Artifact - Daily Card Discussion - Thunderstorm |  |
- Daily Card Discussion - Thunderstorm
- TIL: casting bolt vs 20 hp tower that has Nether Ward on it when you have 3 HP wins you the game
- Chronosphere Cup - Open Tournament Series - $15,000 USD Up for Grabs
- Genuine Question - If you hate this game so much, why are you on this subreddit?
- After 1000 games and hitting 70 SR, I am convinced there are 6 cards that are strangling the meta and doing harm on the game
- Decklist of the upcoming WePlay! Artifact MT: Agility tournament!
- My 5k Draft Challenge will definitely have over $600 added to the prize pool thanks to you
- When you’re working with Slacks, you’re just never safe. LOL #WePlayTV
- Feature request: Marking decks as favorites
- I played 660 gauntlet games and only 3or4 games felt like i couldnt do anything different to win
- A deeper look at Artifact's problems and possible solutions
- Phantom Draft 5 same heroes (VENO) odds?
- On trying to be positive...
- Calculator for opponent gold spent -> possible cards
- Thread discussing improving Artifact REMOVED by mods.
- 24-armor centaur in Tournament grand finals. Interaction of rend armor with 3x double edge.
- Role of Reward Systems in Card Games
- Interview w/ swim ahead of the WePlay! tournament
- Drafting Tips / Resources
- 20 crashes during a 10 minutes "game"... WTF ?
- Why are so many cards unplayable?
- Taking a break from Artifact until i get new laptop in a month or two. Hope Artifact will be in better state by then
- Sudden Connection Problems During Important Moments
| Daily Card Discussion - Thunderstorm Posted: 14 Jan 2019 06:46 AM PST Color: Blue Type: Spell Mana: 6 Rarity: Uncommon Illustrator: James Paick Summary: Deal 4 damage to each enemy. Lore: Zeus destroyed a building so I destroyed an army... I thought the matter was settled but then he decided to go throw a tempter tantrum and crater a city. — Storm Spirit, Sore Loser
[link] [comments]  | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| TIL: casting bolt vs 20 hp tower that has Nether Ward on it when you have 3 HP wins you the game Posted: 14 Jan 2019 06:25 AM PST Yup this actually just happened in game. I had 3 hp, he had 17, I bolted, Nether didn't trigger and I won. I guess spell effects resolve including deaths, before "after play" effects occur. I was 100% sure it would be a draw. Was a nice surprise. [link] [comments]  | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Chronosphere Cup - Open Tournament Series - $15,000 USD Up for Grabs Posted: 14 Jan 2019 04:06 PM PST Hello Reddit! I started Chronosphere Cup because I wanted everyone to enjoy the thrill of being able to play in large prize pool tournament. Esports has always had a very exclusive feel to it where your status matters more than your skill and I am doing everything that I can to snap that perception. With the infrastructure of N3rd Street Gamers, we will be hosting THREE tournaments with a combined $15,000.00 prize pool. These will be mixed format tournaments where you will be playing constructed as well as draft. You must be good at all facets of Artifact to take down the first prize. All three tournaments will be streamed live Here. Dates: Feb 9th / 10th (Online Tournament #1) $2,500.00 Prize Pool ($20 Entry Fee) March 9th / 10th (Online Tournament #2) $2,500.00 Prize Pool ($20 Entry Fee) Early April - LAN Tournament at Localhost Denver - $10,000.00 Prize Pool In addition to the first place prize that you will receive if you win either of the online tournaments, you will also receive travel support as well as free entry to the $10,000 LAN tournament in Denver. Registration is currently up for the first online tournament! Here If the tournament fills up quickly, we will expand to two brackets. The Top 4 instead of those two brackets will make Top 8 for day 2. Join the official N3rd Street Gamers Discord to talk about Chronosphere Cup! I will also be in there answering any questions that you have. Good luck everyone, and I am looking forward to the event. Michael "NoControl" Toryk [link] [comments]  | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Genuine Question - If you hate this game so much, why are you on this subreddit? Posted: 14 Jan 2019 08:56 AM PST I legitimately want to know. There was a post yesterday about a guy who was considering buying this game and wasn't sure and the responses were littered with people saying the game is beyond salvaging and not worth it. If you think it's beyond salvaging, you can't even tell me you're here waiting for some magic fix patch. You've given up. What kind of free time do you have to spend it on the subreddit of a game you don't even play? Edit: Lots of people here discussing constructive criticism and wanting the game to get better. I am not addressing you with this post. I'm talking about the people who have no interest in this game improving and simply troll and shitpost this subreddit in an active attempt to hurt the game because they have nothing else to do with their lives. If the previous sentence doesn't describe you, this post isn't about you. [link] [comments]  | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Posted: 14 Jan 2019 11:11 AM PST Annihilation, At Any Cost, Time of Triumph, Emissary of the Quorum, and to a lesser extent Track and Vesture of the Tyrant. I have spent a lot of time in this game, and I do enjoy it, but these 6 cards I strongly believe are having a very negative impact on deck building, balance, and the game as a whole. The problem is how much these swing the game, and how difficult they can be to stop. I included my games/rank in the title because I'm not some random noob complaining, I'm good at the game and have given it a heap of thought and have played so many different games and matchups and strategies. Time of Triumph is the 2nd most expensive card in the game, and is flat-out absurd. This card is becoming more and more popular, especially with Ramp builds as it just gives so much of everything. It's the sort of card where you could reduce all the numbers to +3, and it would still be auto-include. Annihilation and AAC give me massive anxiety headaches, and feel so absurdly necessary that blue feels like a stunted child without them. I feel like every deck I build has to be built around blue, because you get utterly rooted if you don't, and they can use them from Turn 1 as well. Emissary has fallen massively out of favor due to the previous 3 cards, but is still an amazing card and needs to be toned down, especially as toning down the other 3 will make Emissary stronger by comparison. It feels really bad having a hero die on Round 1 and give Track gold. You start the game off giving so much gold and it's very difficult to deal with. Later on it's still a great spell, and it's hard to gauge whether it's Track or Payday that need a very mild nerf (eg: +10 -> +7 gold, or 3 mana to 4 mana for Payday), but there's something wrong going on here. It's a bit mild, but the importance on draw and match-ups make it feel really unfair to play against or something. Tyrant is 19 gold for possibly the best everything in the game. 3 Tower Armor and Rapid Deployment and it doesn't even cost 25... I'm completely fine with Horn of the Alpha. I can slay it, disarm it, block it (only 6 siege), kill the caster to stop it for a turn, nuke it and do so many things, but Vesture gives me pain in ways only a natural-birth mother should know. I love the game, but these expensive rares all give super headaches, and are all super obnoxious. Mist of Avernus is strong, but I often feel I can react to it, play against it, strategise, destroy it, etc. These 6 cards just make me feel hopeless, and sometimes when you mention it people go "You needs game-ending cards", which honestly just feels like a cop-out the same way people used to say "every card game has strong cards" when people griped about Cheating Death and the like. Games have this amazing back and forth, and then red shits out a ToT and wtf I lose. Many games feel like a race to get the ToT off. [link] [comments]  | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Decklist of the upcoming WePlay! Artifact MT: Agility tournament! Posted: 14 Jan 2019 10:49 AM PST Less than 24 hours left until the start of the WePlay! Artifact MT: Agility tournament! It is the best time to announce you the decks of our Group Stages participants! Start of the tournament - January 15th at 14:00 CET on WePlay! Twitch Channel! Day 1 - January 15thGroup A
Group B
Day 2 - January 16thGroup C
Group D
Day 3 - January 17thGroup E
Group F
Day 4 - January 18thGroup G
Group H
[link] [comments]  | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| My 5k Draft Challenge will definitely have over $600 added to the prize pool thanks to you Posted: 14 Jan 2019 04:44 AM PST and I would like to thanks this community for that. In the first two tournaments the winner of the Draft Challenge battled me for $5000/$5001 bounty, but others went out empty handed. For the third tourney I decided to add $200 for the tourney myself, but to my huge surprise some people who saw my Reddit post decided to support me and added some extra dollars to the prizepool. Tournament is guaranteed to have at least $650 prize pool (+duel against me) at this point, but it still is over 3 weeks away so it can definitely be more as everything I get from supporters will go directly to prizepool. Here are all the guys who are helping me make this event even better, you can root for them in the tournament as your Reddit champions, big shoutout to them:
There are a ton of slots available for this tournament (played 9th + 10th of February), the first qualifier starts roughly in a week and I will make sure to post/tweet about it. Once again thanks for all your support! Cheers Stan [link] [comments]  | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| When you’re working with Slacks, you’re just never safe. LOL #WePlayTV Posted: 14 Jan 2019 07:31 AM PST
