Anticipating Hearthstone's influence on DotP

160 posts / 0 new
Last post
So, for those of you who aren't aware, Blizzard is planning on releasing their own digital CCG later this year, called Hearthstone: Heroes of Warcraft. Knowing Blizzard, it's going to be a polished product, and very likely extremely addictive. The developers have admitted to being heavily influenced by MtG, a game which many Blizzard employees enjoy during their spare time. 

I might be wrong, but I see Hearthstone as a direct competitor to the DotP series. Blizzard has caught on to WotC/Stainless's success with DotP, and have decided to come out with their own iteration of the digital CCG. In my opinion, this is awesome. The basic laws of economics dictate that competition in any market will inevitably drive up the quality of the products in that market. DotP has basically had a monopoly on the digital CCG genre for the past 4 years with no real competition. This could become the game that really pushes Stainless/Wizards to start really improving the game so that they don't begin to lose their share of the market.

Hearthstone will be free to play, but will likely include the same type of microtransaction based system to generate revenue. I don't see the $10 price tag coming off of DotP anytime soon, since MtG is probably the biggest name in CCGs, but free to play is hard to say no to. Therefore, I think a lot of people will at least try the game out. 

I'm not totally sure how the gameplay will compare just yet, but I'm signed up for the beta, and hopefully we will all get a feel for how fun the game is within the next few months. From what I've read though, it's quite addictive, and is very approachable, but deep and complex enough to keep hardcore players coming back. Whether or not it will compare to MtG's gameplay remains to be seen, as MtG has been around for decades, and refined to a very sharp point. Blizzard will really have to outtdo themselves to make a game as fun as MtG, but it could happen.

One huge advantage Blizzard has is that they have no paper card game to support. Therefore, decks in Hearthstone will be fully customizable with every single card in the game, and I imagine that new cards will be released through patches quite frequently, steadily adding to the collection. This is something that DotP will likely NEVER offer due the need to protect the paper version of the game. The main advantage of DotP is that it's Magic, and it's one of the most popular and enjoyable card games in the world. It will be interesting to see how the 2 games try to capitalize on their strengths going forward.

The main thing I'm interested to see with Hearthstone is how it functions with Battle.net. If Blizzard can make a legit matchmaking system on par with Starcraft 2's ladder system and multiplayer, it would totally blow away the multiplayer in DotP and really force Stainless to up their game to a whole new level. 

I'm looking forward to seeing how Hearthstone turns out, and how it affects the DotP series thereafter. Should be a lot of fun for fans of both Blizzard and WotC.
So, for those of you who aren't aware, Blizzard is planning on releasing their own digital CCG later this year, called Hearthstone: Heroes of Warcraft. Knowing Blizzard, it's going to be a polished product, and very likely extremely addictive.



What? You're aware Diablo 3 is still barely playable almost a year after release and has a ruined economy and still terrible item drops? Blizzard has been cranking out crap for years. I'd say you might be thinking of Blizzard North, but they've been gone since 2005. WoW is successful now, yes, but that had little to do with it being a polished product (which only happened after the second expansion) and more to do with appealing to the lowest common denominator. Blizzard games are always trash out of the gates because they rush and feature creep everything, and never have the same team for any two products.

Wizards: If it isn't game design, we can't do it right. Frankly, we're kind of shaky on the game design sometimes too.

So, for those of you who aren't aware, Blizzard is planning on releasing their own digital CCG later this year, called Hearthstone: Heroes of Warcraft. Knowing Blizzard, it's going to be a polished product, and very likely extremely addictive.



What? You're aware Diablo 3 is still barely playable almost a year after release and has a ruined economy and still terrible item drops? Blizzard has been cranking out crap for years. I'd say you might be thinking of Blizzard North, but they've been gone since 2005. WoW is successful now, yes, but that had little to do with it being a polished product (which only happened after the second expansion) and more to do with appealing to the lowest common denominator. Blizzard games are always trash out of the gates because they rush and feature creep everything, and never have the same team for any two products.



Diablo 3 still got extremely good reviews from game critics, and I played it pretty obssessively for almost 3 months before burning out. Just because you didn't like 1 of their games doesn't mean they are a bad company. They are only the creator of the top RTS game in the world (SC2), the top MMO in the world (WoW), they basically invented the action RPG genre, and a spin off from one of their games (DotA) has become an entirely new genre by itself. Actually, I'd argue that they are the top PC gaming company in the market right now. Also, why are you making up stuff? Did you even play Vanilla WoW? I had a blast with it, and it was certainly the most polished MMO on the market at release, and it still is. Plus, they NEVER rush their games . . . Blizzard is notorious for not releasing games until they are ready. Sure, D3 wasn't all it was hyped up to be, but because it was only good, and not great, they canned Jay Wilson, the game's director. That speaks to their level of expectations.

