not compare to paper magic in terms of feel nor deck design freedom / gameplay interactions.

MTGO I will never touch unless they bother to support Mac or at least iPad.

[Lemnear]

Its so obvious and WotC still fails to see the problems. Its embarassing. Props to Kibler laying a finger into the wound to wake up Hasbro

[Barook]

The problems are far deeper than that:

1. Convenience is a major point. If you plan to play in a tournament, you have to waste hours, especially when your match takes 5-15 minutes while the rest of the round takes 50+ minutes. Leagues might fix that, but we have to wait and see how that is going to turn out, considering their incompetence.

2. No proper stream support sucks, but it's far from the biggest problem they have. I agree that the major downtime between rounds is unappealing for streaming.

3. Cost is one of the biggest points here, and I agree with that. I don't feel bad for jumping into Arena in Hearthstone - it costs 150g, but I'm guaranteed a pack for 100g, plus whatever I get for performing well. On MTGO, however, they continuesly cut price support more and more to milk the fanbase even harder. E.g. I don't get why Vintage/Legacy/Pauper DEs have a significantly lower change to go positive compared to Standard/Modern events (12.5% vs 31.25%). Prizes are extremely unappealing. Take 2-mans for example - 20 Play Points (aka "2$") to enter, winner gets 30 PP, loser 5 PP. You would need a win percentage of 57% to break even. Why not 39 PP for the winner and nothing for the loser? Now you only need 51.3% to break even, making it more appealing for everybody to play said queues, even Casuals. Casinos also make rake on roulette with the small off-chance on colors. It really hurts them to not have any economist on their team. Putting a random dude who once Top 8ed a Pro Tour as qualification in charge of the MTGO economy is a fucking joke.
They need to find a way to make playing MTGO "worthwhile" in the same way Hearthstone does instead of cutting prizes everywhere. I sold out of MTGO after the announcement of PP since used to grow my collection by doing well in events. Under the current system, it's basically impossible.

4. Client: I completely missed that point. It's sluggish, has a terrible UI design and is bugged out of the wazoo. Them putting up a bug blog and then ignoring 99% of all bugs is a travesty, especially when they continuesly introduce new, game-breaking ones. E.g. KotR can now sacrifice any permanent instead of just Plains or Forests, and it wasn't even recognized in this week's bug blog. And even when they do, they take their sweet time of 4-6 weeks to fix such bugs.
The lack of Android/Apple support stems from the use of Windows Presentation Foundation as basis. They should have hired a competent team of programmers at competitive wages to do the thing from scratch long ago, but I doubt that they're going to do such a drastic step anytime soon, if ever. Right now, they're trying to sugarcoat a steaming pile of shit.

[Lormador]

The very things that make Magic so wonderful inhibit its expansion into an online realm. Hearthstone interactions are simple and designed to facilitate its convenience and accessibility. There's no need to respond to various triggers, and there's no way to take actions during the other player's turn.

I think the whole effort to make Magic viable in an online form is rather doomed, nor would it be a great idea for the game to expand in this direction. Much of the game's charm is being a physical, social experience.

As for catching up with Hearthstone in particular, I think that's a lost cause. Now and then I glance around at what games people are playing on the subway in Beijing, and Hearthstone is a very common sight on the devices of young ladies. Were any of these individuals to enter a Magic tournament, there would be mass whiplash. The demographic reach of Hearthstone is far beyond what Magic ever achieved.

[(nameless one)]

One main reason I enjoy playing Hearthstone is because I can play it on my phone. I wish there was a way I can at least playtest Magic on my phone. It also doesn't help that adult life catches up to your Magic time.

I still love playing Magic. Whenever I get the chance, I play it whether casually with my friends or coworkers. Even do drafts once a month.

I also want to point out that it's way cheaper to play competitive Hearthstone than competitive Magic.

[nedleeds]

The title should be Magic Online's battle. Magic Online is a failure. Comparing Hearthstone to paper Magic isn't terribly compelling.

[Barook]

The title should be Magic Online's battle. Magic Online is a failure. Comparing Hearthstone to paper Magic isn't terribly compelling.
MTGO might be a failure.

Thing is, Hearthstone has surpassed Paper + MTGO combined in both earnings AND playerbase numbers in no time.

God knows what would have happened if they made MTGO a good product from the get-go instead of a cash cow they intentionally gimp for the most stupidest reason.

[Aggro_zombies]

God knows what would have happened if they made MTGO a good product from the get-go instead of a cash cow they intentionally gimp for the most stupidest reason.
Hearthstone would still be blowing Magic out of the water, because Hearthstone is a simpler, easier-to-learn game that can be played quickly, has enough RNG to not feel unwinnable if you're playing people better than you, and makes for great stories when the dice fall your way.

Magic is a great game, don't get me wrong - that people still put up with MTGO is testament to this fact - but it's not filling the same niche Hearthstone does. Hearthstone is targeted more or less directly at the hearts and minds of casual gamers. Magic...kind of isn't.

