I can't find it now, but a week or two ago Swim said he would probably quit if he didn't know changes were coming to the game. So I think it's safe to say Valve is willing to put resources into it for the time being.
-
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.
Kotaku: "Valve's Card Game Artifact Is Running Out Of Players"
- Thread starter NeoRaider
- Start date
TBH I think the stack in Magic is clumsy and confusing as fuck and if it weren't for mana screw it'd be the number one reason I'll never get into it deep.
I agree that it adds a lot to the game, but Jesus Christ I hate it. I don't think Artifact has anything near a confusing (yet (assuming they keep adding content)), but I think it still manages to be a deep game.
My favorite card game is Ashes: Rise of the Phoenixborn. Too bad nobody fucking plays it. At least I can get some Artifact games online, haha.
Anyway Artifact is great everyone play it COWARDS.
I agree that it adds a lot to the game, but Jesus Christ I hate it. I don't think Artifact has anything near a confusing (yet (assuming they keep adding content)), but I think it still manages to be a deep game.
My favorite card game is Ashes: Rise of the Phoenixborn. Too bad nobody fucking plays it. At least I can get some Artifact games online, haha.
Anyway Artifact is great everyone play it COWARDS.
The stack is literally a super easy concept once it's explained. First in, last out.
The stack is confusing? The stack is literally just a codified ruleset for what is already intuitive to every human being. There's a reason the gameplay hasn't changed while the rules around it have, which is the reason it's hard to do with computers. But it's not exactly a hard concept. It's the gameplay ruling version of "Ok wait, but before you do that, I do THIS" which exists in all kinds of human interactions and games.
A shame. I had been fairly interested in this pre-release and just assumed it would be Valve's "next big thing".
They really ought to reconsider the monetization scheme. I have no problem with paying for the game (in fact, I prefer it). But you ought to be able to earn new cards in-game at that point.
They really ought to reconsider the monetization scheme. I have no problem with paying for the game (in fact, I prefer it). But you ought to be able to earn new cards in-game at that point.
That game was dope
let me know when this is online
They changed it, you earn packs and tickets with progression each season now.
I know how it works. It's clumsy and confusing. Sorry, them's the facts.
"I'm going to kill your goblin with Murder"
"Then before you kill it I'm going to sacrifice it to my Alter"
Literally the stack. The rules of how to resolve it are all common sense, it's just lengthy to write 'common sense' in mechanical parlance.
I see. Guess it was too little, too late for the playerbase though. That's an even bigger shame then.
Though in the end, I guess all I really want to play is Gen 1 Yu-Gi-Oh. I want someone to make a good ripoff of that so bad, lol. Until then I gotta be satisfied with the old GBA games and Legacy of the Duelist on Steam.
User Warned: Unnecessary hostility across several posts and threads
I haven't played that much Gwent, but it feels more similar to gwent than any other game for me because of the large focus on distributing resources in a way that'll win you 2 out of 3 objectives.
I never said the only depth in magic is in deck design. I said the only depth to the ressource system is in deck creation. And that is true, since any choice regarding mana is done there. Playing a card that adds mana in order to ramp etc is a decision that was done during deck construction.
Magic has some depth, but mostly it has complexity. For some reason you dont want to understand the difference, and also for some reason you interpret this as "Magic is bad!" which is not what I am saying. It is merely an explanation as to why the design of Artifact will most likely not appeal to the average magic player.
And no Magic is successfull despite its ressource system, not because of it. Android Netrunner does not have it and it is a huge game. Hearthstone does not have it and it is huge. (I still think Magics system is better since at least you have some decision during deck building, whereas Hearthstones system is a flat increase with hardly any human influence) Keyforge is blowing up and has no randomized ressource system. If magic didnt exist neither would these other games, it is the first of its kind and it is a great design, but the ressource system in magic is downright bad in that you can get unlucky and simply not be able to play cards due to lack of drawing your mana, and thus removing any decision space from the match.
There are still alot of fans who will try to keep the competitive scene alive.
Netrunner isnt dying due to lack of players. Its dying because the licensing deal beeing pulled away from FFG. Basically due to Hasbro and Asmodee being bitter rivals and Asmodee getting to big for Hasbro's liking. Netrunner was as popular as ever when this happened.
I understand it has it's fanbase, but it has to naturally be retracting now, and it was never a really "huge" game, per say.
