Jump to content

Aimless Entertainment


Recommended Posts

  Watching the devstream there was an improvement overall, but one thing that irks me. With regards to us being kept in the dark, and questions that aren't answered, Eliot was saying, there are no set plans, not even loosely set from the way it sounds. That there are a bunch of ideas for everything. It all sounds like development is a bit aimless. I would think there would be some fairly concrete plans for some of the core systems. Honestly I'm not even sure if they're being prioritized.

  What I see in this patch, a new hero, which I like, especially the archers, but... It's not the core changes I think this game needs most now. There's also the hero deck, which I suppose could have been a priority because of the importance some of the community puts on it, but is still something I'd think would come later. Trendy says they're looking into all systems, and eventually I think that they should all be examined, but if they're looking at them all at once they're just swamping themselves.

  What this game needs most now is revisions to the combat system and building strategy. Essentially this game is all about defending your objective and fighting back the old ones army, that's what the gameplay is. Stuff like loot, or the hero deck, they don't matter as much. Sure the hero deck might be annoying, might interfere with how you want to build, but in the end if the basic combat and building is off, a perfect hero deck system will not make it fun. Adding content on the current core gameplay is just like building a building on a faulty foundation.

  What really needs to be the start is the enemies. In a strategy game, the goal is always for people to use their intelligence and imagination to try and find a way to overcome your opponent. Whether you're playing a chess game against a person, or fighting of an AI controlled goblin horde, your moves, or tower placement, are going to be designed to counter your enemies. If your enemies are simple, predictable, and repetitive, like the goblins and orcs, you just need to build the same thing over and over. Frost, traps, walls.

  Currently no matter what enemy you fight, you're just going to want to optimize your damage output, it's the universal answer to beat all enemies, so you get frost traps. Now people think that frost traps can be broken with tower changes. It can, but the one solution gameplay cannot, if something exceeds the damage on frost traps, it will replace it, and become the one solution.

  Enemies need to do different things, and be best beaten in different ways, to bring validity to different strategies. For instance I've been saying for a while, that if you ignite a kobold, it should explode on the spot. This would easily make blaze balloons and oily harpoons the best solution for killing kobolds, but yet they wouldn't be the new one solution. Maybe it can help you deal with the psychotic suicide bombers, but that doesn't mean it would stop orcs, or drakin, or anything else well. Maybe traps are best on orcs, maybe they have some other weakness, you might want to go with their weakness instead to fight off a horde of them. Going back to the kobolds, you might want to use flame towers over blaze balloons, maybe the range helps you deal with some other enemy. These options would bring in more strategy, trying to find the right balance of defenses to exploit the weaknesses of whatever is coming at you and counter their strengths.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah while most people's major concern is the HD, I'm over here worrying that I still won't like the game after it's improved. What matters most to me is the 4-way interaction between enemies, towers, maps, and gear. It sounds like a lot, but apparently most people are either fine with these four things, or don't know how to articulate their issues with them.

TE is looking at all these things atm. I just hope they consider our feedback while doing so. Still no responses from my gear thread, despite it's popularity. Things that need changing imo;

- RNG passives need to go. Replace with mastery tree or move the game-changing passives to spheres.
- More stats to choose from (movement speed, casting rate).
- Upgrading gear and leveling your pet need to be more simple and intuitive, less grindy and chore-like.
- Towers need re-balancing and re-purposing.
- Sub-objectives need to go, and maps need to be bigger with more interesting lanes.
- Enemies need identity changes, balance tweaks, new enemies need to be introduced.

Even with the hero deck completely removed and frosty nerfed, I still wouldn't enjoy this game. I'll be waiting for the bigger changes listed above since TE has stated in the past two devstreams that they're working on enemies, gear, maps, and towers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the one core thing that interested me the most during the devstream was the slide they showed this:

PQxXqqs.png


The hero deck changes were good, but this, this is what perked my interest. I'm not sure how Trendy plans on going about this, but this is what's going to make the game worth my time if it goes well, and hope this is a higher priority issue, rather than giving us tons of heroes. 

The abyss lord is already almost done, sure, finish it and get it in the game, but after that, core gameplay issues should be addressed. Don't add even more towers and heroes, and fix what we have first, and then add on it. 

