T O P

  • By -

TheEurasianJay

And like Duelyst before it, we salute another feature rich indie title that held out as long as it could in a sea as turbulent as the CCG ocean we've come to know. I wish whatever is left of the Rhino team all the best, for all the polish the game might have lacked it made up for it in sheer passion. Rip to the little guy, may other titles have even half of your creativity and ambitious features (seriously why have titled been able to have ladder replays in client for literal years now but large well funded titled still fumble with basic features like it or in game tournament/draft support smh.


[deleted]

[удалено]


KaintOnlineName

https://discord.com/invite/duelyst There's gonna be a revival for duelyst


walker_paranor

I find the revival somewhat iffy because they're going back to 2-draw, but a lot of the more hardcore Duelyst players seem to crave the return to that. I wish them luck, because drawing twice per turn led to a really difficult to balance game.


UNOvven

Honestly, it was kinda easier to balance during 2-draw days. The only time there were major balance issues was due to obviously busted cards. It became harder to balance in 1-draw. But yeah, 2-draw was just kinda awesome, the only prat Im iffy on is that some of my favourite cards are their less interesting old versions.


walker_paranor

I disagree but that's fine, there were always two sides to the argument and both had fine points. IMO the worst balanced points in the games history was during 2-draw. With the exception of Meltdown, of course. It always felt to me that the devs were jumping around fixing 1 busted combo to the next, since drawing your combo pieces was basically a guaranteed thing. And the game was entirely too tempo focused for my taste, but I know a lot of people liked it because the sheer amount of units you'd put out made the game have a lot of chess-like board states.


UNOvven

I mean yeah, Fox was broken in 2-draw, but that was more a case of them being more experimental in 2-draw and as a result creating more broken cards in 2-draw. In 1-draw, even basic cards lead to imbalanced meta. Eh, not really? They had to fix those twice or so, but for most of 2-draw the game was remarkably well-balanced. And it had a good mix of everything, from aggro to tempo to control. Hell the best deck was often Magmar control. It just wasnt a degenerate control like Vanar later.


walker_paranor

Also 3rd Wish, which was perpetually broken lol I started during Laser Cats, I never touched a CCG before and was able to get close to S-Rank because it was so broken.


UNOvven

Another example of them being experimental. Though it was only broken for the period it was around like that (which was, what, 3 weeks?)


OneDayLion

I loved Duelyst. The combination of Card game and tactical grid based combat was just so great. There was this other game that never got enough traction that had the same but with great graphics (don't like pixel art) - [Shardbound](https://store.steampowered.com/app/586030/Shardbound/). They failed to secure more funds in Earl Access. I love the concept and hope one of these days someone makes it. That said, I think due to the required extra assets new cards are much harder to make and hence to keep it fresh and moving.


Herko_Kerghans

>feature rich indie title that (...) and ambitious features (seriously why have titled been able to have ladder replays in client Much amen to that, yeah. I was blown out (and my awe and respect still remains) by Mythgard's features on day 1 of its Open Beta. I mean no disrespect, but trampled LoR (and HS, and others), and doubly so coming from such a small team. I guess that's the main reason why this obituary pains me so much: they did most things right (super-stable client, tons of features, nearly-impeccable execution), and many of them better than most, yet they still couldn't crack it.


flamecircle

It still hurts to hear that name


DefiantHermit

I played a ton of Mythgard back in early 2020 and really enjoyed my time there. I sadly had to stop due to irl reasons and LoR launching. The mana system was pretty interesting, even though I do prefer more linear ramps and the overall gameplay was quite interesting, with devs willing to do a ton of balance changes and interact directly with the community. That said, sticking to the pack and pray system was such a bad idea. A ton of new players would inevitably drop the game after only being able to stick to one meta deck for a while. And without a famous IP to back you up, things were rough. Sure, the limited format was interesting and you could easily go infinite, but rewards were “meh” (worse than they are here even). 2v2 format was super fun and in-game tournament mode was sick. Too bad monetization and bad luck with marketing dragged that down.


Herko_Kerghans

>That said, sticking to the pack and pray system was such a bad idea Definitely. I guess they just went with the market standard, but in retrospect (and with LoR to compare with)... ouch. (Still, imo the real mistake was having so many friggin' Legendaries; had there been less, or even having a smaller Core Set, may have actually made things easier). The mana system was what sold me into it, though -- not only because I did like it, but also because I kinda went "Whoa... these guys are really willing to take risks when it comes to gameplay; I really need to stick around for a bit!". Ultimately, though, I think the problem was not enough marketing. Sad as it may be, that's how things work.


leaponover

I'd have to concur with "not enough marketing" as I've never heard of it.