 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Feature request: Marking decks as favorites Posted: 14 Jan 2019 02:16 PM PST I know valve reads here, so they might see this: I have quite a few built decks, but I usually play with 2 or 3, or I improve something small but instead of replacing it I clone it and add a version to the name, so the list is long. I'd like the ability to mark 2 or 3 decks as favorites and have them appear at the top when you choose a deck to play. Thanks for reading [link] [comments]  | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| I played 660 gauntlet games and only 3or4 games felt like i couldnt do anything different to win Posted: 14 Jan 2019 09:50 AM PST Even against insane oppener and rng you usually could always do something different to win. This is such a huhe factor for me. At least 50% of the loses in hearthstone feel like shit. [link] [comments]  | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A deeper look at Artifact's problems and possible solutions Posted: 14 Jan 2019 07:21 PM PST There are new threads almost daily about Artifact dying, why people dislike it, why they stopped playing, how much they want to see Valve fail, and so on, but very few of them seem to offer a coherent solution to the declining player base beyond "everything should be free". I was inspired by today's why are you here if you hate Artifact thread to actually think through some of the issues people have with the game and what could realistically be done about them. In many cases I compared Artifact to what I believe are the two most successful competitive TCG/CCG games to date, Magic and Hearthstone, and why Artifact is stronger or weaker than those, or has not enjoyed similar immediate success. I know there are many other relevant games out there, but I thought I'd stick to what I know. I broke it down into the various complaints that come up most often on this subreddit and elsewhere: The Economy
This is Valve's biggest misread of the market. When Magic came along, the concept of a TCG was new and people got something tangible for their initial spend. Once you bought some cards you could play infinitely without spending another dollar, or you could choose to keep buying. The beauty of Magic is that it serves both sides and everybody in between: after a small initial investment you can play and trade, and other TCGs followed suit. When Blizzard released Hearthstone, they managed to hit on the same combination digitally, with the twist that somebody could in theory grind out a collection without ever paying a cent. To be clear, people routinely complain that both Magic and Hearthstone are too expensive, but that is a subset of players who feel they should be able to field top-quality competitive decks without paying a premium, and this has been debated forever in the TCG/CCG world (and likely always will be). If Artifact merely cost $20 and allowed you to build a collection somewhat easily through regular play, it would be in a better spot. But asking someone to buy into a digital-only trading card game in which you receive nothing tangible, and still requiring many hours into in order to build a competitive collection, is already a tough sell. It would probably be okay if some other things were true: Artifact had a huge existing player base, a balanced and active marketplace, and some kind of guarantee of initial value in your purchase (for example, if $20 got you the game AND some kind of marketplace credit to guarantee you get something useful to work with). Without that guarantee, you are essentially paying $20 for the opportunity to spend either time or money to build a collection, before you can ever be competitive in a constructed basis. With Magic and Hearthstone out there, this doesn't seem like an attractive idea, though it could still work if some of those aforementioned things came true. Unfortunately not only does the game cost $20, there is no guarantee that you can grind out a collection unless you're already great at the game (and lucky). So now you're paying $20 for no guaranteed card base and the opportunity to spend even more money to grind out a collection, or the opportunity to spend an additional $100 or so (currently) to purchase the full collection. This makes it one of the worst values of any TCG out there. Unless you have friends who also aren't spending much on cards that you can play casually with (like you could with real-life Magic, for example), your only free play options are events like the Preconstructed Gauntlet or getting crushed repeatedly in MMR-based play. None of these are likely to make for a fun Artifact experience. What's the fix? The weekly ticket-and-pack progression was a start, but not nearly enough. With the time that has passed between the game's launch and now, Valve no longer has an option: the game has to become free to play in order to grow. Even that is probably not enough any more, since a significant portion of those interested in the game have already churned through it. Some will come back with each patch or expansion, but maybe not enough. In addition to F2P, the progression rewards need to be expanded, or the Preconstructed-style event needs to have some kind of a reward associated with it (which would also be a great way to incentivize new players to get a feel for the game).
