I dunno if that was the case so much as it was another game based on a mod that was already successful (Dota Auto Chess), much like how Dota came to be in the first place. Artifact was a brand new thing (other than being based in the Dota universe) and totally unproven other than having Valve's and Richard Garfield's names attached to it.A forgotten GOAT
At least they learned a lot of lessons quickly for Underlords
I'm not talking about the success of the auto chess format, I'm talking about how Valve are supporting it, communicating and quickly changing and adjusting it vs. Artifact's sluggish support and poor communication lead to an ironically quick death. It's clear they learned a harsh lesson about what it takes to support a game like this, lessons they didn't really need to learn with DotA.I dunno if that was the case so much as it was another game based on a mod that was already successful (Dota Auto Chess), much like how Dota came to be in the first place. Artifact was a brand new thing (other than being based in the Dota universe) and totally unproven other than having Valve's and Richard Garfield's names attached to it.
To be fair they did change Artifact on a regular basis in the month or two after it launched. I think about a month later they launched the progression system (albeit half-baked IMO, and it eventually ended which is not what people wanted out of a system like that), and they initially said they would treat it like a physical card game and not do balance changes outside of releasing new card sets, but they went back on this and did nerf Axe, Drow, Cheating Death, and some other cards. But I agree the Underlords updates have been MUCH MORE rapid than Artifact's.I'm not talking about the success of the auto chess format, I'm talking about how Valve are supporting it, communicating and quickly changing and adjusting it vs. Artifact. It's clear they learned a harsh lesson about what it takes to support a game like this.
Because it wasn't? Most people took issue with the monetization ($20 entry plus buying more cards), and I think RNG is nowhere close to the amount of it in Hearthstone, a successful game. If by gameplay you mean the length of the games, I can get that one, but that actually improved significantly once people understood how to play the game and they sped up some animations (things like that add up)Surprised he still can't admit gameplay and RNG was a factor on why the game failed. Sounds like Valve is doing the right thing by cutting him off and taking it back to the drawing boards. Hopefully it relaunches and is a success because it's definitely the best looking card game on the market now.
Surprised he still can't admit gameplay and RNG was a factor on why the game failed. Sounds like Valve is doing the right thing by cutting him off and taking it back to the drawing boards. Hopefully it relaunches and is a success because it's definitely the best looking card game on the market now.
Underlords - and basically every other card game - has far more RNG than Artifact and games run even longer and nobody gives a fuck. RNG or long games (I realize you didn't mention that but it's one people like to bring up) didn't mean a thing.Surprised he still can't admit gameplay and RNG was a factor on why the game failed. Sounds like Valve is doing the right thing by cutting him off and taking it back to the drawing boards. Hopefully it relaunches and is a success because it's definitely the best looking card game on the market now.
Ehhhh, I'd argue getting a good Prey on the Weak with Kanna followed up with a Emissary of the Quorum was pretty explosive.Artifact had way less RNG than Magic or Heartstone. Aside from the pricing, I think the main problem with Artifact was the lack of "explosive" moments, when you play a powerful card that totally changes the state of the board. It feels good. Artifact felt more like playing go, a lot of small moves that contribute to a big strategy, but you rarely get that "gotcha!" moment.
Because it wasn't? Most people took issue with the monetization ($20 entry plus buying more cards), and I think RNG is nowhere close to the amount of it in Hearthstone, a successful game. If by gameplay you mean the length of the games, I can get that one, but that actually improved significantly once people understood how to play the game and they sped up some animations (things like that add up)
I'm torn on this take. Magic has RNG and is mechanically sound by updating with new sets/rules and retiring certain cards. I really do feel the $20 entry plus purchasing of card packs was too much. It need to be given away for free, and just sold individual packs. I'm not saying that would have fixed everything, but I think it would have given it enough of a lifeline to continue as a viable product and not but murdered in public perception as people's addiction hooks sank in
Well there were a decent number of cards that had significant board impact, it's just that there was three boards.Artifact had way less RNG than Magic or Heartstone. Aside from the pricing, I think the main problem with Artifact was the lack of "explosive" moments, when you play a powerful card that totally changes the state of the board. It feels good. Artifact felt more like playing go, a lot of small moves that contribute to a big strategy, but you rarely get that "gotcha!" moment.