Artifact |OT| Development Stopped

[filkry]

How absurd is this question? The possibilities in chess for board states and movements vastly outnumber any of these games. And GO is even deeper. I fail to see how this question makes sense though.

Click to shrink...

So then is your criteria for depth the number of legal board states? In that case, Artifact must be deeper than chess, since each zone can have an unlimited number of cards and therefore there are an infinite number of legal states. And Hearthstone has more legal cards than Artifact, making the number of legal board states you are actually likely to see probably higher in Hearthstone than in Artifact.

Similarly, the number of legal actions is not really an order of magnitude higher in chess than in Artifact.

The only criteria for depth that makes sense is the amount of work/difficulty required in inferring the correct play, which is related to but not really 1:1 with complexity of the rule set. And in that sense I don't see how Artifact is significantly deeper. In some ways, Hearthstone feels deeper to me on occasion because of the amount of decision making that has to be made surrounding expected outcomes of high-variance plays.

Magic is my favourite game of the bunch, and I'd argue that is is more complex than Hearthstone but not necessarily deeper.

*edit* Artifact may be deeper after a lot more time to settle down and examine the game, but is it *obviously* deeper based on the ruleset like you're claiming? I don't think so.

 

[SubvertedTrope]

I simply agreed with Kibler that Artifact is a more complex game, and that despite people claiming they want that, that is not really what they want.

Click to shrink...

First of all, "they claim they want that, but they don't", thanks for the translation of the suppressed subconscious of the people.

How's this sound: Maybe people looking to this game were in fact looking for more complexity, who cares if they never try it anyway?

This mythical, exalted complexity is not what´s keeping people away from the game, it´s the upfront cost, not a hard conclusion to reach, several people involved in the scene have said as much, and it´ll be the first thing to go. Who knows if that will make a difference by the time they do it.

 

[Lyng]

So then is your criteria for depth the number of legal board states? In that case, Artifact must be deeper than chess, since each zone can have an unlimited number of cards and therefore there are an infinite number of legal states. And Hearthstone has more legal cards than Artifact, making the number of legal board states you are actually likely to see probably higher in Hearthstone than in Artifact.

Similarly, the number of legal actions is not really an order of magnitude higher in chess than in Artifact.

The only criteria for depth that makes sense is the amount of work/difficulty required in inferring the correct play, which is related to but not really 1:1 with complexity of the rule set. And in that sense I don't see how Artifact is significantly deeper. In some ways, Hearthstone feels deeper to me on occasion because of the amount of decision making that has to be made surrounding expected outcomes of high-variance plays.

Magic is my favourite game of the bunch, and I'd argue that is is more complex than Hearthstone but not necessarily deeper.

*edit* Artifact may be deeper after a lot more time to settle down and examine the game, but is it *obviously* deeper based on the ruleset like you're claiming? I don't think so.

Click to shrink...

Look at the posibilites for future moves AND board states in chess.
The ruleset of chess is much simpler than the card games. Yet the game has incredible depth. Much more so than the card games. even if you have unlimited unites, it is still one one lane, or in Artifacts case three lanes. The amount of moves in chess are far more vast. GO even more so. And GO might be an even better example since that only has one way of playing your pieces, yet once you start to calculate the amount of posibilites and board states you realize having to account for that amount vastly outnumber anything you would have to account for in any of these three card games.

The thing about Artifact is you have to infer the correct play for three board states at once for every play. In Hearthstone you essentially only have one board state at all times.
In Hearthstone the ressource system is simply a rising number. In Artifact you also have to think about what colours you can play in each lane, where to position your heroes and where you want to play what card. While having to consider hero color with what cards you can play and the mana on top, is not super complex or deep, it is still a more complex and deeper system than Hearthstone, which at times have boiled down to simply curving out.

Now the idea of complexity vs depth is an interesting one since I agree they are not 1:1. A game like Arkham Horror has a much more complex ruleset than GO, but is a very shallow game comparitively. On the other hand a game like Pendragon has a more complex ruleset than Arkham Horror AND is a vastly deeper game.
Alot more than simply the ruleset determines depth and I agree with your assesment in general of what constitues depth, and I honestly believe after having played all these games extensively for reviews that Artifact requires you to consider correct plays due to the forementioned differences.

 

[Lyng]

First of all, "they claim they want that, but they don't", thanks for the translation of the suppressed subconscious of the people.

How's this sound: Maybe people looking to this game were in fact looking for more complexity, who cares if they never try it anyway?

This mythical, exalted complexity is not what´s keeping people away from the game, it´s the upfront cost, not a hard conclusion to reach, several people involved in the scene have said as much, and it´ll be the first thing to go. Who knows if that will make a difference by the time they do it.

Click to shrink...

The issue Artifact has right now is not people not trying the game but rather people not staying AFTER having purchased the game. The upfront cost has nothing to do with it.
Can you name those people involved in the scene who said as much?
All I have heard from Kibler, Disguised and Reynad is that the game is to complex to be a massive success.

 

[filkry]

All I have heard from Kibler, Disguised and Reynad is that the game is to complex to be a massive success.

Click to shrink...

Another point Reynad makes that resonates most with why I have stopped playing is that the cards in the base set are uninteresting. There aren't enough "sweet" cards, to use the term I'd use in HS or MTG - cards that have cool, brewable effects. The other factor is that the range of decks feels somewhat narrow compared to other games - an aggressive deck doesn't *feel* as aggressive as an aggro deck in HS or MTG.

Like Reynad, I think these problems - if you even consider them problems as opposed to taste - can be fixed with future expansions.

*edit* not saying complexity isn't a factor, I think it's a huge problem that the game isn't "watchable"

 

[SubvertedTrope]

The issue Artifact has right now is not people not trying the game but rather people not staying AFTER having purchased the game. The upfront cost has nothing to do with it.

Click to shrink...

Does it only have to be one thing that is "the issue" with Artifact? I think not even letting curious potential players try the game is a much worse self inflicted wound than making it too hard for the dumbos. The fact people are dropping the game after paying a $20 fee even, is a whole other problem.

Can you name those people involved in the scene who said as much?

Click to shrink...

Swim and Toast both said yesterday they expect the game to go f2p sooner than later.

All I have heard from Kibler, Disguised and Reynad is that the game is to complex to be a massive success.

Click to shrink...

It doesn't have to be a massive success.

It needs players who like this complexity, and there's enough out there to keep the game going, if only they could get into it, hmm perhaps through some easing of access.

 

[BigJeffery]

20 dollars is already a pretty low barrier to entry, and if they're going to implement any sort of in-game reward system where the rewards can be traded on the market it seems like a necessity.

 

[Lyng]

Another point Reynad makes that resonates most with why I have stopped playing is that the cards in the base set are uninteresting. There aren't enough "sweet" cards, to use the term I'd use in HS or MTG - cards that have cool, brewable effects. The other factor is that the range of decks feels somewhat narrow compared to other games - an aggressive deck doesn't *feel* as aggressive as an aggro deck in HS or MTG.

Like Reynad, I think these problems - if you even consider them problems as opposed to taste - can be fixed with future expansions.

*edit* not saying complexity isn't a factor, I think it's a huge problem that the game isn't "watchable"

Click to shrink...

Definately agree here. In our review one of the negatives named was the lack of "bling" cards. I think they went with a more "safe" card selection for the base set and I am sure we will see more diverse things in future expansions.

Yup the game is not a great streaming experience.

 

[Lyng]

Does it only have to be one thing that is "the issue" with Artifact? I think not even letting curious potential players try the game is a much worse self inflicted wound than making it too hard for the dumbos. The fact people are dropping the game after paying a $20 fee even, is a whole other problem.



Swim and Toast both said yesterday they expect the game to go f2p sooner than later.



It doesn't have to be a massive success.

It needs players who like this complexity, and there's enough out there to keep the game going, if only they could get into it, hmm perhaps through some easing of access.

Click to shrink...

The thing is if the game goes F2P they will have to change the monetization to be much more aggressive. The current entry fee, is just as BigJeffery says very low.