[Barook]

Hearthstone would still be blowing Magic out of the water, because Hearthstone is a simpler, easier-to-learn game that can be played quickly, has enough RNG to not feel unwinnable if you're playing people better than you, and makes for great stories when the dice fall your way.

Magic is a great game, don't get me wrong - that people still put up with MTGO is testament to this fact - but it's not filling the same niche Hearthstone does. Hearthstone is targeted more or less directly at the hearts and minds of casual gamers. Magic...kind of isn't.
Of course Hearthstone would still blow it out of the water, but MTGO has a userbase of what? Maybe 100k total? Probably even less.

The thing is that MTGO is completely all-around user-hostile. And it's not just the base game preventing more people to get in.

[Aggro_zombies]

I think that even if the client were good, the gains would be modest. Hearthstone was designed as a video game and Magic wasn't. Having a client designed by competent UI designers with a solid back end won't fix that.

Take the convenience argument, for example. Tournaments in Magic use Swiss pairings. What are you supposed to do when one guy with a control deck enters an 8-man? Most other matches will finish before his does. Those players have to wait on him. How do you fix that? You can't pair the next round until he's done. You could make it easier to double queue, but then matches will take longer because players will constantly be tabbing between games. You could reduce each player's timer, but that punishes both control decks and decks with lots of triggers, activations, or interaction disproportionately while rewarding non-interactive linears like Burn. You could not use Swiss pairings, but then how would large tournaments work (also, two-man queues already exist)? Would you just toss everyone into a pool for X rounds and then give out prize based on W/L record as people finish their rounds? But then pairings won't be random as decks will be more likely to play only decks of a similar speed the deeper you go (ie, fast decks finish first so they will be more likely to play other fast decks in later rounds). That introduces the possibility of weird deckbuilding skews and makes the program worse as a testing tool. Also, it makes pairings more awkward in smaller pools as the only available opponents when you go to your next round may be people you've already played.

Hearthstone works as well as it does because it's not designed to be played super seriously. Magic is saddled with a meatspace rules legacy that isn't compatible with the kind of easy, casual digital gaming Hearthstone allows. A good client won't change that.

[Zombie]

It's further exacerbated by the fact that Magic is, at heart, a game of giving permission - one of my main pet peeves about Duels is having to wrest thinking time from the program constantly.

[Barook]

I think that even if the client were good, the gains would be modest. Hearthstone was designed as a video game and Magic wasn't. Having a client designed by competent UI designers with a solid back end won't fix that.

Take the convenience argument, for example. Tournaments in Magic use Swiss pairings. What are you supposed to do when one guy with a control deck enters an 8-man? Most other matches will finish before his does. Those players have to wait on him. How do you fix that? You can't pair the next round until he's done. You could make it easier to double queue, but then matches will take longer because players will constantly be tabbing between games. You could reduce each player's timer, but that punishes both control decks and decks with lots of triggers, activations, or interaction disproportionately while rewarding non-interactive linears like Burn. You could not use Swiss pairings, but then how would large tournaments work (also, two-man queues already exist)? Would you just toss everyone into a pool for X rounds and then give out prize based on W/L record as people finish their rounds? But then pairings won't be random as decks will be more likely to play only decks of a similar speed the deeper you go (ie, fast decks finish first so they will be more likely to play other fast decks in later rounds). That introduces the possibility of weird deckbuilding skews and makes the program worse as a testing tool. Also, it makes pairings more awkward in smaller pools as the only available opponents when you go to your next round may be people you've already played.

Hearthstone works as well as it does because it's not designed to be played super seriously. Magic is saddled with a meatspace rules legacy that isn't compatible with the kind of easy, casual digital gaming Hearthstone allows. A good client won't change that.
Well-done leagues are probably the best solution to the issue. And I doubt you could influence your match partner that much. 2-mans would be the ideal solution if the payout didn't suck. The most fun I've ever had on MTGO was during the release days of VMA where boosters were worth a shitton and you could go positive with a winrate of 40%. Sure, not sustainable in the long run, but boy, it was fun to not waste time and still get something out of it.


It's further exacerbated by the fact that Magic is, at heart, a game of giving permission - one of my main pet peeves about Duels is having to wrest thinking time from the program constantly.
MTGO could save alot of time with a proper UI. For starters, you don't have to engage in shuffle orgies that take minutes like in Paper.

But why can't I tap my duals intelligently for mana when casting spells? If I cast DRS, it doesn't fucking matter if I tap my Bayou for :b: or :g:. Even free progamms can do that while MTGO does not. Or why doesn't MTGO allow to set up loops for infinite combos?

[Lemnear]

Game of thoughts: Is there even a way to fix MTGO and it's twisted High entry barrier without basically starting from scratch again? Is there even a way to actually "end" the current failed MTGO without a shitload of legal questions/issues? I mean, it would be funny if they simply announce to turn off the Servers in a year and rebuild the game, compeditive aspects and Economy under a new MTG Trademark.