This devstream is the first time I've been hopeful in a while, and it's certainly a welcome change, and just hope trendy prioritizes correctly. Because while I dislike the hero deck, and it is *** in its current form...interesting enemies, towers actually being fun to use, passives being tied to RNG are just a few of the really game breaking things to me.

If towers were fun, and if passives weren't a headache to try to obtain, enemies tweaked even a little, I'd be back to dumping countless hours per week into the game. 

Just my thoughts on it, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


@Tristaris quote:

I think the one core thing that interested me the most during the devstream was the slide they showed this:

PQxXqqs.png


The hero deck changes were good, but this, this is what perked my interest. I'm not sure how Trendy plans on going about this, but this is what's going to make the game worth my time if it goes well, and hope this is a higher priority issue, rather than giving us tons of heroes. 

That picture makes me so happy. Removing the lane resistances? That's better than anything, ever. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


@Aheadatime quote:

Yeah while most people's major concern is the HD, I'm over here worrying that I still won't like the game after it's improved. What matters most to me is the 4-way interaction between enemies, towers, maps, and gear. It sounds like a lot, but apparently most people are either fine with these four things, or don't know how to articulate their issues with them.

TE is looking at all these things atm. I just hope they consider our feedback while doing so. Still no responses from my gear thread, despite it's popularity. Things that need changing imo;

- RNG passives need to go. Replace with mastery tree or move the game-changing passives to spheres.
- More stats to choose from (movement speed, casting rate).
- Upgrading gear and leveling your pet need to be more simple and intuitive, less grindy and chore-like.
- Towers need re-balancing and re-purposing.
- Sub-objectives need to go, and maps need to be bigger with more interesting lanes.
- Enemies need identity changes, balance tweaks, new enemies need to be introduced.

Even with the hero deck completely removed and frosty nerfed, I still wouldn't enjoy this game. I'll be waiting for the bigger changes listed above since TE has stated in the past two devstreams that they're working on enemies, gear, maps, and towers.

We've read all of your threads. Things we agree with, things we don't. I definitely agree with the simplifying of the pet/weapon leveling. (Not to say I disagree with your other points. Just mentioning one that really resonated with me.)

When you say sub-objectives need to go, do you mean that we should remove the actual sub from the map, or that we should change subs to main objectives? The latter could be an interesting idea to make harder difficulties feel different from lower ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really enjoyed sub-objectives for giving further interaction between players and the map. It makes the maps more dynamic. I hope that they continue to add new sub-objectives and more interesting ones. Maybe ones that aren't introduced at wave one, but come in at a later wave to mix things up.

My main problem with them right now is that they are all just second or third cores when we could do things that are more interactive than

Sub-Objective Destroyed --> Open new lane


The Dropship in Harbinger for example could have been targettable and destroying it would close that lane, only for it to return later like a Jester box. That is at least a little different.

Introduce maps that are attack and defense hybrids where a small outpost of enemies has a core that you attack like maybe some sort of military tent. Destroying it is difficult because of a boss and a small skirmish that has to be survived, but destroying it weakens all the enemies for the rest of the level or something.

Diversity in sub-objectives might make them more appealing for everyone if they provide a whole new gameplay experience.


I agree that RNG passives are annoying and need changed, but some of them are pretty fun like the teleport feature of the Dummies with the Null Void passive. I don't want these effects removed. Removing the RNG from the effects would be way better. Instead of having to grind harbinger for that 500% AP damage Harbinger Punch passive, just have every effect like that be at a set value. It is already annoying enough to grind out for the Ability version or the Builder version of a weapon with the global chance of getting one of the other 9 drops of harbinger.

Getting a random drop legendary with the effect you wanted only to find out it has one the lowest-possible rolls is extremely frustrating and it is something I have always hated in Diablo 3 and its why I havent played that game in a long time because I "have" all the items I wanted, but none of them have good stats.

Randomized stats on the abilities need to go.


It also does make sense to remove all the non-legendary ones though like Hearty Blockade in favor of a Skill Tree. At the current state of the game the legendary effects are all that make legendaries more than just cool reskins, and just throwing more stats on them would just feel weak.


