Artifact - Sorry babe I’ve got Times to Triumph �� |  |
- Sorry babe I’ve got Times to Triumph ��
- Artifact lore quiz show is live RIGHT NOW!
- How do you think they will promote decks with more than one colour in Artifact 2.0 ?
- Deployment 2.0 and hero roles.
- The right kind of RNG
- The one thing I regret about the move to Artifact 2.0
- The reason why Artifact's RNG is bad.
- ACS - Artifact Championship Series | Losers' Bracket Round 2 | 17 UTC / in 8h
- Should I get back in game?
| Sorry babe I’ve got Times to Triumph �� Posted: 18 Apr 2020 05:42 AM PDT
 | ||
| Artifact lore quiz show is live RIGHT NOW! Posted: 18 Apr 2020 02:57 PM PDT
 | ||
| How do you think they will promote decks with more than one colour in Artifact 2.0 ? Posted: 18 Apr 2020 01:53 PM PDT Right now "Mono" decks have proven to be the most powerful, do you think that will change with Artifact 2.0 ? [link] [comments]  | ||
| Deployment 2.0 and hero roles. Posted: 18 Apr 2020 09:51 PM PDT With the deployment phase of Artifact 2.0 revealed, we've gotten a glimpse in to the round to round strategy of the reboot. One element of this that hasn't really been discussed yet is the impact this is going to have on how we analyze and strategize with individual hero cards. The sequence of events in the deployment phase naturally lends itself to a concept that is very familiar to Dota players: Hero roles. Roles are only very loosely defined within Dota 2 (at least mechanically), but they play a major role in shaping the metagame around how the game is played. Deployment 2.0 seems designed to convey some of the same concepts to the cardgame medium. Safelane, Midlane, and Offlane In 1.0, you could categorize every hero in to two general groups: Initial and secondary. Initial heroes were the first three heroes deployed randomly across the three lanes. These were heroes that were either strong enough to stand on their own following the flop, or had some innate ability that you wanted on the field as soon as possible. These were heroes like Axe, Bristleback, Luna, Kanna, Enchantress, and Phantom Assassin. Secondary heroes were heroes you deliberately chose to deploy later in the game, either to ensure favorable positioning (Drow, Venomancer, or Prellex for example), or because the hero had a weaker statline offset with an ability that started the game on cooldown (Tinker, Sniper, or Tidehunter). These are generalizations, of course, and exceptions do exist. In 2.0, the deployment phase causes an additional element to be considered. Initial and secondary heroes are still present, but within the initial hero group, consideration must be made for Safelane, Offlane, and Midlane placement. These roles will play a large part in both deck building as well as setup. The offlane, for instance, generally favors heroes with survivability, as the offlaners opponent will have control over whether or not the hero is directly contested. This means heroes with innate skills that trigger under specific circumstances (like 2.0 Bounty Hunter, or 1.0 Sorla Khan) are ill suited for the offlane role. Conversely, these heroes would excel in the Safelane role, as you control where that unit goes in to play after all other units have been revealed. Midlane is likely going to be an extremely interesting role, strategically, as this is by necessity going to be a flexible hero who can adapt to the double-blind deployment. As an added twist, players may attempt to swap their midlane hero with their safelane of offlane heroes, depending on the decks and opponents, in the hope of dodging an unfavorable hero matchup. For examples, let's take a look at the six heroes we know about for 2.0 and their probable roles within the initial deployment. Wraith King - With his powerful Reincarnate ability, Wraith King is naturally suited to serve in the offlane role. While he can function in both the mid and safelane if necessary, he serves as a potent roadblock to either slow an opponent's safelane push or to force them to spend several rounds attacking a unit that takes 2-3 turns to reliably die. Treant Protector - In the developer example, Treant Protector is sent mid in the hopes of building up a creep advantage. They also note that he would be a juicy target in the offlane. This is likely our first example of a flexible draft strategy. Against the example opponent, treant is likely to die in two turns against any of the opponents heroes. If their opponent were fielding physically weaker Blue units, Treant might serve better in the offlane to allow the more aggressively stated Wraith King to take middle. Bounty Hunter - With his Track passive giving him a dangerous 7 attack against heroes he deploys to block, Bounty Hunter is as prime example of a safelane hero. He is a poor fit for offlane deployment, as the opponent would almost certainly choose to avoid giving Bounty Hunter the track bonus against their own hero. Mirana - Mirana is a very flexible unit. While heroes with abilities are often placed in secondary deployment