I think the people believing the monetization model wasn't the problem are way off. Nobody I know, including some card game enthusiasts, gave it a second look when they found out you have to pay for the game and then pay for more cards. Twenty bucks to try something I don't understand, more if I like it? Super ultra hard pass. So I'll say right now I know very little about this game specifically and based my views on it largely on psychology and gaming trends.
Targetting the hardcore crew directly is always challenging with this type of thing. Hardcore players aren't just born that way - they were just normal players that liked a game enough to start getting into the specifics; researching mechanics, watching streams, and otherwise becoming quite good through a natural, evolved process. By not allowing casual players to get in because of the money gate compared to their competitors, they made it too easy for these hardcore fans to never emerge naturally. You have to WANT to be a hardcore player to pick something like that up, and it sounds like a lot of players just simply weren't interested.
And really, who was this targeting again?
* If you like Dota 2 then you're likely to be playing Dota 2
* If you don't like Dota 2, then the themeing is likely a turn-off to you. Maybe your experiences with it, or Dota 2 players hasn't been positive. That combined with the cost of entry means that people were likely to get their card game fixed in less starting-player unfriendly ways, which is exactly what happened.
20/20 hindsight and all but I said this on day 1 of the reveal so I'm not nearly as shocked as the others that seem confused its failing.
I think the only reasonable way forward is to make the initial experience ftp. Costs nothing to download the game and play modes. Maybe you can only play the mode where you get to keep your cards a couple of times a day. But the thing would be that you couldn't trade in the ftp mode. You could grind for cards if you wanted to over enough time, but if you ever wanted to just spend the few cash to specifically target the few you need on the marketplace you pay the 20 bucks to upgrade the account. I think something like that would be a good compromise - it lets players that aren't going to be happy self-weed out, and makes sure the people that do want to stay will participate in the economy. If there are better ideas other than 100% ftp cosmetic stuff or just letting it die I can't see them from the outside.
Targetting the hardcore crew directly is always challenging with this type of thing. Hardcore players aren't just born that way - they were just normal players that liked a game enough to start getting into the specifics; researching mechanics, watching streams, and otherwise becoming quite good through a natural, evolved process. By not allowing casual players to get in because of the money gate compared to their competitors, they made it too easy for these hardcore fans to never emerge naturally. You have to WANT to be a hardcore player to pick something like that up, and it sounds like a lot of players just simply weren't interested.
And really, who was this targeting again?
* If you like Dota 2 then you're likely to be playing Dota 2
* If you don't like Dota 2, then the themeing is likely a turn-off to you. Maybe your experiences with it, or Dota 2 players hasn't been positive. That combined with the cost of entry means that people were likely to get their card game fixed in less starting-player unfriendly ways, which is exactly what happened.
20/20 hindsight and all but I said this on day 1 of the reveal so I'm not nearly as shocked as the others that seem confused its failing.
I think the only reasonable way forward is to make the initial experience ftp. Costs nothing to download the game and play modes. Maybe you can only play the mode where you get to keep your cards a couple of times a day. But the thing would be that you couldn't trade in the ftp mode. You could grind for cards if you wanted to over enough time, but if you ever wanted to just spend the few cash to specifically target the few you need on the marketplace you pay the 20 bucks to upgrade the account. I think something like that would be a good compromise - it lets players that aren't going to be happy self-weed out, and makes sure the people that do want to stay will participate in the economy. If there are better ideas other than 100% ftp cosmetic stuff or just letting it die I can't see them from the outside.
It's dead because WotC pulled the license from FFG, not because of player base issues. It obviously wasn't as big as Magic, but as far as I know, it was by far the most popular LCG from FFG. Definitely the most played at my local shops.
I'm sorry but all this comes across is is you developing your own definitions of 'depth' and 'complexity' and then applying them to defend the game you prefer. You sound like you think you are being objective but aren't at all. By my definitions Artifact is an extremely more complex game than Magic - it is bewilderingly impossible to watch as someone who doesn't play it. Not because of the depth it has, but of the sheer busyness and complexity of having three boards and so many moving pieces. In terms of depth, I find it quite shallow because the actual card base is so limited - there are very few cards which interact in interesting or clever ways that allow for strategies and plays to develop as a game progresses.
Worth nothing that depth and complexity are absolutely value laden terms. Depth has positive connotations, complexity far less so.
