<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Thoughts: Hearthstone.</title>
	<atom:link href="https://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-hearthstone/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-hearthstone/</link>
	<description>Science, gaming, and all things in between.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2026 22:05:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=3.7.36</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: SomeGuy</title>
		<link>https://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-hearthstone/#comment-23713</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[SomeGuy]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 May 2015 12:03:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scientificgamer.com/?p=3897#comment-23713</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[At first I didn&#039;t like the game (I didn&#039;t had beta invite at that time), because I seen this as &quot;dumbed down MTG&quot;, but when I got to play it I actually started to like it and even more than MTG. There are things I like here more:

No land flood or land lock. It was super frustrating in MTG
Blizzard can actually change stats of cards, so the game will be more balanced. While in MTG if they have overpowered card it will become staple. In MTG they can only make slightly better / slightly worse &quot;clone cards&quot; but only in next card pack, which is every half year or so.
And it&#039;s much cheaper than MTG. Also there are no good modern MTG games.
All Duels of the Planeswalkers series on Steam suck and not true MTG, and MTG:O looks too outdated like it&#039;s game from 90&#039;s (and too expensive, too)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>At first I didn&#8217;t like the game (I didn&#8217;t had beta invite at that time), because I seen this as &#8220;dumbed down MTG&#8221;, but when I got to play it I actually started to like it and even more than MTG. There are things I like here more:</p>
<p>No land flood or land lock. It was super frustrating in MTG<br />
Blizzard can actually change stats of cards, so the game will be more balanced. While in MTG if they have overpowered card it will become staple. In MTG they can only make slightly better / slightly worse &#8220;clone cards&#8221; but only in next card pack, which is every half year or so.<br />
And it&#8217;s much cheaper than MTG. Also there are no good modern MTG games.<br />
All Duels of the Planeswalkers series on Steam suck and not true MTG, and MTG:O looks too outdated like it&#8217;s game from 90&#8242;s (and too expensive, too)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: everblue</title>
		<link>https://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-hearthstone/#comment-16801</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[everblue]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Feb 2014 08:49:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scientificgamer.com/?p=3897#comment-16801</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[@Ross

It would be good if before the picking process you could specify what sort of deck you were looking to build - spellpower, slow, beatdown, etc. It could then offer you cards which suited that playstyle. 

It would also be good if there was an increased chance to draw combos - like for example if you have starving buzzard in a hunter deck you might have an increased chance to draw unleash the hounds.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Ross</p>
<p>It would be good if before the picking process you could specify what sort of deck you were looking to build &#8211; spellpower, slow, beatdown, etc. It could then offer you cards which suited that playstyle. </p>
<p>It would also be good if there was an increased chance to draw combos &#8211; like for example if you have starving buzzard in a hunter deck you might have an increased chance to draw unleash the hounds.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ross</title>
		<link>https://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-hearthstone/#comment-16793</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ross]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Feb 2014 10:25:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scientificgamer.com/?p=3897#comment-16793</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I think any breaking can easily be offset by capping cards (ie. no 4x polymorph decks). Ultimately it would mean cards like the pirates that synergise off your weapon become viable because you&#039;ll know there&#039;s a weapon coming. Instead you only really pick the highest base stats.

I&#039;m sure more modes are coming but they&#039;ll wait for expansions and the &#039;Adventures&#039; to release them.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think any breaking can easily be offset by capping cards (ie. no 4x polymorph decks). Ultimately it would mean cards like the pirates that synergise off your weapon become viable because you&#8217;ll know there&#8217;s a weapon coming. Instead you only really pick the highest base stats.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m sure more modes are coming but they&#8217;ll wait for expansions and the &#8216;Adventures&#8217; to release them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hentzau</title>
		<link>https://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-hearthstone/#comment-16792</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hentzau]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Feb 2014 09:12:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scientificgamer.com/?p=3897#comment-16792</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[That&#039;s an interesting idea, although I think having that sort of advance knowledge of what&#039;s coming up in the draft would enable people to create even more broken decks than they do already. You&#039;d have to put some other restrictions in place to balance it out. You&#039;re right that arena mode is not without its issues, though, and I&#039;d like to see some more game modes that strike a decent balance between constructed play and arena&#039;s random drafts.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s an interesting idea, although I think having that sort of advance knowledge of what&#8217;s coming up in the draft would enable people to create even more broken decks than they do already. You&#8217;d have to put some other restrictions in place to balance it out. You&#8217;re right that arena mode is not without its issues, though, and I&#8217;d like to see some more game modes that strike a decent balance between constructed play and arena&#8217;s random drafts.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: innokenti</title>
		<link>https://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-hearthstone/#comment-16791</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[innokenti]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Feb 2014 12:30:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scientificgamer.com/?p=3897#comment-16791</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I think Hearthstone&#039;s real strength is its elegance. I could have said &#039;simplicity&#039;, but I don&#039;t think that quite describes why the game actually works.

It&#039;s a deep game based on easily-graspable building blocks. The game carefully helps you learn because all the basics are there, visible, clear and you can work it all out. You can put it all together, and you can do in short bouts.

Chance plays a part, but with such short games, and such freedom to experiment without any real blockers, is what leads to the elegance.


