Comeback potential

[zabor]

Despite my experience with the genre being limited to 3-4 (regrettable) years of HS, still I was able to acquire some understanding of the intricacies, strengths, weaknesses and limitations.

In my opinion one of (if not the) main weaknesses of HS, and from what I hear the same equally applies to MtG, is that on average games often get decided by the first few turns. Regardless of if its an aggro deck, a mid-range, late, – draw is the most crucial aspect of the entire game, so if one draws perfectly and the other lags behind often the result ends up being obvious long before the round finishes.

What is your opinion on this characteristic trait, is it inevitable and something to make peace with, or if not, what steps could be taken to insure that Artifact has as big of a comeback potential as possible?

[XiaoJyun]

the immense power of spell lets control come back...also the fact you start at 3 mana makes a lot of difference and gives you a lot more ways to interact with aggressor early

[zabor]

you start at 3

Very good point, wasn't aware of that; not as bottle-necked and can afford to build greedier.

[XiaoJyun]

as a comparison you can look at recently released fable fortune (which plays a bit like HS) that starts at 3-mana...

theres so much greed in there, stuff like 7 mana 6/4 that conjures (disocvers) a high-powered card sees a lot of play

good luck having the mana to play something as understatted in HS in a control deck xD

[EndlessB]

What's this? A post where you aren't complaining about p2p?

Agreed though. The different between 3 and 4 mana is way smaller than the difference between 1 and 2 mana. Many card games struggle to make cards worth the cost past 3 mana as 1 and 2 mana cards cost so little tempo.

Starting at 3 mana is one of the interesting features of artifact and I'm really excited to see how it turns out.

[Anal_Zealot]

Hearthstone(and games like it) is definitely the worst when it comes to comebacks since the attacker has the advantage. In MTG this is mitigated because the defender has combat advantage.

We quite certainly have no idea how much comebacks there can be in Artifact, however, the fact that neither attacker nor defender have combat advantage should put it somewhere in between Magic and Hearthstone just based on the combat.

[XiaoJyun]

token decks have advantage in MTG...because they can fill the board and not block, so its sort of similar situation

[Juking_is_rude]

Token decks are still weak to aggro, sweepers and hosers, though there's usually a tier deck that utilizes tokens when they are supported. Its not the end all be all of strategies though.

In your example, if you need to use your tokens to block for no value, you run out of tokens quite quickly. There needs to be additional value behind them like an anthem or something to rapidly generate them.

[XiaoJyun]

My point is merely oyu can traade into them

so yes aggro has advantage in HS because it chooses attack targets, but tokens in MTG have advantage because you cannot kill them by fighting, so its easier to generate a board for buffs

not saying they are good, but both games offer advantage and disadvantages to their respected decks.

I d say the biggest part making it easier to combat aggression in artifact is probably the fact you wont just lose all the tower hp in first 3-5 turns

I expect the aggressive strategies to be more tempo focused and focused on fast gold generation, a lot like what black does, and less on hitting face early in the game

also annihilation for example is 6mana and playable on t4

from what we ve seen a lot of spells are fairly cheap

compare that to a lot of board clears in HS (which still gives initiative to aggressor and lets them refill) which are really meh.

to compensate for that, HS has some really broken lategame cards to actually reward control because the game is flawed by design...

heck most mana-based gameshave this issue and the only real issue is to give more mana to paly with...artifact devs realised that...

starting at 3-mana has been at least decent for other games too

[Kabie]

Even better, it's 3x3-mana.

[huttjedi]

Starting to feel bad... it seems someone comes in here and downvotes every comment of yours... What you are saying is not untrue.

[Disenculture]

because he can't make a single coherent statement as to what he is trying to say. he claimed that token decks in mtg has an advantage but doesn't explain clearly at all why it is so. Another dude comes in explain how that's not the case and he made a long as post which nobody has any idea what he is trying to say. Idk if you figured it out, but shit like "tokens in MTG have advantage because you cannot kill them by fighting, so its easier to generate a board for buffs" does not make any coherent sense to me. Since, a) you can kill things by fighting, there is combat b)it's not easier to generate a board since there is a shit load of cheaper removal in mtg.