Also, if you think the decisions around resources and mana curve are purely done in the deck creation stage of magic I'm going to suggest you aren't very familiar with competitive magic or the range of deck types that are played in the game. Playing resources is absolutely not something done on auto pilot (especially in formats where playing resources has additional factors, such as Landfall or multi-coloured environments).
Last edited:
On the flip-side, I was fine with the pay model. It's no different to paying money for Destiny 2, finding it was boring, reading the expansions improved it, buying them, and realising it just didn't change enough to make it interesting for me.
I literally don't care about DOTA, though obviously I've heard of the toxicity of the base, and I was fine with the theme.
I do agree that in hindsight, they should've made it F2P. With luck, they'll make it F2P with the announcement of the expansion. Which, hopefully, will also add to the depth of the game, as there's few combos there currently, but it is just the base set.
I remember reading something about MTG card game was coming out of beta, but then zero news about it for months.
Did it do better than Artifact?
Did it do better than Artifact?
We can't get the player numbers easily, but yes.
Right now 141 people are watching Artifact and 7000 are watching Magic. (Which includes MTGO and paper magic in the listing, but there are literally 2 MTGO streams in the top 40 that I see and no physical streams at this time of night either. So Even VERY skeptically It's like 6500 on arena).
I'm glad this thread reached some interesting discussions!
For F2P there's probably a few ways they could do it. Make featured constructed events (6-8 pre-built decks to choose from) and phantom drafts free. This way they wouldn't need to worry about giving out free cards or designing a f2p system. It'd be more like a demo than a free2play game, but at least people could play as much as they want and decide if they like the game or not. I mostly play phantom drafts anyway.
Yeah Artifact is peaking when the WePlay tournament's on at about ~2k viewers. I must say, that tournament's been super fun to watch because of the casters/panel.
Again you really dont understand the words and then accuse me of the same. Magic is complex due to the vast amount of mechanics it has nowadays.
Having more boards in Anthem adds decision space which is depth not complexity.
There is far less rules overhead (complexity) in Anthem than in magic yet is is far more difficult to read the board state due to the number of possibilities it adds (depth)
Again Chess and go! The rules of chess have more moving pieces and mechanics (complexity) while Go is super basic in rules yet has almost infinite board states (depth) .
It was a massive game in the physical card and board game world. Not as big as magic and Pokemon, but still very big.
I would definitely agree that Artifact looks complex, but really isn't. I played the tutorial and got everything needed to understand the rules from it, but watching pre-release streams of it confused the fuck out of me. I also feel that having to watch what happens in 3 lanes is no more complex or busy than a current board or card game - Arabian Nights, Diamonds, Codenames, XCOM board game, Arkham Horror all require roughly similar levels of tactical thinking (give or take) across a large gameplay field, even if some of those games have rulesets that are simpler.
Which I think illustrates something I've always felt about Artifact: how much you like it and take to it varies depending upon your experience with not just CCG card games, but board games and traditional card games (Hearts, Poker, Gin Rummy).
Which I think illustrates something I've always felt about Artifact: how much you like it and take to it varies depending upon your experience with not just CCG card games, but board games and traditional card games (Hearts, Poker, Gin Rummy).
Last edited:
Again, all you are doing here is objectively saying you're right. You've yet to actually show or prove your point beyond 'I say this and this is right, and you are wrong and don't understand'. I've been involved in designing ccgs for over 20 years, I have *some* idea about what I'm talking about and you're going to need to do more than just state things as facts.
Particularly when you don't seem to play or understand Magic much - You ignore the fact that magics most popular and played formats are ones where the number of mechanics is specifically extremely limited - standard and limited. Which make up the vast, vast majority of all games played.
And again, whether you realise it or not the language you're using has a value laden aspect (my definition of complexity bad, my definition of depth good).
I mean, if you can't understand the mechanics from the tutorials it's a pretty shit tutorial.
Artifact is a fine game, but the repeated notion by its defenders that 'THREE BOARDS' somehow implies it's 3 times as complex and deep is fucking ludicrous. If you only had one lane the game would be a kiddie pool for depth, of course it has 3 lanes. It would be like if Gwent was a best of 1 game instead of a best of 3, it's not a virtue of the game, it's necessary for it to have any depth at all.
This is the part where I tell you I prefer to play magic over Artifact. I like my card games complex and with tons of combo's which is why I love magic.