Blow up the whole online market and speculation in one wipe! Lol

[Aggro_zombies]

Game of thoughts: Is there even a way to fix MTGO and it's twisted High entry barrier without basically starting from scratch again? Is there even a way to actually "end" the current failed MTGO without a shitload of legal questions/issues? I mean, it would be funny if they simply announce to turn off the Servers in a year and rebuild the game, compeditive aspects and Economy under a new MTG Trademark.

Blow up the whole online market and speculation in one wipe! Lol
This would be even worse than just letting the current MTGO continue to fester. There's plenty of players who are fine with an ugly, buggy client but would lose their shit over that client vanishing unless WotC could guarantee that (1) their collections would make it through completely intact and (2) the new version would be out quickly and work smoothly from day one. The first is possible but their track record on the second is frightening - the current version was in beta for, what, two years? And it's still ass?

Maybe the next version will be remade from the ground up but that won't be out for a long time and there's no guarantee that it'll be an improvement on what we have now. WotC just cannot figure out software.

[Barook]

Game of thoughts: Is there even a way to fix MTGO and it's twisted High entry barrier without basically starting from scratch again? Is there even a way to actually "end" the current failed MTGO without a shitload of legal questions/issues? I mean, it would be funny if they simply announce to turn off the Servers in a year and rebuild the game, compeditive aspects and Economy under a new MTG Trademark.

Blow up the whole online market and speculation in one wipe! Lol
Sure, they could do that. The damage to the brand as a whole and the following class action law suit probably isn't really worth it.

They could always change the price structure in MTGO. They just did a massive overhaul 2 weeks ago with the whole play point thing, except they made the prize structure even more stupid.

The whole thing could be salvageable with a good client + rewarding prize structure if they put competent people in charge without the toxic management at Wizards meddling. So, basically, never.

And even a completely new program would be doomed to fail. Magic Duels was pure cancer - a mess of bugs and disconnects on par with MTGO, if not worse.

[DLifshitz]

I mean, it would be funny if they simply announce to turn off the Servers in a year and rebuild the game, compeditive aspects and Economy under a new MTG Trademark.

They could simply develop the new version of MTGO while keeping the old one around, then migrate people and their cards to the new one. Or give people strong incentives to move to the new one. Really, there are many ways they could proceed. The thing is, for several years now Hasbro have been doing the absolute minimum to keep MTGO running. Why would they suddenly do a 180o turn and invest money into a workable client?

[Shaman]

I just avoid to play Carpet of Flowers because I go mad about resolving every trigger. If I add zero mana, it even asks for the color... and asks it again next main phase...

[Barook]

Actually, wouldn't it help the flow of MTGO if priority is automatically passed after a certain amount of complete inaction? Hearthstone does it, and Paper magic punishes you for slow play as well (as long as you call a JUDGE! as you should in such a case).

That would also kill the incentive to double/tripple queue and force you to focus on the game before you, although I'm not sure if Wizards would want that. The client would also need to be more stable and have a fair solution for the case of disconnects because it would suck to lose to that.

[jrsthethird]

That would also kill the incentive to double/tripple queue and force you to focus on the game before you, although I'm not sure if Wizards would want that. The client would also need to be more stable and have a fair solution for the case of disconnects because it would suck to lose to that.

The game identifies when you've disconnected, so a Hearthstone priority clock could work, as long as you were still connected to the game. Suspend the priority clock in the case of a DC and give 5 minutes to get back into the game.

[TsumiBand]

DotP has a priority "timer" that works kind of well. You cast a spell or whatever would cause you to pass, opponent gets like a 3 second countdown to put something on the stack. It's one of the big reasons I really enjoyed it; it was still a slow playing experience but it was far better than the last time I'd played MTGO.

Thing about HS is that as others have pointed out it was designed as a video game so its UX can always cater to that, and it has a far, far simpler set of rules. It eschews trading in favor of a system where your extra cards can be turned to "dust" which you can use to craft cards you're missing. This IMHO is one of the great equalizers in the game and for a group of players consistently bombarded by posts about rising costs of cards I find it difficult to find fault with this system. You either pull a Dr. Boom in a pack, or you spend 1600 dust and craft him. There's no speculation to affect the cost, no flux in its cost if it blows up in popularity, and if on the outside chance it is nerfed it can be re-dusted for a 100% refund. I find this a far more fair system than leaving the price of singles up to whatever SCG tells me a card is going to be worth. There will never be a Sea Drake effect in Hearthstone.

[Barook]

I love the dust system of Hearthstone. MTGO would really benefit of a similiar system. Gets rid of chaff in the database and makes playing to grow your collection more appealing.

[Zombie]

DotP has a priority "timer" that works kind of well. You cast a spell or whatever would cause you to pass, opponent gets like a 3 second countdown to put something on the stack. It's one of the big reasons I really enjoyed it; it was still a slow playing experience but it was far better than the last time I'd played MTGO.

