โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย DeXterSon:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย GameSmashDash:

If you like RNG so much go play hearthstone if you like casual RNG but I have an idea
I have an idea with some RNG I would be fine with and some ideas in hand if you like RNG so much;

1. Add more stats just like normal Dota 2 and make it more complex to have more varied play.
Idea for stats;
Guts - HP
Mana Pool - MP
Strength - physical attacks
Mind - magic attack
Physical armor
Magic armor
Crit
Speed
Magic resistance - resistance to fear magic for an example, stun magic
Dodge
2. Randomly chose 1 of the players map decks and choose the random place it would take place in and every so, so rounds it's a new map or the same map from the deck.
3. a random boss monster off to the side on both ends of the board that give a random buff to the player that killed the boss monster
4. a random creature can come in to kill one creature from one of the two sides
5. random creep stats
6. Random saves from death for your hero
7. Random crits for spells
8. Random cost of spells
9. RNG set on a range of course
10. Random range of cards you draw
11. Random HP amount each tower starts with
12. A random weather effect
13. A random event
14. A random sponsor to one of the players

If you like RNG so much at least encourage ideas that don't half ass it and encourage at least OTHER types of RNG to be added to the game then and not just keeping the same old, same old RNG, how about RNG for things that allow for event changes.

I'm not saying add all of them but I'm saying add other ideas in hand. Just anything that feels less like LoL and doesn't make it feel as casual.

finally someone tilted :D be a dear and send this conversation to ArtifactBetaFeedback@valvesoftware.com
im to old to do stuff like this and not getting pay thx

Tilted? No I was spit balling ideas. If you're for RNG then I'll spit ball ideas and look the games you play to see if you're a hypocrite or not. As well to understand the player's mindset behind the game they liked or like playing.

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย GameSmashDash:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย DeXterSon:

finally someone tilted :D be a dear and send this conversation to ArtifactBetaFeedback@valvesoftware.com
im to old to do stuff like this and not getting pay thx

Tilted? No I was spit balling ideas. If you're for RNG then I'll spit ball ideas and look the games you play to see if you're a hypocrite or not. As well to understand the player's mindset behind the game they liked or like playing.

did u get ur answer ?

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย DeXterSon:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย GameSmashDash:

to your comment on the store gamesmashdash
Funny I thought you were defending RNG with Artifact? Now you're against it? At what level or at what depth are you for or against RNG? What type of RNG are you for or against passive or active RNG? If so why are you okay with some passive RNG but not others?



the answer is : in some lvl RNG can spice up things it depends of the game and the time play of every match and how much impact on the determination of the winner im against to completely removing RNG from a game but even if the RNG is completely unfair and against a the most unlucky guy in the world he/she still must have way of come back like a system against RNG to push the people lucks this system must act so low that both dont have too much impact winner determination
its developer job to think and create balanced game

No it's not that I'm defending it. There is a specific type of RNG I'm fine with.

Passive RNG is fine so long as I get to control the actions of the character in question just like DnD where the character has random stats and random check rolls but you attack for the given character and or choose the given action you're performing. If you can perform the given action or the given set of event I'm fine with.

Random card draw is fine, random range of damage being dealt is fine, Dead Cells type of RNG I'm fine with because there is just so much complexity and choice of action you can perform such as; tech with the given weapons to have an extra form of mobility before hitting the ground, having a random enchantment but opening-ly and knowing to grab the given RNG element.

I don't like active RNG where I can't control the attack, where I can't control how the character moves or interacts. I'm fine with a random place I can't control but I want to have actors to control for the given interaction and not only have control over the cards in hand.

I'm fine with minor stat elements to creep and those kind of ideas. Game design wise they're two completely different concepts of night and day for RNG for active versus passive. If I wanted to play passive RNG I would play games where the DM controls the character (which isn't fun) but I get to choose the given equipment and type of equipment along with abilities the character has.

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย DeXterSon:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย GameSmashDash:

Tilted? No I was spit balling ideas. If you're for RNG then I'll spit ball ideas and look the games you play to see if you're a hypocrite or not. As well to understand the player's mindset behind the game they liked or like playing.

did u get ur answer ?

