Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Rick Sanchez

Why I don't like the Hero Deck Concept for Solo Play

Recommended Posts

       Agreeing with everything here. I personally feel the current system is flawed.  Heroes are no where near robust enough, especially given the very specific archetypes they are supposed to embody.  For instance, why should I have to level AND gear a Huntress if my favorite hero is the Squire? The Huntress (just an example folks, just replace it with whatever hero you would've rather gone without) doesn't appeal to me and it feels like I'm being unduly punished for having a preference on the kind of characters I enjoy playing in a video game.  Couple that with heavy resistance lanes that completely removes any choice in the matter and you wind up with what amounts to a static (and sometimes incredibly tedious) experience.
       Item sets alone aren't enough to promote diversification. Having a handful of useful towers spread across four different heroes limits diversification. Every Hero should be provided all the tools they need to complete any map (within reason of their gear) provided they utilize those tools in a clever and efficient manner.  The way I and Rick Sanchez (OP) solve the same map should vary wildly based on what hero we favor more and then further by what towers, item sets and tactics we favor; not by if I spent the grueling amount of time to find perfect gear for four heroes to take advantage of what amounts gimmicks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about if EXP was spread across all heroes in the deck?  Would that be too easy?  Or, the characters you're not using get like, 50% of the EXP that you gained while playing with the in game character?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


@Rotto quote:

       Agreeing with everything here. I personally feel the current system is flawed.  Heroes are no where near robust enough, especially given the very specific archetypes they are supposed to embody.  For instance, why should I have to level AND gear a Huntress if my favorite hero is the Squire? The Huntress (just an example folks, just replace it with whatever hero you would've rather gone without) doesn't appeal to me and it feels like I'm being unduly punished for having a preference on the kind of characters I enjoy playing in a video game.  Couple that with heavy resistance lanes that completely removes any choice in the matter and you wind up with what amounts to a static (and sometimes incredibly tedious) experience.
        Current item sets aren't enough to promote diversification. Having a handful of useful towers spread across four different heroes limits diversification. Every Hero should be provided all the tools they need to complete any map (within reason of their gear) provided they utilize those tools in a clever and efficient manner.  The way I and Rick Sanchez (OP) solve the same map should vary wildly based on what hero we favor more and then further by what towers, item sets and tactics we favor; not by if I spent the grueling amount of time to find perfect gear for four heroes to take advantage of what amounts gimmicks.

This is an excellent post. Its incredibly precise, outlines the exact issues and flaws with the current system, and provides an eloquent and insightful response as to where this game should be heading for both thoughtful and fulfilling gameplay.

Seriously Rotto, you've made an excellent post here. If you don't mind, I'd like to quote you in my original post so that others can see this, as its written much better than what I originally submitted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


@Rick Sanchez quote:


@Chappyy quote:


@Rick Sanchez quote:
NLe quote:

1 hero maps would be not fun for end game stuff...if thats what ur saying


edit: god I have so many posts


Forgot how hard I use to go on DD1.


Then that is precisely the problem (though I don't agree with your sentiment). One hero maps SHOULD be fun, not because you can spam heroes, but because heroes should be well rounded enough to be fun playing.

If you can't have fun playing one class, and you need to play MULTIPLE classes to get any kind of "fun", out of high level maps, as well as clear them, then there is something drastically wrong with the game.

Have to disagree. What makes the game fun to me is having to look at what heroes I have and figure out what towers I can use to best beat it. If this game was one hero only I would never play it. If every hero can beat all the content solo then that means the game has no depth of thinking, puzzle solving.


On the contrary, it actually involves a much higher development time and intricate design detail to create independent classes able to pull off solo play. Additionally, why should other's be forced to play classes they have no interest in just to be viable.

By making each class have a specific tower or ability that is only important to the overall scheme, not only do you water down the game by making that the only viable top build, you water down mechanics.

You basically do exactly what you're suggesting would happen if solo classes were fully developed and functional in their own unique way.

Having strong classes that are well developed doesn't make the game watered down, it makes it more advanced, and it brings that added layer of design to multiplayer games, giving us a much greater option to theorycraft and build into a variety of different things.

