Artifact Classic

Artifact Classic

BigPlaysINC Mar 30, 2019 @ 6:15am
Make it correct this time!
I said before now I am saying again. Make it something close to Dota2 spirit. Killing an enemy hero was actually rewarding them to deploy their units where they are most needed are you kidding me?

Why dont we have a different approach to card games like RTS type. As the time flows you get your income every sec as Dota2, creeps come into lanes at evert 15 secs or whatever instead of rigid turns we get to play in real time maybe. Make it feel like playin Dota on a board and you will be awarded.
< >
Showing 1-14 of 14 comments
CementStairs Mar 31, 2019 @ 6:52am 
The gameplay is the best part of the game, marketing isn't. That;s why it failed.
BigPlaysINC Mar 31, 2019 @ 6:53am 
Are you being serious... Marketing...
CementStairs Mar 31, 2019 @ 6:57am 
Yes. In my opinion Artifact has the gameplay compared to other card games on market. The complexity, different interesting tactics(for example deck based on your card's death) etc. Artifact didn't fail because it is a bad game. It failed because it was presented as one. People's first and uninformed impressions ruined the game for many possible players and over time the game fell apart. Many people misunderstood the game and this is how it ended.
CementStairs Mar 31, 2019 @ 6:59am 
The "rewarding for death" example you made is part of the gameplay. Also it's not really a reward because player who killed that hero gets 5 gold + has one less hero(= spells of that hero's color). And the idea of Real time card game doesn't fit game of this kind. It's not really a bad idea but it's not what Artifact is.
Last edited by CementStairs; Mar 31, 2019 @ 7:00am
SamZ Mar 31, 2019 @ 7:48am 
Originally posted by Rimanah:
The gameplay is the best part of the game, marketing isn't. That;s why it failed.

A lack of marketing or "hype" was not the reason why this game failed.
BigPlaysINC Mar 31, 2019 @ 7:48am 
I respect your opinion man. But I dont think that issue is false or bad advertisement since when the game is released the player count peaked to 60k's then it just dropped to 200-300 people. There must be something wrong with the game to make that amount of people quit the game.
ToysRsus Mar 31, 2019 @ 8:27am 
Originally posted by reDiLive:
I respect your opinion man. But I dont think that issue is false or bad advertisement since when the game is released the player count peaked to 60k's then it just dropped to 200-300 people. There must be something wrong with the game to make that amount of people quit the game.

No, Rimanah's absolutely right. The marketing was very clumsy. If Valve had kept the hype about Artifact a little bit smaller and had offered a very limited but playable F2P version, the whole thing would have been very different.

People can be wrong. Even in the masses. And the destruction of a computer game is still a rather harmless form of hysteria when the mob is running hot.

Originally posted by SamZ:
Originally posted by Rimanah:
The gameplay is the best part of the game, marketing isn't. That;s why it failed.

A lack of marketing or "hype" was not the reason why this game failed.

You say that without ever playing the game. If proof was needed for Rimanah's thesis, he would have been proved.

I don't want to attack you personally with this. A lot of people get this impression without ever having seen the game and very few of them visit this forum.


SamZ Mar 31, 2019 @ 8:58am 
Originally posted by 1xok:
Originally posted by reDiLive:
I respect your opinion man. But I dont think that issue is false or bad advertisement since when the game is released the player count peaked to 60k's then it just dropped to 200-300 people. There must be something wrong with the game to make that amount of people quit the game.

No, Rimanah's absolutely right. The marketing was very clumsy. If Valve had kept the hype about Artifact a little bit smaller and had offered a very limited but playable F2P version, the whole thing would have been very different.

People can be wrong. Even in the masses. And the destruction of a computer game is still a rather harmless form of hysteria when the mob is running hot.

Originally posted by SamZ:

A lack of marketing or "hype" was not the reason why this game failed.

You say that without ever playing the game. If proof was needed for Rimanah's thesis, he would have been proved.

I don't want to attack you personally with this. A lot of people get this impression without ever having seen the game and very few of them visit this forum.

