[QUOTE=REMBER;53191303]It does not play like hearthstone, that is true. However I am going to bitch about the board being too DIFFERENT from hearthstone. This is something, that I think, most of these card games miss. The GUI, the visual aspect. Look at something like Gwent. While the gameplay might be fun for a person who likes collectable card games, the UI is just bad. You have a game where most of the time (literally 99% of the time) you're stuck staring at the same screen and it's just flat and empty. There's nothing to do. There's nothing to clock. There's nothing to even look at, while you're waiting for your opponent. The least you could do as a professional game designer is to make the main part of your game not boring. This is something, Hearthstone has nailed (and why It continues to be the most successful card game out there) it's visually appealing, it's fun. You can click on things. You can interact with the screen. If your opponent is taking forever you can click the ground in frustration and make little dust clouds. You can make music with different props around the board. There are even different 'quests' and 'puzzles' you can solve while waiting. Even after hundreds of hours of play time you'll be finding new ways of iterating with the UI. And looking at Artifact, you can see that the UI is lacking.[/QUOTE]
Even if that was the case, who's to say that the current photos/build of the game is representative of the final product?
[t]https://assets1.ignimgs.com/2018/03/09/lane-imp-1520575977725_1280w.png[/t]
I highly doubt this is what the end product will look like in the end and I'm absolutely certain they will add things to it to make it more interesting. They already have these little greevlings/imps/whatever they are so I'm curious to see what they include.
[editline]10th March 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=Drury;53191305]Did you even read what he posted? Had they chosen a different theme, like TF2 or Half-Life, the game would be much more unique. But instead it's just another high fantasy card game.[/QUOTE]
How exactly do you make a card game out of Team Fortress, a class-based first person shooter? Or Half-Life, one of the most respected franchises to ever exist in gaming? I really doubt anyone can for that matter. Dota, on the other hand, has a universe rich with possibilities of expansion due to the current vague nature of the lore. The Dota universe serves as a way to enhance the game and vice versa, while any usage of Half Life as a card game would probably be a bastardization.
i dont care much for it, i just want it to come out so we can move onto valve's "next game"
When he talks about how f2p is bad for the value of the cards, I can't help but feel he drank too much MtG koolaid. Spending huge amounts of money just to afford cards to play with is not ok.
[QUOTE=Anax;53191173]Card games aren't really my thing and I'm not a fan of the marketplace junk but the art certainly is excellent.[/QUOTE]
[t]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DX0W2OjVMAA4t_k.jpg[/t]
This one just looks like clockwerk's magnum dong.
A sci-fi card game based in the HL universe but focused on the side of combine society we don't see would have been sick. They could have done so much with it considering they're an interdimensional empire that is likely not monolithic
As an avid card game player and long-time MTG and Hearthstone player, everything I've heard about Artifact gravely concerns me.
The one thing Hearthstone has going for it above all else is the dust system and removing the secondary market altogether. MTG's biggest problem is that it can cost hundreds of dollars for cards that you can't otherwise get unless you literally gamble by opening an absurd amount of packs. And now Artifact is going to only have you get cards via packs or the Steam Marketplace.
It feels incredibly predatory. I'm not one to say whether the game itself will be good - Garfield is an incredible game designer and I trust him - but there is no way I can support such practices. It feels more like a greedy grab for the potential of profiting off of a significant secondary market.
[editline]10th March 2018[/editline]
I will withhold judgement for now - the game isn't even out yet so we don't know exactly how it'll be implemented - but that doesn't stop me from being very worried.
[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;53191380]It feels incredibly predatory. I'm not one to say whether the game itself will be good - Garfield is an incredible game designer and I trust him - but there is no way I can support such practices.[B] It feels more like a greedy grab for the potential of profiting off of a significant secondary market.[/B][/QUOTE]
And you [I]know[/I] 100% the game is going to only use the Steam marketplace to trade, so Valve are going to be getting a cut of every second-hand exchange there.
[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;53191380]As an avid card game player and long-time MTG and Hearthstone player, everything I've heard about Artifact gravely concerns me.