At the very least, their games don't regularly delete all of your save progress. 

Free-to-play more often than not just equals pay-to-win. There's a lot of people who play DOTP because they dislike models that are based on regular payments, and a lot more because they like the precon nature as a casual intoduction to TCGs.

In that regard I can't see it harming DOTP much. If anything it'll be in competition with MTGO as it'll follow similar models and may lead to people "graduating" to it instead of MTGO.

That said though, I can't imagine a situation where MTGO and DOTP don't eventually fuse into one product anyway, combining the functionality of MTGO with the user friendliness of DOTP, retaining a walled-off precon only mode as an introductory/tutorial format.

All competiton will just do is hasten this as it'll stop people migrating to a competing product when they graduate if the advanced model is integrated.
Free-to-play more often than not just equals pay-to-win. There's a lot of people who play DOTP because they dislike models that are based on regular payments, and a lot more because they like the precon nature as a casual intoduction to TCGs.

In that regard I can't see it harming DOTP much. If anything it'll be in competition with MTGO as it'll follow similar models and may lead to people "graduating" to it instead of MTGO.

That said though, I can't imagine a situation where MTGO and DOTP don't eventually fuse into one product anyway, combining the functionality of MTGO with the user friendliness of DOTP, retaining a walled-off precon only mode as an introductory/tutorial format.

All competiton will just do is hasten this as it'll stop people migrating to a competing product when they graduate if the advanced model is integrated.




I'm not so sure, they pretty much already said that it won't be pay-to-win, and players won't have to pay a dime to access everything in the game. If anything, it will probably be like LoL's system, where you can access everything in the game (aside from cosmetic disfferences) through just playing it, but you can pay to avoid huge amounts of grinding.

Also, I never said it would hurt DotP. I was arguing that it would improve DotP by providing legitimate competition in the market.
Diablo 3 still got extremely good reviews from game critics, and I played it pretty obssessively for almost 3 months before burning out. Just because you didn't like 1 of their games doesn't mean they are a bad company.


Good for you. Doesn't alter the fact the game launched riddled with bugs and the economy and balance, by the company's own admission, has been completely undermined by the auction houses, which was only included as a money making scheme.

They are only the creator of the top RTS game in the world (SC2), the top MMO in the world (WoW)


Most profitable maybe, but that doesn't make them good. SC2 is big because it was adopted by Korean gaming leagues and was specifically desinged to be. WoW is technically and graphically out of date and succeeds because it uses every psychological trick in the book to create addiction. Neither are especially good games, but both were cynically designed to be make money.

they basically invented the action RPG genre, and a spin off from one of their games (DotA) has become an entirely new genre by itself.


No they didn't. DOTAs were created by fans as mods. Blizzard have no claim to them, which is why they lost a court case to Valve over sole ownership of the term.

Blizzard make mediocre games. They just know how to form addiction and market and monetise their products better than most.



No they didn't. DOTAs were created by fans as mods. Blizzard have no claim to them, which is why they lost a court case to Valve over sole ownership of the term.

Blizzard make mediocre games. They just know how to form addiction and market and monetise their products better than most.



Actually, they DID invent the modern PC Action RPG. Diablo 1 was the first action RPG game on PC. I never said they invented MOBAs (DotA). I said it was a spin off of one of their games.

Your opinion that they makes mediocre games may or may not be true, but it's just an opinion. No one is forcing you to buy their games. They actually made incredible games that were not based on making money at all up until they were purchased by Activision, but I still think they make great games for the most part. I agree D3 was pretty bad, but most people enjoyed it at least a few weeks, and the bad release got really overblown, it wasn't nearly as horrible as some other games, like SimCity.

Plus, there isn't some kind of magical formula that makes people addicted to games, people get addicted because it's fun, and they enjoy playing the game. People generally aren't stupid, Blizzard wouldn't be this popular if they consistently made terrible games.
Mods are asleep, post competition games. Wink
*In before topic get deleted*

Hearthstone isn't very similar to MtG, it have a little more offensive gameplay than Magic. But anyway, because of the pure fame of the Warcraft lore, many Casuals will play it, maybe it will be the most played TCG on the PC. This could be a problem for DotP, because as a Casual product, i don't think it can be compete against a free game with deckeditor.

