• Breaking News

    Sunday, June 21, 2020

    Home Unlabelled Artifact - It's Moonday My Dudes

    Artifact - It's Moonday My Dudes

    11:16 PM

    Artifact - It's Moonday My Dudes

    		Link to Artifact - The Dota Card Game

    It's Moonday My Dudes

    Posted: 21 Jun 2020 03:04 PM PDT

    My 2 cents on 2.0 - Thoughts and ideas.

    Posted: 21 Jun 2020 12:52 PM PDT

    Idk why but I feel invested in this game making a comeback. Maybe some of you feel the same? I think its because I like card games, but haven't really found any that really appeal and I think this has potential.

    So I have been seeing a lot of reactions to 2.0 the general consensus has been that the game isn't that fun... yet. I'm not just talking about reddit, people streaming the beta have shared similar thoughts. A lot of responses come down to "I want more cards/mana" or something. Over the last week I've been thinking about ways to improve the game, what is good about it currently, what is bad, how does 2.0 compare to 1.0, and what is the design direction that the team is trying to push the game in.

    This is focusing on gameplay & not things like how hero-draft works.

    So for starters heres a quick pros and cons list of 2.0 compared to 1.0:

    (The main pro being the non-gameplay stuff i.e. singleplayer, card acquisition, free to play, etc.)

    Pros: Cons:
    Fixed bad flop RNG Overdraw is annoying
    Improvement on creep deploy Less "action" than 1.0
    Fixed arrow RNG *Items seem overly strong, compared to cards
    Heroes seem more balanced lack of interesting big cards
    Shop is slightly better Blink scrolls are a bit weird
    Smaller numbers are easier to work with Game feels more about moving heroes around to the right positions than using your cards right
    The core card mechanics seem more refined Mana is in a weird spot
    Deploy-bounce is a good mechanic Lacks unique strategies & the game feels a bit stale

    Ideas and Solutions:

    • CARDBASE - I think a lot of the current issues with 2.0 can be fixed with a bigger card base. People complaining about a lack of alternative win conditions, and the sense that winning doesn't feel that rewarding is mostly due to a lack of unique strategies available. As the card base grows there will be more interesting metas, interesting decks and FUNNER play styles.
    • OVERDRAW - One of the biggest problems with the current overdraw is that items take up too much room in your hand. Only having 10 cards is limiting for things like combo decks, and makes play in general a bit more dull. I think 10 cards is enough (1/4 of your deck) but items should not be counted. You should be able to swap between your item hand and card hand, each limited to a 10 card overdraw.
    • MANA - This seems to be the complaint or issue that I see the most. A lack of mana for playing across 3 lanes. There doesn't seem to be an obvious fix for this, as more total mana would wreck the games curve, but splitting it makes it complicated & takes away from what seems like the devs wanting you to have to choose a lane to invest mana into each turn. I have 2 ideas for this, the first is to give each hero mana regen, basically each hero you have on the board would increase your mana regen by 1. This still limits the cards you can play each turn, but allows you to take more actions per turn. Alternatively there could instead be a separate resource, heroes each have 1 action point, to either be spent on using an item, or ability. Some may have 2 action points, and it may be disabled by a debuff.
    • DAY/NIGHT CYCLE - Have each round alternate between day and night. On days you draw 2 cards, but night could have other effects, like certain cards or heroes being stronger (think night stalker in dota). Makes drawing 2 feel less weird.
    • RE-ROLL IN SHOP - Have a option to roll the cards again at the cost of the current tier. Also balance gold/ items a bit more. Currently gold seems a bit to easy to get.
    • CHANGE BLINK SCROLLS - Currently they seem too strong, and also quite a random mechanic. Maybe once the tower is below a certain HP you get an enchantment that lets you bounce a hero from that lane once a turn instead. The courier seems a bit weird, but I kinda like it for some reason? You can kill it like in dota haha.

    I have more ideas and thoughts on the game, but these are my main ones and this post is alrea-

    submitted by /u/A_Fake_SlimShady
    [link] [comments]

    The faces of the beta!

    Posted: 21 Jun 2020 01:08 PM PDT

    Valve please structure things better

    Posted: 21 Jun 2020 11:01 PM PDT

    Prologue:

    So far the beta has been a wobbly ride. Seeing the state of the game it'll probably be in development for at least another year - and that is good. One of the things I really dislike about Valve's current stance is that there appears to be no dialogue and transparency anymore, despite it having been implicitly promised. Since the beta began we have seen Valve tease and communicate, but it has been a one way street for everyone except the few who got a personal reply(which too I think isn't a sustainable or smart way of managing feedback).

    Since the very first update we have seen quotes from Eric such as:

    It's not going to look polished because we're going to be changing things a lot during this process based on feedback and data. It's really important to us that we take your ideas for how to improve the game into account, so please email them to [ArtifactBetaFeedback@valvesoftware.com](mailto:ArtifactBetaFeedback@valvesoftware.com)

    This also included, as seen above, an actual contact point. Keep there were no players in the beta at this point. Hell we hadn't even seen any actual mechanics. This brings my to my second point of critique: whatever is going on at Valve appears to be severely lacking any form of structure or direction. This point is brought home further by analyzing the earliest sneak peeks at the new Artifact. An important fragment that emphasizes this is the following:

    - All heroes should have at least one ability.