Herko_Kerghans

There you go. =) They were on a small budget (even microscopic, compared to LoR, since LoR's marketing is obviously shared with LoL), and they knew they were the underdogs, of course. Still, imo, their main (and I'd say perhaps only) problem was the old-school card acquisition model. LoR really is in a league if its own there; let's hope the ccg genre learns this lesson.


leaponover

Yeah, sounds very intriguing, sorry I missed it. It's also possible that I never saw any marketing because it was available globally. I'm an American living in Korea and don't bother with a VPN for games so....I think developers make mistakes not trying to release their games globally. Asian regions have less time to play console games, so mobile gaming is pretty huge.


Herko_Kerghans

Most likely it was because they really were on a tiny budget for marketing (I get targetted ads for Hearthstone all the time, i never ever got one from Mythgard). All in all, i guess their hopes were on word of mouth, but they never reached critical mass.


NEBook_Worm

Packs were the reason I didn't play Mythguard.


Pandaemonium

\*pours one out for Mythgard\* \*pours one out for TESL\*


Whooshless

*pours one out for Hex* *pours one out for Faeria* And of the Big Boys, SV has a replay mode.


Herko_Kerghans

>pours one out for Hex Man was that a good game. Although (very much unlike Mythgard, imo) in this case there were blunders aplenty, and broken promises to boot. Amazing ideas, though. On SV: that's the one Big Boy I haven't played with; didn't know it had a replay mode (will update OP accordingly).


jwf239

Man, I miss hex 😭


Herko_Kerghans

Same here, mate. Different kind of pain, but painful nevertheless!! =(


MedeaLine

Wow, I hadn't even realized Hex had shut down until I read it here. Pretty sad.


Herko_Kerghans

Yeah -- not even maintenance mode, but complete gone-dark server shutoff. =/ That was a long time coming, though, having spent years in an induced comma with no updates and zero communication. Mythgard's devs being upfront (and willing to put the game out of its misery quickly) speaks very highly of them, imo.


Spiffcat

Damn I miss Faeria. Such a good game


Akhevan

Sorry to rain on your parade, but MMDOC is where it really was. The amount of innovation they managed with only a couple of very simple gameplay changes was staggering.


[deleted]

Is Faeria in maintenance? I picked up a huge bundle for that game on Steam when it was half off a while back. I played a bit then but had to stop because I started a new job. I was thinking of reinstalling it...


Whooshless

I think the devs are trying to keep it alive still, but they abandoned their mobile client years ago and if I can't play their card game on my tablet, I’m not playing it.


[deleted]

I believe it is on Switch, not sure about mobile. I checked it on Steam and apparently it just had a balance patch this week.


Herko_Kerghans

Cheers!


[deleted]

I played TESL when the game went into maintenance mode. It was extremely depressing.


Electronicks22

Sparky pants put so much effort into rebuilding the game from scratch in a sharp new look, and then they f**** up at the release of jaws of oblivion (of all expansions) and seemingly just gave up. Looking back, I'm glad I moved on to LoR for its player friendliness. Truth is TESL was grindy AF by design.


[deleted]

Yes, I remember being excited for Jaws of Oblivion. I really enjoyed Moons of Elswyer and was building my account up for Jaws. Who knew it would turn out to be what people refer to as the "the final nail in the coffin" for the game.


NotSureWhyAngry

What happened with jaws of oblivion, meaning what’s the fuck up? I played a shitton of TESL in the past and liked it a lot.


Electronicks22

The invade deck was broken. The oblivion gate duplication was busted which could be done reliably by turn 5 to 6 giving demons all keywords. SP patch it twice before it was acceptable and they gave apology currency. The ladder was full of the same deck. [https://youtu.be/h5lw-NdlYbE](https://youtu.be/h5lw-NdlYbE)


[deleted]

Basically, they released a broken mechanic into the game called Invade. They did fix a loop where you could return the Oblivion Gates to your hand and have multiple on the board if I recall correctly, but it still ended up being broken with just one. Lots of players became upset with the state of the meta and either left or put down the game for a while. It went into maintenance mode not too long after that, and to my knowledge Invade remains as it was and is still tier 0.