The one thing Hearthstone has going for it above all else is the dust system and removing the secondary market altogether. MTG's biggest problem is that it can cost hundreds of dollars for cards that you can't otherwise get unless you literally gamble by opening an absurd amount of packs. And now Artifact is going to only have you get cards via packs or the Steam Marketplace.
It feels incredibly predatory. I'm not one to say whether the game itself will be good - Garfield is an incredible game designer and I trust him - but there is no way I can support such practices. It feels more like a greedy grab for the potential of profiting off of a significant secondary market.
[editline]10th March 2018[/editline]
I will withhold judgement for now - the game isn't even out yet so we don't know exactly how it'll be implemented - but that doesn't stop me from being very worried.[/QUOTE]
Would this be alleviated if it is possible to directly get a specific card without going through a monetary transaction?
With them saying rarity not correlating with card power hopefully mean staples won't be jacked up to insane prices by hoarders.
Idk, we'll find out what not-pay2win means in time.
[QUOTE=Noob4life;53191403]Would this be alleviated if it is possible to directly get a specific card without going through a monetary transaction?
With them saying rarity not correlating with card power hopefully mean staples won't be jacked up to insane prices by hoarders.
Idk, we'll find out what not-pay2win means in time.[/QUOTE]
In Magic, some commons are actually worth several dollars. Years down the line, some commons have become worth dozens of bucks. And as time goes on and the player base increases and demand increases, the prices just keep rising until a reprint happens.
The secondary market is a blight on card games and I thought we already moved passed this with every other online card game doing away with it entirely, but apparently Valve wants to take a step backwards.
This is the reason why I don't play much MTG at all. Cards have just gotten too expensive - even the casual fun cards.
[editline]10th March 2018[/editline]
I like that Artifact seems like a significant departure from other card games, its design is really cool. But this just seems like a huge mistake. Not for their wallets - but for the health of the genre moving forward.
[QUOTE=REMBER;53191359][t]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DX0W2OjVMAA4t_k.jpg[/t]
This one just looks like clockwerk's magnum dong.[/QUOTE]
ya but its a gloriously rendered high caliber cockwerk
[t]http://c-5uwzmx78pmca09x24iaamba9x2eqovquoax2ekwu.g00.ign.com/g00/3_c-5eee.qov.kwu_/c-5UWZMXPMCA09x24pbbx78x3ax2fx2fiaamba9.qovquoa.kwux2f0896x2f81x2f87x2f98132-x78qkswnn-jgzivlgdizoia-9308353755595.rx78o_$/$/$/$/$?i10c.ua=1[/t]
lion got a growth spurt lookin for that 3 pointer
As someone who's never played a trading card game, physical or digital, this looks interesting. I might just pick it up.
[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;53191412]In Magic, some commons are actually worth several dollars. Years down the line, some commons have become worth dozens of bucks. And as time goes on and the player base increases and demand increases, the prices just keep rising until a reprint happens.
The secondary market is a blight on card games and I thought we already moved passed this with every other online card game doing away with it entirely, but apparently Valve wants to take a step backwards.
This is the reason why I don't play much MTG at all. Cards have just gotten too expensive - even the casual fun cards.
[editline]10th March 2018[/editline]
I like that Artifact seems like a significant departure from other card games, its design is really cool. But this just seems like a huge mistake. Not for their wallets - but for the health of the genre moving forward.[/QUOTE]
A legitimate concern I can agree to. Although I must say, with the lootbox controversy recently, I'd think the secondary market would be a plus considering one can go straight for card they need, rather than mandatory packs before they can craft. However, unlike physical card packs, digital TCG do have plenty of data and power to skew card acquisition probabilities. This really is up in the air.
[QUOTE=Dr.C;53191373]A sci-fi card game based in the HL universe but focused on the side of combine society we don't see would have been sick. They could have done so much with it considering they're an interdimensional empire that is likely not monolithic[/QUOTE]
Man, I agree that would have been dope as fuck, but --
People would have been [B][I]infinitely[/I][/B] more disappointed, upset, angry, flabbergasted, bewildered, [U]you fucking name it[/U], if valve had decided to make it so the first new property using the Half Life brand developed First Party in over a decade
[B]was a fucking card game.[/B]
holy shit, I can only imagine the fire and brimstone that'd be raining down on valve if that was actually what they went with, ESPECIALLY after Epistle 3 got everyone bitter over Half Life in general.