Hearty Blockade and Speedy Harpoons already sound like perfect skill names for a tree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


@iamisom quote:

We've read all of your threads. Things we agree with, things we don't. I definitely agree with the simplifying of the pet/weapon leveling. (Not to say I disagree with your other points. Just mentioning one that really resonated with me.)

When you say sub-objectives need to go, do you mean that we should remove the actual sub from the map, or that we should change subs to main objectives? The latter could be an interesting idea to make harder difficulties feel different from lower ones.

Thanks for the response and for taking the time to read the threads. Regarding sub-objs, the issue is simple. They're way too close to enemy spawns to provide strategic depth. You just build right in front of the subs and that's that. Solving that issue is not simple though. 

The real problems here are that the maps are too small and lanes are too straight forward. Making the maps larger and with more complex lane paths could warrant the use of subs to replace DD1's multiple cores. This is the reason that "Map Design" wasn't one of my feedback threads. Solving these issues mean re-designing existing maps, and changing the philosophy and style of designing future maps altogether. Who am I to demand such a thing?

On smaller maps like Siphon and Bazaar, they should be removed outright. On larger maps like Little-Horn, it gets a bit more complicated. I'll just say that even on the larger maps, they don't enrich the strategy involved in placing towers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Aheadatime quote:


@iamisom quote:

We've read all of your threads. Things we agree with, things we don't. I definitely agree with the simplifying of the pet/weapon leveling. (Not to say I disagree with your other points. Just mentioning one that really resonated with me.)

When you say sub-objectives need to go, do you mean that we should remove the actual sub from the map, or that we should change subs to main objectives? The latter could be an interesting idea to make harder difficulties feel different from lower ones.

Thanks for the response and for taking the time to read the threads. Regarding sub-objs, the issue is simple. They're way too close to enemy spawns to provide strategic depth. You just build right in front of the subs and that's that. Solving that issue is not simple though. 

The real problems here are that the maps are too small and lanes are too straight forward. Making the maps larger and with more complex lane paths could warrant the use of subs to replace DD1's multiple cores. This is the reason that "Map Design" wasn't one of my feedback threads. Solving these issues mean re-designing existing maps, and changing the philosophy and style of designing future maps altogether. Who am I to demand such a thing?

On smaller maps like Siphon and Bazaar, they should be removed outright. On larger maps like Little-Horn, it gets a bit more complicated. I'll just say that even on the larger maps, they don't enrich the strategy involved in placing towers.

  I don't see the issue as so straight forward. I actually think the reason for the issue on most maps is the single core, it makes it very easy for people cover everything with one set of towers in some places. Why protect multiple points when you can just stack everything on one point easier? If you had two cores (that weren't stacked like little horns) it would cause people to defend multiple points, and maybe the sub objectives.

  On the other hand, if the enemies spawned by losing a sub objective were harder, people might not want to let them die. Right now losing a sub objective just means more grunts, the enemies aren't typically too big an issue, so why spread out your defenses for them?

  Of course there are other ways to incentivize protecting sub objectives, for instance in moonbase in DD1, losing a core meant you lost DU. It wasn't enough to stop me from turtling on one core, but I think the idea has merit.


  Saving sub objectives doesn't have to be incentivized by punishing you for losing them though. Personally I'd prefer if some of the sub objectives were much harder to defend, but protecting them through the whole game gave you bonus rewards. Maybe higher Ipwr on the end match chest, or more loot from it. Maybe even unique weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Losing a sub objective will result in additional "hard" lanes after wave 4 (at least at nm4), it isn't just grunts forever - just btw@braydon


losing a sub core forces you to turtle because you need all lanes as close as possible due to the fact that defending two hard lanes across the map is very difficult 

so, either turtle or build in front of spawner on 90% of the maps with sub objectives.  They're just really bad in some of the maps because so much of the map, that could be appreciated, gets wasted since it's too far away from the core and behind the sub-core.


I have no doubt that certain map designs with proper lane positioning, additional lane positioning, and proper sub core positioning could be enhanced by having that sub core... but I haven't seen DD2 be able to do that - so maybe it's just too difficult for the team to get right?  And it isn't exactly top priority to get into the game as even if it were done really, really well.. it wouldn't add that much 

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
×
×
  • Create New...