For me, Hex will be defeat DotP because it is already a copy of it but with much more amazing things to do.

DotP can only get a chance, if they drop the agenda to bring people from DoTP to buy real Magic cards and improve DoTP to a much better game. Or the other TCG make a mistake , in it's to hard to earn new cards with playing alone, so people go away from P2W to cheap and fair DotP.
Diablo 3 still got extremely good reviews from game critics,



The ones that were bribed, yes. Almost everyone else panned it for the piece of rubbish it released as.

and I played it pretty obssessively for almost 3 months before burning out.



Almost three months, huh? You know Diablo 2 still has an avid player base after thirteen years? Although it spent its first eight months unplayably bugged offline and unplayably laggy online, it was a much better designed game overall and withstood the test of time. Of course, that was Blizzard North, which was where the actual talent was.

Just because you didn't like 1 of their games doesn't mean they are a bad company.



No, my personal feelings are utterly irrelevant, in fact. I've never liked any of their games, but I gave Diablo 3 a chance and got burned badly. It was Diablo in name only. I was a part of two large D2 communities and only a small minority of either was satisfied with D3, and for a lot of them it had been their first Blizzard game too. People familiar with the WarCraft line were easier to please, but I wasn't one of those.

They are only the creator of the top RTS game in the world (SC2),



I'm told that this is somewhat debatable if you count castle defence games as RTS, but as both genres hold zero interest for me, I can't really oppose your statement.

the top MMO in the world (WoW),



Top in profits or customer satisfaction? I already know the answer to this.

they basically invented the action RPG genre



1) No, this was Blizzard North. Stop confusing the two. 2) Even then, all they did was make a graphical Roguelike, which predated them by twenty years, nearly an entire generation.

and a spin off from one of their games (DotA) has become an entirely new genre by itself.



Which is fan-made, and only serves to prove that amateur coding fans can make better, more polished games than they do. You're undermining what little point you have here.

Actually, I'd argue that they are the top PC gaming company in the market right now.



You can argue that red is green, too. That doesn't make you correct.

Also, why are you making up stuff?



I'm not. I have my facts straight. You should try it some time, it's thrilling.

Did you even play Vanilla WoW?



Uhm, yes.

I had a blast with it,



Your personal experiences aren't everything. Your fanboiism is strong, though. Do you have a set of authenticator earrings?

and it was certainly the most polished MMO on the market at release, and it still is.



Have you EVER played ANY other MMO? Even Ultima Online was more polished on release and it was the first one and didn't even have anyone else's work or lessons to steal from. WoW was a MESS on release. You can still Google relevant articles about it in like ten seconds.

Plus, they NEVER rush their games . . . Blizzard is notorious for not releasing games until they are ready.



Are we ignoring that they specifically apologised for doing so with D3? I mean if they can admit their mistakes, why can't you?

Sure, D3 wasn't all it was hyped up to be, but because it was only good, and not great, they canned Jay Wilson, the game's director. That speaks to their level of expectations.



You mean AFTER they spent six months backing him constantly and saying he could do no wrong? Holy Hell, did you ever even READ their message boards at the time? They can only have canned him because of the number of death threats he was getting.

At the very least, their games don't regularly delete all of your save progress. 



Only game I ever played that did that was Daggerfall, and it did it for everyone. Again, your personal experiences aren't everything. I'm also fairly certain that your saved loss progress was more tied to the platform you were playing on than anything Wizards/Stainless had to do with it, since so far as I can tell, their data saving routine is "do whatever the platform developers tell us to do." But I know the _majority_ did not experience it, so using it as a point that it "regularly" happens is false.

Wizards: If it isn't game design, we can't do it right. Frankly, we're kind of shaky on the game design sometimes too.

You guys keep talking about those newcomers beating DotP, but you're clearly underestimating DotP's greatest feature, those magical 3 words: Magic: the Gathering. As long as Magic is a success and keeps its status as the best TCG in the world, WotC has to do very little with DotP to wipe the competition out.

WotC doesn't care about flavor. Their forum is the only place where an ORC can kill a troll...

Lost around 120 posts in the forum migration

Post #1000 on Feb 02, 2013

Post #2000 on Sep 04, 2013

Plus, there isn't some kind of magical formula that makes people addicted to games, people get addicted because it's fun, and they enjoy playing the game. People generally aren't stupid, Blizzard wouldn't be this popular if they consistently made terrible games.



