-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Artifact |OT| Development Stopped
- Thread starter Deleted member 2802
- Start date
Which is good (it shows that there's a decent skill ceiling that people are getting better with the same cards), but is going to be an issue if/when Valve announce a reboot of it, surely? It's already an unfriendly game for newbies given the high opponent skill level, but if the skill ranking reset is timed alongside it going f2p then that influx of new users might just be pushed away as they're consistently outplayed be the wannabe pros who have been with it since Day 1. The skill rankings would shake out eventually, but how many would stick with it to that point?
I just had a really good game to finish my streak. It was against another mono red deck. It came down to the final tower. He was only off by one damage and it would have been a draw, but I had initiative and Enough Magic so I won.
So... I'm rank 60 in Constructed, but I started playing Phantom Draft yesterday, and I've lost every match. :o I've not drafted in any physical card game before, so whilst I understand how it works, it feels like I'm not "getting" something during the drafting process. Any pointers for what I should be looking out for?
What are you struggling with in particular? The general idea is pick the best cards of any color first two rounds, and from there you pick the best colors to focus on. Within the two colors (third for splash maybe) you draft to fill the tools you need, keep a relatively solid curve, and whatever good stuff you get etc. I personally draft for solid cards over situational stuff, things that work with any color, really solid minions, etc. Also the power curve is different to constructed, as there's less removal and nukes anything with board presence is a lot better. There's different trains of thought on how important hero choice is, I personally think you should prioritize good staple cards over heroes because the base heroes are fine, but obviously any top tier heroes you pick first up. Also a good hero isn't worth splashing alone for, you need at least 2-3 other decent cards of the color.
I've saved some of my recent perfect run decks if you want an idea of what works. You might be able to tell by the color combinations what I favor in draft...
Cheers for all of this. :D My Black/Blue Constructed tends towards direct damage and removal, so I'm a bit lost without the fallback of "7 mana=Assassinate and win a Lane." I'm less focussed on minions than I was when the game first came out, too. And I was also umming-and-ahhing over whether 2 colour is preferable to 3. It felt like it, but also it feels like the last pack of a draft is ripe to screw me over if I just focus on 2 colours. I'll have a nosy at your decks later on. Thanks again. :)
Well I was 4-0 in prize constructed and I was riding high. Then it made me face the same R/G ramp player twice in a row... So I ended 4-2.
I'm happy because I never made it to four wins before. However, I'm annoyed it made me face the same player twice.
I'm happy because I never made it to four wins before. However, I'm annoyed it made me face the same player twice.
Only another 12 days in the month, so wouldn't surprise me if we had to wait til March for a patch. But I mean, I'm more hopeful about the game generally now than I was before your post - they wouldn't be entertaining ideas about changes if they were just leaving it to die entirely.
Idk, I don't think talking to competitive players really has anything to do with immediate recoup of lost players, which is basically what we'd expect at this point. It would also be way too down the road of nothing for months to just now be talking to them. Makes me think they have plans for what to do with the casual audience and getting players back but want to maybe check how it and what they want to do on a competitive level go together in a meaningful way moving forward.
Either way, I don't really think it says anything about a time-frame, I just more wouldn't say it isn't necessarily a bad sign.
OP
OP
I love Lifecoach, but he really only cares about competitive satisfaction. That's his thing and what he'd ask for from Valve. Recreating that Poker feel without actually playing it. He doesn't need to care about money or player base.
Valve also needs advertising for the game. People say F2P, new content and mobile, but also they just need to push the game and not rely on word of mouth. I still see ads for Heartstone.
Valve also needs advertising for the game. People say F2P, new content and mobile, but also they just need to push the game and not rely on word of mouth. I still see ads for Heartstone.
OP
OP
They tried advertising DOTA2 in Korea for a bit with lots of skins and exclusives
Then they gave up after it was clear League was far and away the more popular game and there was no room for a 2nd moba
Almost there. I actually went from 69 to 70 in one game. Dude was 37, so he probably had a high skill rating.
OP
OP
OP
OP
Can't be arsed with Twitch. I've been tempted to use Steam's Broadcast feature when I play, but that's more because it's just there.
Most of the Artifact streamers are on a break until Valve fixes the game so yeah
Should I do it to 'em
OP
OP
OP
OP
https://old.reddit.com/r/DotA2/comments/asis6o/dota_2_update_main_client_19th_february_2019/
Good
The imps are dead
- Removed the Artifact promotional assets from the fountain area. | As you can see here
Good
OP
OP
Do they still plan an iOS release or is that dead now?
That would be where I try this game, if it got fixed to the point of good word of mouth. Quit Hearthstone before the last expansion since playing from release. It was just getting stale for me and anytime I check twitch I can't hold interest past 10 seconds.
Magic is cool, but I played some limited in real life from bfz TIL a couple expansions back, so I'm done with it too.
lSVs game was neat but again, nothing I wanted to stick with.