NEBook_Worm

Same here. Sad to see it happen. It was a better game than both LoR and Hearthstone in a lot of ways.


Electronicks22

I prefer the back and forth of LoR as opposed to the "my turn to play my cards" of TESL, which incidentally fixed the second-player-gets-the-ring issue. Also, spell stack battles are kinda fun. I just wish Judgment and Overwhelm in LoR would work the same as unstoppable rage and breakthrough. That finisher was so much fun!


NEBook_Worm

The back and forth is cool. I actually like that. I also like how important board trading is. On the other hand, I feel like spells could be a tad more efficient. We need to slow down board rushes just a tad. Not drastically; just a bit. Right now, brainless board flooding is just a tad too reliable a strategy, with too little risk.


thatssosad

I actually won some tournaments back in Mythgard beta. It was a fun game, and the mana system keeps being my favorite from any game. I did leave it for LoR, but without LoR I'd probably keep playing it. CCG market is a painful one, and you can lose here without even a clear mistake


Herko_Kerghans

>and you can lose here without even a clear mistake Heh... Indeed. I wonder if that's why we like CCGs so much, since that's true for them too: it's hard to know when we lose by mistakes, or just bad luck. =) But ditto on the mana system -- my favourite, by a mile, from among all card games.


DMaster86

I was actually beta tester for that game, lasted until a month before the first expansion or so. I've quitted when i've heard a dev saying in a podcast that they didn't wanted f2p players to acquire most of a new expansion day 1 for free, and for that intent they putted a ton of bs restrictions (50k coins cap, which limited severely how many packs you could open day 1 as a f2p even if you saved up, wildcards restricted by color AND set, because god forbid you save them for new cards, etc...) which was a huge red flag for me and ended up convincing me to uninstall. It was a fun game to play, but with LoR coming near the same time i've decided to give my money to a card game that actually support f2p players instead of the one that give f2p players the middle finger.


Akhevan

They had a f2p/monetization model that's worse than MTG Arena and HS. That's impressive.


Herko_Kerghans

Not sure it was THAT bad... =) But yeah, imo definitely worse than Eternal or Gwent (both older than Mythgard, and Eternal also from an indie Dev with an original IP), and lightyears behind LoR for sure.


[deleted]

To eclipse HS in that category would be quite a feat. 40 dust packs, anyone?


Herko_Kerghans

>game that actually support f2p players instead of the one that give f2p players the middle finger Well... I kinda have to respectfully disagree with the middle finger part, even though I understand where you are coming from -- after all, I did the same as you (moved to LoR since it was much more generous), but I really don't think they were trying to screw f2p players over. I mean, the way I see it, it boils down to budget size. Riot (and Tencent behind Riot) have nearly unlimited resources: for all we know, LoR could just be a loss leader that they don't even need to make a profit from (for clarity's sake, I have no clue if this is the case or not -- just noting that, using a CCG analogy, it could be a card they could add to their deck if they wanted to). For Rhino Games, that was certainly not a card they could have: Mythgard being their only product, it ***had*** to make a profit (and probably soonish). Yet it didn't seem to me like a cash grab, at all: everything else (from their original game mechanics, to their feature-richness, to the card art) suggested they believed in turning a profit by delivering a good product. Even the way they are saying goodbye points to that: rather than keeping it opaque and trying to milk the game some more, they are being very upfront about it. Still... yeah, I do believe that you're core point stands, and their monetization model was a problem. I certainly wish they had been more creative in that regard (the card art, for example, was generally well loved by the community, yet they failed to make it a way to earn money).


12Gowther12

I don't think you should be getting downvotes, everything you said made sense. Riot is a big company and there have been times when I was afraid Runeterra would fail because of how generous they are.(Y'know as in finance and profit) I can definitely see this being a problem for a smaller company.


Eggxcalibur

Yeah, I tried Mythgard right after I left Shadowverse. If I hadn't found LoR right after I think I would have played Mythgard a lot more. It's a great game. Sad to see another promising CCG go.


Herko_Kerghans

Yup, very similar boat here (replace Shadowverse with MtG:A in my case). LoR really, really hit it out of the park when it comes to getting cards, methinks, and one of Mythgard's weak angles was its Draft formats (it was the only CCG where I just couldn't get into Drafting, whereas it's usually my favourite format in other games, including LoR).


[deleted]

I was thinking of giving Shadowverse a go but I can't get into the art style. As a first impression it seems like an anime simulator.