This is not unique to Artifact, and in fact is the most common argument against any TCG/CCG. Some competitive Standard decks in Magic have come close to a thousand dollars, depending on the current rotation, and decks in other formats like Modern or Legacy routinely cost more than $1,000. In Hearthstone you can't entirely put a price on competitive decks since you have to buy them through packs and crafting, but building a single competitive deck from nothing is likely to cost at least as much as building one in Artifact. Because of this, I don't think an argument can be made that Artifact is more expensive than its peers, with the huge caveat that your only way to get that collection is to pay for it. In Hearthstone you can of course work your way up to it for free, and even a game like Magic provides trading opportunities where a savvy collector can work their way towards a meaningful collection without spending a lot. One interesting note is that Artifact has only its base set, whereas other games have many sets. As more sets are released for a TCG, the cost of fielding a competitive deck generally only goes up, until it hits a stable plateau as sets rotate in and out of a Standard-like format. While not always true, this is often because the more powerful cards from each new set are more rare and thus more expensive, and decks tend to use fewer common and uncommon cards as more diverse and powerful rares are available. Ultimately, by choosing to play any TCG at all, you are subjecting yourself to a recurring cost to play competitively (or in the special case of Hearthstone, a very long grind).
This argument seems plainly false, at least compared to other games. Artifact drafts cost half of what Hearthstone's arena does, and Magic drafts are far more expensive since you get to keep the cards (and Magic Online still had a ticket system as well). Yes, you can still grind or trade your way to free draft play in both of these games respectively, but I think that playing five prize-enabled Artifact drafts for under $5 is a pretty good deal, and there is still a free option as well. I suspect that average-or-better players will get at least 7 or 8 drafts out of that $5, if not more. That's a lot of play for a small cost. The prize structure for these should be a little more forgiving, though, to bridge the gap between strong players and less competitive ones. I would make two changes: award a prize pack at 3 wins instead of 4, and a second ticket at 4 wins. Further, I would award a player either a free pack or ticket (maybe just a "loot box" that contains either of those) after any 3 drafts for which they receive no award. This would feel far more forgiving to less competitive players, while still offering a material reward to any 3-2 or better draft. This feels much closer to Hearthstone's successful arena reward system.
These are strange arguments, and I see both of them frequently. Some people want to earn or purchase cards that build value as one might expect out of a TCG, while others seem to see it as a significant negative that a full collection costs as much as it does. I don't think there is a change that Valve can make here, other than continuing to build a healthy game and letting the market take care of itself. For those who complain about the cards costing too much, I wonder if they are coming from a CCG background like Hearthstone in which you can collect but not trade or sell cards, and are not used to what it feels like to attach a value to a collection. Does saying that a deck "costs" 10,000 dust feel better than saying a deck costs $70 on the marketplace? Even at an average of 100 dust per pack in Hearthstone, that Hearthstone deck would be more expensive than a $70 Artifact deck (and yes, I know that many competitive HS decks are crafted for less). Ultimately, I don't think this is a fair or useful criticism. The Game
Randomness is anything that the player has absolutely no control over. There are different random elements to a card game:
Before Artifact released, the common feeling seemed to be that the extreme amount of randomness in Hearthstone made it unsuitable for competitive play, and that Artifact would be a much more "stable" game. I think that most of us, myself included, were surprised that it was almost entirely the opposite. A game like Magic has very few random effects, and even has many mechanics like deck thinning through fetch cards that serve to reduce randomness further. Beyond the initial shuffle and the very occasional coin flip, Magic feels more skill-based, although the shuffle itself exposes one of Magic's huge flaws: the possibility to draw no land. The draw-one-less mulligan improves these odds but still puts the player at a significant disadvantage. Hearthstone's random effects likely feel so outrageous simply because so many cards feature them, so many people play with them, and the animations highlight them so well. They are, however, more about player choice than pure chaos. A player must choose to play with cards that destroy a random minion, cast a random spell, or discover a card from a pool of choices. In this each player has some control over the outcome, even when the actual result might feel completely random. It doesn't feel great to have your best minion destroyed randomly, but conversely, if