No not really; you're more of an odd ball (not an insult) than the people who hate on Hearthstone for it's RNG but not Artifact's old system of RNG. You don't understand the idea of tilted and confuse emotions. At this point I don't know if you're trolling me or if you really think like this.

By the way I know I type a lot. It's just how my personality is and how I approach conversations when it comes to game design and or topics I'm passionate about.

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย GameSmashDash:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย DeXterSon:

to your comment on the store gamesmashdash
Funny I thought you were defending RNG with Artifact? Now you're against it? At what level or at what depth are you for or against RNG? What type of RNG are you for or against passive or active RNG? If so why are you okay with some passive RNG but not others?



the answer is : in some lvl RNG can spice up things it depends of the game and the time play of every match and how much impact on the determination of the winner im against to completely removing RNG from a game but even if the RNG is completely unfair and against a the most unlucky guy in the world he/she still must have way of come back like a system against RNG to push the people lucks this system must act so low that both dont have too much impact winner determination
its developer job to think and create balanced game

No it's not that I'm defending it. There is a specific type of RNG I'm fine with.

Passive RNG is fine so long as I get to control the actions of the character in question just like DnD where the character has random stats and random check rolls but you attack for the given character and or choose the given action you're performing. If you can perform the given action or the given set of event I'm fine with.

Random card draw is fine, random range of damage being dealt is fine, Dead Cells type of RNG I'm fine with because there is just so much complexity and choice of action you can perform such as; tech with the given weapons to have an extra form of mobility before hitting the ground, having a random enchantment but opening-ly and knowing to grab the given RNG element.

I don't like active RNG where I can't control the attack, where I can't control how the character moves or interacts. I'm fine with a random place I can't control but I want to have actors to control for the given interaction and not only have control over the cards in hand.

I'm fine with minor stat elements to creep and those kind of ideas. Game design wise they're two completely different concepts of night and day for RNG for active versus passive. If I wanted to play passive RNG I would play games where the DM controls the character (which isn't fun) but I get to choose the given equipment and type of equipment along with abilities the character has.

Eh, I find that distinction between "active" and "passive" RNG, based on if you directly control the actors or not, kind of far fetched. Especialy considering you dont mind the range of randomness for this distinction, but only the source of randomness. But alright, lets stick to those terms for this discussion.
To me, and no insult intended, as its just my personal opinion, you only seem inflexible by doing this. You create a category for whats good "because its like this in other games you like" and a category of whats bad, in which you basicaly put most of what made Artifact excitingly fresh to begin with. (of course there were other interesting game design choices, like the three lanes or the unlimited creatures ... but anyways)
Honestly, in the end I think its just another show of someone being so afraid of change or things that aren't in the personal comfort zone of known interaction. So instead of learning to enjoy something new, you mostly try to push the "good old ways" onto it.
And in your list of ideas you just listed tons of game design elements which have been done before (and a lot) in other games and really aren't all that new and exiting.
Of course that "source" of RNG Artifact utilizes has been done before too (i guess youll always find examples for any basic design element where it has been done before). As someone stated before in this threat: Not being able to control the creeps directly is quite a lot like Dota. Also there is good old "Majesty", which I also consider a mostly overlooked gem of gaming history. So, yeah, "active RNG" isn't a brilliant new idea. The way Artifact 1.0 combined those ideas was brilliant however. And it is VERY underused, sadly as I have to say, because I do not share your opinion of it being the "worse" RNG per se.

And while Im at it: Yes, I also think the randomness improved complexity and did not dumb it down, because it forced people to mitigate risks and there were enough ways to do so, if you actualy tried to understand that games dynamics.
You had to consider when and how to indirectly influence the automatic choices of your characters.
If you want "dumb down", just look at how Artifact 2.0 now seems to take a lot of steps back to what the other popular games do. THAT is pretty much dumbing down by the book.

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Xaneorath:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย GameSmashDash:

No it's not that I'm defending it. There is a specific type of RNG I'm fine with.