This is the single most infuriating thing about the program for me.

[TsumiBand]

This is the single most infuriating thing about the program for me.

It's far better than manually passing everything though right?

[Julian23]

Does that mean you only have 3 seconds to respond to something? Asking because that sounds awful.

[Barook]

Does that mean you only have 3 seconds to respond to something? Asking because that sounds awful.
You have 3 seconds to pull a stop timer.

[TsumiBand]

IIRC it's 3 seconds to say you have a response, not necessarily 3 seconds to put something on the stack? I think. It's been a long time and DotP doesn't run natively on Ubuntu so I haven't touched it for years.

Magic's priority system works because it's technically passively invked, so we can ignore it until we need it. When the game is forced to run through even a few of these, sequentially, it's boring as fuck and it's rigid. Hearthstone is 100% the opposite here; there are no phases or responses and you can set a group of dudes to attack, while casting a draw spell, and everything happens in the right order.

I wonder if a system which let a player play their hand and then just pass, and then the other player could pick whether or not to jump in and respond. So like, you can go as far into your turn as you like, but your opponent could hit an "effects during attack" button and you'd have to pay for your haste in decision making, just as a real game of Magic.

[SaberTooth]

Hearthstone: League of legends
Magic: Dota

one game can be better than the other, but the thing is, hearthstone won the fight

[Richard Cheese]

Game of thoughts: Is there even a way to fix MTGO and it's twisted High entry barrier without basically starting from scratch again? Is there even a way to actually "end" the current failed MTGO without a shitload of legal questions/issues? I mean, it would be funny if they simply announce to turn off the Servers in a year and rebuild the game, compeditive aspects and Economy under a new MTG Trademark.

Blow up the whole online market and speculation in one wipe! Lol

I wonder if the new Duels won't eventually supersede MTGO. The interface is worlds better, it's got cross-platform support, and now it's starting to be a much closer mirror to the paper game. A real deck builder and randomized packs make it feel a lot more like actual Magic than just a promotional product. Making it free to play and allowing players to (slowly) earn every card also makes it a hell of a lot more appealing than either previous Duels games or MTGO. They've laid the groundwork to allow them to just add new cards/sets and keep it going strong, hopefully they're smart enough to keep adding campaigns as well so that it's not completely inaccessible to new players in 2 years.

On the MTGO side, Play Points are starting to decouple prize support from actual monetary value, it doesn't seem like too big of a stretch for them to start offering "gold" value for cards/product, or offering to transfer collections, but they've dug themselves a pretty deep hole by trying to support nearly every old card and mechanic available in the paper game. It would take forever for the card pool (and code base) of Duels to catch up, but because they've allowed a secondary market in MTGO and tied virtual goods to real currency, they can't exactly just shut the servers off either. Still, I think given enough time and tweaking they can make the transition if they really want to.

[aegisd]

I wonder if the new Duels won't eventually supersede MTGO. The interface is worlds better, it's got cross-platform support, and now it's starting to be a much closer mirror to the paper game. A real deck builder and randomized packs make it feel a lot more like actual Magic than just a promotional product. Making it free to play and allowing players to (slowly) earn every card also makes it a hell of a lot more appealing than either previous Duels games or MTGO. They've laid the groundwork to allow them to just add new cards/sets and keep it going strong, hopefully they're smart enough to keep adding campaigns as well so that it's not completely inaccessible to new players in 2 years.

I've played the new duels a fair bit and it does have some great casual appeal. Pretty low barrier of entry, and you can find and play games fairly quick. The games themselves though tend to play out like limited a large majority of the time, with the rarity restrictions preventing you from making powerful decks. The turns also end up feeling extremely long and dragged out, since you have to wait 3 seconds for every priority pass (not to mention waiting when people don't turn off damage animations). Playing on MTGO feels closer to the paper version than duels does, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.

[Bed Decks Palyer]

More than a decade ago I had a discussion with a friend about the popularity of WW2 and the fact that there's no related cardboard collectible game. It's really weird, considering how there are any kinds of entertainment things ranging from gorillion of movies through videogames, miniature battles, etc. I guess that even if you'll exclude Germany's market due to the country's law prohibiting all things Hilter, you'll still end up with a business success.
Dozen years had passed and lo, there's a flash game called (aproximatelly) "WW2: the TCG", which is about (surprise surprise!) collecting cards and WW2 combat. Although the story is beyond silly (what would some murican dudes do in 1939 Germany-Poland conflict?), and the decks are made of all-nations armies (so yes, you got SS, Shermans, NKVD infantry, Commandos, Panzergrenadieren, USMC, T-34s and wutnot in one deck), at least they're trying.

[DLifshitz]

More than a decade ago I had a discussion with a friend about the popularity of WW2 and the fact that there's no related cardboard collectible game. It's really weird, considering how there are any kinds of entertainment things ranging from gorillion of movies through videogames, miniature battles, etc.

I don't find that especially surprising. You can hardly achieve a realistic representation of combat - on any level - with multiple units on either side without a map, and some rules to govern movement, ranged combat, lines of supply, whatever. And the kind of people who are interested in historical conflicts do want their games to be realistic. I suppose on the strategic level, you can have a card-driven game such as Twilight Struggle, but that's about it. TCGs aren't about realism, they're about customizability and collectability.

Also, by all accounts war is pretty grim. I think it says something fundamentally positive about human nature that there isn't a popular TCG about it.

Incidentally, I personally find it disappointing that lately, MtG is mostly about conflict and power struggle. Where are the planeswalker artists and poets and healers and philosophers?

[Lord Seth]

I don't find that especially surprising. You can hardly achieve a realistic representation of combat - on any level - with multiple units on either side without a map, and some rules to govern movement, ranged combat, lines of supply, whatever. And the kind of people who are interested in historical conflicts do want their games to be realistic. I suppose on the strategic level, you can have a card-driven game such as Twilight Struggle, but that's about it. TCGs aren't about realism, they're about customizability and collectability.

Also, by all accounts war is pretty grim. I think it says something fundamentally positive about human nature that there isn't a popular TCG about it.There might not be a popular TCG about it. There are, however, hugely popular board games and video games about it.

[Kathal]

There might not be a popular TCG about it. There are, however, hugely popular board games and video games about it.

Flames of War says hi.

Both, the video game and the board game industry are earning a ton both WW1 and WW2 games. If you look at the filming industry, it is the same there. It is just a very popular topic.

Greetings,
Kathal

PS: I'm neither playing Heartstone nor MODO, so I can't make any statement about this topic.

[Bed Decks Palyer]

I don't find that especially surprising. You can hardly achieve a realistic representation of combat - on any level - with multiple units on either side without a map, and some rules to govern movement, ranged combat, lines of supply, whatever. And the kind of people who are interested in historical conflicts do want their games to be realistic. I suppose on the strategic level, you can have a card-driven game such as Twilight Struggle, but that's about it. TCGs aren't about realism, they're about customizability and collectability.
Kathal answered that: there are people who are interested in military history and who play TCGs. They'd more than gladly play a Combat: the Tacticianing, if only there'd be one.



Also, by all accounts war is pretty grim. I think it says something fundamentally positive about human nature that there isn't a popular TCG about it.
War is life in extremis.
There are lots of people who are interested in army, military history, military progress, etc. Being interested about war is far from being fascinated by grimness (I find this especially futile remark, considering how MtG art became more and more grim, horrific, gruesome and other kind of crap), but rather by an extreme aspect of human history, behaviour and w/e.
It's a coin that's got all kind of grimness (destruction, suffering, atrocities) on one side and all kinds of epic on the other, be it heroism, mercy or camaraderie.
But it's a bit useless to discuss this off topic matter on a discussion board dedicated to debates about how the decks rape each other.



Incidentally, I personally find it disappointing that lately, MtG is mostly about conflict and power struggle. Where are the planeswalker artists and poets and healers and philosophers?
Same here.
I'm not against conflict being the central part of MtG per se, as it makes for a drama (and is a logical fluff of competitive game), but there could be far less "naked blinded demons waving their dicks while they mutilate their victims" kind of Master of Cruelties and w/e came out of the sick minds of porn-addicted masons in charge of WotC.

[ironclad8690]

...but there could be far less "naked blinded demons waving their dicks while they mutilate their victims" kind of Master of Cruelties and w/e came out of the sick minds of porn-addicted masons in charge of WotC...

"Oh, did someone mention me?"

http://sketchcardsaloon.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/kev-walker-demon-token-art.jpg

Magic: The Gathering: Whatever you're into, we have a naked blinded demon for you (nipple piercings/leather bondage not included).

[phonics]

Hearthstone: League of legends
Magic: Dota

one game can be better than the other, but the thing is, hearthstone won the fight

However in that case dota has the superior client to league. Mechanically magic is a superior game but the game client is a steaming pile in comparison to hearthstones.

[SaberTooth]

yeah, of course. All im saying is that, despite magic being a better game, hearthstone is for more people. HS is more successful, and that's a problem

[Richard Cheese]

More than a decade ago I had a discussion with a friend about the popularity of WW2 and the fact that there's no related cardboard collectible game. It's really weird, considering how there are any kinds of entertainment things ranging from gorillion of movies through videogames, miniature battles, etc. I guess that even if you'll exclude Germany's market due to the country's law prohibiting all things Hilter, you'll still end up with a business success.
Dozen years had passed and lo, there's a flash game called (aproximatelly) "WW2: the TCG", which is about (surprise surprise!) collecting cards and WW2 combat. Although the story is beyond silly (what would some murican dudes do in 1939 Germany-Poland conflict?), and the decks are made of all-nations armies (so yes, you got SS, Shermans, NKVD infantry, Commandos, Panzergrenadieren, USMC, T-34s and wutnot in one deck), at least they're trying.