you had 3 minions to choose from, your opponent weighed the odds and selected a 33% chance over some other play. Each player still has significant influence over both card selection and play, and the game itself has no other randomness; minions always deploy where you put them and attack in a straight line. Artifact features very few random abilities on cards, so at first glance--as many of us thought when details began leaking out--there isn't a lot of randomness, but that couldn't be more wrong. If you look back at the list above, you'll notice that Artifact is unique in two major categories: initial game state and random game effects. The initial state itself can influence the game immensely, and make it feel as though you never had a chance before play ever begins. This is a huge negative, but not nearly as big a problem as the completely unnecessary combat arrow system. It's easy to see what Valve (or Garfield, or whoever) intended here: keep things interesting by giving smaller units a chance to defeat bigger ones a-la stacking blockers in Magic, give players a chance to win back a lane, and so on. But this system fails by removing card placement strategy entirely, and just feeling completely random to the player, who has no influence. Games are routinely won or lost when a randomly-spawned creep is placed randomly in front of a Sorla or Thunderhide or similar. This is not good game design, as neither player is rewarded for a choice they made; somebody simply gets screwed. Some complain about random creep spawn, but that is not as much of a problem, and players have some control over it through certain cards, and likely will gain more control in future expansions. Plus, it just feels like Dota, which is a good thing. Not being able to rely on a melee creep spawning is part of the decisions you must make as you play, and if it were not for the combat arrow madness, a single creep spawning would be unlikely to swing a game entirely. Going back to the cards with random effects though: yes, Artifact doesn't have many, but they made a huge error in how they applied them, by giving them passive randomness, rather than active. This has of course already been corrected in the case of Cheating Death, but that card alone displayed what a bad idea passive random effects can be, and probably influenced the initial experience quite negatively. Hearthstone, for its part, has used these sparingly, and the cards with passive random abilities have generally been very powerful. What's the sum of all this? Artifact is an incredibly random game, and must be changed if it's to have a real future. The combat arrow system is the biggest offender, but what to do with it is puzzling. It's tempting to offer a player the ability to influence the arrows, but this only adds complexity to an already-complex game. I think the system should simply be reverted to every unit attacking forward unless something else modifies its target post-deployment. An even more aggressive change would be to allow players to directly position heroes in a lane that they deploy to, but I am less convinced on this; players should not be rewarded for letting a lane get away from them, only to drop a perfectly-positioned hero with a taunt to save the day. Besides the arrows, the initial deployment needs to change, since a poor random deployment of weaker heroes immediately makes many heroes and decks less viable, leading to other limitations in deck building and design. I think the simplest answer here is to put a damage immunity shield across a player's heroes after their first hero death in the first round only. This still allows stronger-bodied heroes to shine out of the gate, and still correctly penalizes a deck that deploys weaker bodies in round 1, but does so without putting one player at a huge lane-and-gold disadvantage. It's a simple change that could immediately open up deck design, and would make the initial player experience more forgiving.
Many have said that Valve was arrogant in forgoing a ladder system, but I think that their intentions were noble. One of the biggest complains about Hearthstone since its open beta was about how grindy the ladder felt, and how people felt compelled to play every month to achieve Legend, or whatever rank goal they had in mind. In the face of this very vocal criticism over the years, I can see why Valve wanted to do things differently. Unfortunately it was not the right move, because it takes one half of the competitive player base--the ones that don't prefer to draft--and gives them nothing to shoot for. No meaningful ranks, no rewards, no achievements, nothing. Yes, they can play constructed gauntlets, and yes they can increase their constructed rank, but I think just about everybody is in agreement that this is neither fun nor meaningful. Much like going free to play, I think there is no option here: the game needs either a competitive ladder or some kind of automated ongoing tournament mode that takes its place. For a game to succeed there needs to be a clear definition of what makes a good player, and a clear path for a player to prove themselves as a good player. Showing off a competitive skill rank or a perfect gauntlet runs figure is not enough, since these can be pushed with just time invested (plus, they just aren't that interesting).