 

[RepairmanJack]

Another point Reynad makes that resonates most with why I have stopped playing is that the cards in the base set are uninteresting. There aren't enough "sweet" cards, to use the term I'd use in HS or MTG - cards that have cool, brewable effects. The other factor is that the range of decks feels somewhat narrow compared to other games - an aggressive deck doesn't *feel* as aggressive as an aggro deck in HS or MTG.

Like Reynad, I think these problems - if you even consider them problems as opposed to taste - can be fixed with future expansions.

*edit* not saying complexity isn't a factor, I think it's a huge problem that the game isn't "watchable"

Click to shrink...

I honestly think the watchability comes down to the streamer. I started with watching toast and Kripp play it but they both seemed to approach it in a weird way that made them not engage with talking out their thinking as much.

I don't know if it's because both of them were coming from Hearthstone and going into it in a comparative state or what but their watchability was stale which made the game kind of boring to watch.

I ended up switching to watch Slacks, Swim and even Trunkroll who I literally only found because he was doing a game give away and I've enjoyed the hell out of watching it since then.

I dunno it could just be preference but watching a couple bigger streamers trying the game out at first just made it completely unwatchable to me and I was glad I tried some of the other guys out.

My biggest thing was like with Kripp. He spent the whole first day or two talking the whole time about how he didn't get any of the cards he needed for the deck he had in mind and never went on to even explain the deck he was thinking of, or why he needed specific cards. He started the whole attempt out by mostly complaining and talking about how bad of a deck he was having to use in the interum and complaining about monetization.

Then with Toast he played the whole time like he was completely confused and learning for the first time. He said he had beta access but purposely only played two games against bots so he was intentionally going into streaming the game for the first time with less knowledge. I feel like a streamer going into a first stream being confused and learning for the first time is of course going to be less interesting to watch. Then he says he's not going to stream it because it's too complicated for him and is less watchable. Lol just seems disingenuous.

 

[BigJeffery]

I will say that one of the biggest hurdles Artifact is facing is just how miserable it is to watch someone else play. I'm not sure what can actually be done to alleviate that, though.

 

[Twig]

Good solution to the idea of polluting the market through cards earned in-game through whatever progression system, is making those cards non-marketable and non-tradaable (once trading's in (?)).

Just tossin' that out there.

 

[Ferrio]

I will say that one of the biggest hurdles Artifact is facing is just how miserable it is to watch someone else play. I'm not sure what can actually be done to alleviate that, though.

Click to shrink...

Do they not have a twitch overlay yet? The one for MTG is magical, though I'm 100% certain that an overlay isn't going to get me to watch people play Artifact.

 

[i hate cheaters]

it's tough to stream the game when you have to focus on making moves really fast instead of being able to split attention between playing and commentating

i've played games a million times more complex than artifact and still struggle with the timer

 

[Deleted member 2802]

Dad gam with updad

 

[ZeroX]

I don't really watch streamed games so I'm not sure I could be great judge of how to improve the viewing experience

I do think it would be fun to play/watch on a three monitor setup though lol

Good solution to the idea of polluting the market through cards earned in-game through whatever progression system, is making those cards non-marketable and non-tradaable (once trading's in (?)).

Just tossin' that out there.

Click to shrink...

This is good. Card backs. Custom creeps. New voice clips. Golden/animated cards. New boards. There's plenty they can do.

 

[Forerunner]

The main reason I stopped playing and went back to HS is progression. I like progression. In HS, I always have something to work for. Each month has new rewards, and even if I'm not that great, I can still grind my way to things like golden hero portraits.

I do like Artifact. However, for me it just feels like there is no reason to play besides for the enjoyment of it. Obviously, they'll probably add some of this in the future, but as of right now, my time feels better spent elsewhere.

 

[Ferrio]

However, for me it just feels like there is no reason to play besides for the enjoyment of it.

Click to shrink...

I don't get people and this hobby sometimes.

 

[BigJeffery]

Do they not have a twitch overlay yet? The one for MTG is magical, though I'm 100% certain that an overlay isn't going to get me to watch people play Artifact.

Click to shrink...

I'm not sure how powerful Twitch overlays can get, but it would have to let the viewer check out the other lanes on demand, see the items equipped to each hero, etc.