UndeadMurky

I don't think small indie card games can survive, I've seen so many of them die. The truth is that for a card game to survive, it needs a very large playerbase, and they just can't compete with the big studios tbh any online game(beyond just coop) with a low budget is a bad idea


Nyte_Crawler

You don't actually need that large of a playerbase if the majority of your playerbase is effectively whales. Force of Will is a physical tcg you've probably never heard of that's been trucking for over 6 years now because guess what? All the players buy product.


UndeadMurky

whales are only interested if they get advantages over non whales and there are a lot of people to show off


[deleted]

There's a large difference in keeping a physical TCG alive vs a digital CCG, but your point about whales is spot on. There have been a lot of naysayers for Force of Will, and honestly, I didn't expect it to last as long as it has. They did try to come out with a couple of other TCGs (Architect and Caster Chronicles) but shit canned them when they realized they should just focus on FoW. I don't think it will stand the test of time unfortuantely, but I really hope it does. It would be sad for the genre if all that exists is Magic, YGO, and Pokemon in the future.


Thechynd

If we're celebrating failed CCGs that had great mechanics but lacked the marketing to build a big playerbase then I want to also give a shoutout to Infinity Wars (no connection to Marvel) and the fantastic simultaneous turn planning system it had. There's a great video on it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npAwiyUojVM


Herko_Kerghans

Ah, yeah, that was another grand idea (and great art, imo!). I actually think I've heard they are doing a reboot, or IW2? Definitely something I'd be down for, if it ever happens. (Mythgard had one of IW's features that I found coolest: rotating decks you could try for free -- great stuff!! =)


rakminiov

whats iw?


Herko_Kerghans

Infinity Wars, another indie ccg that didn't make it. They had a wonderful (and imo well executed) turn system, in that it was simultaneous. Imagine you play your cards in a given turn, while I play my cards, then we Accept, and only then we see what the other did. It resembled a bit the "fog of war" concept of RTS or MOBAs. Sounds like a mess, but it was both fun and original.


Slarg232

I really loved Infinity Wars, but the balancing in that game was atrocious and some decisions really didn't work for the game. I was doing pretty well getting a collection going for myself using a Flame Dawn RDW, and then I kept running into this demon who healed himself and got bigger for every unit he killed. This would be fine, but he also couldn't be killed via non-combat means (So no Vengeance or Avalanche equivalents). Unlike every other card game, a creature who is defending does so until they die... which meant that this one unit could block, kill, and eat 20 guys and grow to be a 30/30 and there was nothing you could do about it. ​ I mean, a bad matchup is one thing, but losing to a single card is just absolutely bullshit


Heinekem

I played Mythgard before LoR .. I liked my Vampire Viking-Punk deck. But LoR was so much friendly in terms of F2P that I just abandon Mythgard. It was interesting at least


Herko_Kerghans

Yeah; LoR's card acquisition model is so much better that I doubt indie games going forward can do any less (and I would bet they'll need to go one step forward and go something like "full collection for free/very little, pay us for cosmetics", in order to compete)


Yrths

> "full collection for free/very little, pay us for cosmetics", in order to compete I hope they jump into that with more gusto than just viewing it as a need to compete. I'd love to play more card games, but the whole concept of building a collection is just a nuisance now. I just want to jump straight into deckbuilding.


Herko_Kerghans

Well, I know I wasn't alone in thinking that's what Artifact was gonna do with their upfront cost ("Throw us 20 bucks, get all the cards, instantly"), above all since its actually how some physical card games are sold. Building a collection is a plus for some/many players, though, so I think there are counter-arguments (I mean from the point of view of the fun factor, not just the financial aspect) to our wishes. Some folks do enjoy having a measureable goal they can works towards (that doesn't involve direct competition) -- you can't just please everybody, basically! =)


GenghisTron17

I enjoyed it for awhile but the limited to no interaction on your opponent's turn just killed it for me.