Passive RNG is fine so long as I get to control the actions of the character in question just like DnD where the character has random stats and random check rolls but you attack for the given character and or choose the given action you're performing. If you can perform the given action or the given set of event I'm fine with.

Random card draw is fine, random range of damage being dealt is fine, Dead Cells type of RNG I'm fine with because there is just so much complexity and choice of action you can perform such as; tech with the given weapons to have an extra form of mobility before hitting the ground, having a random enchantment but opening-ly and knowing to grab the given RNG element.

I don't like active RNG where I can't control the attack, where I can't control how the character moves or interacts. I'm fine with a random place I can't control but I want to have actors to control for the given interaction and not only have control over the cards in hand.

I'm fine with minor stat elements to creep and those kind of ideas. Game design wise they're two completely different concepts of night and day for RNG for active versus passive. If I wanted to play passive RNG I would play games where the DM controls the character (which isn't fun) but I get to choose the given equipment and type of equipment along with abilities the character has.

Eh, I find that distinction between "active" and "passive" RNG, based on if you directly control the actors or not, kind of far fetched. Especialy considering you dont mind the range of randomness for this distinction, but only the source of randomness. But alright, lets stick to those terms for this discussion.
To me, and no insult intended, as its just my personal opinion, you only seem inflexible by doing this. You create a category for whats good "because its like this in other games you like" and a category of whats bad, in which you basicaly put most of what made Artifact excitingly fresh to begin with. (of course there were other interesting game design choices, like the three lanes or the unlimited creatures ... but anyways)
Honestly, in the end I think its just another show of someone being so afraid of change or things that aren't in the personal comfort zone of known interaction. So instead of learning to enjoy something new, you mostly try to push the "good old ways" onto it.
And in your list of ideas you just listed tons of game design elements which have been done before (and a lot) in other games and really aren't all that new and exiting.
Of course that "source" of RNG Artifact utilizes has been done before too (i guess youll always find examples for any basic design element where it has been done before). As someone stated before in this threat: Not being able to control the creeps directly is quite a lot like Dota. Also there is good old "Majesty", which I also consider a mostly overlooked gem of gaming history. So, yeah, "passive RNG" isn't a brilliant new idea. The way Artifact 1.0 combined those ideas was brilliant however. And it is VERY underused, sadly as I have to say, because I do not share your opinion of it being the "worse" RNG per se.

And while Im at it: Yes, I also think the randomness improved complexity and did not dumb it down, because it forced people to mitigate risks and there were enough ways to do so, if you actualy tried to understand that games dynamics. :lunar2020confidentrooster:
You had to consider when and how to indirectly influence the automatic choices of your characters.
If you want "dumb down", just look at how Artifact 2.0 now seems to take a lot of steps back to what the other popular games do. THAT is pretty much dumbing down by the book.

First of all I never said it’s bad. If you like games such auto chess or games that play themselves like cookie clicker then that’s fine by me.

Different strokes for different folks. What I’m saying is it’s no different than someone controlling your character.

Here is a problem I do have with it; simple RNG manipulation engines that can be made for control tables in order to find what is setting the event.

If you’re going to have RNG then have it be unpredictable as possible and such a system people won’t notice.

Now I do consider it’s on the basis by genre. Artifact’s original design just did not appeal to me because there were events you could not avoid or deny. Control cards were too cheap such as instant kill a creature I had on the field that stopped me from playing.

If you’re going to give the player little control then don’t have control cards be super cheap, otherwise you’ll get locked out of battle like what happen to me.

What I think is bad is inconsistent card design versus the game. Inconsistent cards were too consistent from what I was experiencing and a lot of cards made me lose all because they didn’t just attack in front or my opponent played a card that stun my side that or forced me into battle.

I didn’t lose because my opponent outplayed me. No a lot of the same cards I saw and games swung too much.

To me if you’re going to do a game relies on RNG then go all in and not just half ass it. It’s pointless at that point.

Furthermore yes active and passive RNG are concepts that exist in game design. RNG caused by the actor versus passive have massive different results.

