Full Disclosure
- This is an opinion piece. I don't have any insider information or connections with Valve
- Im a big Dota 2 (720 hours) fan and loved Artifact. Compared to Dota 2, I played Artifact only for 70 hours before quitting. However I have played 200+ hours of Hearthstone.
- I have read some articles & listened to podcasts about Artifact e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_N-8-baPenw&t=3530s&app=desktop
TLDR: 3 problems I believe Valve is looking address in the upcoming "rehaul" (In priority)
- Time to Finish a match
- Trying before buying
- User Experience and Visibility
Lets look at each one in a bit a detail and my rational of why Valve might see these as a problem.
#1 - Time to Finish a match
Why is this a problem?
Artifact uses the Dota 2 universe and naturally pulls players who are familiar with with it. This means that either they are playing Dota 2 currently or have played it sometime in the past. It might also been seen as a starting point for someone who is interested in the Dota universe but is overwhelmed going into a 5v5 match up, however I would assume such players are the exception and not the norm. Lastly there might be some Hearthstone / Gwent enthusiast who are looking for a change.
Players who have played Dota 2 are looking to play Artifact to get back into the universe and you would expect for matches to last not as long as Dota 2 matches. Its a 1v1 card game compared to a 5v5 line up. But the reality is that I've had a fair amount of games that have gone up and beyond 30+ minutes. These days Dota 2 is balanced such that matches might take 25 mins average. So then who would move to Artifact and why, when they can play Dota 2 in the same time instead? Dota 2 launched in 2012 and 7 years since, early adopters of Dota 2 who have aged, started families might find less time to commit to game.
How does the problem manifest ?
- Turn Mechanics - In most cases (except initiative cards), playing a single card ends your turn. Each turn potentially could take up-to a maximum of 45 seconds (I believe this got changed in an update to shorten it). Ending turns does not mean you will move to the next lane. There are many action players can still do (Equip/Use Items/Use Abilities) which might each take a maximum of 45 secs. Seasoned players are second guessing what the opponent might do/not do before they make their decision. On the other hand, new players get into the game they try to use this time as much as possible to learn the game. Because of the fact that turns token is passed around so often, this eventually piles up towards longer matches. We can see Valve trying to push in this direction by looking at their animation speed ups but the problem is more deep rooted. This is a high risk change but I anticipate this to be re looked at.
- No Enforced Sudden Death - Now one might argue that the 5:00 timer is a good implementation of trying to end the match. However the onus is put on the player (think faster, make decisions faster) rather than it being a mechanic that affects the end condition of the game i.e. destroying the tower. In my opinion this actually takes strategical fun away from game( from being chess into being speed chess) that forces you to make mistakes eventually. The only thing that is trying to end the game is ever increasing gold & mana hoping that one deck/card gives one of the players an advantage. I anticipate that Valve might even remove the 5:00 timer if other issues are fixed.
- Lane setup - The problem with Turn Mechanics is magnified by the 3 lane setup as it increases the time to complete a round (and hence a match). This one is a bit tricky and in my opinion Valve will either fix Turn mechanics issue or reduce 3 lanes to 1 but maybe not both.
- Deck Styles - Some deck styles and combinations tend to be inherently slower and more about control than about rushing towards victory. From my experience the following seems to hold true in most cases (see pic). I have seen similar issues in Hearthstone, but these are usually easily fixable by having an enforced sudden death. It can also be done by introducing new cards or avoiding certain slow decks pairs in match matchmaking but its will be an overkill (killing a fly with a cannon) for this issue. I predict Valve to not touch this at all.
Decks of course are a mix of cards but this is what I have experienced in general.
#2 Trying before buying
Card games have a history of requiring high spends in order to be able to play them at an intermediate level. But this norm has been challenged with the introduction of "Free 2 Play" games. Players in the Valve eco-system are familiar with this concept if they have played Dota 2 before as they did not have to put down a single penny in order to play. Eventually they could decide if they want to put down some hard cash. This model existed on Steam before Dota with games like Team Fortress 2.
Competitor card games like Heartstone and Gwent were already following this model so it make it more difficult a new comer like Artifact to justify the price tag along with asking players to move to their game. Employing a try before buying model would have help Artifact get more visibility and reach.
But wait why would reach affect my experience of playing the game? Well indirectly. Card games are all about building what you believe to be the "perfect deck". Valve made it super easy to share and copy decks from opponents. I wish could discuss hours on end which cards / decks are better with my friends and co-workers. A major part of the game actually happens outside of the game. The problem the game did not reach these audiences organically. Even If I brought it to them, it was hard to convince them to put down the initial price tag. To counter this problem I anticipate Valve will relaunch Artifact as free to play or a similar mechanism that allows for trying out the game.
#3 User experience and Visibility
Artifact wanted recreate the magic of Dota 2 e-sports in a card game format (Million dollar tournament pre-announce). I admit that in terms of pure gameplay it was the most exciting and intense card game that I have played. However, some design choices make it (just like Dota 2) hard to understand by just being a passive viewer. This also makes the game less streamable whether in youtube or for the billion dollar tournament eventually. Ultimately this turns off new players from getting into the game.
How does the problem manifest?
- 3 Lane view - For the person playing its easier to remember the state of the board rather than the viewer. In-fact most times that I was playing, I never used the zoomed out view rather just scrolled across the lanes one by one instead. For this to become more of an e-sports it should be easier for the viewer to understand just at a glance which player has the lead. Coupled with the game time issue, this problem seems to be the most urgent to be fixed.
- Unlimited units on board and cards in hand - While the idea is great for high level competitive play, it makes it for more visibility and readability on the viewer side Heck, I have made mistakes because I didn't check the cards on the edge of the board with [+3] next to them (See pic). Further more, in terms of usability its gets harder for players to pick out the card that they want if they have a larger hand size, kinda like a punishment to have a hand size advantage. I would be certain that Valve will tackle this issue in the revised gameplay.
- Lane Resolution - Connected to the above, its more difficult for viewers to understand how the lane resolution actually panned out. Compared to Hearthstone where you actively see the movements and attacks of each unit independently, in Artifact all the attacks in the lane (apart from cards and abilities) resolve simultaneously.
3 lanes multiplied by potentially unlimited units on each lane
All in all, I must say I am looking forward to the changes that Valve is going to make. Every once in a whiles its good to see super successful companies like Valve making mistakes and its even more encouraging to know they are hard at work trying to fix it. More power to you!
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/tgvrfx3k9vu21.png){kind=link}
No comments:
Post a Comment