This game has Valve behind it and Garfield so if it came to iOS and got some support I would give it a shot.
That would be where I try this game, if it got fixed to the point of good word of mouth. Quit Hearthstone before the last expansion since playing from release. It was just getting stale for me and anytime I check twitch I can't hold interest past 10 seconds.
Magic is cool, but I played some limited in real life from bfz TIL a couple expansions back, so I'm done with it too.
lSVs game was neat but again, nothing I wanted to stick with.
This game has Valve behind it and Garfield so if it came to iOS and got some support I would give it a shot.
OP
OP
The problem is Autochess has emerged as a literal indie megahit and is the most popular card game and 5-6th top streamed game on Twitch and all the Chinese pro's are playing it.
Do you go forward with mobile Artifact or mobile Autochess?
I have no idea what Valve wants to do, but my guess is secure Autochess first and #longhaul Artifact.
Ok I saw AutoChess being played by hearthstone Pros. Is it actually something i should look into. I thought it was just some mod people were distracted by. Is it real mp?
OP
OP
multiplayer. If it doesn't have a competitive mode it doesn't replace what I'm looking for
OP
OP
I know Valve would be insane not to be interested in getting Autochess more official or trying to run with the popularity, but haven't the creators of the mod been pretty vocal about not wanting to get bought by Valve or anything like that?
I feel they would equally seem crazy at this point, but I was just wondering what Valve does at that point.
I tried one game of Autochess but having not played any Dota combined with the lack of a tutorial mode meant I had literally no clue what I was doing. Also having to download the 20g Dota 2 client just to play it was kind of a bummer. I wouldn't be opposed to Valve taking it and making it its own thing with a streamlined client, polished UI, and proper tutorial.
Taking a break from the game until the first expansion. It's rubbing me the wrong way the lack of communication, a little message in a patch note ins't the away things should be done.
Them inviting Lifecoach isn't giving me much confidence, hope they make a blitz release showing 10% of the new cards and releasing everything in a week. Let people discover the game, don't lean on content creators. Of course free-to-play seems like a must, even with all the crap surrounding this game it should have a much healthier playerbase since the game is actually good. The entry fee is likely the reason.
Hope they don't attack gameplay and ruin the game like Gwent did.
Them inviting Lifecoach isn't giving me much confidence, hope they make a blitz release showing 10% of the new cards and releasing everything in a week. Let people discover the game, don't lean on content creators. Of course free-to-play seems like a must, even with all the crap surrounding this game it should have a much healthier playerbase since the game is actually good. The entry fee is likely the reason.
Hope they don't attack gameplay and ruin the game like Gwent did.
This is just so strange. The game feels like it is in closed beta right now with a player count in the hundreds and the majority of the community in wait-and-see mode. Except during a real beta, the community is waiting for the game to be released but instead we are just waiting for Valve to do... something. I can't remember any game that was like this. It feels unprecedented.
I think that game is very much in the PUBG zone of hitting on a great hugely popular gameplay structure but with terrible production quality.
Game publishers would be dumb to not try to pull a Fortnite with it, and I'll probably just wait to play whatever that is.
It's now taking me like a minute to find games. Still not terrible by any stretch, but it's getting notably longer.
I think I'm at like draft skill 40, still leveling up every second game. Most of my opponents are like level 30-40+ and I'm not even 25 lol
I think I'm at like draft skill 40, still leveling up every second game. Most of my opponents are like level 30-40+ and I'm not even 25 lol
After having said I was going to dig into Draft, I'm.... still playing Constructed. :D Kind of taking longer to find games, in the sense that it now depends what time of day I'm playing - I got one game this morning (Malaysian time) within single-digit seconds, but this afternoon I was waiting about 30 seconds or so. There's some nice players out there, though - a few people have friended me post-match to just say hi/GG; one player critiqued my deck and offered some advice on it; and during match one player was all like "Yeah, I kinda saw your mistake coming and took advantage of it. Well played though." The game's got a good community, it just needs more players. :/
3 months since release, 2 months since the last communication, by this point in time people were expecting to start seeing talk of the first expansion. Instead we've gotten nothing but "In it for the long haul" and people anxiously waiting around every thursday hoping some stealth update comes out of nowhere.
This is stupid.
This is stupid.
It really is. I can absolutely understand Valve not wanting to unveil plans that may change, but "in it for the long haul" doesn't cut it any more.
(Though I'm still adding people who are snarky with that line to my ignore list, because they add nothing to any discussion).
I receive basically 0 communication from the people I play against, but they're mostly Chinese. Probably the time I play and I think it prioritizes based on location even though that doesn't really matter.
The more I get into Keyforge, the more I wish most/all card games did the unique deck thing. I love building and optimizing decks a lot, but it just solves SO many problems that have plagued the genre that it outweighs the downsides for me.