slots, Mirana's mobility means placing her on turn 3 can be counter productive. In terms of initial deployment, she works best in the safelane or midlane roles. Bristleback - A well rounded stat line makes for a flexible unit. In fact, I suspect Red may be a bit less restrictive on deployment roles in general, owing to their superior stat lines. Bristleback could potentially serve in all three roles, depending on the situation. Timbersaw - Another active ability that feeds in to mobility on turn 3. We recently received confirmation that Timber Chain can be used to move lanes, so while he could work in any role, Timbersaw fits naturally in the mid lane, ready to respond in any direction he may be needed. Slot Heroes In addition to roles, certain heroes seem like they excel when inhabiting specific slots within a lane. Treant Protector is an obvious example. Branches of Iron encourages Treant to occupy the #3 slot in his lane, thus enabling his armor aura to apply to all his allies. Of course, this does make it fairly obvious where an opponent might choose to place their hero to block him. There's a risk vs reward consideration that must be made any time we're looking at what slot to deploy these sorts of heroes. Another great example is Bristleback. Bristleback ideally wants to occupy the #1 or #2 slot in whatever lane he's in. Because creeps always deploy in the left most available slot, Bristleback can position himself to easily pick them off round after round. If he is damaged outside of combat, Quill spray activates, dealing enough damage to kill any creeps near him. This helps keep Bristleback able to threaten towers reliably. Final Thoughts With so many heroes being seemingly designed with specific roles in mind, and with the less random 2.0 deployments, it's an understandable concern that game openings might begin to look very similar. There's definitely room for flexibility that can help undermine this problem, but it's not a solution in and of itself. Ultimately, I think the solution to avoiding a stagnant metagame is the same solution Dota relies upon - a broad and diverse enough hero pool will help keep Artifact from becoming overly repetitive. It remains to be seen how many heroes Valve has planned for the release of 2.0, but I'm encouraged to see that new heroes are being added already. [link] [comments]  | ||
| Posted: 18 Apr 2020 09:29 PM PDT RNG plays a very important role in any game, but it's a meaningful component of the game only if done right.Hearthstone's RNG, for example is made focused on being "fun". It's output RNG, where you do x but the output is random. The outcome can be anything from a,b,c etc but this kind of RNG is the worst kind of RNG when it comes to gameplay and testing any skill set. It doesn't test and reward the better player. Valve should stay away from this and make all RNG in the game input based, where all the random information is front loaded and the player has to "deal" with the situation. Input RNG test players on an important skill set ( tactical prowess, reactions and adapting, making decisions and strategies on the fly etc). I'll say it again Input RNG is the right form of RNG to have in Artifact. It involves player agency where the end outcome is totally dependent on what the player does, just the starting pieces or information were random. Having to work one's way, given the random starting point to a favorable outcome is a skill testing task, something the game should reward players on amongst other things. All output RNG does is screw players over with no fault or agency of their own. You just sit there doing nothing and get shat on by RNG without the ability to do anything about it. I can't stress how bad output RNG and how good input RNG is, period. [link] [comments]  | ||
| The one thing I regret about the move to Artifact 2.0 Posted: 18 Apr 2020 11:27 AM PDT The one thing I regret about the move to Artifact 2.0, and the long-haul as a whole, is that there has been no influx of content in Artifact at all. I used to be really hyped for the game, I remember posting on a different sub when this one was style about rocks. The truth is, I put it down pretty early, but I was surprised to find out when I installed it back that I had played Artifact for 50 hours even though I only played it for a few days. I was really into the game, but the lack of progression (didn't have any kind of badge or level up mechanic at release if I'm not mistaken), and the fact I wasn't willing to dish out money for a full-collection, so I didn't play constructed, kind of drove me out of the game. I was still eagerly waiting for an expansion, though. I wanted to get back into it, wait for some updates, new cards, then go play some pre-constructed decks and some practice draft. But as we all know, that never came. And this is why I'd like to encourage Valve to go the Early Access route with 2.0, or at least keep up a large opt-in beta going even after release. I want to see some wild updates being pushed every few weeks - or even more frequently. Yoink cards out of the games, add new ones, experiment with placeholder art/graphics. What I'm most afraid of with 2.0 has nothing to do with the change in gameplay / business model. What worries me is that at some point, Artifact 2.0 might come out, and it'll stay the same for months on end until we have an expansion. I would like the development to be much more dynamic than that, even if it incurs a higher risk of bugs / balance issues. I do realize that these kinds of decisions can't be community-based, but that's been on my mind for a while, so... There you go. [link] [comments]  | ||