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/6436/echelons-fury

From 1995.

Also, is there a single thread on this whole fucking site you won't try to derail?

Back on topic, I agree that it's a bit apples and oranges to compare paper Magic to something like Hearthstone. The collectible aspect just inherently limits access to the game and creates a secondary market. I don't think these are necessarily bad things, but I think it was a mistake to try and translate that aspect to virtual goods. I guess that model can work in some cases though, like gear in Diablo or stickers in Counter Strike. I don't really understand those markets/cultures though, I'm just guessing that those things are either secondary to gameplay, or can conceivably be earned by anyone in-game. MTGOs model of limited virtual "print runs" just seems so silly and arbitrary.

[HdH_Cthulhu]

A great solution: Mimic the HS arena.

In HS Arena you draft your deck from some random cards you get from the server. When you have your deck it matches you to another guy with the same record (first 0-0 obv) Once you loose 3 matches your out. Prices scale on how many matches you last!

I could make a pro/con list but screw that and stick with this: Since nobody cares where and when you build your deck you can quit between matches; making the total time commitment <=50mins

[Bed Decks Palyer]

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/6436/echelons-fury

From 1995.

Also, is there a single thread on this whole fucking site you won't try to derail?

Back on topic, I agree that it's a bit apples and oranges to compare paper Magic to something like Hearthstone. The collectible aspect just inherently limits access to the game and creates a secondary market. I don't think these are necessarily bad things, but I think it was a mistake to try and translate that aspect to virtual goods. I guess that model can work in some cases though, like gear in Diablo or stickers in Counter Strike. I don't really understand those markets/cultures though, I'm just guessing that those things are either secondary to gameplay, or can conceivably be earned by anyone in-game. MTGOs model of limited virtual "print runs" just seems so silly and arbitrary.

Thanks a lot!
I never knew about this game, at leastn not during the 2004 autumn or whenever we've talked with my friend abotu th ww2 cardboard gaming collectibles. Your welcome and I'll take a look into th stuff and if I'll get in touch with the said FOM, we'll de finitely try the game. But it might not be easy, as he went to India some time aroung 2008.

[Crimhead]

The very things that make Magic so wonderful inhibit its expansion into an online realm. Hearthstone interactions are simple and designed to facilitate its convenience and accessibility. There's no need to respond to various triggers, and there's no way to take actions during the other player's turn.



Thing is, Hearthstone has surpassed Paper + MTGO combined in both earnings AND playerbase numbers in no time.
Probably this is not a coincidence. Nowadays it seems major investors do not want to market entertainment that appeals to any less than ~80% of the relevant population. When MTG was designed, investors were happy to make products with a smaller share of the market.

MTG design is already suffering terribly in order to market the game to a mainstream audience. That's why there is not generally any prison, draw/go, or fast combo in Standard (the other reason is that if all the decks are midranged good-stuff, everyone needs a lot of the same cards and they sell more packs).-

The last thing I want for this game is for WotC to take mass marketing to a whole new level. :(

[TsumiBand]

Probably this is not a coincidence. Nowadays it seems major investors do not want to market entertainment that appeals to any less than ~80% of the relevant population. When MTG was designed, investors were happy to make products with a smaller share of the market.

MTG design is already suffering terribly in order to market the game to a mainstream audience. That's why there is not generally any prison, draw/go, or fast combo in Standard (the other reason is that if all the decks are midranged good-stuff, everyone needs a lot of the same cards and they sell more packs).-

The last thing I want for this game is for WotC to take mass marketing to a whole new level. :(

Sometimes I think Magic is most defined by the corner it painted itself into. Magic innovated its own genre and owns the IP on a ton of its interaction and mechanics - I don't mean like ability words and the stack but like.... the nitty-gritty of it, the rules complexity. Hell I don't think you can even create a card game where tapping is in the rules; they own rotating the card as a means of indicating its usage.

So of course nearly every other CCG goes "know what, magic is a mess of spaghetti coded rules and complex game states, so fuck it - we're taking a simpler approach". And lo and behold, games like Hearthstone are born and they're catchy as fuck.

And I'm sure that in its soul Magic prefers appealing to those that are fond of those rules-lawyering stack-manipulating timestamp-ordering Humility-playing Mensans, because it got big and stayed big for a long time on those folks. But when you have Hasbro throwing the "grow or die" horse-shit at you and your competitors are all just a bunch on Onboard Tricks decks, the fuck else can you do but print giant Green creatures that literally can't be killed by anything but combat damage and rebrand your Slivers as AvP one-offs?

[Happy83]

And I'm sure that in its soul Magic prefers appealing to those that are fond of those rules-lawyering stack-manipulating timestamp-ordering Humility-playing Mensans, because it got big and stayed big for a long time on those folks.

This is so true, it still makes me sad that they got rid of manaburn and stacking combat damage, good old times :cry:.

[Finn]

Just a note on this topic. The fact that Hearthstone is made by Blizzard is of importance here. They have shown time and time again that a polished product, even one with less sophistication than its competitors, is a far more successful than the one they supersede. Their ability to churn out a solid product that looks good and is not a beta in disguise is second to nobody.

[Jagil]

Just a note on this topic. The fact that Hearthstone is made by Blizzard is of importance here. They have shown time and time again that a polished product, even one with less sophistication than its competitors, is a far more successful than the one they supersede. Their ability to churn out a solid product that looks good and is not a beta in disguise is second to nobody.

Except for Apple. Both companies get their fair share of negative attention, but there is some wisdom to gleam from looking at their respective markets and how they are able to penetrate them so well. To get on topic, I would argue Wizards are doing something very right looking at the growth of the paper version of MTG but unlike Apple and Blizzard, they do not have the DNA to build a polished tech product at all.

Further, they are way too far behind now in regards to MTGO. There is no way they can attract the necessary talent[1], train current employees, update their technology stack and morph their DNA while releasing features and fostering the community through events etcetera at the speed Hearthstone is doing right now. The only way to save it, in my opinion, is to leapfrog with a solid, polished product and swallow sunk costs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_costs). The only feasible way to do this, would be to purchase a startup or similar which do have the DNA to deliver a solid client.

[1] A measure of the state of Wizards' mindshare in the tech world is to ask yourself: Given the opportunity (http://eu.blizzard.com/en-gb/company/careers/posting.html?id=15000I6), would you rather work on MTGO or Hearthstone (pay, insurance and such things being equal)? If your answer, like I would imagine, is HS, you can see how MTGO has entered a spiral of worse talent -> worse product -> less money -> worse talent etc

[sjmcc13]

Except for Apple.
No, blizzard is much better then Apple.
So much of Apple's rep comes from fanboys who blindly follow. The are not as innovative as most people believe, routinely add features after their competition has had them for at least a year, and actually have a bad track record with the time to fix issues when they occur compared to other companies.

Apple's biggest strength is is marketing engine. Blizzard's is actual product quality and support.

[Julian23]

Way to miss the point by knee-jerking the standard response with regards to Apple. Nothing new here.

It doesn't matter which company is "better". The comparison is valid with regards to presenting a less sophisticated, yet cleaner, less clumsy product. Less customization options and probably not as well constructed on the inside doesn't matter as long as your customer is just looking for casual entertainment in an appealing presention. I really like the comparison Finn and Jagil have drawn there.

[Richard Cheese]

Just saw this today, somewhat relevant:
http://kotaku.com/the-innovative-controversial-evolution-of-hearthstone-1730397199

TL;DR - Hearthstone is breaking out of traditional CCG molds with random effects. Of course, nobody remembers that Microprose was doing that shit back in '98 with the Astral cycle in DotP/Shandalar, but I digress. With the rarity/deck construction changes in Duels: Origins, should Wizards also look into unique cards or effects for their digital offerings, or does that defeat the whole point?

Also that Microprose game is still Magic's best digital offering to date. Adventure, dueling, quests, dungeons...it had it all!

[jrsthethird]

Just saw this today, somewhat relevant:
http://kotaku.com/the-innovative-controversial-evolution-of-hearthstone-1730397199

TL;DR - Hearthstone is breaking out of traditional CCG molds with random effects. Of course, nobody remembers that Microprose was doing that shit back in '98 with the Astral cycle in DotP/Shandalar, but I digress. With the rarity/deck construction changes in Duels: Origins, should Wizards also look into unique cards or effects for their digital offerings, or does that defeat the whole point?

Also that Microprose game is still Magic's best digital offering to date. Adventure, dueling, quests, dungeons...it had it all!

I posed the question to Maro's blog several times over the years if the Astral cards would ever make it into MODO (in a non-eternal-playable way). Just for EDH/casual/cube formats. Obviously tweaked to fit the game almost 20 years later. Sometimes I just want to slam Whimsy effects all day. They do have something in that vein in Momir basic, but it's not really the same.

On Hearthstone, I have no pity to someone who loses to an RNG move.

[Lord Seth]

Sometimes I think Magic is most defined by the corner it painted itself into. Magic innovated its own genre and owns the IP on a ton of its interaction and mechanics - I don't mean like ability words and the stack but like.... the nitty-gritty of it, the rules complexity. Hell I don't think you can even create a card game where tapping is in the rules; they own rotating the card as a means of indicating its usage.Didn't that patent expire recently?

[Bed Decks Palyer]

...stacking combat damage, good old times :cry:.
Stacking combat damage was one of the most irritating and absurd changes in Classic Sixth Edition. Good old times were thos before it.



Didn't that patent expire recently?
Same question here.
Tapping for effect is one heck of an amazing and elegant idea. I especially like how there's nothing else that a player needs (no counters, no pen and paper, not even memory) to indicate that the card was used.
The other thing that I liked (until Delver and firends) were the uniform card backs. There are ccgs that don't have those uniform backs (at least part of the cards like say the wolfpack in Rage) and that use the back sides for any other purposes (like Delver and friends). It's not that bad if the game uses this approach reasonably (say Rage and its wolfpacks, much contrary to Delver and friends), and one brilliant aspect of electronic ccgs is that the virtual cards might have any ammount of those virtual backsides, as many as the designers need (basic card -> minor upgrade -> major upgrade I -> major upgrade II -. final upgrade).
If I'd have to describe a perfect ccg, I would hesitate to name Magic, especially not MODO.

[Meekrab]

WotC just cannot figure out software.
Yep. They're not a software company and they have what are basically amateurs doing UX design and economic policy. The deckbuilding interface on MTGO is one of the most atrocious things I've ever used, and that they continue to gimp prize support that has ~zero cost is astounding.

MTGO still being as popular as it is surprises me considering the quality of the experience.

[Meekrab]

Same question here.
Tapping for effect is one heck of an amazing and elegant idea. I especially like how there's nothing else that a player needs (no counters, no pen and paper, not even memory) to indicate that the card was used.
The other thing that I liked (until Delver and firends) were the uniform card backs. There are ccgs that don't have those uniform backs (at least part of the cards like say the wolfpack in Rage) and that use the back sides for any other purposes (like Delver and friends). It's not that bad if the game uses this approach reasonably (say Rage and its wolfpacks, much contrary to Delver and friends), and one brilliant aspect of electronic ccgs is that the virtual cards might have any ammount of those virtual backsides, as many as the designers need (basic card -> minor upgrade -> major upgrade I -> major upgrade II -. final upgrade).
If I'd have to describe a perfect ccg, I would hesitate to name Magic, especially not MODO.
Other than lack of space for text, the two sided cards could've been implemented as flip cards like Erayo, Soratami Ascendant. None of them even changed card type, what a lack of imagination!

[jrsthethird]

Other than lack of space for text, the two sided cards could've been implemented as flip cards like Erayo, Soratami Ascendant. None of them even changed card type, what a lack of imagination!

What do you mean? Obviously the Origins PWs, but the first time around, Elbrus, the Binding Blade is one example. There may be more and I don't remember them, but it certainly did happen.

[aluisiocsantos]

One main reason I enjoy playing Hearthstone is because I can play it on my phone. I wish there was a way I can at least playtest Magic on my phone. It also doesn't help that adult life catches up to your Magic time.

I still love playing Magic. Whenever I get the chance, I play it whether casually with my friends or coworkers. Even do drafts once a month.

I also want to point out that it's way cheaper to play competitive Hearthstone than competitive Magic.

I agree entirely to this.
I can play competitively with someone from the confort of my GF's couch if I want, or from the restroom, or anywhere. Anytime. The game is by no means terrible, even if way too random, but nonetheless fun and the best part is that it doens't have Brainstorm to ruin the fun for everyone.

[Lord Seth]

MTGO still being as popular as it is surprises me considering the quality of the experience.It's because, despite MTGO's many shortcomings, people still like the game itself enough to be willing to tolerate it. Which of course makes the badness of it all the more confusing, because if it can do that well despite the client being awful, imagine how much more cash it could rake in if it were coded well.

[Meekrab]

What do you mean? Obviously the Origins PWs, but the first time around, Elbrus, the Binding Blade is one example. There may be more and I don't remember them, but it certainly did happen.
I was not aware of this card. Anyway my point remains, they already had a 'transforming' card mechanic, it just didn't work well for things with lots of text.

[Aggro_zombies]

I was not aware of this card. Anyway my point remains, they already had a 'transforming' card mechanic, it just didn't work well for things with lots of text.
That wasn't the only problem. If you looked across the table, the side of the card you could read wasn't the side of the card the card actually was. Also, heaven help you if your opponent is a dick (like me) who plays with all his cards facing you, or who taps at weird angles, or whatever. Having two faces is way less ambiguous as a transformation mechanic than spinning the card around.

[TsumiBand]

Double-faced cards in general were handled poorly. They goofed with Limited and they weren't terribly uniform in their template, so sometimes they would solve the same problem in different ways. The biggest example I can think of is Huntmaster of the Fells vs. Soul Seizer; HotF says "Whenever this transforms into -this side of the card-, [do stuff]." Whereas Soul Seizer says, "Whenever -this- deals combat damage to a player, you may transform it. If you do, [do stuff]." As opposed to following suit and saying "As this transforms into -this side of the card-, [do stuff]."

I keep trying to imagine what a decent, somewhat free-wheeling Magic client would even look like. They could never go with a client that doesn't enforce the rules of the game, but it's that continual rules reminding and the whole steps/phases/priority handling that makes the current blessed app feel poopy to begin with. People don't like the chess clock feeling of DotP apparently, so using a timer to see if/when a player has responses is apparently no good; I don't know what an acceptable medium would be. I know that it could never actually play like the Hearthstone app whatsoever, because Magic is simply too demanding for that.