I have reviewed games and played games for over 15 years and I review deep conflict simulations like Pendragon and Liberty or Death which are aeons more complex AND deep than any ccg.
The problem here is that you get pissed when people point out design flaws in games or draw a difference between complexity and depth. I don't have a horse in this race as I love games and game design and I see great parts in both magic and artifact (and several other ccg's/lcg's etc).
You keep saying I make up things but I have proven my point again and again by using multiple examples that you simply refuse to even comment on. You have yet to comment on chess vs go despite that being the most classic comparison and thus there is zero reason for me to keep going on.
Now I will accept that part of this might be due to English not being my native tongue and thus I will let natural English speakers take over.
Also simply reducing complex to bad and depth to better is a gross simplification. Enjoyment in games varies. Some people prefer Ameritrash or war games which are typically very thematic and complex to euro games that are typically themeless and deeper. That does not mean either parties taste is wrong. It's simply a difference in preference of game.
Nobody has said Artifact is more complex than magic. Pleaaaaase stop equating complex and deep.
I'm glad that was your takeaway from that post. Here. Let me fix it for you:
"
Artifact is a fine game, but the repeated notion by its defenders that 'THREE BOARDS' somehow implies it's 3 times as
I don't think I said that, though? I said it had depth. Depth does not mean (or even imply) that "it's 3 times as complex and deep" (as what, btw?). My argument is that 3 lanes does not increase complexity significantly so much as it does increase depth. Having to pay attention to 3 lanes is not especially complex, nor is it particularly complex in having to determine where to place your Heroes, which lane to focus on, which lane to sac (and when to sac it). Those, I would argue, fall under depth/strategy, not complexity.
Also, I'm not saying it's an especially deep game, I am simply saying arguments that it has little depth don't hold much weight with me. I think without expansions, new mechanics and combos it will never get particularly deep, but again, confusing "depth" and "it's such a deep game" is something we should all avoid.
GWENT, Elder Scrolls Legends, Eternal, Shadowverse all individually have more Twitch viewers than Artifact now.
Every day the game is losing its player base and yet Valve just to do the same thing they always do and stay radio silent. This is never a good thing in a online centric game where they should be trying to foster a community. The message Valve is sending people is (A) They don't care the players and (B) they don't care about the game. Like do a fucken blog post or go on Reddit or something, It ain't that hard and it costs you nothing.
Every day the game is losing its player base and yet Valve just to do the same thing they always do and stay radio silent. This is never a good thing in a online centric game where they should be trying to foster a community. The message Valve is sending people is (A) They don't care the players and (B) they don't care about the game. Like do a fucken blog post or go on Reddit or something, It ain't that hard and it costs you nothing.
Artifact just had the WePlay tournament finish yesterday with good viewership (albeit aided by paid embeds).
With their shit communication, boneheaded monetization and the competition in the genre, Im honestly not surprised.
Dota, CS and TF2 already have their well established and dedicated fanbases to power through terrible Valve decisions and still remain relevant. What the heck does Artifact have? It's dead.
You know, I had a hankering for some card game action (used to be big on hearthstone) and decided to check out the yugioh game on mobile and was pleasantly surprised. Not sure if they completely changed the ruleset from when I played as a teen, or if it's just a modified version for the mobile but it's a lot more fast paced (4000LP instead of 8000LP, only 1 main phase, kind of matches with the show better). Has tons of single player content as well as multiplayer and the event going on right now is nice. You can also just unlock complete decks which are actually useful starting points instead of just buying boosters which, of course, are random.
Even the boosters though are handled the best I've seen. They come in boxes of about 60-200 packs and you know exactly what's in those boxes but not in the individual packs. So you not only know the exact odds of getting the card you want, you can also reset the box after you get what you want or move onto a different type of box.
Nintendo/TPC already have the Pokemon TCG game on PC... it's just you have to get it from their site directly, not through steam.
https://www.pokemon.com/us/pokemon-tcg/play-online/download/
Even the boosters though are handled the best I've seen. They come in boxes of about 60-200 packs and you know exactly what's in those boxes but not in the individual packs. So you not only know the exact odds of getting the card you want, you can also reset the box after you get what you want or move onto a different type of box.
Nintendo/TPC already have the Pokemon TCG game on PC... it's just you have to get it from their site directly, not through steam.
https://www.pokemon.com/us/pokemon-tcg/play-online/download/