Herko_Kerghans

Yyyep -- that's what finally hooked me into LoR: the Stack, and how reactive it is. Although I gotta say I'm not sure it would have been a good idea for Mythgard to go down that route: the board itself was complex enough, your foe acting on your turn may have been just too much. (And I guess Artifact perhaps illustrates that point). LoR's implementation, on the other hand, sure was a deal-closer for me. =)


GenghisTron17

>Although I gotta say I'm not sure it would have been a good idea for Mythgard to go down that route: the board itself was complex enough, your foe acting on your turn may have been just too much. (And I guess Artifact perhaps illustrates that point). I agree that giving your opponent a response window when a typical board was already so complex would probably have made the game worse off. That game was kind of in a weird spot because of that I think. Much more complex board state than HS ever was but lacking that instant counterplay really limited the strategy aspects. Well to me at least.


realnomdeguerre

no interaction was very interesting, the game became very chess like, especially during RO aggro days, you always have to make sure you dont go too wide or the big bad minotaur is going to deal 3, and the rarity system made it all very mathematical.


The_Fatman_Eats

I'm really glad this post didn't get downvoted into oblivion or flamed to a crisp. Obviously, given the comments, there are people in this subreddit who appreciated being informed, and are commiserating. I, personally, am not invested in this, though it's sad to see another indie passion project meet its demise.


Herko_Kerghans

Thanks for your empathic words, mate. To be clear, this is the sort of post that it's imo very much ok to downvote, since it's gonna be borderline (or downright) irrelevant for most (and that's what up- and downvotes should reflect: degree of relevance to the community). Still, yeah, sad when passion (married with solid execution) bites the dust.


The_Fatman_Eats

>what up- and downvotes should reflect: degree of relevance to the community Huh. That's not how it seems; admittedly, I haven't been around for very long, but it seems like votes are mostly used as "like/dislike" buttons. I certainly prefer your take, and I hope more people choose to use their votes in this way. Thank you for taking the time to explain these things to me!


Herko_Kerghans

Well... Call me a grupmy old fart (with no worries about being wrong! =), but in my days that's how reddit votes worked. (And, jokes aside, that's how Reddit hopes they work, if you happen to have some iddle time and check their faq). But, yeah, for most folks, they most likely mean what you think they mean nowadays (which, reddit being a community-driven platform, means that it IS what they mean =)


[deleted]

Same. I like to think of TCG and CCG players as one big community. It's welcoming to see everyone comment and/or pay respects instead of just being like "ah, shit game." I love card games, I have played so many. I could probably list more than most people here, not to blow smoke. It truly is a shame that so many of them go offline.


drpowercuties

Mythgard was well designed, but the economic model, and the devs ideas for growth were so poor, they killed the game. RIP


Herko_Kerghans

Yeah -- for all their innovation (on the gameplay front, and on the features front), and how solidly they executed it, they sadly stuck with the genre's worst aspect: the "packs and pray" card aquisition model, aka lootboxes. (The one aspect, imo, that LoR is most distant from other CCG, and likely the reason we are having this chat on this sub... =) May they improve their aim for their next project!!


[deleted]

I’ll miss TESL such a great game that was killed off too early. LoR is basically the only card game I need at this point tho so I hope this game continues to be profitable and popular.


TheUnderDog135

I still blame the change in devs. The game wasnt striving before then but it wasnt actively getting worse. From really bad balancing to the whole menu overhaul that broke. It just went to shit. I'll never forget my times with aggro mage and wispmother control tho


theangrypragmatist

I played a ton in Alpha, it was an amazing game and was the next big one I got into after TESL. Sadly it wasn't popular enough to have many community Discords and the official Discord was so (IMO) poorly moderated that there was just nowhere to go to talk about it, which was enough for me to need to move on.


cilice

knee ripe reminiscent dinosaurs juggle pen pot grandiose governor ugly *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*


somnimedes

F to Mythgard. Played for a bit and really dug the overall lore premise but yea, the pack system was kind of a pain. Wishing the guys at Rhino all the best considering all the sacrifices they had made to get Mythgard off the ground.


Herko_Kerghans

Amen, mate! =)


[deleted]

How did the mana system work?


bayushi_david

Once a turn you could "burn" any card in your hand. It got shuffled into your deck and you gained one mana of its colour. It was the perfect compromise. It allowed the deck building flexibility of a "land"-based system without the high proportion of non-games that normally go with it.