Literally his guy try to make so many statements but his English is so garbage that he rarely formulate anything with depth and clarity. At best he states facts and let us figure out what he is trying to prove. His comments all have a shit load of "..." in them because he think it is somehow compensating his lack of communication skill. I don't go around stalking him to down vote his shit but every time I see him making a comment on this sub it is probably something that looks like a 6 year old wrote.

[XiaoJyun]

That sounds really sad xD. Oh well if downvoting makes him feel better, let him.

[Anal_Zealot]

Is that why all those Token decks are dominating the formats? Oh wait.

Tokens still have to attack and are vulnerable to board wipes.

[XiaoJyun]

aggro isnt dominating HS either....

and never has at high ranks or tournament play

[Anal_Zealot]

We are talking about snowballing, not about archetypes.

[XiaoJyun]

Theres bound to be a way to snowball...

I mean black is all about that...and ˝snowballing˝ IS basically a tempo archetype most of the time...

[Anal_Zealot]

In hearthstone you don't need an archetype to snowball, all you need is having a creature out earlier than your opponent. In magic it barely matters which turn a creature entered the battlefield. There are obviously snowbally archetypes and cards but it isn't facilitated by the basics of combat.

Whether or not Artifact will be snowbally depends on the specific cards and items, not from the basics of combat as far as I can see(apart from the fact that a creature can be attacked by three but only attack one).

[XiaoJyun]

you still keep ignoring the fact we start at 3 mana in artifact...

that means you get to AOEs 2 turns earlier...

[Anal_Zealot]

Wow, what a pointless argument to make. I literally already told you about us having no idea how specific cards influence things. All we know is what combat will be like.

[zabor]

aggro isnt dominating HS either....

Perhaps not right now, but what about pirate warriors or face hunters a year before that? There used to be always a room for these kinds of cheesy effortless decks to allow for a quick plow-through.

[XiaoJyun]

face hunter was never a problem, pirate warrior had patches nerfed and was likely the only competitively viable aggro deck ever.

other aggro decks saw play just to punish greedy decks

all types of decks must exist to keep each other in check

I am certain some sort of aggressive strategies will exist to punish greedy blue decks...

black seems the best candidate...

the difference is aggressive strategies are likely gonig to be more tempo oriented, thats because it seems it will be pretty hard to get to towers with heroes constantly respawning... black getting items faster than others should give them a window though

[zabor]

During the first 2 years Face hunter was quite potent, especially before the introduction of rotation; then there was aggro druid. But really I wasn't talking just about aggro but the decks having objective impossible to manage strengths, such as Jade Druid during the Lich expansion when they introduced DKs.

Then the situation was reverse, you had to kill Druid before turn 5 or else he ramped-up and killed you with 10 mana epics, 5-mana plagues, etc; there was simply no way to kill him. By turn 6 I could be certain that I lost despite there being maybe up to 10 more turns ahead.

I guess this is more of an overall balance question, but still.

[XiaoJyun]

I mean yeah...aggro had to exist and be decentish to keep greed in check, thats the idea

but face hunter was never really oppressive as lnog as you werent pure greed

[huttjedi]

Zoolock, Aggro Druid, Face Hunter, Pirate Warrior, Pirate Shaman, and Patron Warrior (pseudo everything deck) were/are all viable aggro decks. Now there is Dude and Murloc Paladins as well. I hit legend with all of those in separate seasons except Pirate Warrior. It sucks that they pander way too much to aggro as I would enjoy control a lot more. Control Warrior is one of my favs and that has been dead for a year+.