Too late for Artifact, but every time I play constructed, I think about it.
Too late for Artifact, but every time I play constructed, I think about it.
Slowly coming around to the "RNG is bad in this game" criticism. Not just the arrows, but the placement of the cards, too. In an actual board game/CCG it would be rare for the rules to state "Shuffle your hand and without looking at the order, place the cards on the play area in front of your opponents cards". And it would rightly be criticised as removing agency from the player as well as removing strategy from the game itself. So many times, now, I've seen myself or my opponent swing a Lane based purely on where the cards fall, and it just feels like I should apologise to my opponent when I win because of it.
The more I play it, the more I think this needed a beta that included members of the public in larger and larger numbers.
Edit: Also, the RNG with the item box is wank. Losing multiple heroes because there''s not a single health item on consecutive buys is so frustrating. I could understand it with the player's item deck, but to not have a health item guaranteed in either of the other piles is so bad. It just adds to the whimsical nature of proceedings, without adding to the game itself.
2nd Edit: Yeah, that's two games lost due to a bad RNG combination of Hero placement and no health items. I think I may actually be done with this game until they at least partially remove the RNG from it.
The more I play it, the more I think this needed a beta that included members of the public in larger and larger numbers.
Edit: Also, the RNG with the item box is wank. Losing multiple heroes because there''s not a single health item on consecutive buys is so frustrating. I could understand it with the player's item deck, but to not have a health item guaranteed in either of the other piles is so bad. It just adds to the whimsical nature of proceedings, without adding to the game itself.
2nd Edit: Yeah, that's two games lost due to a bad RNG combination of Hero placement and no health items. I think I may actually be done with this game until they at least partially remove the RNG from it.
Last edited:
The shop rng has always been awful.
Arrow rng, I defended it earlier in the thread, but the more I play the more I think it's bad design. I still think skill wins out in most games, and if they never change it, I'll live. But I think it's bad design because it is an overlapping mechanic with random unit placement. Both of these mechanics exist to allow variance; no two matches are alike. And that's good, it makes Artifact unique. But arrows and unit placement happen at the same time and do the same thing. It's redundant.
If we were to imagine keeping the arrows as is, but allowing players to deploy their unit exactly where they want, then the arrows would still have impact but not as much. Players would be able to mitigate a lot of the rng by placing everything in the most optimal spot.
If I had to choose between the two though, I'd change the arrows and keep random deployment. The best idea I've seen to replace the arrow mechanic is for each unit to have a symbol indicating where they'll point. Like a hero symbol would mean the unit would always point to a hero, and if neither neighbor is a hero, point at the tower. You could have a lot of symbols, like creeps, any unit, most health, least health, or of course, always point to the tower. Not only does this open up design space, but it can be used as an extra layer of balancing.
Arrow rng, I defended it earlier in the thread, but the more I play the more I think it's bad design. I still think skill wins out in most games, and if they never change it, I'll live. But I think it's bad design because it is an overlapping mechanic with random unit placement. Both of these mechanics exist to allow variance; no two matches are alike. And that's good, it makes Artifact unique. But arrows and unit placement happen at the same time and do the same thing. It's redundant.
If we were to imagine keeping the arrows as is, but allowing players to deploy their unit exactly where they want, then the arrows would still have impact but not as much. Players would be able to mitigate a lot of the rng by placing everything in the most optimal spot.
If I had to choose between the two though, I'd change the arrows and keep random deployment. The best idea I've seen to replace the arrow mechanic is for each unit to have a symbol indicating where they'll point. Like a hero symbol would mean the unit would always point to a hero, and if neither neighbor is a hero, point at the tower. You could have a lot of symbols, like creeps, any unit, most health, least health, or of course, always point to the tower. Not only does this open up design space, but it can be used as an extra layer of balancing.
I think I'm just noticing it more because I'm matching against higher and higher level/skill rank, so my opponents are quicker to seize on my lack of item box luck. :(
Yup, this is exactly what I was thinking, too.
This is an interesting idea, but I fear it would create too much complexity in the smaller details of the game. Though, again, this is where a public/semi-public beta would have shaken out the ideal version of something. :/
It's sort-of fun having to change/adapt strategy on-the-fly, finding the optimal plays with the cards in hand and the random placement/arrows, but after awhile it definitely feels like the RNG is there to create the illusion of depth.
Going back to the pre-release marketing and giving beta codes out to "special people", the worst thing I read about the game before release was that it was "just a lot of math". I still think that's a stupid criticism when people have had to deal with Magic irl, and yet, to me (and a lot of other "normal people") the RNG is what sinks the game. Math in games like this becomes second-nature, if you're willing to put in the hours, but nothing can counter being at the whims of RNG, and it's pretty appalling that - as far as I can tell - there was so little criticism of that aspect of the game.