The MTG overlay is really good, but that's because the only obstacle to viewing MTG is figuring out what all the cards do.

 

[Skittles]

I don't get people and this hobby sometimes.

Click to shrink...

"I can't have fun unless there's a bar filling making me feel good"

 

[BigJeffery]

There's a lot wrong with the current state of Artifact, but the two complaints I will never understand are:

1. Frustration at lack of being able to grind cards by sinking hundreds of hours playing shitty decks into earning lootboxes.

2. "What, I'm supposed to play this game just because its fun??"

 

[Deleted member 2802]

.

 

[Forerunner]

I don't get people and this hobby sometimes.

Click to shrink...

"I can't have fun unless there's a bar filling making me feel good"

Click to shrink...

You can have a progression system, while still having an enjoyable experience. Progression systems are a standard in games now, whatever your opinions are about them. Fortnite, R6S, OW, and hell even CSGO added it. By not having one you're just shooting yourself in the foot.

 

[Pixieking]

You can have a progression system, while still having an enjoyable experience. Progression systems are a standard in games now, whatever your opinions are about them. Fortnite, R6S, OW, and hell even CSGO added it. By not having one you're just shooting yourself in the foot.

Click to shrink...

But it's the mindset that a progression bar is needed. Sure you can have fun with one in, but so many people appear to be saying you can't have fun without one.

 

[dimb]

there's no competitive scene because there is no rank/ladder/elo system and it makes it impossible to take artifact serious as a competitive game. this is what many people mean when they ask for "progression".

 

[Forerunner]

there's no competitive scene because there is no rank/ladder/elo system and it makes it impossible to take artifact serious as a competitive game. this is what many people mean when they ask for "progression".

Click to shrink...

This also is a huge part for me. People that play competitive games want to get better. How do I know if I'm improving at all atm? I don't. There is nothing to indicate my skill or my opponent's skill. I might feel like I'm getting better or maybe I'm just playing against poor players and decks.

 

[Ferrio]

there's no competitive scene because there is no rank/ladder/elo system and it makes it impossible to take artifact serious as a competitive game. this is what many people mean when they ask for "progression".

Click to shrink...

I think Valve even attempting to go after the competitive crowd was a mistake, this game doesn't seem like it's at all suited for such a thing. It almost feels like Garfield made a board game and valve did it's best attempt to try and make it a competitive format. Even comparing the game to MTG or hearthstone seems like it was a misstep in the first place altogether.

 

[Deleted member 38227]

I ended up switching to watch Slacks, Swim and even Trunkroll who I literally only found because he was doing a game give away and I've enjoyed the hell out of watching it since then.

Click to shrink...

Toast flat out said he was too stupid for the game.

The best streamer I've run across is Lifecoach. But I'll look for Trunkroll. Thanks!

 

[Deleted member 4367]

there's no competitive scene because there is no rank/ladder/elo system and it makes it impossible to take artifact serious as a competitive game. this is what many people mean when they ask for "progression".

Click to shrink...

Even playing towards golden heroes in hearthstone is good progression.

 

[Wulfric]

I don't get people and this hobby sometimes.

Click to shrink...

What's not to get? Nearly every game that markets itself as 'competitive' has some sort of rank system or indication of your progress. As a Magic player, a draft format only lasts about 16 weeks. I think we'll be drafting this first set until at least March, if not longer.

Draft formats do tend to get stale after two months or so. Waiting that long to patch in progression would be a disaster.

 

[Deleted member 1849]

I'm late, but oh my god.



Hopefully the timestamp works. 31:45 if it doesn't

 

[Deleted member 38227]

I'm late, but oh my god.



Hopefully the timestamp works. 31:45 if it doesn't

Click to shrink...

hahahaah "This is very balanced... This is completely normal... This is the power of the credit card."

That reminds me a bit of Shudderwock before the nerf.

EDIT: Trunkroll is pretty good. Nice explanations about his hand and variables. And his chat isn't so busy that he actually talks to everyone.