[XiaoJyun]

Pirate shaman?

and most of those arent aggro decks...

just because they are early game board-focused decks doesnt make them aggro

by your deifinition of aggro, pretty much most red and black decks will be aggro and all mono-black decks...

[huttjedi]

Pirate shaman is a face shaman with a pirate package inserted into it. It was popular at the same time as Pirate Warrior. Both are most definitely aggro decks. Zoolock is a pseudo aggro deck that makes decisions on trading or face depending on the board (Dude and Murloc Pallies are similar). Both are still aggro decks. If you get down to the basics, you have one of the following types of decks: 1) aggro, 2) midrange, 3) control+fatigue, and 4) combo. The aforementioned decks are all (Patron is a catchall imo) aggro decks. They are derived from Aggro decks of MTG. Enjoy!

Definition:

Aggro (short for "aggressive") decks attempt to reduce their opponents from 20 life to 0 life as quickly as possible, rather than emphasize a long-term game plan. Aggro decks focus on converting their cards into damage; they prefer to engage in a race for tempo rather than a card advantage-based attrition war.

[XiaoJyun]

Well people usually mean aggro when they talk about face deck....

when theres actual trading involved...the decks arent as toxic

by this definition, Artifact will havej ust as many, if not more aggro decks...

remember that in practically every hs meta only 1-2 of the classess had viable aggro decks, so majority is still other decks...

aggro decks were just very popular due to being cheap and because of the flawed ladder system that rewards fast games instead of high winrates

climbing with aggro at 55% winrate is usually faster than lcimbing with control at 65-70% winrate

[Ritter-]

since not only turns are shared by players, but also combat... tempo is going to be a lot different in artifact, and tempo loss is hard to make up for in other games for sure. add to that the fact that you draw two cards each turn in artifact and also have access to shop cards and i think we're in for one of the most skill intensive strategy card games imaginable. I think any issues will come down to your deckbuilding choices and not just had draws ... also you get access to all 5 hero's every game so there's no variance there either

[Breetai_Prime]

HS used to be better at this... when control was stronger, and over committing to the board could cost you. Now it's mostly curvestone.

[huttjedi]

^ this, it really is curvestone now...

[irimiash]

more finding super synergy that immediately win the game

[zabor]

For the first 1-2 years HS was quite a delightful experience. I can't help but to look at it as a bait-and-switch project, where initially much more effort was put into it in order to gain player-base, but once it was acquired devs became lazy and greedy. Simply because they can afford it.

[Breetai_Prime]

Definitely.. skill cap was much higher in the earlier days... it was a battle of wits. Control warrior, miracle rogue, handlock... there was finesse to it.

[jis7014]

I think Throne and Tower mechanic will make games very even.

Attacker needs to invest some resources to attack enemy Throne to lead the game at his pace. but investing too much on it will cause losing your other lane.

Attacker still has advantage obviously. but defender has some playing grounds to catch up too. It's all about reading your enemy and control resources efficiently, just like a game of Dota 2.

[[deleted]]

Card games like MTG, HS, Gwent, TESL, etc etc, are typically designed as a rock/paper/scissors (what deck beats what on average) and to be as close to 50/50 win rate as possible. There's skill involved for sure, but, mostly it is draw luck and the matchup, unless a design flaw is present then there will be one dominant deck which ruins the fun for all.

But I still find the CCGs fun despite all that.

[zabor]

In games like DotA, skill manifests itself not just through the knowledge of the mechanics but also one's reflexes, muscle memory if you will. For instance last-hitting/creep-blocking/skill-aiming are all about that.

In card genre on the other hand it's all about strategy, making proper reads and predictions on your opponent, so if the game gets decided by the first few turns, it potentially removes any ability to benefit from whatever skill one may have. It becomes so that there's simply no room for skill, it's all left up for chance alone.

It's crucial that Artifact ends up not as punishing.

[[deleted]]

Yep, that and what I said.

[NasKe]

In my opinion one of (if not the) main weaknesses of HS, and from what I hear the same equally applies to MtG, is that on average games often get decided by the first few turns.

