• 1

    posted a message on Artifact
    Quote from DSchu102285 >>

    Artifact's economy issues and concerns are 100% valid but the outrage over the concept of spending $20 to be entertained is just ridiculous.

     Outrage to pay for what is essentially a demo version is absolutely justified. Majority of people here bought games that cost far more.

    Posted in: Other Games
  • 1

    posted a message on Artifact
    Quote from Anatak89 >>

    MTG:Arena is a lot more fun than Hearthstone, I'm still just waiting for them to work out some kinks (most notably the duplicate card system haha, who knows how that will truly be resolved).  MTG at least has some pedigree.

    IIRC, They promised to eventually replace it with a system that gives you a random card of the same rarity from a random set whenever you would get a fifth copy.

    MTGa is doing exactly opposite to what Artifact is doing and I expect MTG arena to be the real competitor for HS once they fix 5th card issue, add ladder and start using the digital nature of the game more (for example they can create special MTGa inly expansion with no paper analogue with cards that are impossible in paper version)

    Posted in: Other Games
  • 2

    posted a message on Artifact

    $100 for all cards. LMAO

    Is there any good place to look at card% in artifact booster packs? I only found that there are 77 rares in the game, each pack has a guaranteed rare and any other card may be a rare... Anyway. Let's assume that it is 2 rares per pack on average (I think it is a VERY high estimate)

    That means to get a specific rare you need to open 38.5 pack on average.  38.5*2 = $77.  I estimate that marketplace cost for one good rare will be at the very least $50.

    BTW, in hearthstone to get a legendary you want for $ you need to buy and dust 16 packs.

    Posted in: Other Games
  • 6

    posted a message on Artifact

    Also, I am unhappy that if Artifact will be popular enough it will create an "industry" for people doing nothing but buying and selling cards in hopes to make profit on correctly predicting meta changes. This is not what I want to see in Steam client with so many children around.

    Posted in: Other Games
  • 2

    posted a message on Artifact
    Quote from Khaostheory >>

    I really hope it succeeds. I don't like the look of Artifact and it seems far too complicated for my needs but Heartstone needs a viable competitor so for that reason alone I hope it does well. MTGA I also hope succeeds.

     MTGA has a good chance to become a noticeable competitor. Artifact has no chance. It just targets a very different customer base.

    I still don't understand why Valve is denying a working model and gives no reward for playing their game. What next? MMO where the only way to gain XP and level up your character is to pay $?

    Is this is a part of some plan? Maybe... they'll make money from initial wave and then add a preplanned F2P system to pretend that they "listen to the community?" I know, It is a conspiracy theory level of thinking but I am just trying to find a rational explanation of this economic model.

     

    Posted in: Other Games
  • 1

    posted a message on Artifact

    BTW, right now on Twitch

    Artifact: 28 500 viewers
    Hearthstone: 23 500 viewers

    1) Artifact is very fresh
    2) There are popular streamers from other game there
    3) Many of those are hearthstone streamers
    4) It is the most boring period of hearthstone (last month of the expansion, midseason)

    It looks like mighty "killer of Hearthstone" underperforms

    Posted in: Other Games
  • 2

    posted a message on Artifact
    Quote from SneezingMeerkat >>
    Quote from Horkinger >>

     Stancifka apparently changes to solely stream Artifact. It's a little bit a pity since he is one of the few streamers I liked to watch playing hearthstone (even since I am not really playing hearthstone any more). He explains his plays pretty well and he is also a quite successful gamer (although he almost only shows his wins on youtube). Nevertheless, I cannot imagine to watch him playing artifact. The vids from Artifact gameplay I watched so far were boring as fuck. Not a game I am interested at all.

     The only reason I could think of somebody switching to solely stream Artifact after they grew their viewerbase from Hearthstone is simply that Valve is gonna be paying quite a bit to try and help promote the game (since the sheeple they've been paying to promote the game here on the forums haven't been working quite so well).

    I agree on Artifact looking boring as fuck, I think reydad said it best in one of his highlights where he basicly says that the game is just numbers, you play stuff and at the end of the turn everything just happens, it's just math. Reminds me a lot on Gwent.

     I think it is a strange move from him. I bet he lost of subscribes in social medias immediately. Smart thing to do would be say something like - "I am not playing Hearthstone till the next expansion, meta is too stale meanwhile I have Artifact that excites me"  then say "Well, expansion changed nothing, I'll try again after the rotation". This way he wouldn't lose subscribers immediately and actually had a chance to attract some of his current followers to Artifact.

    The way how he did it is like saying please unsubscribe from my youtube channel NOW to all hearthstone fans. Dubious move for a streamer.

    Posted in: Other Games
  • 1

    posted a message on Best deck for rank 3 to legend.

    Recruit hunter because it is the deck that you used to get to rank 3. There are no better answer. If you reached 3, you are piloting this deck well enough to get a legend

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 2

    posted a message on Artifact

    Watched kripp's video. Draft format with MMR. That literally means 50% winrate, right?. That means that good players won't actually get more benefits from buying tickets with cash? This is a "brilliant" part of their economic system. This kind of draft looks like a worse way to get cards than just buying packs.

    Assuming that I understand probabilities correctly and you have exact 50% winrate...

    You'll get zero wins in 25% of runs. | EV 0.25*(-1) = -0.25
    1 in 25% of runs | EV 0.25*(-1) = -0.25
    2 in 18.75% of runs | EV 0.1875*(-1) = -0.25
    3 in 12.5% of runs | EV 0.125*0 = 0
    4 in 7.8125% of runs | EV 0.078125 * 2 ~ 0.16
    5 in 10.9365%* of runs | EV 0.109356 * 4 ~ 0.44

    Total EV is -0.15. That's mean you are playing $0.15 to play a single draft.

    *It may look strange you are more likely to get 5 wins than 4. It is because  that includes unfinished 6-2, 7-2, 8-2, 9-2... runs. 5-2 in an unlimited run is only 4.6875%

    Posted in: Other Games
  • 1

    posted a message on Artifact

    Also, Artifact has a good chance to attract quite a lot of new players that never were interested in TCG before. Never underestimate power of Steam. Neither you should forget that $20 is only a starting price. Valve will sell it with a good discount at some point.

    I think it is stupid to say that Artifact is DoA. It will make money. A lot of money. But a huge chunk of that money will come from people who will try it, play for some time, get bored, sell cards and buy a new game for that money. It will still have a loyal "small" playerbase that will keep spending money on it.

    and requires more strategy and thought

    It requires more strategy and thought to play. Hearthstone needs no less strategy and thought to play well. It is amazing how marketing can turn a steep learning curve into an advantage.

    Also, I am not even sure that Artifact is as complex as they say. I was very surprised to learn that it has no mulligan. It is the most skill intensive stage in any TCG.  Going for no mulligan looks like a step to reduce number of meaningful decision not increase it.

     

    Posted in: Other Games
  • To post a comment, please login or register a new account.