I can't see this at all. All I can picture right now is everyone has the same squire build because that build beats the game. Each hero has 4 towers 5ish if you count uber swapping. If the game is beatable by all heroes only using their 4/5 towers it means shallow difficulty because every hero has to be able to do it. Now you take a scenario that can't be beat by just one hero but can be beat by combinations, now that adds depth and flexibility as to how you play each map.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


@Chappyy quote:


@Rick Sanchez quote:


@Chappyy quote:


@Rick Sanchez quote:
NLe quote:

1 hero maps would be not fun for end game stuff...if thats what ur saying


edit: god I have so many posts


Forgot how hard I use to go on DD1.


Then that is precisely the problem (though I don't agree with your sentiment). One hero maps SHOULD be fun, not because you can spam heroes, but because heroes should be well rounded enough to be fun playing.

If you can't have fun playing one class, and you need to play MULTIPLE classes to get any kind of "fun", out of high level maps, as well as clear them, then there is something drastically wrong with the game.

Have to disagree. What makes the game fun to me is having to look at what heroes I have and figure out what towers I can use to best beat it. If this game was one hero only I would never play it. If every hero can beat all the content solo then that means the game has no depth of thinking, puzzle solving.


On the contrary, it actually involves a much higher development time and intricate design detail to create independent classes able to pull off solo play. Additionally, why should other's be forced to play classes they have no interest in just to be viable.

By making each class have a specific tower or ability that is only important to the overall scheme, not only do you water down the game by making that the only viable top build, you water down mechanics.

You basically do exactly what you're suggesting would happen if solo classes were fully developed and functional in their own unique way.

Having strong classes that are well developed doesn't make the game watered down, it makes it more advanced, and it brings that added layer of design to multiplayer games, giving us a much greater option to theorycraft and build into a variety of different things.

I can't see this at all. All I can picture right now is everyone has the same squire build because that build beats the game. Each hero has 4 towers 5ish if you count uber swapping. If the game is beatable by all heroes only using their 4/5 towers it means shallow difficulty because every hero has to be able to do it. Now you take a scenario that can't be beat by just one hero but can be beat by combinations, now that adds depth and flexibility as to how you play each map.

Well its just a simple mathematical observation of the number of useful abilities.


What sounds more intricate to you:

A class with only one tower to contribute to both the solo and multiplayer options, or a class that has multiple towers and abilities that can be useful to each.

The second clearly adds a lot more depth and theorycrafting to the game, as having more options per hero would give us more builds overall in the end.

I think you're confusing the idea that having one well developed class with multiple abilities somehow limits gameplay.

If each class is developed specific to its powers and playstyle, for example having 4 useful towers overall to get the job done, its just as advanced as having 4 different classes with only 1 useful ability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


@Chappyy quote:


@Rick Sanchez quote:


@Chappyy quote:


@Rick Sanchez quote:
NLe quote:

1 hero maps would be not fun for end game stuff...if thats what ur saying


edit: god I have so many posts


Forgot how hard I use to go on DD1.


Then that is precisely the problem (though I don't agree with your sentiment). One hero maps SHOULD be fun, not because you can spam heroes, but because heroes should be well rounded enough to be fun playing.

If you can't have fun playing one class, and you need to play MULTIPLE classes to get any kind of "fun", out of high level maps, as well as clear them, then there is something drastically wrong with the game.

Have to disagree. What makes the game fun to me is having to look at what heroes I have and figure out what towers I can use to best beat it. If this game was one hero only I would never play it. If every hero can beat all the content solo then that means the game has no depth of thinking, puzzle solving.


On the contrary, it actually involves a much higher development time and intricate design detail to create independent classes able to pull off solo play. Additionally, why should other's be forced to play classes they have no interest in just to be viable.

By making each class have a specific tower or ability that is only important to the overall scheme, not only do you water down the game by making that the only viable top build, you water down mechanics.

You basically do exactly what you're suggesting would happen if solo classes were fully developed and functional in their own unique way.

Having strong classes that are well developed doesn't make the game watered down, it makes it more advanced, and it brings that added layer of design to multiplayer games, giving us a much greater option to theorycraft and build into a variety of different things.