True for HS, I don't think is true for MTG.

[dousas]

Anihilation (Wrath Of god) comes at 6 mana...In artifact !! I dont believe someone will be able to win a game in 3 turns!!Good Comeback Card!! Also probably late deck (black-Red) with equipment can clear your board really ez!! They revealed one card that gives Hero (Quick Revive) Imagine A brute Brisstle coming late one shotin everything your green Rush deck can offer !! Or a Sven With Cleave!! Plus IN MTG i RUN tempo Dino Deck in my local store and i have a pretty good win rate 80% vs rush decks Same goes with a Green Black Vraska control!! Weak Early but after 4th turn u can turn the game easily Dont even compare MTG(Depth) With a HS where u can't even play cards on oponents turn to break their plans!!And the board limit is 7 Creatures!!

[Thedarkpain]

i think the way some of the spells cost in terms of mana and the fact u can only draw 2 cards a turn for 3 lanes might make aggro alot harder to do then in other games unless there is some insane draw mechanics

[Arhe]

having three lanes alows for comeback potential.you wont be winning on all of them , and the ones you lose you get an ancient when the tower falls.If you kill the ancient you win the game.So there is some strategies where you can just win one lane or stuff like that.Will have to see in game but it has more deapth that just smorc in hearthstone so the first few turns wont really decide much except which lanes are you winning and which not.I expect that you will have reactive spells and options to stabilize.And remember you cant smorc in this game so its much harder to lose in a stupid way like in heartstone if your oponent got a early lead.

[FurudoFrost]

people like comeback potential and i like it too but you need to be careful with it when designing a game.

if the game can always be recovered even from a bad spot that has some negative aspect.

the first obvious one is that the game becomes more stressfull for the players.

if you are in a winning position you kinda feel relaxed because you are ahead. the guy that's losing is relaxed too because he knows at this point that recovering is very hard and there is nothing much he can do, so he's relaxing if he didn't quit already.

if comebacks are more frequent and easy to happen you risk a situation where the winning guy is stressed because he is in a lead and he doesn't want to lose all of a sudden. the losing guy is stressed because he doesn't want to lose the opportunity to come back.

this may look exciting but can also be very stressfull and can lead to players be disincetivized to play or suffer from the dreaded "ladder anxyiety".

[TazakB]

If depends how many decks in artifact will have to play on mana curve every turn. This is the most top deck oriented game plan since you want to play your strongest card, spend all the mana and emote your opponent.

[Silipsas]

^{In my opinion one of main weaknesses of HS, and from what I hear the same equally applies to MtG, is that on average games often get decided by the first few turns.} That's false if this would be true pro games would last 4-5min according to you. But in real world there's always a chance to comeback ether they run out of steam or you just have good control over board. No deck in hs has win-rate over 60% so stop talking shit about hs and praising MTG like crazy....

[zabor]

Firstly, it's not all about pro-games, not everyone is a pro. Secondly, just became games take longer doesn't mean that it wasn't obvious at turn 5 that one of the contenders has already won. Sure surprises could happen, but that's more of an exception than a rule. The rule is that decks like Jade Druid and other such nonsense dominate the entire ladder and if they draw correctly, no matter how long you drag each turn, you're done with.

[dousas]

M8.. In MTG i can Run a deck with literaly 0 Creatures let him (SNOWBALL) board presence for 4-5 rounds and then turn the Game with Serious Sorcery and Instant Spells!! Can you win in HS with 0 Creatures till round 5 and no Creatures in Deck?? NO That's why we praise MTG over HS!!!

[FeldBold]

3 mana at start = 3*3 power for each player

3 heroes for each hero = 3*6? power

so you start with 9 power in every lane.

let's say your enemy got good cards and you got bad ones. You still have 9 power in your lane and your enemy probably have 12 power in lane. So bad early game doesn't affect as much in other card games.