1) Uh, yes, there is. It's called marketing research and player profiles. Again, you can Google stuff on this, although most armchair psychologists with a couple of hours of free time could puzzle most of it out on their own.

2) If you believe people are generally not stupid, then I will say only than I am fiercely jealous of your blessed naivety. I remember being like that when I was twelve or so, and man do I miss honestly believing everyone was smart. I really wish I lived in that world.

3) Britney Spears has been cranking out terrible music for over a decade. Just because she's popular (and even that's waning) doesn't mean she's good. It just means there's plenty of stupid people with money to burn.

As a matter of proving all three points at once, WoW was specifically made cartoony so it could get away with cartoon violence ratings just so that kids could better goad their parents into buying it for them, because it lacked the shock value of "real" violence that got people worked up like Mortal Kombat.

You're not normally a bad poster, man, but you really just do not have your facts straight on this one. Really, take a step back, a deep breath, put in a few hours of research - maybe even as many as eight - come back, and try again. You are hideously outmatched as is.

Wizards: If it isn't game design, we can't do it right. Frankly, we're kind of shaky on the game design sometimes too.

You guys keep talking about those newcomers beating DotP, but you're clearly underestimating DotP's greatest feature, those magical 3 words: Magic: the Gathering. As long as Magic is a success and keeps its status as the best TCG in the world, WotC has to do very little with DotP to wipe the competition out.



Yeah, I agree. Having the MtG brand is the biggest strength of the DotP series, and that's why I think it will stick around no matter what. I just think the game, as-is might not be able to compete without a lot of new features and improved multiplayer. 
Wow, you are way too worked up about this. I don't even care to argue at this point. My original post had nothing to do with wether or not Blizzard is a good company. I like their games, you don't. I really don't care about your opinions. 

I was more interested in discussing DotP and how WotC/Stainless would respond if a real competitor emerged in the market. But if you feel compelled to make loud noises because you're angry that you bought a bad game, by all means, continue.



You don't need to take it all personal. It's not your fault they make mediocre games. Your only fault was mistaking Blizzard with Blizzard North for some of that. I'm just pointing out that Blizzard's products nor repute are as spotless as you make them out to be, and realistically they are little to no threat to DotP or Magic in general unless they've REALLY fixed up their act since D3, which I doubt, since they're still busy working on fixing that train wreck.

Wizards: If it isn't game design, we can't do it right. Frankly, we're kind of shaky on the game design sometimes too.

Wow, you are way too worked up about this. I don't even care to argue at this point. My original post had nothing to do with wether or not Blizzard is a good company. I like their games, you don't. I really don't care about your opinions. 

I was more interested in discussing DotP and how WotC/Stainless would respond if a real competitor emerged in the market. But if you feel compelled to make loud noises because you're angry that you bought a bad game, by all means, continue.



You don't need to take it all personal. It's not your fault they make mediocre games. Your only fault was mistaking Blizzard with Blizzard North for some of that. I'm just pointing out that Blizzard's products nor repute are as spotless as you make them out to be, and realistically they are little to no threat to DotP or Magic in general unless they've REALLY fixed up their act since D3, which I doubt, since they're still busy working on fixing that train wreck.



I'm not taking anything personally, and I can't think of why you would perceive it that way. I think it's actually quite amusing that you spent THAT many keystrokes and "hours of research" to dispute my opinion. I was merely just trying to make a point that just because you have an opinion doesn't make it fact. I personally think the orignal Starcraft was one of the greatest PC games ever created, and that was definitely not Blizzard North. (And I'm quite willing to admit that they still haven't made a game that good since then, even including D2) But unlike you, I'm stating it as an opinion, and not acting like my opinion is scientific fact while also being as condescending as possible.
You guys keep talking about those newcomers beating DotP, but you're clearly underestimating DotP's greatest feature, those magical 3 words: Magic: the Gathering. As long as Magic is a success and keeps its status as the best TCG in the world, WotC has to do very little with DotP to wipe the competition out.



Yeah, I agree. Having the MtG brand is the biggest strength of the DotP series, and that's why I think it will stick around no matter what. I just think the game, as-is might not be able to compete without a lot of new features and improved multiplayer. 