That&#039;s why I don&#039;t like Magic or various other card games. There are a lot of building blocks that put the game together. Even Netrunner has got a lot of nuance that flows out of the rules, and then even more out of how the rules and decks interact. In Hearthstone, the basic rules are very very simple, so you have to focus on how to put the decks together and then how to play what you get in front of you. And you build your deck not to do just one thing, but to provide you with a few strong options depending on the draw.

It kind of now makes me think of Summoner Wars again, which is probably one of my favourite card games, again because it relies on simple building blocks and lets the player evolve the complexity from the deck and their actions (it has a tactical aspect for being played on a grid where positioning and movement matters). 


So yeah, Hearthstone - rather neat.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think Hearthstone&#8217;s real strength is its elegance. I could have said &#8216;simplicity&#8217;, but I don&#8217;t think that quite describes why the game actually works.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s a deep game based on easily-graspable building blocks. The game carefully helps you learn because all the basics are there, visible, clear and you can work it all out. You can put it all together, and you can do in short bouts.</p>
<p>Chance plays a part, but with such short games, and such freedom to experiment without any real blockers, is what leads to the elegance.</p>
<p>That&#8217;s why I don&#8217;t like Magic or various other card games. There are a lot of building blocks that put the game together. Even Netrunner has got a lot of nuance that flows out of the rules, and then even more out of how the rules and decks interact. In Hearthstone, the basic rules are very very simple, so you have to focus on how to put the decks together and then how to play what you get in front of you. And you build your deck not to do just one thing, but to provide you with a few strong options depending on the draw.</p>
<p>It kind of now makes me think of Summoner Wars again, which is probably one of my favourite card games, again because it relies on simple building blocks and lets the player evolve the complexity from the deck and their actions (it has a tactical aspect for being played on a grid where positioning and movement matters). </p>
<p>So yeah, Hearthstone &#8211; rather neat.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ross</title>
		<link>https://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-hearthstone/#comment-16789</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ross]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Feb 2014 01:27:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scientificgamer.com/?p=3897#comment-16789</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Regarding the game itself, I generally play arena as I capped out in ranked coming up against legendary decks in Masters.

The main issue with arena is the pick mode basically funnels every deck into a very specific model whereby you are unable to create any sort of interesting themed decks as you can&#039;t rely on the other half of your combo coming up in the draw. Therefore you&#039;re encouraged to pick hard removal or standard minions over some of the more interesting cards which homogenises play-styles quite a lot. It also makes combo dependent classes (hunter, rogue) much poorer choices than classes with more flexibility such as the mage. What I would like to see instead is a list of all 30 choices in advance so you can play with deck builds before committing. Easy to present in a 3x30 column but obviously isn&#039;t as casual friendly.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Regarding the game itself, I generally play arena as I capped out in ranked coming up against legendary decks in Masters.</p>
<p>The main issue with arena is the pick mode basically funnels every deck into a very specific model whereby you are unable to create any sort of interesting themed decks as you can&#8217;t rely on the other half of your combo coming up in the draw. Therefore you&#8217;re encouraged to pick hard removal or standard minions over some of the more interesting cards which homogenises play-styles quite a lot. It also makes combo dependent classes (hunter, rogue) much poorer choices than classes with more flexibility such as the mage. What I would like to see instead is a list of all 30 choices in advance so you can play with deck builds before committing. Easy to present in a 3&#215;30 column but obviously isn&#8217;t as casual friendly.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ross</title>
		<link>https://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-hearthstone/#comment-16788</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ross]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Feb 2014 01:23:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scientificgamer.com/?p=3897#comment-16788</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[More stats are definitely needed. At the moment people rely on homebrew stat tracking tools and third party websites for deck building. I expect Blizzard will eventually implement these (and things like tournaments and spectating/replays) once people are comfortable with the game and they can move away from the &#039;casual&#039; model they&#039;re using at the moment.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>More stats are definitely needed. At the moment people rely on homebrew stat tracking tools and third party websites for deck building. I expect Blizzard will eventually implement these (and things like tournaments and spectating/replays) once people are comfortable with the game and they can move away from the &#8216;casual&#8217; model they&#8217;re using at the moment.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Darren</title>
		<link>https://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-hearthstone/#comment-16786</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Darren]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jan 2014 16:18:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scientificgamer.com/?p=3897#comment-16786</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It&#039;s also a really great hotseat game.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s also a really great hotseat game.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Aleksei Volchok</title>
		<link>https://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-hearthstone/#comment-16785</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Aleksei Volchok]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jan 2014 08:20:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scientificgamer.com/?p=3897#comment-16785</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It &quot;feels&quot; more strategic. You get random deck, but once it&#039;s there you see all the cards and may use them again and again. Also positioning units is important; it&#039;s generally more complex than Hearthstone, features interesting single player puzzle-campaign... I keep returning to it for several years.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It &#8220;feels&#8221; more strategic. You get random deck, but once it&#8217;s there you see all the cards and may use them again and again. Also positioning units is important; it&#8217;s generally more complex than Hearthstone, features interesting single player puzzle-campaign&#8230; I keep returning to it for several years.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hentzau</title>
		<link>https://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-hearthstone/#comment-16784</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hentzau]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Jan 2014 20:39:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scientificgamer.com/?p=3897#comment-16784</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[No, but I&#039;ll put it on the list; I&#039;ve been planning to get a closer look at how other CCGs do it since getting into Hearthstone.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No, but I&#8217;ll put it on the list; I&#8217;ve been planning to get a closer look at how other CCGs do it since getting into Hearthstone.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