 

[RepairmanJack]

I've been liking Trunkroll because he really talks out what he's thinking. It's not just "Oh I'll do this and this." it's usually him talking out what he is expecting from the opponent coming up and why he's doing what he's doing. It's not like he's the best player ever or really overly entertaining or fun to watch, but he's engaging with the way he approaches the game.

I'm late, but oh my god.



Hopefully the timestamp works. 31:45 if it doesn't

Click to shrink...

Those were some crazy lucky card draws and multicasts. He had like 3 multi's on card draws? Crazy.

 

[Pixieking]

This also is a huge part for me. People that play competitive games want to get better. How do I know if I'm improving at all atm? I don't. There is nothing to indicate my skill or my opponent's skill. I might feel like I'm getting better or maybe I'm just playing against poor players and decks.

Click to shrink...

Like, go back to CS:S and the only "progression" in this sense was a KDR (Kill Death Ratio), and not every server kept lifetime player rankings. So, in a good number of cases, the only ways you knew if you were better than someone else, who was good and who had a lucky round was a) KDR for the server round (X number of matches, resets at new server round), and b) your own opinion, long-term. And if you thought you were good, but you consistently got killed by a P90 noob rush up grg stairs, then you were probably lying to yourself and a bit shit. This is why, when discussing my decks, I talk about win rate - because there's currently no stats, it's literally the only measure of "How good am I?". As long as I'm honest with myself, then it's a "mental KDR" stat.

Should Artifact have launched with more? Abso-fucking-lutely. This isn't 2004. But let's not pretend a) the lack of these stats makes the game pointless, and b) that it won't be there eventually (which, I think, will be pretty soon).

there's no competitive scene because there is no rank/ladder/elo system and it makes it impossible to take artifact serious as a competitive game. this is what many people mean when they ask for "progression".

Click to shrink...

Then people should say this. Because currently "progression" covers everything from "Where's my practice for the competitive scene?" to this:

The main reason I stopped playing and went back to HS is progression. I like progression. In HS, I always have something to work for. Each month has new rewards, and even if I'm not that great, I can still grind my way to things like golden hero portraits.

I do like Artifact. However, for me it just feels like there is no reason to play besides for the enjoyment of it. Obviously, they'll probably add some of this in the future, but as of right now, my time feels better spent elsewhere.

Click to shrink...

There's a lack of nuance and specificity in the discussions which tips it from "We've been been playing CCGs for years and know what we mean" into "I'll mumble this word and expect people to understand what I mean".

 

[Deleted member 2802]

I'm late, but oh my god.



Hopefully the timestamp works. 31:45 if it doesn't

Click to shrink...

"Totally normal when you pay for the game"

 

[Skittles]

I'm late, but oh my god.



Hopefully the timestamp works. 31:45 if it doesn't

Click to shrink...

"fangays" fucking oof

"Totally normal when you pay for the game"

Click to shrink...

Eh, right now there's no way to have consistency artifact, which means this is a once in awhile hand. That's probably the main problem with the current game tho, there's no card searching or synergies (not very many at least). So you're pretty much putting the best cards for your color in your deck. Reminds me of gen 1 yugioh

 

[Luminish]

Like, go back to CS:S and the only "progression" in this sense was a KDR (Kill Death Ratio), and not every server kept lifetime player rankings. So, in a good number of cases, the only ways you knew if you were better than someone else, who was good and who had a lucky round was a) KDR for the server round (X number of matches, resets at new server round), and b) your own opinion, long-term. And if you thought you were good, but you consistently got killed by a P90 noob rush up grg stairs, then you were probably lying to yourself and a bit shit. This is why, when discussing my decks, I talk about win rate - because there's currently no stats, it's literally the only measure of "How good am I?". As long as I'm honest with myself, then it's a "mental KDR" stat.

Should Artifact have launched with more? Abso-fucking-lutely. This isn't 2004. But let's not pretend a) the lack of these stats makes the game pointless, and b) that it won't be there eventually (which, I think, will be pretty soon).



Then people should say this. Because currently "progression" covers everything from "Where's my practice for the competitive scene?" to this:



There's a lack of nuance and specificity in the discussions which tips it from "We've been been playing CCGs for years and know what we mean" into "I'll mumble this word and expect people to understand what I mean".

