Jump to content

Aheadatlme

Junior Defender
  • Content Count

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

14 Good

About Aheadatlme

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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?
  6. 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.
  7. Oh wow I'm surprised noone has chimed in yet! Perhaps I mind the aesthetics more than the average player.
  8. I agree with this so strongly, especially having to use certain towers and not being able to use walls/cades.
  9. 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?
  10. What exactly is the issue? Are you saying you aren't looking forward to retiring your DDA when DD3 comes out?
  11. This is a revenue generator for DD3, absolutely. DD2 will soon stop receiving updates imo, and all focus will be on DDA. DD3 will probably take another year or two to develop, and at that point they will have two titles, with the majority of the players most likely on DD3. Sounds good to me. If you're worried that DDA will be too quickly moved on from, then I guess that depends on how long you usually stick with a game. For good games that I really dig, 1-2 years is about right. Most likely that will be how long of a gap there is between DDA release and DD3 release.
  12. I can vibe with this, and it's sort of how I felt with DD1. It's just that it reallllyyyyy sucked when you'd get that one stat that ruined an otherwise perfect piece of gear. It also made sorting gear/equipping stuff for the next battle take longer than it needed to. I wouldn't say to make all stats positive and keep the same number of stats on gear. If a class of gear dropped with ~6 stats, and 1-2 were usually negative, then the update would be 4 stats instead. I can understand the points of view here that this takes away a bit of that RNG fun, but that was the idea anyway.
  13. This concept is something I'm more in line with. Playing through all the main campaign maps and most of the DLC on something like Hard/Insane on Hardcore mode should be a widely available objective. I don't mind, and would actually strongly suggest, that cream of the crop gear be much harder to come across, and that the most difficult maps on the most difficult settings be extremely difficult to beat. Really healthy for the game that you have that super top tier replayability and goals to reach. I'm mostly talking about the other 80-90% of the game's content when I mention a more reasonable pace of progress.
  14. RNG is fun and healthy to an extent. You guys keep tossing around the term '1000 hours', and I'm sure you're being sarcastic, but that's crazy unhealthy to me. Progress should feel gradual and approachable. Imagine a boreal forested region. It gets a certain amount of rainfall each year, and that rainfall is spread throughout multiple smaller rains. Contrast that to a desert region that floods once or twice a year. In this bizarre metaphor, the rainfall is the progress we make in finding better loot, and the vegetation would be our interest in the game, our desire to keep coming back. Vast majority of players do not want to sink in 1k hours of no-progress-RNG-slot-machine farming only to one day hit the jackpot and become 10% stronger instantly. It's just not fun compared to the more gradual approach. I've had 4 other friends play DD1 with me after me recommending the game to them, and they were all addicted at first. Leveling up was exciting, sinking mana into items/pets felt rewarding, getting past wave 15 on survival was epic as all hell, it was a blast. But as soon as we started farming the map a second time to get a better spec'd pet, and a third time, and a fourth time, they lost interest. We plateaued, and were now playing the slot machine to make more progress, which would have lead us up to the next plateau anyway. I get that most of us here at the forums are serious players with serious time to put into this game, but we're special cases. I don't think endgame gear should be as easy to get as leveling up your first hero from 0 to 60, but I don't think you should afk farm the same map on repeat for days on end either. That's just straight boring, and requires a certain type of interest that the vast majority of people don't have.
  15. In DD1, some stats would roll as negatives on pieces of gear. I don't mean negative as in '20 less' hero health than your current gear. I mean negative as in '20 less than 0'. I'll clarify; Not like this; ***Current Helmet*** ***New Helmet*** 40 Hero Health 20 Hero Health (-20) 40 Tower Health 50 Tower Health (+10) I mean like this; ***Current Helmet*** ***New Helmet*** 40 Hero Health -20 Hero Health (-60) 40 Tower Health 50 Tower Health (+10)
×
×
  • Create New...