A fan of Magic won't replace DotP (or MTGO, for the matter) with another game just because it has cool features. DotP has all the benefits the MtG brand can give, from the great gameplay (most of the Magic success is on the back of its game mechanics, and we often forget how brilliant they are. Many TCGs die before their first year because of poor gameplay) to the marketing. Seriously, I doubt any of those new TCGs will have a meaningful impact on how WotC handles DotP/MTGO, if any.

WotC doesn't care about flavor. Their forum is the only place where an ORC can kill a troll...

Lost around 120 posts in the forum migration

Post #1000 on Feb 02, 2013

Post #2000 on Sep 04, 2013



That being said, I doubt Hearthstone is going to make any kind of a dent. It's system looks similar to the WoW/Shadow Era TCGs, which, while nice and different, doesn't hold a candle to MtG. Who cares what Richard Garfield says, the mana system is what makes MtG [better than all the other TCGs].

I'm sure it will launch with a little bit of a bang at first, but from what I understand, it's one of those freemium games, more than likely doomed to be a wasteland for only the most hardcore of IAPurchasers after a few months (speculation, of course).
I'm not taking anything personally. I think it's actually quite amusing that you spent THAT many keystrokes and "hours of research" to dispute my opinion. I was merely just trying to make a point that just because you have an opinion doesn't make it fact. I personally think the orignal Starcraft was one of the greatest PC games ever created, and that was definitely not Blizzard North. (And I'm quite willing to admit that they still haven't made a game that good since then, even including D2) But unlike you, I'm stating it as an opinion, and not acting like my opinion is scientific fact.



Well, all the hours of research came from long, long ago. I do basically four things in life; work, read, gaming, and my significant other. Work's out currently, so the other three get a lot of attention. I've spent quite a lot of time doing season work, so gaming ends up pretty high on my list of things done. Blizzard and Blizzard North probably just happen to be the two companies I know best, for good reasons (as well as some of the companies various remnants of Blizzard North later became, but that's a different topic for another board.)

I know my opinions aren't facts; I even specifically pointed out that my (and your) personal experiences are irrelevant. I'm going off of what is general knowledge, up to and including limited financial reports, and vast amounts of experience talking to their other customers. The facts I'm posting are facts, though. I even told you how and where to find them. After that it's up to you, I don't have kids and I'm not going to read you a bed time story either. :p

So far as Starcraft, I can't comment. Again, RTS isn't my genre and I am in no way qualified to speak about it except in broad generalisations. 

Wizards: If it isn't game design, we can't do it right. Frankly, we're kind of shaky on the game design sometimes too.

I'm not taking anything personally. I think it's actually quite amusing that you spent THAT many keystrokes and "hours of research" to dispute my opinion. I was merely just trying to make a point that just because you have an opinion doesn't make it fact. I personally think the orignal Starcraft was one of the greatest PC games ever created, and that was definitely not Blizzard North. (And I'm quite willing to admit that they still haven't made a game that good since then, even including D2) But unlike you, I'm stating it as an opinion, and not acting like my opinion is scientific fact.



Well, all the hours of research came from long, long ago. I do basically four things in life; work, read, gaming, and my significant other. Work's out currently, so the other three get a lot of attention. I've spent quite a lot of time doing season work, so gaming ends up pretty high on my list of things done. Blizzard and Blizzard North probably just happen to be the two companies I know best, for good reasons (as well as some of the companies various remnants of Blizzard North later became, but that's a different topic for another board.)

I know my opinions aren't facts; I even specifically pointed out that my (and your) personal experiences are irrelevant. I'm going off of what is general knowledge, up to and including limited financial reports, and vast amounts of experience talking to their other customers. The facts I'm posting are facts, though. I even told you how and where to find them. After that it's up to you, I don't have kids and I'm not going to read you a bed time story either. :p

So far as Starcraft, I can't comment. Again, RTS isn't my genre and I am in no way qualified to speak about it except in broad generalisations. 



Look, I have nothing against you, and I didn't need to learn your entire back story to understand where you're coming from. You played WoW and Diablo 3, and you didn't like them. Fine, but you can't just say a whole company's body of work is mediocre and state that as fact based on "financial reports", especially when the genre the company is most highly regarded for (RTS) is something you don't even play. If you did play Starcraft and Brood War for hundreds of hours as many people have, then perhaps you would understand why some people are fans of Blizzard.
If you did play Starcraft and Brood War for hundreds of hours as many people have, then perhaps you would understand why some people are fans of Blizzard.



Oh, I did. I'm just not good at them. They're alright time killers, especially when you have people you know to play with, but I don't take them seriously enough to have more than a passing knowledge of them, partly due to not having the reflexes to really keep up. I'm not good with aiming, and I prefer to think when I call a game "strategy."