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Xaneorath:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย GameSmashDash:

No it's not that I'm defending it. There is a specific type of RNG I'm fine with.

Passive RNG is fine so long as I get to control the actions of the character in question just like DnD where the character has random stats and random check rolls but you attack for the given character and or choose the given action you're performing. If you can perform the given action or the given set of event I'm fine with.

Random card draw is fine, random range of damage being dealt is fine, Dead Cells type of RNG I'm fine with because there is just so much complexity and choice of action you can perform such as; tech with the given weapons to have an extra form of mobility before hitting the ground, having a random enchantment but opening-ly and knowing to grab the given RNG element.

I don't like active RNG where I can't control the attack, where I can't control how the character moves or interacts. I'm fine with a random place I can't control but I want to have actors to control for the given interaction and not only have control over the cards in hand.

I'm fine with minor stat elements to creep and those kind of ideas. Game design wise they're two completely different concepts of night and day for RNG for active versus passive. If I wanted to play passive RNG I would play games where the DM controls the character (which isn't fun) but I get to choose the given equipment and type of equipment along with abilities the character has.

Eh, I find that distinction between "active" and "passive" RNG, based on if you directly control the actors or not, kind of far fetched. Especialy considering you dont mind the range of randomness for this distinction, but only the source of randomness. But alright, lets stick to those terms for this discussion.
To me, and no insult intended, as its just my personal opinion, you only seem inflexible by doing this. You create a category for whats good "because its like this in other games you like" and a category of whats bad, in which you basicaly put most of what made Artifact excitingly fresh to begin with. (of course there were other interesting game design choices, like the three lanes or the unlimited creatures ... but anyways)
Honestly, in the end I think its just another show of someone being so afraid of change or things that aren't in the personal comfort zone of known interaction. So instead of learning to enjoy something new, you mostly try to push the "good old ways" onto it.
And in your list of ideas you just listed tons of game design elements which have been done before (and a lot) in other games and really aren't all that new and exiting.
Of course that "source" of RNG Artifact utilizes has been done before too (i guess youll always find examples for any basic design element where it has been done before). As someone stated before in this threat: Not being able to control the creeps directly is quite a lot like Dota. Also there is good old "Majesty", which I also consider a mostly overlooked gem of gaming history. So, yeah, "passive RNG" isn't a brilliant new idea. The way Artifact 1.0 combined those ideas was brilliant however. And it is VERY underused, sadly as I have to say, because I do not share your opinion of it being the "worse" RNG per se.

And while Im at it: Yes, I also think the randomness improved complexity and did not dumb it down, because it forced people to mitigate risks and there were enough ways to do so, if you actualy tried to understand that games dynamics. :lunar2020confidentrooster:
You had to consider when and how to indirectly influence the automatic choices of your characters.
If you want "dumb down", just look at how Artifact 2.0 now seems to take a lot of steps back to what the other popular games do. THAT is pretty much dumbing down by the book.

By the way I played over a 101 matches and won at match 101 and 100 loses.

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย GameSmashDash:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Xaneorath:

Eh, I find that distinction between "active" and "passive" RNG, based on if you directly control the actors or not, kind of far fetched. Especialy considering you dont mind the range of randomness for this distinction, but only the source of randomness. But alright, lets stick to those terms for this discussion.
To me, and no insult intended, as its just my personal opinion, you only seem inflexible by doing this. You create a category for whats good "because its like this in other games you like" and a category of whats bad, in which you basicaly put most of what made Artifact excitingly fresh to begin with. (of course there were other interesting game design choices, like the three lanes or the unlimited creatures ... but anyways)
Honestly, in the end I think its just another show of someone being so afraid of change or things that aren't in the personal comfort zone of known interaction. So instead of learning to enjoy something new, you mostly try to push the "good old ways" onto it.
And in your list of ideas you just listed tons of game design elements which have been done before (and a lot) in other games and really aren't all that new and exiting.
Of course that "source" of RNG Artifact utilizes has been done before too (i guess youll always find examples for any basic design element where it has been done before). As someone stated before in this threat: Not being able to control the creeps directly is quite a lot like Dota. Also there is good old "Majesty", which I also consider a mostly overlooked gem of gaming history. So, yeah, "passive RNG" isn't a brilliant new idea. The way Artifact 1.0 combined those ideas was brilliant however. And it is VERY underused, sadly as I have to say, because I do not share your opinion of it being the "worse" RNG per se.