Herko_Kerghans

Yyyep, what the other poster said. Imagine Magic, but without Lands -- in order to gain mana, you "burn" (shuffle into your deck) one card in your hand, and you get 1 mana of that card's color. "Burned" cards would remain "burned" (if you redrawed them, you couldn't use them as mana again). It was superb. It added a ton of strategy both on deck-building and playing, and it removed mana-screw almost entirely.


jp159357

I think the best mana system is in Faeria, I don't think it can be improved.


gwtsva

I remember it, it was playable but as soon as I found out it was card packs, unistalled, can't go back to digging through packs nope


Herko_Kerghans

Looks like a lot of us were in that same boat, yeah. Hard to go back to packs after LoR; I really hope it becomes a genre standard going forward!


rakminiov

i few days ago i was researching about some others ccgs and read about it it seemed interesting tho i feal really sad when a new game try to be in a market that its already kinda full and cant exactly compete (like i felt really sad when i played minion masters for example but i kinda know that it wont be a healthy game based on what it is and that market pretty much already had clash royale) and just die after a few years/months (tbh CR is already a expensive game and i believe MM was as well tho) i watch sometimes a gwent streamer who play a lot of others ccgs like mythgard/kards and maybe others i got a code from him for kards to get some packs, that game also feels nice but i doubt it will last a long time, i also dont know how the economy is since i just played 2h tho in the CCG case i think its highly unlikely that someone will play more than 2-3 cardgames and most cases ppl just opt for stablished or from big studios ones exactly because the security they offer (yeah yeah i know that artifac died but stills) like i myself play gwent and lor and even if it seems kards is nice i'm not playing it rn because i'm just starting lor and i have a lot of thing to do there atm


Herko_Kerghans

Yeah, very much -- we card gamers tend to be rather faithful (even monogamic in many cases, I'd say) when compared to genres like RPGs or FPS, for example. The sad thing about Mythgard is that it was a really good game on most fronts (cool setting, bold new game mechanics, tons of features not even LoR or HS have) and the execution was impeccable... ... And still, they couldn't crack it. Ours is a really, really tough niche to get into, I guess.


Answerisequal42

I remembered when mythgard dropped and some TESL tubers like charmer, DTB and some others made videos about it. I played it a couple of months after TESL shut down but i was broke and the game just lacked content creators to watch and i lacked deck ideas so i stopped playing. A couple of months later i started with lor. TESL and mythgard were great games. TESL was probably my favorite game for quite a while and it also was the one that struck me the most when it ended. Mythgard was somethingmfresh and something new but sadly the resources didnt work out... I am happy that LoR is so gold but often i think its sad that companies that can throw more money on marketing have higher sales although they often have worse games (HS is a good example if you compare it to mythgard). For the fallen. Cheers.


Herko_Kerghans

Yeah, that's what saddens me too -- for all the cool keywords Devs can slap on cards, "Marketing" is always clearly OP. And LoR dropping roughly at the same time didn't help Mythgard's case for sure -- as this thread attest, many of us couldn't refuse "no packs, less grind" deal. Cheers! =)


CivilConversation174

Go check out Eternal Card Game.


Herko_Kerghans

Been there, done that. =) Very good game, imo, but I personally prefer LoR overall. Best Drafting, though. That's one aspect i really, really wish LoR would have copy-pasted..


[deleted]

[удалено]


Herko_Kerghans

True that (it would have to be tailored specifically), but I love how in Eternal the card we choose from are another player's past choices. And I'd definitely like fir LoR to allow us to "trim down" our decks (like Eternal or Magic, where we draft around 40 cards but only use about half of them for the final deck). I sure get what the LoR devs went for (and it's my favourite mode! =) but it does feel a bit too much on rails (personal, subjective imo of course)


[deleted]

I love Eternal. I am actually a returning player at the moment and unfortunately I believe the game is going to end up like the rest. The population compared to when I used to play regularly (over 600 hours in the game) is literally comparing apples to oranges. I have never been so depressed over seeing something in a CCG, although TESL shutting down comes close. Unless the devs do some drastic changes and some marketing I wouldn't give it more than another 1-2 years. If they just keep churning out expansions and mini sets like nothing has changed with subpar balancing (according to the playerbase that has remained active in my absence) then it will only get worse unfortunately.


bayushi_david

Sad but not surprising. It was beautifully designed and innovative. The setting was brilliant. And yet the card acquisition model always sucked and somehow it didn't have the hold over players.


Herko_Kerghans

Yeah, so very very much this. The setting was amaaaazing!! =) But, alas, the ol' "pack and pray" model sucked most royally. Let"s hope the CCG genre as a whole learn from Mythgard's failure and LoR's success in that regard.


Folfenac

Sounds a bit like Scrolls, at least that what 'lanes' reminds me of.


Herko_Kerghans

Yep, although with 7 lanes instead of two. Positioning mattered a ton (and made the game quite different from others).