To truly deliver a Dota-themed experience, Artifact needs the board and strategy to change depending on which heroes are deployed to a lane. Too often, regardless of what ability a hero possesses, it just becomes a heavily-equipped body that needs to be dealt with. In the late game, most heroes play just about the same, as they are difficult to whittle down and are usually killed with direct removal or other spells instead of pure combat damage. A few are different, like Lion or Sniper, and must be carefully played around, but those seem to be the exception. Signature cards tend to focus more on the late game--though not always--so it's easy to feel like you're just waiting around for a hero's boon to become useful. Are these symptoms of a bad game, or of a bad set, or are they simply being highlighted because of the game's other issues? It's interesting to compare the Artifact release experience to that of both Magic and Hearthstone, and how those games played deep into their initial release but before expansions. Magic was actually a fairly simple game, with only two major card stats in attack and toughness, just a few important keywords like First Strike, Regeneration, Trample, and Protections, and a rather small number of cards with activated abilities. Without the benefit of a digital governing system, Magic had to rely on diversity instead of complexity. It did have a larger set than Artifact, and the fifth color added a lot of new options, plus the lack of heroes allowed diverse deckbuilding. Hearthstone was much more simple, had fewer cards, and because of its hero-bound design, there were only a few competitive deck archetypes at the beginning. Early deck design in Magic favored combos, control, and color synergy, whereas Hearthstone favored strong minions and removal. When the first Magic expansion was released it felt like a massive increase in deck power; when the first Hearthstone expansion hit, it was like a breath of new life into what had already become a fairly stagnant game. How does that relate to Artifact? The game is still in its infancy and players are growing weary of the archetypes presented by the base set. Much of this is not a worry for today, but for one or two expansions down the line, since an increased card pool should bring with it diversity. I would argue that the bigger concern today is the aforementioned randomness and how that influences what decks work or don't work. For example, because of the harshness of initial hero deployment, there is more incentive to stack large bodies in a deck than to experiment with some of the stranger heroes. People stick to tier lists for drafting and fully ignore 1/3 or more of the hero pool, which makes it easy to complain that heroes aren't interesting. The same is true for spells: there are many smaller gadget-like spells that feel as though they will be combo staples at some point in the future, but there just aren't enough cards to pair them with (or against) to make them useful now. All in all, I don't think this is a real problem...yet. If some other areas of the game are tightened up, it might help some of the lesser-played cards shine, or at least carry it until it gets its first expansion. The Community
This is an incredibly valid criticism, and probably has had a massive impact on the success of the game. Many of the arguments against Artifact have ignored what a massive influence streamers, pros, and content creators enjoy in the gaming world today. Games like Hearthstone and Fortnite rode the streaming community to great success, and Artifact should have been no different (its other problems notwithstanding). However, despite an otherwise beautiful interface, Artifact is simply not a fun game to watch. In many cases there is so much going on that there isn't enough time for a caster or player to adequately explain what they are doing. Now this isn't the end of the world; consider Dota, for example, and trying to explain the intricacies of strategy to a newcomer in the middle of a pro-level team fight; it's just not possible, and yet plenty of people stream and watch Dota at all levels. The biggest spectating tool that Artifact is missing is a true action and target history. Even as a player, it is frustrating to not immediately understand what just happened, for example if you switch into a lane and a hero is killed by an Ignite that you forgot was there. As a viewer, it makes following the game next to impossible. This could even be a stream overlay or something of that sort, if they couldn't fit it in the client, or some other tool set that improves the viewing experience. And of course at some point you would hope to see a true spectator mode that sacrifices some of the playing interface for better watchability. It's also worth noting how some other changes might affect the Artifact viewing experience. If combat arrows were changed, for example, the game would become that much easier to follow. If a ladder or tournament mode was added with real ranks and results, it would be easier to tune into a stream and know if you were watching a great player. And of course if the game were free to play, streams would benefit drastically from this new audience, and vice versa.
Unfortunately this is probably true for some, and like anybody who is rooting against something that others enjoy, they tend to be a loud and vocal group. Not everybody will enjoy a game, and Artifact is no different, but objectively it is a unique and interesting take on the card games that have come before it. While Hearthstone felt like "Magic Junior" in a lot of ways, Artifact feels like an intense Magic/Dota hybrid. That complexity means that it will probably never have as wide an appeal as the other two, but with the right moves, Valve can definitely make it a success. There are those who actively root for Artifact to fail, so they can hit us with a bunch of I-told-you-sos and berate Valve for making it. Those seem to be the same people who won't forgive Valve for the lack of a Half-Life 3 or whatever else, and their opinions shouldn't prevent anybody from picking up this game. TLDR; what should happen with Artifact? This is a solid game with a bright future but needs a more relaxed business model to grow after a fumbled launch. Many of the common complaints are unfairly given, but some certainly have merit. The following would result in a healthy, less random game with a growing ecosystem around it:
I know some of these are being worked on, at least, and I hope Valve isn't afraid to address the actual rules of the game as well. [link] [comments]  | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Phantom Draft 5 same heroes (VENO) odds? Posted: 14 Jan 2019 12:55 PM PST
 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Posted: 14 Jan 2019 11:09 AM PST Given the reputation of this subreddit, and my own personal experiences with Artifact, I'm going to try to write a positive post about this messy but very interesting game. I've been off the CCG/TCG scene since around 1998, after playing MtG since its initial release. I checked out around Visions or thereabouts, but have fond memories of the time I spent with the game. (At the time, my mother suggested I should try poker after she understood the business model, because at least I had the chance of making some money. God bless her. But I declined). I decided to try Artifact when I found out it was a Richard Garfield design. Garfield is great. MtG was an important part of my 90s, I love Netrunner, had lots of fun times with King of Tokyo...In a nutshell, I think Garfield is a designer that should be respected. One can criticize business models as predatory while admiring the core design of games, and that's why I decided to try Artifact. And I really, really, enjoy the game. I think it has great potential. I have around 150 hours of game time with this thing, and I guess that speaks for itself in terms of value for money. I did buy a few packs and cards from the market, but the overall value I got from it is greater than what I usually get from an AAA console game. Presentation is great, voice acting is awesome, the lore almost makes me wants me to read a DOTA 2 wiki (didn't go that far...but still), and I appreciate how innovative everything feels. The game just feels fresh, and I've had many memorable matches. I'm not a great player by any means, but I'm getting better day by day, which is a good sign. It's always good when a game allows you to learn and feel like you are improving as a player. As a 40-year-old, I can understand the frustration of not having the comfort of disposable income to buy cards. But really, isn't this much more honest and straightforward than Hearthstone? I decided to try Hearthstone after my initial Artifact matches, with academic interest more than as a devout gamer (I think Blizzard is really hit or miss, with more misses than hits, and I'm not in any way a fan of the company -- though I do think Overwatch is great). What I found is a fun game, intelligently designed for maximum profit, but totally brainless. I like it as much as I like a Big Mac. Which is to say: a lot, depending on the circumstances. As a mobile game, with low bandwidth requirements, it's great. It's a nice, quick fix, of the card game rush. But I feel kind of trashy when I play it, no offense intended. It's a vulgar game. And vulgar has its place. But vulgar shouldn't be this expensive. Artifact is a work in progress. It has given me much more than I expected, and I love playing a tense, exhausting match of this game. I think time will tell if we have a winner here, but I'm happy with what I got from the game so far. If you are not, I'm sure you have your reasons. It's all good. [link] [comments]  | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Calculator for opponent gold spent -> possible cards Posted: 14 Jan 2019 02:50 PM PST | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Thread discussing improving Artifact REMOVED by mods. Posted: 14 Jan 2019 03:35 AM PST Over 100 comments of various opinions, suggestions and constructive discussion regarding the future of artifact and it swiftly deleted in less than 45 minutes? I assume the moment it was found. https://www.reddit.com/r/Artifact/comments/aftvub/50_player_drop_since_beginning_of_january_what/ Please explain why this was shadowbanned? /u/leafeator [link] [comments]  | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 24-armor centaur in Tournament grand finals. Interaction of rend armor with 3x double edge. Posted: 14 Jan 2019 01:43 PM PST
 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Role of Reward Systems in Card Games Posted: 14 Jan 2019 02:17 PM PST This isn't a complaint for me personally, because I still enjoy playing the game after hundreds of hours. I think the gameplay is great and the game is very close to being one of the best. It just failed spectacularly in one critical aspect and that is the reward system. There's a lot of people saying the gameplay is the reason why players are leaving, but I don't think that's the case. I've played idle games with basically no gameplay whatsoever that is able to maintain a player base of hundreds of thousands of players just by having a solid reward system. Even a bad game can maintain a player base, so I don't think gameplay is really the issue here. Let's first look at a game with no reward system that maintains a solid player count - Magic: The Gathering. This is a good example to look at because it's what Artifact is clearly modelled after, other than the gameplay. Top-heavy reward system, re-sellable cards, booster packs, etc. So why does Magic succeed while Artifact fails? The key is to give losing players a reason to keep playing. Good players don't really need a reason to keep playing because being good is already a valid reason, though some players may find more value in being recognized as a good player. I was a bad Magic player at one point, but I still loved playing Magic for the collection aspect and the social aspect. Artifact can't translate either of that over to the digital world, and that's why it's failing. It's not because they executed it badly, it's because it's impossible. I won't go into the reasons why it's impossible since it would take too long to explain, but at least it's very clear now that whatever they had in mind is definitely not working. Losing players will start leaving the game, which causes the average players to become the losing players as people below them disappear, and it keeps going until the only players left are