And while Im at it: Yes, I also think the randomness improved complexity and did not dumb it down, because it forced people to mitigate risks and there were enough ways to do so, if you actualy tried to understand that games dynamics.
You had to consider when and how to indirectly influence the automatic choices of your characters.
If you want "dumb down", just look at how Artifact 2.0 now seems to take a lot of steps back to what the other popular games do. THAT is pretty much dumbing down by the book.

By the way I played over a 101 matches and won at match 101 and 100 loses.

dude u really have problem not the game

Actualy I mixed up the definition of active and passive RNG you gave at one point. I edited my comment to adjust it: ( So, yeah, "active RNG" isn't a brilliant new idea. )
For some reason "passive RNG" felt intuitively more fitting for such game elements to me, as you passivly watch the actors actions and only slightly influence them, so I mixed it up without cross-checking the definition you had given.



Regarding your answer (without fully quoting it, so to reduce the spam of text here a little):
It seems to me, that you are mostly discontent with things which could've been balanced while staying true to the original game design, by rebalancing card costs or adding complementary new cards.
It is true that I did not play as much Artifact as I could have (allthough to be fair: The first patch drove me off, as it made me lose exiting long games by the turn timer and not by wits, which made me quit a game which I would surely have played a lot longer before that patch).
Because of this I daresay I cannot say much about the extremes in deck construction which might have occured after people figured everything out.
(RNG manipulation engine decks, if I understood you correctly, seemed dominant from your experience)
But dont forget that the game got dead very fast. Living online games where players build their own set of cards compensate staleness by adjusting cards over time (cost, effect, etc) or adding new content, something which, as much as I know, never happened for Artifact 1.0.
So its not surprising it would end at a state where certain decks dominate the games environment.
I do NOT think that proves the games environment itself bad though, as it would have happened to any competitive game which was not developed further from its initial state.

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย GameSmashDash:

To me if you’re going to do a game relies on RNG then go all in and not just half ♥♥♥ it. It’s pointless at that point.

I honestly dont see the problem with smart hybrids. Or else we would all only be playing dice or chess all day. ;)
And thats exactly the point where Artifact 1.0 convinced me: I strongly enjoyed the long matches where the game could and would swing around at any moment. Still I felt it was a battle of wits (in a hybrid random environment), without the randomness fully deciding the game.

By the way I played over a 101 matches and won at match 101 and 100 loses. [/quote]
dude u really have problem not the game [/quote]

You’re not saying how to get better. You see this is how you kill off growth for a community. You need to be willing to give advice and TEACH players how to play the game if the game doesn’t.

If I ever make a game I’ll try to make in depth content talking about how to play the game or how to get better at the game.

The problem is so many players and myself didn’t learn from our mistakes along with the fact blaming RNG instead of our own faults not being able to see what we did wrong.

Again at least in Dead Cells to portal I can see my mistakes and failings.

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย DeXterSon:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย GameSmashDash:

By the way I played over a 101 matches and won at match 101 and 100 loses.

dude u really have problem not the game

Still haven't thought of any advice or anything for HOW to get better at the game?

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย GameSmashDash:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย DeXterSon:

dude u really have problem not the game

Still haven't thought of any advice or anything for HOW to get better at the game?

artifact 1.0 is dead and unplayble due lack of players , but if still want to try go play with game made decks and each of them at least 10 game then see wich one u win try to understand the game and find out how it works u can check my name in the top 100 if u get there

what the hell happens to all my unopened packs????

DEAR ARTIFACT CREW:
I bought Artifact the same day it went out to market... so please guys i need my beta key i love the game... i'm sure i was one of the firstone's who got it

I want it volvo.