    - You should be excited to draw a hero's signature cards.

    - Signature cards should avoid being situational.

    - Signature cards should generally be at their best when their corresponding hero uses them.

    - Bonus if a hero has a small self-synergy.

    - It's fine to have two abilities on a hero if at least one of them is a passive.

    - It's fine to have strong active and passive abilities on the board. They create interesting threats to play around.

    Which feels like pretty micro level design choices gathered from a brainstorm session. The fact that these are pointed out is a sign of high transparency, but also a lack of an overarching design. You can't expect the game to come together well if you just jam some preferences together. What is Artifact trying to be? To whom is it suppose to cater? What is the color pie? Those are design choices that are of much greater importance, and give people a framework to judge smaller higher level designs choices such as above on. If you want to convey what you are going for and you want people to take it seriously(which, judging from the tone is exactly what Valve was trying to do - and I praise them for that) you need to give it a context. Perhaps put up something like a game design document for all to see. It'd provide people a solid basis to form arguments on.

    I think everyone acknowledges that players are not game designers. They do not know and/or understand the nuances that come with creating a game - especially not on a level such as Valve. Most of the feedback will be pure noise with the exception of some mineable keywords. But among the community are analytically strong people who can definitely provide insightful arguments if you give them a stage to do so. The ultimate goal here should not be to make people feel good about being heard("reading all emails"), but about making Artifact 2.0 a great game - and I do truly believe if structured properly the community can be of great aid in that.

    My proposition

    ​

    • Assign someone to a community management role

    I know the Artifact team is small. I also have a rough idea of Valve's flat hierarchy and workfloor ethics. But please at least consider assigning someone, if available, to do the community management. Preferably someone who has no trouble communicating with the developers. Right now the communication and the apparent desire to be transparent is a very nice gesture - but it's painfully uncoordinated.

    ​

    • Communicate the current design plans/goals better

    This is a pretty straightforward point. So far we have seen but snippets of information. What are you trying to deliver Valve? How are you planning to do it? This provides the foundation for people to make arguments/judgement upon. Currently this is lacking.

    ​

    • Compile feedback into a monthly/once every X weeks report, throw the feedback around among developers and react to it - then make it public for all to see

    This allows everyone to see and understand the general sentiment and engage in a discussion about certain proposed changes. It also enables people to actually understand where you want to take the game, and potentially provide pretty great insight on why your stance is good/bad. The developers are still the ones making the decisions, but you allow the community to hold up a mirror to certain shortcomings you might have missed. The community would probably felt heard and you would utilize them to a much greater degree in developing the game than randomly reading people's emails(which is what appears to happen right now)

    Right now the discontent among the community appears to be growing(reddit is slowly becoming more negative and the Discord is also visibly becoming more frustrated) - and frankly I can't blame them. Valve: you have promised a lot with the earliest updates and have shown unprecedented signs of transparency, but currently it really feels like it has fallen by the wayside. The current methods you employ aren't scalable. Please structure the handling of feedback and communication better so we can make Artifact 2.0 the best game it could possibly be.

    submitted by /u/Gloriouspieps
    [link] [comments]

    Feedback is a problem and needs to be done better

    Posted: 21 Jun 2020 08:54 AM PDT

    I think that it's good that we have a beta, but having all these feedback being thrown in reddit/discord/email , is so bad and chaotic and i cant even imagine what the devs are reading. Why don't you prompt the beta testers an in-game likert-scale , something easy and quick just to see what people like, instead of getting bombarded with all these opinions, at the end the median matters the most.

    submitted by /u/AdmiralPonce
    [link] [comments]

    The power scaling of cards with mana cost feels off

    Posted: 21 Jun 2020 08:24 AM PDT

    I have seen multiple complaints about Artifact 2.0's mana system and amount of card draw. From what I've seen, most of these complaints boil down to one thing: it feels bad to only play one or two cards each turn. I feel like this issue can be traced back to a different aspect of Artifact 2.0: the scaling of card power by mana cost. Right now, the level of difference between card power is such that it is almost always more optimal to play a single higher-mana card than multiple lower-mana cards.
    In most card games, this makes sense, given that the player has to justify needing to wait to play these cards. However, this feels antithetical to Artifact's three-lane system. With the current power scaling, players are almost always encouraged to focus on one lane each turn. This, combined with the fact that playing multiple cards has the downside of giving up initiative, makes it feel as though you're doubly discouraged from playing cards in multiple lanes.
    It would make sense to me if the scaling was such that multiple cards of lower mana cost were as good as, if not better than, a single higher-cost card with equivalent sum mana cost most of the time. Players should be able to optimally play cards in two or three lanes each turn, and only spend all of their mana on one card if they are absolutely certain they want to commit to that lane, even if it's at the cost of per-turn value.

    submitted by /u/pak215
    [link] [comments]

    Spell stack

    Posted: 21 Jun 2020 08:54 PM PDT

    One issue I've found during the beta (and have submitted this to Valve) is that there is little to no interaction between players.