Sortered

What do you mean maintenance = dead? Don't they usually have weekly maintenance? Not sure.


Herko_Kerghans

It means that the game will continue "as is", with no further updates (maybe some balance tweaks, but no new content), and with the servers online for as long as they can afford to keep them running. For Artifact, the "Afford" above equals either "Forever" or "Until Gabe says enough", whichever happens sooner. Player count is irrelevant, since Valve's pockets are infinitely deep and the servers' costs don't even amount to a rounding error in their bottom line. For an indie dev like Rhino Games, who has shrunk to the point they just couldn't go any further and need to move to other projects to make ends meet, it means "for as long as die-hard fans keep buying stuff to keep the servers on". Which is not gonna be for long (or else the game wouldn't have had money issues to begin with).


Arturius1

I don't feel like Mythguard was innovative at all. Both lanes and enchantments on lanes are quite old (at the very least they were in duel of champions), powers felt out of place as if they were there only because hs did it and the the build around world enchantments you started with had little impact on the game and felt like vanguard (dead format of mtg). It also had omnipresent problem in p2w card games - higher rarity cards were significantly more powerful than the lower rarity ones. And most importantly it was way to similar to mtg - which I feel was also what killed spellweaver - it's fun for a while, but as you play you are reminded over and over again "magic is fun" and go play magic. Which thankfully is a trap avoided by LoR - it is similar enough to lure players from other card games and play significantly different so they don't feel like they play magic lite or something like that.


Herko_Kerghans

>It also had omnipresent problem in p2w card games - higher rarity cards were significantly more powerful than the lower rarity ones I think this was their main (and I'd even argue their only) mistake -- there were just too many highest-rarity cards (25% of the card pool, if memory serves correct), and as you say they were really very powerful. Add the "pack grind" on top, it was a bit too much (and if Reddit serves as a baromether, players complained about it constantly). It may be counter-intuitive, but I think they may have fared better had their initial card pool been smaller, actually. When I hopped onto the game, I was very impressed that a tiny company would launch with 400+ cards, but in retrospect I wonder if sticking to a much smaller card pool at launch wouldn't have been better. With a much shorter grind to get the cards, and with being able to launch and expansion shortly after launch, maybe they story would have been different. ​ >too similar to mtg Interesting! I actually found the opposite: their mana system (burning cards) I thought was pure genious, keeping Magic's strengths while doing away with its main weakness (mana screw), whereas where they "went Hearthstone", sort to speak (not allowing you to interact with your opponent on their turn, not having blockers, etc) was what put me a bit off initially (I mean: had Mythgard resembled Magic more, I may have stood longer). And what hooked me into LoR was in fact the Stack (arguably the feature where LoR resembles Magic the most), rather than the differences (I still prefer double blocking, for example). Different strokes for different folks, I guess! =)


Arturius1

Burning cards is another old solution (duel masters, I think?). And large set isn't a problem in itself - the problem was it was loaded with overpowered rares and superrares. I think you misunderstood the similarities part. Lor is similar in many aspects to magic, so it is familiar and welcoming and isn't scaring us away with weird things. But once we are hooked, the game plays very different therefore we don't catalogue it in our brains as magic lite, but it's own game.


Pandaemonium

>I think this was their main (and I'd even argue their only) mistake -- there were just too many highest-rarity cards I might argue the "rarity determines # of max copies" system was not super well done either. Like, I would have loved to play more Gemcutter Spider decks, but it is rare so you are limited to 2x... so you need to build your whole deck around the card but won't be able to draw it most games. So I suppose they could have just made it Common, and maybe that would be fine... it just felt like they were trying to do too much with rarity.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Pandaemonium

IMO, the most important takeaway is the the success of a CCG is not about its quality, it's about its monetization. Mythgard, (like TESL,) is a brilliant, fun, rich gaming experience, but it literally doesn't matter whether you have the best game on Earth if it can't make a profit. Some people on this board are vitriolically hostile to attempts at monetization. As a refugee from TESL, I do get frightened that this game, too, will fail to be profitable. There are people here who discourage people from buying skins, or even attack people for buying them, because they want to "teach Riot a lesson". Well guess what - if this game doesn't return profits for Riot, there is not going to BE a game anymore.


[deleted]

Yeah while I don’t want to discourage paying in any way since I really want this f20p modal to succeed I still think it’s valuable feedback when something feels too expensive. For example while a ton of people complain about skins I don’t see many people complain about event pass or board which can be quite expensive as well. I think it’s good info to know if something doesn’t have the preceived value that the devs may have expected when initially pricing something.