Wizards: If it isn't game design, we can't do it right. Frankly, we're kind of shaky on the game design sometimes too.

If you did play Starcraft and Brood War for hundreds of hours as many people have, then perhaps you would understand why some people are fans of Blizzard.



Oh, I did. I'm just not good at them. They're alright time killers, especially when you have people you know to play with, but I don't take them seriously enough to have more than a passing knowledge of them, partly due to not having the reflexes to really keep up. I'm not good with aiming, and I prefer to think when I call a game "strategy."



If you're trying to imply that there's no thinking invovled in Starcraft . . . you're the one who needs to do some more research. There's more thinking involved in a typical brood war game than in 20 games of chess. Watch a VOD of a professional korean match from a few years back when it was the top game there. It was practically one of the top spectator sports there from 2000-2010. That's why "real time" is challenging, you're on a constant clock to map out a strategy. 

If you're not convinced, watch this: www.youtube.com/watch?v=11Z0UaWAADk
If you're trying to imply that there's no thinking invovled in Starcraft . . . you're the one who needs to do some more research. There's more thinking involved in a typical brood war game than in 20 games of chess. Watch a VOD of a professional korean match from a few years back when it was the top game there. It was practically one of the top spectator sports there from 2000-2010. That's why "real time" is challenging, you're on a constant clock to map out a strategy. 

If you're not convinced, watch this: www.youtube.com/watch?v=11Z0UaWAADk



Do I ever imply things? I thought being blunt was kind of my "thing." No, I only meant I prefer turn-based strategy. I think "strategy" is a mild misnomber in a genre where you often have no more than two or three seconds to react to massive swings in the game state. That seems more like action or "twitch" gameplay to me. I'm not saying it doesn't require some kind of thought, even if it's mostly reactive/reflexive. Just say I find the name less than appropriate. You're also clearly taking this more personally than you think you are, man. If I wanted to insult you (or the genre), I'd just do it.

I played enough "real time" in Guild Wars, but I was in better health then - enough to be one of the top Assassin PvP players in the world for a few months. But PvP in an MMO is still only controlling one character, as opposed to giving fleet commands or the like in an RTS. I am all over TBS, though. Tactics Ogre/Final Fantasy Tactics, all their various spin-offs and several other similar, lesser-known games. I just don't do well controlling multiple units on the fly.

Wizards: If it isn't game design, we can't do it right. Frankly, we're kind of shaky on the game design sometimes too.



That being said, I doubt Hearthstone is going to make any kind of a dent. It's system looks similar to the WoW/Shadow Era TCGs, which, while nice and different, doesn't hold a candle to MtG. Who cares what Richard Garfield says, the mana system is what makes MtG [better than all the other TCGs].

I'm sure it will launch with a little bit of a bang at first, but from what I understand, it's one of those freemium games, more than likely doomed to be a wasteland for only the most hardcore of IAPurchasers after a few months (speculation, of course).



This.  Specifically the bold part.
If you're trying to imply that there's no thinking invovled in Starcraft . . . you're the one who needs to do some more research. There's more thinking involved in a typical brood war game than in 20 games of chess. Watch a VOD of a professional korean match from a few years back when it was the top game there. It was practically one of the top spectator sports there from 2000-2010. That's why "real time" is challenging, you're on a constant clock to map out a strategy. 

If you're not convinced, watch this: www.youtube.com/watch?v=11Z0UaWAADk



Do I ever imply things? I thought being blunt was kind of my "thing." No, I only meant I prefer turn-based strategy. I think "strategy" is a mild misnomber in a genre where you often have no more than two or three seconds to react to massive swings in the game state. That seems more like action or "twitch" gameplay to me. I'm not saying it doesn't require some kind of thought, even if it's mostly reactive/reflexive. Just say I find the name less than appropriate. You're also clearly taking this more personally than you think you are, man. If I wanted to insult you (or the genre), I'd just do it.

I played enough "real time" in Guild Wars, but I was in better health then - enough to be one of the top Assassin PvP players in the world for a few months. But PvP in an MMO is still only controlling one character, as opposed to giving fleet commands or the like in an RTS. I am all over TBS, though. Tactics Ogre/Final Fantasy Tactics, all their various spin-offs and several other similar, lesser-known games. I just don't do well controlling multiple units on the fly.