Making it Dota 2, a game that a large portion of the internet, especially old school Valve fans, fucking [B]hates,[/B] actually lessens the blow, if anything, that Valve's first new game in almost a decade is just a crummy old card game.
[QUOTE=Thatrandomuser;53191566]People would have been [B][I]infinitely[/I][/B] more disappointed, upset, angry, flabbergasted, bewildered, [U]you fucking name it[/U], if valve had decided to make it so the first new property using the Half Life brand developed First Party in over a decade
[B]was a fucking card game.[/B][/QUOTE]
there would be slithering hordes of rabid hl fans charging at message boards all across the internet
and I would be standing there alone, facing them
my proverbial shield shining bright
only two words engraved within
[quote]beats nothin'[/quote]
[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;53191412]In Magic, some commons are actually worth several dollars. Years down the line, some commons have become worth dozens of bucks. And as time goes on and the player base increases and demand increases, the prices just keep rising until a reprint happens.
The secondary market is a blight on card games and I thought we already moved passed this with every other online card game doing away with it entirely, but apparently Valve wants to take a step backwards.
This is the reason why I don't play much MTG at all. Cards have just gotten too expensive - even the casual fun cards.
[editline]10th March 2018[/editline]
I like that Artifact seems like a significant departure from other card games, its design is really cool. But this just seems like a huge mistake. Not for their wallets - but for the health of the genre moving forward.[/QUOTE]
magic actually barely dodges legislation regarding gambling (and in europe sometimes doesnt manage to do even that) because they don't technically make money or 'control' the secondary market. im sure valve has top tier lawyers and advisors, but creating a tcg where they receive the profit whether you buy singles that someone else owns or packs directly from them is indeed incredibly predatory. and this is coming from someone who owns multiple mtg decks both online and in paper
I just hope the hordes of rabid fanboys who are dead set on hating this game on principal, and not on its actual quality, do not discourage other TCG players from giving the game a fair chance.
It's pretty funny that you guys mention that. I have tons of fond memories of TCG games as a kid but when I think about it now pretty much all the major TCGs then and now are extremely p2w, but it seems that that aspect of it is pretty much widely accepted by the TCG communities. As far as these digital TCGs go, the fact that the Steam Market exists makes Artifact a step forward IMO, cause I'm pretty sure you can't even buy individual cards in Hearthstone nor Shadowverse. Not to mention the gameplay itself looks really interesting.
If anything someone could just make a third-party client for Artifact if it becomes a demand - kind of like YGOpro where you can just build any deck you want without paying as long as it's legal
[QUOTE=Octopod;53191666]It's pretty funny that you guys mention that. I have tons of fond memories of TCG games as a kid but when I think about it now pretty much all the major TCGs then and now are extremely p2w, but it seems that that aspect of it is pretty much widely accepted by the TCG communities. As far as these digital TCGs go, the fact that the Steam Market exists makes Artifact a step forward IMO, cause I'm pretty sure you can't even buy individual cards in Hearthstone nor Shadowverse. Not to mention the gameplay itself looks really interesting.
If anything someone could just make a third-party client for Artifact if it becomes a demand - kind of like YGOpro where you can just build any deck you want without paying as long as it's legal[/QUOTE]
most tcgs aren't p2w, they're pay2play. you can buy the most expensive cards but theres no guarantee you'll win with them, they're not inherently more powerful than cheap cards, it just means they command more value on the secondary market because of supply and demand. hell the most expensive cards in MTG cant even be played in most formats.
[QUOTE=Zombii;53191681]most tcgs aren't p2w, they're pay2play. you can buy the most expensive cards but theres no guarantee you'll win with them, they're not inherently more powerful than cheap cards, it just means they command more value on the secondary market because of supply and demand. hell the most expensive cards in MTG cant even be played in most formats.[/QUOTE]
I must be mistaken then. All I remember was playing YGO before fusions were a thing and the meta back then was kinda wacky and I remember paying money for really broken cards. Didn't mean to generalize.