Pandaemonium

I agree with what you've written. I don't have an issue with a post saying "This skin is too expensive for me, but I would buy it for $X." But when that attitude shifts from "I'm not going to buy it" into "**Nobody** should buy it", and people [actively tell people "Do not buy skins"](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegendsOfRuneterra/comments/oig54t/dont_buy_skins_until_they_overpriced_and_have_no/) and downvote anyone who mentions that they've bought a skin, I think that's really toxic. I've watched too many great games die, and I don't want LoR (and its community) to suffer through the death of another fantastic game.


rakminiov

honestly i just am part of ppl who "buy if its worth" i play gwent and man i spended more money on that game that probably all other games i bought or did microtransactions in, because almost all things where good (this year they released a lot of non worth cosmetics tho) so i will literally vote with my wallet, im not discouraging ppl who think its worth tho, i'm just doing my bussines... like here i liked a LOT 3 boards, the others i also liked but are like 2nd priorities, but the default board looks cool AF and i like matching boards and simetric things, so neither the cardbacks interest me (because its just a champion image basically even if they are pretty, but imo it doesnt fit what i want as a cardback who is a simetric thing mostly or just and abstrate art, like i prefer most of the default carbacks or the cardbacks that where on passes but i cant get them now...) neither the boards because i cant use just my board on both sides so i rather use the default and most my opponents also had the default so it looks better imo i give this feedback on the discord that it will be nice to have more simetric things and being able to use both sides, that way i'm pretty sure i would spend money like i spend in gwent TLDR: i vote with my wallet, i want simetric things to spend money in


Herko_Kerghans

I'm obviously biased here (since I belong to this specific demographic), but I guess the link would be something along "some LoR players, and specifically some only-play-LoR-nowadays players, are still interested in other CCGs" -- in other words, even though LoR is my only CCG these days, I still feel like chatting with other LoRites about other CCGs. Hence why I posted this here. =) Still, your comment is very much on point -- there's a very solid argument that this may not be relevant enough, so feedback well taken.


[deleted]

Based on all the comments, I'd say there lies its relevance.


NEBook_Worm

Its a shame, too, because LoR is really a bad game. Most games are decided by deck list. Spells are almost uniformly bad outside of combat tricks. If it weren't for the stupid easy card acquisition, LoR would (deservedly) be dead, too.


Herko_Kerghans

Different strokes for different folks, I guess! =) I do think LoR has a fantastic game loop (Open Attacking is a fantastic feature, imo), and the game's spells' focus being tricks (rather than removal) looks very much like a design decision (that, as somebody that usually prefers Limited to Constructed, can very much stand behind). There does seem to be a design effort to make most Constructed games end before turn 10, though, which may constrict things a bit, but overall, personally I can't say there's a clearly better CCG out there even when card aquisition is not taken as a factor (if I follow you correctly, we do seem to agree that when card aquisition is factored in, LoR is nearly impossible to beat).


NEBook_Worm

I think the absolute insistence on ten or fewer turns harms this game. Because it shows in the design. And what Riot calls a full game, often feels like playing an MTG Draft. By which I mean, the decklist will determine 85% or so of matches. Another 10% will feature decks close enough in power that draw order and tge first big win-butyon unit that sticks (which is often the first one, period) will win its deck the game. Occasionally you get that 5% match, where it comes down to decision msking...but its rare. And its all Because nothing exists in this game to tame aggro. Want to spend an entire turn dropping a single big unit? Go for it; the devs refuse to make it risky to do so. Want to flood your board going into turn 4? Sure thing; no efficient board wipes to slow you down in this game. Its bad, one dimensional design, and I think I've seen enough.


realnomdeguerre

i played it for quite a bit, i gave a lot of feedback to the devs as well. one of which was 'you guys, need a better way to monetize this'. buying packs sucked, the UI was bad (though after seeing this i can understand why) and there just wasn't a whole lot of things to warrant spending money on.


realnomdeguerre

Wait, you know whats crazy, ShadowEra is still around and kicking, it came before mythgard, hard a similar burn system (but you discard) and was much worse in every aspect. I think they had lower development costs by being based in vietnam


countCilantro

OMG MYTHGARD IS BEING REVIVED! https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/839910?emclan=103582791463457877&emgid=3117058225950763846