I can't see this at all. All I can picture right now is everyone has the same squire build because that build beats the game. Each hero has 4 towers 5ish if you count uber swapping. If the game is beatable by all heroes only using their 4/5 towers it means shallow difficulty because every hero has to be able to do it. Now you take a scenario that can't be beat by just one hero but can be beat by combinations, now that adds depth and flexibility as to how you play each map.

Add to that multiple combos across 8 classes and wow do you have variety!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


@Satori quote:

Add to that multiple combos across 8 classes and wow do you have variety!

That is exactly what I want. I want plenty of ways to beat stuff. I want to be able to go back and say I wonder if I use this combo will it be better. I just don't want to see like other games like WoW and all the Diablo games, where if you don't build your hero in this way then you are not gonna get it done. That will be what happens in the end because everyone will complain it is to easy so they make it so hard only the best meta of gear and skills will beat it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Chappyy quote:


@Satori quote:

Add to that multiple combos across 8 classes and wow do you have variety!

That is exactly what I want. I want plenty of ways to beat stuff. I want to be able to go back and say I wonder if I use this combo will it be better. I just don't want to see like other games like WoW and all the Diablo games, where if you don't build your hero in this way then you are not gonna get it done. That will be what happens in the end because everyone will complain it is to easy so they make it so hard only the best meta of gear and skills will beat it.

But you're going down the opposite route by limiting the options per class.

I made a pretty good reply depicting the confusion that seems to be going on here.

Having well developed heroes, each with 4 useful towers that can be stand alone or incorporated into group play, has more options available to a team than only 1 useful tower per hero.

You're mathematically suggesting limiting options, then saying you're opening up options which is isn't coherent to the outcome.

Heroes should be more than a frost tower, a water trap, a barricade, or a dps bot.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


@Rick Sanchez quote:


@Chappyy quote:


@Satori quote:

Add to that multiple combos across 8 classes and wow do you have variety!

That is exactly what I want. I want plenty of ways to beat stuff. I want to be able to go back and say I wonder if I use this combo will it be better. I just don't want to see like other games like WoW and all the Diablo games, where if you don't build your hero in this way then you are not gonna get it done. That will be what happens in the end because everyone will complain it is to easy so they make it so hard only the best meta of gear and skills will beat it.

But you're going down the route by limiting the options per class.

I made a pretty good reply depicing the confusion that seems to be going on here.

Having well developed heroes, each with 4 useful towers that can be stand alone or incorporated into group play, has more options available to a team than only 1 useful tower per hero.

You're mathematically suggesting limiting options, then saying you're opening up options which is isn't coherent to the outcome.

Heroes should be more than a frost tower, a water trap, a barricade, or a dps bot.


No that is a separate issue. I don't want one useful tower. I agree with you that the heroes need to be well rounded. I want all the towers to be useful. I think we are looking at this from separate sides. I am looking at it from a new content and how to create new challenges for the players. If all the towers are useful and the heroes are well rounded then you can create challenging scenarios, hopefully ones that have multiple ways to over come them. Not more of what we have which is make all the same monsters faster, stronger, with more HP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


@Rick Sanchez quote:


@Chappyy quote:


@Satori quote:

Add to that multiple combos across 8 classes and wow do you have variety!

That is exactly what I want. I want plenty of ways to beat stuff. I want to be able to go back and say I wonder if I use this combo will it be better. I just don't want to see like other games like WoW and all the Diablo games, where if you don't build your hero in this way then you are not gonna get it done. That will be what happens in the end because everyone will complain it is to easy so they make it so hard only the best meta of gear and skills will beat it.

But you're going down the opposite route by limiting the options per class.

I made a pretty good reply depicting the confusion that seems to be going on here.

Having well developed heroes, each with 4 useful towers that can be stand alone or incorporated into group play, has more options available to a team than only 1 useful tower per hero.

You're mathematically suggesting limiting options, then saying you're opening up options which is isn't coherent to the outcome.

Heroes should be more than a frost tower, a water trap, a barricade, or a dps bot.


I am in no way suggesting that heroes should have 1 useful tower. Thats absurd. But I do think that using more than 4 towers for endgame content is a good deign choice for progression. Basically, what you seem to want is to take 1 hero and go the distance. Which I think should be the case for campaign through free play but nightmare 4 should require more creativity then using 4 towers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...