Anyway hopefully Artifact isn't like that.
[QUOTE=Zombii;53191681]most tcgs aren't p2w, they're pay2play. you can buy the most expensive cards but theres no guarantee you'll win with them, they're not inherently more powerful than cheap cards, it just means they command more value on the secondary market because of supply and demand. hell the most expensive cards in MTG cant even be played in most formats.[/QUOTE]
weeeellllll technically I would say TCG is pay2win because one would still need to fork out money to create meta decks which are definitely more expensive than your average filler cards. Just because everybody is running with top tier decks doesn't make it not pay2win tho, it just bumps the price floor. Matter of perspective I suppose.
[QUOTE=Noob4life;53191750]weeeellllll technically I would say TCG is pay2win because one would still need to fork out money to create meta decks which are definitely more expensive than your average filler cards. Just because everybody is running with top tier decks doesn't make it not pay2win tho, it just bumps the price floor. Matter of perspective I suppose.[/QUOTE]
imo p2w means that if you spend the most money, you'll have the best results. that's not true in tcgs because of matchup variance, draw variance, player skill, and other factors in the game. sure, buying a tier 1 competitive deck is expensive, but it doesnt automatically make you good at the game. like you said it's a price floor, it's pay to play, not pay to win. not only that but it is incredibly possible to come up with budget or rogue options that can beat expensive tiered decks. sure they may not put up consistent tournament results at professional tournaments but literally just at a magic tournament just yesterday my 700+ dollar tier 1 control deck lost to some random guy playing elves who probably built his deck for like 25 bucks.
maybe its just a matter of perspective but the way i see it just because the most competitive decks are expensive (which is because of supply and demand, people want the cards, thus they become more expensive. the people making the cards have no impact on this) doesnt make it pay2win. it creates a price barrier to entry yes but competing at a high level in almost anything other than street sports has a price barrier.
[editline]10th March 2018[/editline]
all this is ofc ignoring the fact that if you're a competitive tcg player you probably have friends also playing the game and over time your cardpool grows large enough that no one really has to buy cards anymore because you all just borrow stuff from each other
[QUOTE=Zombii;53191681]most tcgs aren't p2w, they're pay2play. you can buy the most expensive cards but theres no guarantee you'll win with them, they're not inherently more powerful than cheap cards, it just means they command more value on the secondary market because of supply and demand. hell the most expensive cards in MTG cant even be played in most formats.[/QUOTE]
Just like having the ability to buy an objectively better gun/tank/ship/whatever isn't really p2w, it's pay2play (on the highest level).
This was sarcasm. A deck with a higher budget WILL be better assuming equal deck construction skills. I could go and spend a load of money on my MtG EDH decks to make them objectively better with a better manabase and stronger cards and I have no idea why you would argue that isn't pay2win.
[QUOTE=Mmrnmhrm;53191808][b]Just like having the ability to buy an objectively better gun/tank/ship/whatever isn't really p2w, it's pay2play (on the highest level).[/b]
This was sarcasm. A deck with a higher budget WILL be better assuming equal deck construction skills. I could go and spend a load of money on my MtG EDH decks to make them objectively better with a better manabase and stronger cards and I have no idea why you would argue that isn't pay2win.[/QUOTE]
thats not what i was saying at all, but okay.
that's also not how decks work. in mtg especially it is incredibly difficult to say something is 'objectively better' than another thing. you can build competitive mono-color edh decks for incredibly cheap that can win against decks that cost thousands of dollars. literally one of the best decks in a blind format for edh is 97 basic lands.
if your second statement was true then the pro tour, scg opens, and grand prix would all be dominated by one deck that was the most expensive, but they're not. you see a diverse collection of decks representing different budgets and playstyles. even in more expensive formats like modern this is true. burn wins and places at events all the time and is half the price of other decks.
[editline]10th March 2018[/editline]
i guess i tend to ramble but literally all im saying is that i don't see having to pay the upfront cost to acquire the cards that are actually good being p2w, thats just how the world works. there are bad cards and they are cheap. some bad cards are expensive! there are good cards and they are expensive, and some good cards are cheap! if you take two tier 1 decks with different strategies, or even two tier 1 decks with similar strategies (e.g. two aggro decks or two midrange decks) the more expensive deck isn't inherently better because it costs more. that is what i would consider p2w.
maybe its because ive been an enfranchised player for like 8 years at this point but saying that mtg/tcgs are p2w because 60 filler commons cant compete against a tuned competitive deck that's seen hundreds of man-hours of refinement and playtesting strikes me as strange
I'm having hard time believing a HL card game wasn't out of the question. They can't be that out of touch.
[QUOTE=Zombii;53191815]thats not what i was saying at all, but okay.
that's also not how decks work. in mtg especially it is incredibly difficult to say something is 'objectively better' than another thing. you can build competitive mono-color edh decks for incredibly cheap that can win against decks that cost thousands of dollars. literally one of the best decks in a blind format for edh is 97 basic lands. [/quote]
Even strong monocolor decks can be improved by a handful of expensive cards (Land Tax, Scroll Rack, Candelabra etc.) And if you're saying that a 97 land gimmick deck is one of the best decks in the format I feel you are not that familiar with how competitive EDH works.
[quote]
if your second statement was true then the pro tour, scg opens, and grand prix would all be dominated by one deck that was the most expensive, but they're not. you see a diverse collection of decks representing different budgets and playstyles. even in more expensive formats like modern this is true. burn wins and places at events all the time and is half the price of other decks.[/QUOTE]
On the highest level of play everyone is assumed to have every possible advantage they can get before the game so in that sense yes, it is pay to play. However, by the same logic if World of Tanks revealed a new Super Golden Ammo that costs 5 bucks per game that's better, you couldn't say it's pay2win because everyone in the tournaments are using that.
But tournaments are not the deciding factor here. The vast, vast majority of MtG games are played between casuals/semi-casuals where their decks are not tuned to the maximum and spending a few hundred dollars will result in objectively stronger decks. Simply replacing a manabase consisting of mostly basics and guildgate level nonbasics with shocks, fetches and dual lands results in a stronger deck. Money does buy power and this applies to Hearthstone (ability to construct a greater variety of decks, using relatively expensive legendary cards), MtG (using a better manabase, expensive format staples) and many other online games, CCG or not.
[QUOTE=jazzpunk;53191825]I'm having hard time believing a HL card game wasn't out of the question. They can't be that out of touch.[/QUOTE]
i found myself agreeing with what someone else said in this thread earlier which was that while they did consider other franchises for it, if they had chosen HL or something else other than DOTA the backlash from the community would have been so great it would have caused a mass extinction event
[editline]10th March 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mmrnmhrm;53191827]Even strong monocolor decks can be improved by a handful of expensive cards (Land Tax, Scroll Rack, Candelabra etc.) And if you're saying that a 97 land gimmick deck is one of the best decks in the format I feel you are not that familiar with how competitive EDH works.[/quote]
well seeing as how there have been multiple writeups of people going to premiere level events and raking in hundreds of dollars in prizes playing maelstrom wanderer bell combo i wouldnt say it's not a factor. in french (1v1) edh some of the best decks are incredibly cheap compared to other stuff in the format. mono black storm can be built for like <500 bucks and is amazing. mono blue polymorph is pretty cheap too.
this is ignoring the fact that EDH by design is one of the most expensive formats designed for the most enfranchised players. and that it's a heavily personalized experience within playgroups with tons of groups having house rules and unspoken contracts about deck power level that keep budget in check.
[quote]On the highest level of play everyone is assumed to have every possible advantage they can get before the game so in that sense yes, it is pay to play. However, by the same logic if World of Tanks revealed a new Super Golden Ammo that costs 5 bucks per game that's better, you couldn't say it's pay2win because everyone in the tournaments are using that.
