He's not saying that artifacts are terrible; he's giving his opinion on how the design philosophy behind them should work. His title is a bit misleading but that's what nets the extra views.
In a nutshell he's saying:
1) Mastercrafted spear and wyvern scaled shield are not good design
2) Alot of the other artifacts are good design
3) Artifact removal makes the outcome of games too binary; it doesn't have its place in the game
He has an interesting proposal. Not sure if I completely agree but his suggestion is worth pondering.
In a nutshell he's saying:
1) Mastercrafted spear and wyvern scaled shield are not good design
2) Alot of the other artifacts are good design
3) Artifact removal makes the outcome of games too binary; it doesn't have its place in the game
He has an interesting proposal. Not sure if I completely agree but his suggestion is worth pondering.
I really like what he had proposed. Brilliant actually. Artifacts should be seen as a premium non-interactable cards (with extra cost in provisions) that should only be played around. So, no one needs to feel bad for not having artifact removal or having it and not drawing it. Same goes for those who uses it and gets removed as the opponent is lucky enough to have and draw the removal.
Without removal, there shouldn't be any powerful artifact engines. If an artifact seems to provide too much value than its provision, it can be balanced.
I think this would be a great step for Gwent.
Without removal, there shouldn't be any powerful artifact engines. If an artifact seems to provide too much value than its provision, it can be balanced.
I think this would be a great step for Gwent.
I very often agree with Freddy, but not this time. I fully disagree. He says "They should be playing out like other cards in the game" (agreed!) and then continues saying "just with the added caveat of being protected points" (disagree, that's contradictory, that's not like other cards!). He also says (paraphrasing) that the premise of artifacts is that artifacts aren't interactable like your normal units that damage and boost each other. That is not entirely correct, because there is artifact removal and this is quite similar to all or nothing big removal cards like Geralt of Rivia and Leo Bonhart. It seems that because artifact removal is so crappy binary, he has come to the conclusion that artifacts should not be removed at all, making artifacts not binary but unary! In my opinion that is the wrong direction of thinking, but understandable due to the binary nature of artifact removal.
Non-interactable cards are bad because they reduce the strategy aspect and diversity of the game. Interactiveness is a core principle of every strategy game, otherwise you may just play solitaire, darts (or Big Woodland pointslamming
) and see who finishes first/highest.
I believe the change CDPR made to MC Spear and Wyvern Scale Shield was really good (refreshing their ability when unit is played). For all artifacts, artifacts should become part of the main game with units instead of the binary artifact removal side game: Artifacts should get armor and then the decision will be if it's worth it to spend damage points on removing an artifact's armor (indirect points) or to spend these damage points on removing points from a unit (direct and possibly indirect points if an engine). That would remove the binary artifact removal gambling side game completely and make the game much more interesting.
Non-interactable cards are bad because they reduce the strategy aspect and diversity of the game. Interactiveness is a core principle of every strategy game, otherwise you may just play solitaire, darts (or Big Woodland pointslamming
) and see who finishes first/highest.I believe the change CDPR made to MC Spear and Wyvern Scale Shield was really good (refreshing their ability when unit is played). For all artifacts, artifacts should become part of the main game with units instead of the binary artifact removal side game: Artifacts should get armor and then the decision will be if it's worth it to spend damage points on removing an artifact's armor (indirect points) or to spend these damage points on removing points from a unit (direct and possibly indirect points if an engine). That would remove the binary artifact removal gambling side game completely and make the game much more interesting.
Last edited:
In my favourite card game ever Nightbanes (now bankrupt and deleted) the mechanics for artifacts was:
*each artifacts has between 1 and 6 "structure points"
*artifact removal cards destroy "structure points" 1-3 every turn or on deploy or of all artifacts on deploy. Some legendary cards with ability to destroy all artifacts (including own) but it could be prevented.
*artifact removal units had sometimes defensive abilities as "tenacity" (needs to be killed 3 times because it resurects itself on the same spot, but had 1 hp), "evasion" (evades all effects excluding direct hits... so like in gwent could be hit only by deploy abilities), "diamond skin" (a fixed chance to ingore a direct hit damage but not effects), "flying" (evades direct hits of non flying units) and more... - so it was not 100% stright forward to remove some of artifacts removal units, but also not too difficult. Some artifacts had artifact removal abilities...
*some artifacts had one 'weakened' ability but one 'restore 1 structure point every turn' - so they were "tank" artifacts to make other artifacts survive the removal, because you couldn't pick which one you want to destroy. So rng was smart.
I think it was very well designed.
PS. there were 7 types of cards when in gwent only 5 (leader, unit, artifact, special card, row weather), and each of them had a well designed interactions. 3 times more cards than in gwent and way more unique abilities. Diversity, Variety.
(also 8 factions not 5 and more clear + visually attractive cards design than in gwent imo...)
I mean, if you didn't want to use artifacts - fine. But if you did, it was also fine, because of fair way of removal, and preventing removal, and 4 side synergies...
*each artifacts has between 1 and 6 "structure points"
*artifact removal cards destroy "structure points" 1-3 every turn or on deploy or of all artifacts on deploy. Some legendary cards with ability to destroy all artifacts (including own) but it could be prevented.
