Jump to content


Junior Defender
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

16 Good

About Aheadatlme

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Yeah they're ugly to me too. Ever since they put up the banner at the top of this page with the 4 heroes' new look, felt bizarre that noone was talking about how ugly they were. Made a thread about it with pretty mixed responses. To me, the monk looks like a 42 year old named Greg, also sort got a Shel Silverstein character thing gonig on. The squire's helmet-face-mouth is disturbing, like he could eat a human whole. Huntress looks like a praying mantis, and the only thing I'm seeing with the app is that he's wide and in the beta he's got a really unnatural gait. His gaint bizarrely points forward, without any side to side natural human strut.
  2. ..seem kind of ugly to me. I don't know if this is a rough draft of their artwork, and I mean no disrespect to the artists at chromatic, but man.. lol they all look like late-night cartoon versions of 45-year-olds trapped in children's bodies.
  3. It still leads to duos being able to split/stall votes. I suppose if the host's vote was worth 2 votes, and to get something passed you had to have 3 out of 5 votes, then that'd be more fair towards the host. Something still hits me the wrong way about a host not being able to have the power to kick people at will. Hosting a game means having the power to dictate what happens in that game, including the map you're playing on, the difficulty level, why you're playing (farming, pets, challenges, fun, trying out new character), and the atmosphere of the game, or the social vibe. If there's a high-pitched young kid who won't cooperate with building defenses, is talking way too loudly into the mic, and has a bad social vibe in general, I don't want that kid in my game. I hosted so that I could have a certain kind of gaming experience, and that should be in my control.
  4. I believe what moose is saying is that you get one pet per hero. If I have split-screened 3 other heroes into the mix, so I have 4 heroes on the field, I get 4 pets. Perhaps people would kick last wave to sign in one of their other heroes, so they get 4 pets instead of 3. I don't recall if you can sign a hero in last second like that, but if you could, it would reinforce my earlier point about people mostly abusing the kick option in order to direclty gain something, not just to be total jerks.
  5. This is simple imo. Kicking players last second only happened in DD1 because loot was shared (I'd like to believe). With separated/instanced loot, there's no incentive to kick people last second outside of just being a jerk. Upon being kicked, a player's defenses should immediately be deleted, so the host has consequences to kicking people, rather than just a lack of benefits.
  6. This opens up a broader game design question. How much of your success in this game should rely on hero actions in the battle phase? Some people lean towards the more hardcore tower defense mentality, where a good tower setup with good stats should be all that's needed. Others leans towards the idea that a hero should be highly prioritized, to the point of being an absolute necessity at most, if not all difficulty levels. I think the answer lies in between, as the combination thereof is one of this game's unique and original qualities. The balance should be explored creatively though. DPS checks become stale and repetitive. Boring to watch, boring to play after a while, and don't require much thought or offer much replay value. For example, heroes could have different battle phase purposes, and thus their stats and abilities would reflect. Say an app is meant to crowd control enemies and deal medium/small amounts of damage. Electric ability can paralyze, ice ability can freeze, magic ability can teleport enemies back, mana bomb ability can push enemies away from app while healing any towers/heroes in vicinity. Hero damage stat gives less actual damage per point then say a huntress would, as the app isn't meant to scale into a dps hero. Now you have a choice on the battlefield. Do I want to CC the enemies while my towers/friends do the work? Or would this map benefit more from a fast-paced high-dps hero, as perhaps it's a map with multiple lanes of flying enemies in every direction and a lower tower allowance (is this called DU? i forget lol). The question at this point becomes 'how do we stop the DPS hero (huntress) from always being the most useful?' I think that answer is one of three choices. Either -Make all heroes do high damage (negating my previous paragraph), so that the focus of a hero is more about abilities/towers. -Keep the DPS difference between heroes, but lower all hero DPS in general, so that towers are much more the focus. -Create maps and enemies that would strategically suggest a different hero's strengths. That last one is hard to do. Quick idea along that line of thinking though. Say we have an enemy that charges towards defenses (sh rks, but just not sharks... like if they were reworked into a particular subclass of ogre). Let's say this ogre has a buff that gives him 50% reduction in hero damage or something, because he's wearing all this badass armor and he's holding no club, he's just there to football-player-charge into defenses... sole purpose in life. Upon seeing a defense, he becomes enraged, increasing the buff to an 80% reduction in hero damage but making him stand still for a couple of seconds to beat his chest and become red. After charging, he fatigues a bit which 'stuns' him for a couple of seconds and his buff reduces back to the 50% reduction. So you counter him a few ways. Either put a decoy defense earlier up in the lane than your normal defenses, which lets you use a DPS hero and just focus him for longer than most other enemies, or use a CC-centric hero in the battle phase like an app to stun, slow, or knock him back, particularly as he's charging, letting your towers do the work.