Hah . . . just because you aren't good enough to play a RTS game and think at the same time doesn't mean it's not just as strategic as any turn based game. It just means you think too slow and you can't multitask. I think you're the only one here taking anything personally, I'm not the one randomly bringing up how good I am at X game trying to prove something. I'm just sitting at work with nothing to do.
I think competition would be great. This game is too buggy for their not to be someone out there to compete. Even though D3 might not be any good it doesn't mean the team can't redeem themselves. D3 is a very different game.
Wow that comment about Starcraft not being about Strategy is seriously ignorant to the teeth imho. How can you even say that? Let's go easy on Chess too as that was some major hyperbole. Chess has an infinite amount of thinking and strategy involved. New target please. Hehe that SC comment is still entirely bizarre.



Okay, you're right, the chess thing was a little over the top, but starcraft is at least on par with it. At least you don't have to micro your bishops and knights :p
Haha, yeah, I have no idea why someone would think Starcraft of all games is not about strategy. It just seems, really kind of an insipid comment to make no?

I have faith that Blizz can bring the heat. Why not? Card games are not that hard to make. You need good artists and competent programmers but it all comes down to how fun it is. They can design whatever they want too! I am all for this.
Haha, yeah, I have no idea why someone would think Starcraft of all games is not about strategy. It just seems, really kind of an insipid comment to make no?

I have faith that Blizz can bring the heat. Why not? Card games are not that hard to make. You need good artists and competent programmers but it all comes down to how fun it is. They can design whatever they want too! I am all for this.



Yeah, I totally agree. I'm not even saying that I'm going to switch to Hearthstone, but I am rooting for its success because of what it might do for DotP's online multiplayer functionality. I really enjoy playing DotP, but its multiplayer matchmaking is just random . . . and that's not fun at all. As much as you can criticize Blizzard, there's very few multiplayer services out there on par with Battle.net in terms of functionality and matchmaking.

If we could get a ranked ladder system in DotP that matches you with opponents based on your skill level, that would be incredible. I guess playing competitively in a ladder might be counter intuitive to the "casual" nature of the game, but I think alot of people, especially people on this message board play the game pretty competitively. I'd definitely like to see something like that happen in future versions of the game.
Indeed man. They could do wonders with that online setup. It would make Magic more enjoyable as well. No competition is NEVER good for anybody.
Hah . . . just because you aren't good enough to play a RTS game and think at the same time doesn't mean it's not just as strategic as any turn based game. It just means you think too slow and you can't multitask. I think you're the only one here taking anything personally, I'm not the one randomly bringing up how good I am at X game trying to prove something. I'm just sitting at work with nothing to do.



"Aren't good enough?" We're going for arrogance and insults now? I thought your position was that opinions weren't valid, yet you keep relying on them to make your "points", such as they are.

Also, how can I be "too slow" and "not able to multitask" if I can manage to be a top world player in a twitch-reflex PvP game? Do you know anything about Guild Wars at all? Life and death can be about three seconds apart. Actually 2.2 before they nerfed some of the Assassin skills. During which time includes executing both 3D movement and a four hit combo while balancing various cooldowns. I actually mentioned Guild Wars only with the specific intention of pre-emptively invalidating that point because I knew you'd try using it. It wasn't random at all. It was strategy. ;)

So far as taking things personally...well yes, you're using personal insults. I'm going to take personal insults personally. You would too if I actually needed to stoop that low to make points. Luckily, I don't. 

Wizards: If it isn't game design, we can't do it right. Frankly, we're kind of shaky on the game design sometimes too.

competent programmers



This has never been Blizzard's strong point. Admittedly, it's never been Wizards' or Stainless's either, so I don't expect that to be much of an issue in this particular outing, but if another company were to try, I might be more legitimately interested in what they could accomplish. Magic's had a lot of years to polish its act, though. I don't think any competitor would ever permanently lure me away, but they might make a good enough game to keep me occupied for awhile. I know Sanctum did it.

Wizards: If it isn't game design, we can't do it right. Frankly, we're kind of shaky on the game design sometimes too.

I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.

You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...

Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.

If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Post button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
 
I think heartstone will influence magic to add 3 colors purple, yellow, and gray just to keep up!!