| The reason why Artifact's RNG is bad. Posted: 18 Apr 2020 08:33 PM PDT I posted this argument in a thread, figured it should probably be seen by more people since I keep seeing an argument for the RNG being good pop up. Since it's presence is known in every card game, Draw RNG is not being discussed here. Artifact has a lot of RNG, and statistically, we know that the RNG is balanced even if it doesn't feel like it. Losing a hero or two on the Flop won't by itself cause you to lose. Having an arrow curve when you absolutely didn't want it to won't cause you to lose by itself. Not getting an item in the Shop won't cause you to lose by themselves. All this RNG has certain skill requirements to play around, and absolutely allow the better player to come off on top. However, every single instance of RNG in Artifact is Reactive RNG, which causes it to feel bad and as though you had no control over it. The game placed Creeps in certain Lanes, deal with it. The game gave you certain items to buy, deal with it. Crystal Maiden just flopped in front of Axe, deal with it. Three of your creeps are being blocked by one enemy, deal with it. The list could go on and on, but the important thing to note is that in every single one of these instances there is absolutely no player agency that could have changed the outcomes of the RNG, and as the name suggests you're forced to react to whatever was put on the board in front of you. Contrast this to Hearthstone, where every single RNG effect in the game (as played by you) is Proactive RNG. You played Piloted Shredder because it was a 4/3 + a 2 drop, giving you staying power after a board wipe. The 2 drop could be a 1/1, it could be a 4/4, it could even be a 0/7 that blew up your board a second time causing you to skip your turn. That all doesn't matter; you chose to play the card. If you played Flame Juggler, you're paying for the 2/3 body that deals 1 damage randomly. You can affect the board state to specifically limit the number of targets via trading minions or using spells to increase the odds of hitting the target you need. You had agency when using the random effect. Even Shaman, the class that had RNG as one of its core identities, gets this correct. When you hero power for a random totem, you receive a 0/2 with a special effect or a 1/1. You have a 25% chance of getting the one you need, and a 100% chance to get a body on the board. Crackle is 2 mana for 3-6 damage, allowing you to play the odds (100% chance to deal 3 damage, 75% chance to do 4 damage, 50% to do 5, 25% to do 6), so you can target a Minion specifically around that. Ancestral Call pulls a random minion out of your hand into the battlefield, but if you can somehow make it where you only have on minion in hand... I mean, even Yogg Sauron in both his nerfed state and his regular state, where he casts a random spell for every spell you've cast this game, was a known quantity. You knew that he might blow himself up immediately and thereby negating your turn if you played him. You also knew that he might give you a board of 7/7's while blowing up the opponents board. The RNG wasn't forced on you, you actually had a hand in playing the card (And indeed, Yogg was mostly a "Well I'm losing the game anyway, might as well see how badly this messes it up" card since his being added into the game) This is why Hearthstone is seen as a fun game with fun, random wacky cards while Artifact was seen as a RNG clown fiesta. Being able to adjust arrows or move units doesn't do anything when you have to dedicate resources to not get dicked over by the game. [link] [comments]  | ||
| ACS - Artifact Championship Series | Losers' Bracket Round 2 | 17 UTC / in 8h Posted: 18 Apr 2020 02:05 AM PDT The Artifact Championship series (ACS) continues today. BabyBokChoy88 (USA) vs. RazDva (RUS)| 16 UTC Come join us! Discord Link: https://discord.gg/cd3jAg8 Stream: https://www.twitch.tv/NineArmada Bracket: https://challonge.com/ACSseason2 The prize pool is 100% long haul funded; currently at 171.03Eur. [link] [comments]  | ||
| Posted: 17 Apr 2020 11:34 PM PDT Now that I heard about Artifact 2.0, should I just wait for it? I sold my collection and don't want to buy all of them back, unless it will get brought over to 2.0. Any news on this? [link] [comments]  |
![[link]](https://i.imgur.com/OE61hkY.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