  7. I'm exctied to see what you guys have in the works. The beta can't come sooner lol. It's the environmental 'feel' of the game that stands out most to me, and that I'm looking forward to experiencing. I think if you nail the visual feel of the game by making players feel immersed through things like lighting, then you can tinker with the looks of the models and skins until they feel good, whereas having cool animations/models/skins feels less exciting in a world that you're not convinced of.
  8. Yes exactly! It might have something to do with which engines/software they used to develop each game, but the light source switch up is the most significant change between the two games, and the one that made the biggest negative impact for me also. It really sets the mood in DD1, makes you feel 'there' in the map, whereas with DD2 I can tell I'm just playing a video game and moving around an artificial world.
  9. For sure. This type of thing is cool, and CG has shown that they're taking this even further with the rag doll effects and other death animations. I mean more along the lines of the light sources, the color saturation/style, and the detail on objects/environments. Like if you're walking about DD2, even though there is 'detail' in the fact that little bushes will sway as if there is wind, if you look at the bush, it's made of a bunch of 2D shapes that have no detail to them, like a slight change in shading/color where it's closest to the light source, or little veins on the leaves or a certain crack pattern to a brick wall etc. DD1 was filled with detail like this, and it was immersive. And it doesn't seem like it was a strategic player-oriented choice either. One might think they did this to remove 'clutter' and make the visual experience better for us gamers, so that we know what to focus on and it's easier to see the important data. Both games for me feel the same in this category, with DD2 even being slightly more difficult to visually navigate due to the very dim perimeters of auras and the lack of sharp color contrast. It seemed more like a budgeting choice. Maybe they had less people on the art team, or they streamlined it to be as 'reproducable' (future content, micro-transactions, map packs, etc)) as possible by simplifying the whole ordeal.
  10. Why is premium currency being discussed here? Didn't CG already say this is a pay-up-front game with bigger DLCs coming later and no micro-transactions in between?
  11. This post is nicely fleshed out, and I agree. Having the 'regaular' game content (campaign + most DLC) beatable without having to farm for hundreds of hours is how it should be, but there should be that incentive-creating endgame that feels like a real, genuine challenge. Different enemies, crazy stats/buffs, thought-provoking maps, etc. And this content should be worked towards, farmed towards, strategized towards, etc. It shouldn't be as easy as like Bloons, where you just tinker with tower placements and you'll have the map beat within a few runs after unlocking it. Map-specific loot sounds awesmoe too.
  12. Oh wow I'm surprised noone has chimed in yet! Perhaps I mind the aesthetics more than the average player.
  13. I agree with this so strongly, especially having to use certain towers and not being able to use walls/cades.
  14. What are you guys looking for in DDA in terms of the aesthetics/graphics/art style? Personally, I'm looking for that comfortable, saturated, 3D feel of DD1 within the upgraded physics engine/world of DD2. I've always felt that DD2 had a couple nagging issues with the aesthetics that really turned me off; 1. There was a certain flatness or 2D-ness to the environment and the objects within it. Leaves, lights, stones, etc., all seemed sort of copy-pasted-assets thing, where they weren't affected by the map's light source(s), and didn't have any detail to them. They were quite flat and bland, whereas DD1's objects/environment was full of detail and was immersive because of it. 2. Omnipresent/non-existent light source(s). It was clear in DD1 where the light source was on most maps just given the heroes shadows, as well as the shadows of objects on the map, especially if it was an outdoors map. DD2 was different. It just seemed like everything had a random glow to it, like I was walking through walmart with all those omnipresent flourescent/LED lights up above. Like on the public winter tavern thing, there's these little christmas lights that are just 2D colors.. no glow, no effect on surroundings, no 'light' at all. Feels artificial and cheap. DD1, in comparison, had lens flares! 3. Colors were quite flat or muted in DD2. DD1 had a very colorful, saturated world, so much so that I turned down the saturation a bit in the settings lol. DD2 is quite dull by comparison. This is quite beautiful on some maps, like the wintery ones, but it misses the mark on other maps, like the private tavern, liferoot, etc. 4. What I guess would be called "effects". DD1's eternia crystal (right? the thing you press G at to start a map), the app towers, weapon skins, certain enemies, certain objects like torches, these all had a sort of effect to them. Some were trippy-4-dimensional, some were fire, some had a lightning glow thing going on, but they all had depth and a rich aura to them. DD2 stuff looks rather plain, and I mained an App in that game. Glowy things don't glow.. firey things aren't firey. Things feel dry and dull, without the life that effects and glowy-ness gives it. 5. An art style that I can only describe with language like sharp angles, thin, asymmetrical, twist-y, and haunted. Whereas DD1 felt squat, symmetrical, and shapely. I love what DD2 did in some ways, like hero animations, boss animations, larger variety of skins, etc. I get that most would say DD1 looks silly and outdated, which I'd agree with, but it did many things right that DD2 did 'wrong' imo. Aesthetics in general is a very subjective topic/experience. What do you guys think?
  15. What exactly is the issue? Are you saying you aren't looking forward to retiring your DDA when DD3 comes out?
  • Create New...