It depends on what your definition of what marketing is or what aspects fall into that category. The lack of F2P clearly was an issue and I agree with you about things being different. I tend to want to be a little more detailed about the moving pieces but if you consider things as a "bundle" of marketing then I would agree F2P falls into that.

doc Mar 31, 2019 @ 1:05pm 
Originally posted by Rimanah:
The gameplay is the best part of the game, marketing isn't. That;s why it failed.
I like the game but oof: citation needed here
Glodar Mar 31, 2019 @ 3:41pm 
Dota had beta open to 100k players, they listened to players feedback and updated game each week multiple times based on this feedback, and once beta ended if didn't even feel like it was ever beta, they continued to update game each week, listening to community, even to this day, something good gets posted on dotas reddit next days gets added into game...idk is it coz Dota has IceFrog or not, but Dota always listen community feedback more, from beta to this day, if Artifact devs would do something even close to that, it would be better.

They need to have bigger beta (everyone who owns Artifact now should be able to play new v2 Artifact before they launch it or they could repeat mistake), open beta to more players like Dota did with it's own beta back in 2011/12/13, don't talk to "pros", new version needs to be playtested by regular players who are not scared to call out bad design or something they dislike, because "pro" players don't wanna hurt their relationship with Valve they are not good beta players.

This game needs normal regular folks, players who will openly criticize and ask for improvements on forums/reddit and then Valve just needs to keep eye there and update game according to that players feedback.

That is how beta worked for Dota in 2012 (sure in 2011 when it was alpha state it was open to just some pros but later it opened gate to almost everyone), people posted their problems on reddit, Valve fixed it day after day, and it works that way even to this day, and that is one of reasons why it is amazing game.
fuegerstef Apr 1, 2019 @ 12:15am 
Originally posted by Rimanah:
The gameplay is the best part of the game, marketing isn't. That;s why it failed.

So, the 60000 concurrent players in the beginning stopped because of marketing?

Did these players forget artifact existed and they have it on their account because there were no ads?
Last edited by fuegerstef; Apr 1, 2019 @ 12:15am
Blowfeld Apr 1, 2019 @ 3:05am 
I think the game did not become sucessful as there were a lot of mechanics interwoven that resulted in wrong expectations, that were not transparent enough, did not give enough incentive and were quite counterintuitive.

I think the flaws leading to the player decrease were the fact that trigger happy players could not refund & card prices were quite high in the beginning- without a system to progress cards for free. Turning away people who did not want to invest any further than 20€ and making them feel cut off of a significant part of the game.
Set 1 was quite lackluster in terms of card interaction and archetypes ( but I guess that is somewhat expected from a first set ).
There was (and still is) no good progression system, players are used to constant gratification nowadays, especially with all the f2p ccgs out there.
Why they chose high weekly rewards instead of lower daily rewards is also out of my understanding.
The RNG portion of the game was ok for me, but lots of players wanted perfect contol over the board (which seems funny in a game designed on the luck of draw);
Valve were even too lazy to implement trading cards and achievements for their own game.
Lack of a good tutorial, helping players to gradually master parts of the game.
After a bad start lack of roadmap and communication.
Etc.
The list goes on.

I wonder why people at Valve are so surprised now how it turned out. If they just spent a few days reading the forums they would have had all the reasons at hand why the game flopped.

Which is sad, because, at its core, I liked Artifact. But sadly they only released a skeleton of a game without any modern features and meaningful social interaction. Silly.
Last edited by Blowfeld; Apr 1, 2019 @ 3:07am
licker34 Apr 1, 2019 @ 7:22am 
They probably decided that they were going to do things differently no matter what.

Failing to appreciate the lessons the marketplace had already dictated.

Hind sight and all, but it was the wrong choice to make. Maybe v2 will get more right, I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
Vassago Rain Apr 1, 2019 @ 6:39pm 
>the game failed because people don't understand.
>it was marketing.
>it was the greed.

Except Valve themselves admitted the game has deep-rooted problems, and it'll take a long time to fix it.
< >
Showing 1-14 of 14 comments
Per page: 15 30 50

Date Posted: Mar 30, 2019 @ 6:15am
Posts: 14