Click to shrink...

I think card game skill is hard to measure even with a lot of stats because of the inherent randomness. Makes it extra hard to get a sense if how you're doing when you're also unsure of every other person.

Also CS has 11 people to compare to every game, which makes it much easier to rank yourself .

 

[Tim]

Me: "This draft is terrible, I doubt I win a single game."

*goes 0-2*

Me: :-o

 

[Deleted member 1849]

Oh that's what he was saying. I genuinely didn't even understand that. Sorry.

 

[Cirrus]

https://www.howmuchdoesartifactcost.com/

Valve just destroyed the value of cards in the market by including Artifact in the Valve Complete Pack

https://store.steampowered.com/bundle/232/Valve_Complete_Pack/

Basically if you already own all other Valve games, you can get Artifact for 55% off. Essentially giving all new players 10 half price packs.

What makes this issue even worse however, is if you remove Artifact from your library on Steam, you can rebuy it to get an additional 10 packs half price. Rinse and repeat. I don't believe you keep any previous cards you have, but people were probably using it to farm steam money.

I wouldn't do this however as it is clearly an oversight by Valve and I wouldn't be surprised if exploiters had their Steam Accounts banned.

 

[Wulfric]

https://www.howmuchdoesartifactcost.com/

Valve just destroyed the value of cards in the market by including Artifact in the Valve Complete Pack

https://store.steampowered.com/bundle/232/Valve_Complete_Pack/

Basically if you already own all other Valve games, you can get Artifact for 55% off. Essentially giving all new players 10 half price packs.

What makes this issue even worse however, is if you remove Artifact from your library on Steam, you can rebuy it to get an additional 10 packs half price.

Click to shrink...

Wowww

That should put a dent in prices, provided that whoever buys the bundle opens their packs and sells them.

Getting 10 more packs seems unintentional, not sure if it's a good idea to try that.

 

[Pixieking]

I think card game skill is hard to measure even with a lot of stats because of the inherent randomness. Makes it extra hard to get a sense if how you're doing when you're also unsure of every other person.

Click to shrink...

That's fair.

Also CS has 11 people to compare to every game, which makes it much easier to rank yourself .

Click to shrink...

Ehhh... Depends. I always played 24 person servers, and quite often admins would switch teams about, so it wasn't too hard to rank yourself. But, yeah, depends.

 

[lazerfox]

shira how about another draft tourny? I haven't tried it myself but in swiss format it could be pretty fun.

 

[ZeroX]

I'd love a draft in the evening

 

[Deleted member 38227]

I'll draft tourney. I'll get stomped but I'll play.

 

[RepairmanJack]

I wish there was some kind of in game tournement finder. I'm always up for tournaments when I'm on.

If they could do a tourney finder along with some kind of prize mechanic, it'd be crazy good.

 

[Deleted member 2802]

I guess interest has waned big time. Can't really do a pauper with 4-5 people

 

[Lyng]

I guess interest has waned big time. Can't really do a pauper with 4-5 people

Click to shrink...

I am super busy with game of the year stuff for our site, and several reviews, but if you put one up after christmas Ill make sure that me and a colleague join aswell.

 

[Lyng]

https://www.howmuchdoesartifactcost.com/

Valve just destroyed the value of cards in the market by including Artifact in the Valve Complete Pack

https://store.steampowered.com/bundle/232/Valve_Complete_Pack/

Basically if you already own all other Valve games, you can get Artifact for 55% off. Essentially giving all new players 10 half price packs.

What makes this issue even worse however, is if you remove Artifact from your library on Steam, you can rebuy it to get an additional 10 packs half price. Rinse and repeat. I don't believe you keep any previous cards you have, but people were probably using it to farm steam money.

I wouldn't do this however as it is clearly an oversight by Valve and I wouldn't be surprised if exploiters had their Steam Accounts banned.

Click to shrink...

I think Valve allready removed the pack

 

[RepairmanJack]

Think the Market has also stabilized to a similar point to yesterday as well. Not completely sure on that though, was just seeing people say it's leveled out some.