people that don't mind losing all the time, new players that won't last long, and people that are really, really good. This is where we are at right now. So I reiterate here, there needs to be a reason for losing players to keep playing. This is where the reward system comes in for games like Hearthstone, Shadowverse, and every mobile game on the planet. It's a very crucial and key part of digital card games, and that's why Artifact is utterly failing. Artifact not only lacks a reward system for bad players, the game goes out of its way to tell players that bad players are bad with the current "reward system" for prized games. You get nothing for 2 wins, and you break even at 3. When I was bad at magic, I was totally fine with losing 3 games if it meant I could win 1. Here, the game tells you that 2 wins is not good enough. These rewards don't even need to be booster packs. It could just be card skins, card backs, or even just a seasonal ladder. I don't really care what it is. The game needs something to keep below average players in the game, so the game doesn't constantly bleed out players from the bottom. I'm still enjoying the game because I'm part of the really good players at the top, but I honestly don't even need a reward system to keep playing. The current reward system is aimed at players like me, when I'm not really the player base that the reward system should be aimed at rewarding. I've gotten so many 4-wins and 5-wins that I've long been desensitized to the pack rewards, and I've only made $40 after all this time anyways. I didn't play all this time to make $40, I played all this time because I enjoy playing and winning. Please, we need a better reward system. [link] [comments]  | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Interview w/ swim ahead of the WePlay! tournament Posted: 14 Jan 2019 05:50 AM PST
 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Posted: 14 Jan 2019 08:27 PM PST I'm pretty bad at drafting...anyone have any resources I can watch or read to help improve my game? [link] [comments]  | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 20 crashes during a 10 minutes "game"... WTF ? Posted: 14 Jan 2019 08:16 AM PST What happened during this latest patch, Valve ? First, Mac players could not play. Who does not test THAT ? Second, now I have textures issues (slowly loading), the game crashes everytime the coin flips and/or randomly... when I reconnect I cannot click left or right to change lanes and see what happened while I was gone... and after 20 reconnects, I just was not allowed to reconnect anymore. I have the video of the game, if anyone doubts it and wanna watch that, but since those 2 last patches, I have been having issues and now, since that Mac players patch, nothing works. Anyone having the same issues here ? I have been trying really hard to love this game and I do love the ideas and the mechanics and the matches are always so close... There are some weird paying mechancis, which have been debated over and ove again, but now I cannot even play matches... When will Duel of Champions come back ? Great mechanics, card positionning was important and you could grind all cards without paying anything, and everything worked... [link] [comments]  | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Why are so many cards unplayable? Posted: 14 Jan 2019 03:08 AM PST Why are so many cards designed to be terrible in Draft (and constructed too for that matter)? I get it. Most card games have some cards that are weak, so that players can appreciate and evaluate differing power levels of cards (hence I don't mind the occasional rare card like Wrath of Gold) but I feel that Richard Garfield has taken this concept WAY too far in Artifact. So many times in Draft the choice is between "playable" and "god-awful", making choices often very simple. In contrast, Astral Heroes is an indie game which prides itself on making every card playable without a single exception. Playing draft in that game is an awesome experience because of the dynamic decisions and decision trees available. Astral Heroes has no bells and whistles or fancy graphics, but wow did they nail the draft format. In Artifact I like the core mechanics and am a fan of this game, but the sheer amount of unplayables makes me annoyed sometimes and causes me to open up Astral Heroes for a breath of fresh air. I can't even comfort myself by saying "Oh well, the draft format is like it is because those cards are needed in Constructed". With a few exceptions, that is simply not the case. Many of the cards are god-awful in both constructed and draft. Why so many? In the first basic set of the game, what were they thinking? Does anyone else feel this way about Artifact, or is it just me? [link] [comments]  | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Posted: 14 Jan 2019 05:31 AM PST I enjoyed the game for most part but now my laptop is no capable of running Artifact very well. I hope Valve is developing mobile version. It will be easier to play on mobile. I think Artifact isn't in very good state right now, it will be fine to take a break and meanwhile i can save money to buy a new laptop. You guys are cool, let's stay positive :) [link] [comments]  | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sudden Connection Problems During Important Moments Posted: 14 Jan 2019 07:16 AM PST I rarely have any problems with my internet and everything else was working fine (browser, other services). Twice in drafts this morning, I lot connection to the game server for the first time in many games of Artifact in the past 2 weeks, since I bought the game. Both happened during important moments in close games that I might win. It could be a coincidence, but I thought I'd ask if others had the same experience. If so, perhaps players are using some kind of DDoS attack or something similar if player IPs are exposed to the other player. Hopefully not, but I thought I'd ask. [link] [comments]  |
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/l23s132sqea21.jpg){kind=link}
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/a6p9v7dhcga21.jpg){kind=link}
| You are subscribed to email updates from Artifact - The Dota Card Game. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |
No comments:
Post a Comment