There seems to be some kind of expectation when it comes to blizzard.  Like they are some kind of all powerful Juggernaut that will bankrupt any and all competition.  I don't believe this to be true.  They are humans like the rest of us and I believe they really caught lightning in a bottle with WoW.  The perfect storm of internets becoming more common and the right place at the right time and all that. I imagine this was alot of peoples first online game experience, and you always remember your first fondly!! They truly knocked that one out of the park. From what I hear...idk never played it but it definetly ate my ffxi freindlist!!

just cause Blizzard basically bankrupted alot of companys that tryed to launch an mmo in the WoW era doesn't mean they can dominate everything they touch.  

The weird thing is though it seems these games that have dominated there genres have trained alot of dudes to actually think they want some sort of highlander rule!  Where they don't have to worry if they are playing the best game cause its the only game!!
If this game is based on the Wow themed paper TCG, that was released some years ago, I don't think it's going to have much of an impact since that gamed sucked!

I have played quite a few TCG's and what makes magic great, isn't really the large playerbase or the great art, it's the mechanics behind the game. Magic is gameplay wise just a deeper, more polised game, than any over product i've played. And I think it'll contined to be so for a long time coming. 
Heartstone will surely make an impact on digital card games.

In a few weeks after the announcement, 3 videos of Hearthstone were watched by 1 million users in Youtube. Now try to compare these numbers with any of the competitors, and you will see what it will mean in terms of the genre.

Aside from that, full-deck building will be new for so many among you, and you will like it.  
Heartstone will surely make an impact on digital card games.

In a few weeks after the announcement, 3 videos of Hearthstone were watched by 1 million users in Youtube. Now try to compare these numbers with any of the competitors, and you will see what it will mean in terms of the genre.

Aside from that, full-deck building will be new for so many among you, and you will like it.  



*Faint voice* Yes father..
Good, my son. You have learned well.

/splattercat, as always, bite me
So much of it depends on the mechanics of the game. Of what little I know about it, I like how there are 9 different playstyles which correspond to the 9 different classes in WoW. That should bring a nice sense of diversity to it. But like the poster from before said, the mana system is what really makes MtG stand out from the crowd of other CCGs. Still, full customization + a ton of people to play with is pretty nice. There's also a "Forge" mode, which is kind of like their version of sealed. It works like this: So, you get to look at 3 cards, and you can only pick 1 of them, and then this repeats until you create an entire deck. It sounds pretty interesting, but again, it really all depends on if the actual game mechanics even slightly compares to the depth and complexity of MtG.

In the end, *if the game is fun*, there's no doubt DotP will be influenced by the game. It might even generate MORE interest in MtG, since maybe many of Blizzard's fans might never have considered playing a CCG until Hearthstone. I highly doubt that Hearthstone will be a more polished card game than MtG. There's just no way in hell that a few Blizzard developers could outdo a card game that's been around for 20+ years, but like I said before, Hearthstone is the entire game, and they can do whatever they want with it. Change rules, balance cards, add/remove cards at will. They can evolve the game into what the players want. DotP is only a small sliver of what MtG is, and paper magic is the "real" game. There are no cards in DotP that do not exist in paper MtG, and DotP is confined to the rules and cards in paper. That's why I'm just really interested in seeing what the DotP franchise will eventually become, because it can't possibly just stay the same and expect to compete. (Again, this all assumes that Hearthstone is actually good, which none of us know at this point.)

Just some stuff to think about.
IDK I love magic like the rest of us but there is no reason this cannot also be good. I'm excited for it.
On the subject of StarCraft, I have to say for the most part I agree with GoA. I find small scale RTSs to be dreadfully dull fast paced cow clickers. I'm not saying they don't require skill, but I do agree with GoA in that the skill required hinges far more on reflexive reactions than actual strategy, and generally favors whoever is a better clicker than whoever was smarter/more strategic. Comparing StarCraft to Chess is like comparing a slap fight to... well, Chess. Civilization requires waaaay more strategy. Kinda ironic given my signature is from Rise of Nations.

On the subject of Hearthstone, I doubt we'll hear anything of it six months after it releases. It'll probably be relegated to a very small audience. There are already better F2P CCGs on mobile phones.

Hell, if I was going to invest time into an F2P CCG, it'd be PoxNora.
Close your eyes. Fly away. In the land where dreams, all are true. IMAGE(http://i1202.photobucket.com/albums/bb374/distilledpoizn/StupidJefferson.jpg)
I don't think TC has ever heard of Yugioh since there have been digital versions of that TCG long before DoTP with full customisation.

Good, my son. You have learned well.

/splattercat, as always, bite me



Outside looking in, I've said nothing in this thread at all.
Apparently "nobody cares-edness" is an extreme vulgarity in some language I'm not familiar with....