*artifact removal units had sometimes defensive abilities as "tenacity" (needs to be killed 3 times because it resurects itself on the same spot, but had 1 hp), "evasion" (evades all effects excluding direct hits... so like in gwent could be hit only by deploy abilities), "diamond skin" (a fixed chance to ingore a direct hit damage but not effects), "flying" (evades direct hits of non flying units) and more... - so it was not 100% stright forward to remove some of artifacts removal units, but also not too difficult. Some artifacts had artifact removal abilities...
*some artifacts had one 'weakened' ability but one 'restore 1 structure point every turn' - so they were "tank" artifacts to make other artifacts survive the removal, because you couldn't pick which one you want to destroy. So rng was smart.
I think it was very well designed.
PS. there were 7 types of cards when in gwent only 5 (leader, unit, artifact, special card, row weather), and each of them had a well designed interactions. 3 times more cards than in gwent and way more unique abilities. Diversity, Variety.
(also 8 factions not 5 and more clear + visually attractive cards design than in gwent imo...)
I mean, if you didn't want to use artifacts - fine. But if you did, it was also fine, because of fair way of removal, and preventing removal, and 4 side synergies...
Last edited:
That sounds like way too much of an artifact side game to me. In Gwent it is already too much. Move artifacts into the main game!
Yah 1 type of cards and just throwing them out in the same order all the time, that would be the perfect gwent. Only units whatsoever.
Last edited:
Non-interactable cards are bad because they reduce the strategy aspect and diversity of the game. Interactiveness is a core principle of every strategy game, otherwise you may just play solitaire, darts (or Big Woodland pointslamming
True, which is why artifacts are garbage. You either carry and draw removal or you do not. If you do artifacts are bad cards. If you do not they can generate too much value. It's bad design. Not just because of the value variance but because only one type of card can interact with artifacts.
I'd agree except the implementation is poor. Carry-over of pings on spears and shields shouldn't be a thing. It creates too much of a problem when multiple shields and spears are in use, either pushing too many units into or out of kill range. Case and point, Crach with a double spear setup. If they get this setup going and the other player has no removal they can deal 5 damage in a single turn, every other turn, and four on the turns Crach is down, minus the first. It's arguably worse compared to what Eithne used to be able to do, and that was nerfed into the ground.
Armor for artifacts might fix some problems but it sounds pointless. An artifact with armor is almost identical to a unit based engine. The only difference is the former would be vulnerable to both normal control and artifact removal, but invulnerable to resets and specific removals. The game doesn't really need two different types of engines like this. Yes, it's possible to make it work. Unfortunately, possible and likely are two completely different things. Given the recent spear/shield adjustment, and the resulting ping carry-over, I find it unlikely.
I’ve been noticing more and more people playing more artifacts than units because of the massive amount of removal. there needs to be a provision limit on special cards.
I hope you’re being sarcastic. That would be the worst strategic card game ever!
Post automatically merged:
I am an ex-MTG (Magic The Gathering) player. Having artifact and artifact removal cards seems fairly standard to me even in a simpler game like HC (compared to MTG) as both have similar strategic nature. Including an artifact removal unit or units (that gives you points as well) in your deck and not using their temoval ability because your opponent doesn’t play artifacts is like running Geralt and not using his 8+ unit removal ability because your oponent doesn’t have 8+ units. I could give many more examples. Also your oponent has to think about running artifact removals against you, not knowing if you have arifacts in your deck. I won with artifacts in my deck against people with artifact removals, I lost against people without removals. There are choices to be made. There is plenty of great artifact removal cards. There are many other things to consider in deck building eg. mass removsl vs big unit removal, removal/damage vs point slam/boost, combos (including leaders - where running into Usurper is a problem) etc. Don’t blame artifacts (already heavily re-ballanced) for lack of deck-builing skill or because they require decision-making. I say don’t change them any further. I’d even say add more and equally add removal options (although there is already plethora of great removal cards). They bring much needed versatility, diversity and strategic element.
Last edited:
I fully agree. I find Crach and all the artifacts and SK units that ping just terribly lame design. Armor for artifacts would at least be a step in the right direction. You may be asking for too many steps at once.
As I tried to explain, with artifacts with armor you would have to make a decision if you want to spend your removal on removing an artifact or wait for a unit that you want to remove. That is also a strategic choice, but doesn't require an artifact "side game".
Oh, it would definitely be an improvement. I don't place fault with the idea. To be blunt, I'm more concerned about CDPR's ability to properly implement it. I do not say this to be inflammatory toward the developers either. I call them how I see them
. Personally, I don't tend to run artifacts in Crach. Primarily because, honestly, Crach doesn't need spear pings. If you manage leader pings correctly and run a proper build bloodthirst will come. Yes, people can block it. They can only do so for so long. Instead of burning 7-14 provisions on spears I'd rather run more powerful cards and brick artifact removal.
Again, it would be an improvement. It's a good idea. I recall when this game did not have artifacts and, overall, it was better off. Artifacts are far too linear. I have exactly zero expectations this will change.
I am sorry but I don’t understand what you mean by ‘side game’. I guess it’s the same as ‘Make artifacts part of the main game’ statement I’ve seen elsewhere. As far as I am concerned there is no main game and side game, there is the game and artifacts are in it. Same as for example weather, or would you like to damage and eventually kill the fog? Or how about immune units? Also ‘side game’? I don’t have much time to play. I made it from Rank 15 to 8 this season so far with a SC deck. Haven’t had any problem with oponents playing artifacts, unlike those with tall and deadwish units. But I welcome the challenge, they are part of the game.
Last edited: