ShadowEra vs Hearthstone

**XanteseZerylliom** · 10-07-2013, 10:50 PM

Has the fourth page of this thread been hidden? I keep trying to view it and it brings me back to page three

Edit: okay, weird. My post is the first on page four, but it DEFINITELY said there was a fourth page prior to my post.

Also, @Junk: Numbers have been published in an article written by Mojumbo (I think. Sorry if I credited incorrectly) about balancing the sets. (Dark Prophecies Balance 101 under the Articles tab.)

**Soylentgreen** · 10-08-2013, 02:07 AM

Hearthstone sure has curb appeal, it just looks better. Essentially it will take in more players who dont play an online ccg yet, and I think thats where the money is. Although I think the automated tourny in SE will be better than arena in HS.

**iRage** · 10-13-2013, 12:16 AM

I have access to the beta. You get 5 gold per 5 wins. 100 gold is needed to buy a pack, which is 5 cards, one and only one of which is guaranteed to be either rare or epic.

A packs of cards cost about $1.50 on the high end, about $1.10 on the low end. I think it's a pretty insane grind. After about 10 hours of play I've already lost interest.

For me Shadow Era's sacrifice mechanic allows much more depth of gameplay, and the balance between being free to play and pay to play is better struck. Shadow Era is the better game if you ask me.

**Unruler** · 10-13-2013, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by iRage

I have access to the beta. You get 5 gold per 5 wins. 100 gold is needed to buy a pack, which is 5 cards, one and only one of which is guaranteed to be either rare or epic.

A packs of cards cost about $1.50 on the high end, about $1.10 on the low end. I think it's a pretty insane grind. After about 10 hours of play I've already lost interest.

For me Shadow Era's sacrifice mechanic allows much more depth of gameplay, and the balance between being free to play and pay to play is better struck. Shadow Era is the better game if you ask me.

how about quests?

**GnEric** · 10-13-2013, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by iRage

I have access to the beta. You get 5 gold per 5 wins. 100 gold is needed to buy a pack, which is 5 cards, one and only one of which is guaranteed to be either rare or epic.

A packs of cards cost about $1.50 on the high end, about $1.10 on the low end. I think it's a pretty insane grind. After about 10 hours of play I've already lost interest.

For me Shadow Era's sacrifice mechanic allows much more depth of gameplay, and the balance between being free to play and pay to play is better struck. Shadow Era is the better game if you ask me.

A few things here...

1. The Gold grind has been reduced as of the last patch. It is now 10g per 3 wins rather than 5 per 5.

2. You did not mention the daily quests which reward 40g its quite easy to buy a booster pack every other day just by doing your quests. (there is also one rare quest that gives 100g)

3. pricing on packs ranges from $1.50 per pack to $1.25 per pack for the 40 pack bundle. Not exactly better.

Important to remember that Beta is Beta. Nothing is set in stone.

**Peithoson** · 10-13-2013, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by xlemor

Going first doesnt make you win or loose...

For some decks and matchups that is not the case. Take Banebow

versus Elementalis

for example, who goes first in that match up tends to lose. Similar cases probably occur in hearthstone.

**MrNice** · 10-14-2013, 05:43 AM

I don't have access to beta but watched Kripps stream. Hearthstone battle seems more fluent and arcade-like.
But I think SE has better cards (strategy-wise), better build versatility, better community (by far) and a more interesting resource-management.

**Alzorath** · 10-20-2013, 07:50 PM

I've been messing in the beta for a bit, really enjoying it honestly - the games are quick, and while the strategy is a bit less in-depth than SE, it's still engaging enough to keep me on my toes and looking for counter strategies (though admittedly, you can -usually- tell when you've lost about 5 minutes into a game... thankfully the games rarely last more than 10 minutes... in fact, in my first recording session, the longest game was 9 minutes, 8 seconds - counting the intro sequence.)

Simply put, it's a lot faster paced, and I had been recording for an hour before I realized what was going on (5 games + arena deck selection in that time)

Also worth noting, if you want a more 'day to day' feel for how the game plays, I'm going to be a series for Hearthstone, though I'm mostly going to focus on the arena (it's more fun for me)... Right now its scheduled for Sun/Tues/Thurs afternoon releases, but I may be shifting the schedules around to accommodate SE, Hes, and Hearthstone a bit better.

**Junk Style** · 12-31-2013, 03:05 AM

Having played a week of hearthstone, i have to say i'm enjoying it a lot. The flow and pace of the game is great. The programing and style in which players play cards is significantly faster than SE. Your actions are remembered and you can play a complex set of cards very quickly. Sometimes games go longer than other depending on the match up, but even the worst mage stall decks will result in a game that is still much faster than an SE stall game.

Also, the 30 card deck is pretty nice. It makes for less "necessary" cards, and forces players to synergize decks more efficiently. Doing more with less. It also lowers the RNG of seeing specific cards. SE's sacking system can be nice, but it can also be be extremely punishing when bad luck/draws or initial top decking limits later options.

I'm not messing with arena yet, but its a solid option. The game is in beta and is still being changed, improved etc.

Overall, very different games in terms of pacing and focus.

oh and taunt isn't nearly as important as you guys think in high level play atm.