But tournaments are not the deciding factor here. The vast, vast majority of MtG games are played between casuals/semi-casuals where their decks are not tuned to the maximum and spending a few hundred dollars will result in objectively stronger decks. Simply replacing a manabase consisting of mostly basics and guildgate level nonbasics can be much stronger by using shocks, fetches and dual lands. Money does buy power and this applies to Hearthstone (ability to construct a greater variety of decks, using relatively expensive legendary cards), MtG (using a better manabase, expensive format staples) and many other online games, CCG or not.[/QUOTE]
if you're talking about casual, unsanctioned, format-less play then why not just play with proxies? if it's casual why does it being p2w matter at all? what casual kitchen table player is going to go out and spend hundreds on singles so they can crush their buddies while they sit around and drink beer and eat pizza?
[editline]10th March 2018[/editline]
i see where your argument is coming from, i think the problem for me is coming from the fact that there are literally hundreds of different ways to play mtg and all of them have different budget and deckbuilding constraints, and that's without getting into the social constraints of people's willingness to spend money on the game. sure, there are ways it can become p2w in edh or casual or whatever because someone goes out and drops thousands on a deck when the other people in their playgroup are playing budget lists, but as someone who mostly plays competitively or edh with proxies i dont personally feel that it's p2w.
regardless this argument is derailing the thread so if you're interested in continuing it we can go to pms.
[QUOTE=Mmrnmhrm;53191827]I feel you are not that familiar with how competitive EDH works.[/QUOTE]
Comp EDH is a joke format. Out of all the LGS' I've been to most of everyone goes by the 75% efficiency rule because watching someone go turn 2 infinite combo is boring as fuck.
[QUOTE=OutLawed Blade;53191840]Comp EDH is a joke format. Out of all the LGS' I've been to most of everyone goes by the 75% efficiency rule because watching someone go turn 2 infinite combo is boring as fuck.[/QUOTE]
Oh yeah, cEDH is a fucking joke of a format in my opinion but people still play it.
I'll just make one more post then stop going on about this matter. I agree with Zombii that judging casual, formatless play with the term "p2w" is treading on very muddied waters and that wasn't a very strong point to begin with. However I would argue on the lowest level of sanctioned play, FNMs, MtG is very p2w and you can probably count with one hand the amount of people who wouldn't be able to improve their deck with money during the average FNM.
To bring this argument back to the topic at hand, I don't see a way how Artifact wouldn't become p2w if it operates in the same manner as MtG (secondary market + booster packs), especially since proxying or using Chinese fakes will probably be impossible. TCGs in general should be moving away from these kinds of systems, not embrace them.
[QUOTE=Mmrnmhrm;53191853]Oh yeah, cEDH is a fucking joke of a format in my opinion but people still play it.
I'll just make one more post then stop going on about this matter. I agree with Zombii that judging casual, formatless play with the term "p2w" is treading on very muddied waters and that wasn't a very strong point to begin with. However I would argue on the lowest level of sanctioned play, FNMs, MtG is very p2w and you can probably count with one hand the amount of people who wouldn't be able to improve their deck with money during the average FNM.
To bring this argument back to the topic at hand, I don't see a way how Artifact wouldn't become p2w if it operates in the same manner as MtG (secondary market + booster packs), especially since proxying or using Chinese fakes will probably be impossible. TCGs in general should be moving away from these kinds of systems, not embrace them.[/QUOTE]
i agree with you there. the traditional system of a secondary market is outdated for digital tcgs, even MTG's new digital platform is moving towards a 'dust' system like hearthstone where you craft the cards you want. even as someone who wants to give valve the benefit of the doubt it really looks like they're trying to double dip on the cards here, which is fucking scummy as all hell and extremely predatory. not only would they control the only source of cards (boosters) and the only place to resell them (steam marketplace) but it also seems like they want to turn opening packs into some kind of social minigame all by itself, which is exactly the same kind of degenerate shit we were seeing with csgo gambling like a year ago.
[QUOTE=jazzpunk;53191825]I'm having hard time believing a HL card game wasn't out of the question. They can't be that out of touch.[/QUOTE]
imagine if they did a valve all-stars card game instead. half life, portal, tf2, left4dead, cs, dota :v:
and booster packs could be called [sp]Orange Boxes[/sp]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