    One solution to this could be introducing a spell stack similar to MtG and LoR. It would give players the opportunity with their opponent and what they are trying to do while also speeding up turns as one spell cast by one player could see multiple spells put on the stack.

    I'm interested to hear if other players have thought of this or think it could be interesting.

    submitted by /u/JS-God
    [link] [comments]

    Don't **** with time!

    Posted: 21 Jun 2020 08:21 AM PDT

    Yep, another trash mana idea

    Posted: 21 Jun 2020 08:09 AM PDT

    So just like everyone I want to give my trashy mana system idea, What if we have 10 mana since turn 1, but can only play cards that cost 3 mana(or below), then every turn we won one extra mana (11 max mana on second turn) and now we can play cards that cost one more mana (cards that cost 4 mana or below in second turn) :)

    Oh and we can have two types of ramp cards too! one will allow you to play bigger cards, and the second will give you mor mana :))

    Yep I know, my idea is as bad as my english, thank you for read.

    submitted by /u/El_Gran_Osito
    [link] [comments]

    Another suggestion to overall mana pool to increase early game mana and include a dynamic 'hero presence' mana pool

    Posted: 21 Jun 2020 04:06 PM PDT

    I know, yet another suggestion instead of proper feedback, but I just want to share this idea with you all.

    I read the feedback reviews here on reddit and other suggestions, which makes my head wonder around my take on some pain points. This one is, yet another one, around mana.

    What I propose as a suggestion is to somehow tackle:

    • too little mana early on to play and act (main issue)
    • heroes feel like creeps
    • mana system is boring
    • keep it an easy to read and grasp system

    [Suggestion:]

    Your total mana each round is (Round mana) + (Hero mana).

    • Round mana is the steady +1 mana each round. Starting with one. Round 4 = 4 mana, round 6 = 6 mana.

    • Hero mana is +1 mana for each of your active heroes. 3 heroes alive = 3 mana.

    This would mean that round 1, both players start with 4 mana. Round 2 (if no hero died) means 6 mana. Round 3 is between 4-8 mana.

    Upside: Now, depending on the presence of your heroes, your mana increases in the first rounds while early mid/late game it increases and decreases dynamically. When heroes are partially your source for mana, it might improve their identity as casters and be a more significant force to play your hand. It could also potentially allow 2-cards draw to make sense again.

    Downside: if your heroes get killed, already they were benched for a turn, but with this, you would also lose a mana point. Perhaps games could snowball, but it might make it so that (your) heroes have a stronger weight in the game and getting those hero kills/saves could get a higher priority. Hard to guess how it would pan out.

    Also another downside is that it would make it harder to plan out your next turn(s), but I feel a game can already move so many directions over a turn or a few, it might not influence this too much.

    What do you guys think? Too boring still, too simplified, still not too much of an improvement to early mana?

    Thanks for your read.

    submitted by /u/youchoose22
    [link] [comments]

    Changing mana and card draw

    Posted: 21 Jun 2020 06:55 AM PDT

    Hey Valve can you try changing the card draw to two per turn and changing the mana system, or changing the cost of the cards?

    If you keep the same mana cost as 1.0 then we have way too little mana to do anything. Playing one or two cards per turn is not fun.

    submitted by /u/322KPM
    [link] [comments]

    Share Your Decklist

    Posted: 21 Jun 2020 06:25 AM PDT

    I love playing Card Games but constructing the deck is what i hate the most.

    Do you guys have an interesting deck to share? Or is there a website that share a deck?

    submitted by /u/Brin69
    [link] [comments]

    Don't lie, you thought it as well

    Posted: 21 Jun 2020 01:22 PM PDT

    Did I screw myself over? BETA signup mishap

    Posted: 21 Jun 2020 08:49 AM PDT

    For some background, I have two systems, a work laptop and a gaming rig.

    At some point I became paranoid that perhaps I hadn't signed up for the BETA correctly, so I went back to the playartifact.com website to check. It did NOT give me the message that I had already connected my Steam account, so I connected my steam account again.

    Afterwards, I realized that in my excitement I had originally connected my steam account via my work laptop. So now I've effectively connected my steam account twice, once via my work laptop and once via my gaming rig.

    Not sure if this would have any impact on the BETA lottery - perhaps I got bumped to the bottom of the queue? Just a word of caution for others out there to be careful which system you signup / check your BETA status.

    submitted by /u/rstrube
    [link] [comments]

    where the 1.0 influencers at?

    Posted: 21 Jun 2020 11:27 AM PDT

    y'all gonna fall for the same shit again in 2.0 lol. 3.0 waiting room below this line -----------------------------------%<----------------------------

    submitted by /u/Lpzie
    [link] [comments]
    Read more
    Posted by at

    No comments:

    Post a Comment

    Fashion

    Beauty

    Travel