Jump to content


Community Development Team
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by gigazelle

  1. Not gonna lie, I'm pretty upset that Switch is being forced to take the backseat, especially since it was touted to release "soon" for such a long time. And during that time, all we got was radio silence without any sort of communication or updates. Understatement of the year
  2. As Switch owners we've already waited an entire year; what's another year more? ... Pretty upset by this news.
  3. Well, we officially have word now. Switch got kicked to the curb, Xbox is the new exclusive. Q1 2021, with Switch and Playstation coming after. As a Switch owner, I'm pretty disheartened hearing this news.
  4. Agreed. It took DD2 several rounds of almost every game mechanic getting revamped, but they eventually got a lot of things in a relatively good place. Obviously there's still plenty of room for improvement, but for reals, they genuinely learned from what DD1 did right/wrong and improved upon it. Even though DD2's game designers made some pretty huge mistakes, they listened to the community and improved. They have my respect for that, even if I still disagree with some of their design decisions. They also have my respect for managing to make DD2 what it is today given the F2P business model constraints they were handed. DDA made token attempts to improve off of DD1, such as with the hero deck, but DDA has almost all the flaws of DD1 and then some. I don't feel that same sense of innovation in DDA that DD2 had. I also know that they get a lot of feedback from the rose-tinted glasses of nostalgic DD1 players to copy even more things over to DDA, which further encourages that lack of innovation. As I've said from the start, DDA should have been a new unique title with new unique content. And while I still think that, I fear that it is too late for CG to pursue that path anymore.
  5. This is pure speculation, but I am fairly confident this is precisely why we don't have console release dates anymore. Pretty sure CG signed a deal with Nintendo that it would release on the Switch first, then other consoles later. Otherwise they wouldn't have originally implied simultaneous console releases on their Kickstarter, then later specified that it will be Switch exclusive before going to other consoles. When bringing DDA to the Switch they realized that performance on the console was abysmal Over the last bunch of months (I've lost track how many), they've been working with Nintendo and Epic to get performance up to par. It's just that the game is architected in such a way that this is proving to be a significant challenge. Since they can't release it to other consoles until they release it on Switch, they are forced into resolving the performance issues first instead of relying on more powerful hardware in other consoles. I'm sure they'll eventually figure it out and get it in a good working state for the Switch. When that happens, I don't think we will need to worry about performance issues on other consoles, and possibly even PC. Again, pure speculation, but I do feel there's merit to this. Given that cross-saves are a thing, it would be extremely risky for CG to tamper with number of mobs or equipment drop chances across platforms. With how loot-focused this game is, a change as big as altering number of enemies (which affects number of drops) would instantly make farming on one platform or another unequivocally worse or better. I don't think they're willing to risk that. I personally wouldn't want them to risk that.
  6. CG would need to work on their community communication first. Also, given that everyone in the CDT has moved on to other projects, it would be a lot harder to coordinate a project like that now. This month marks the 1-year anniversary of when the CDT was disbanded. There are some huge architectural differences between DD1 and DDA that would prevent DDA from being just a DD1 update. These differences are not immediately present, which makes it really easy to have the "this could have been a DD1 patch" mindset. The whole thing was built in Unreal Engine 4 (unlike DD1 which was built in UE3), and uses a completely different player save system. These changes allow CG to make the game much more difficult to hack, as well as offer cross-platform saves (...when its released on consoles). These core features are literally impossible to patch into DD1 unless you rebuilt it from the ground up. This doesn't excuse the poor quality and state of DDA, and I 100% agree with your post. I just wish they hadn't copied DD1...
  7. Ooh! I have some great tips to share with you in order to maximize your glamor shot! Before launching the game, be sure to apply the texture fix .ini! If you're not familiar with what that is, check the pinned posts in #general in the DDRNG Discord. Also before launching the game, click 'Configure' and make sure your graphic settings are set to 'High'. Press 'H' to hide the HUD. Turn your camera field of view all the way down. This brings your character into perfect frame. You can use the scroll wheel to zoom out a bit, especially if you have a larger weapon. Here's how mine turned out!
  8. DDA was sooooo close to being absolutely awesome. All they needed to do was give the base 4 heroes brand new abilities and defenses, similarly to how DD2 gave them brand new abilities and defenses. Toss in a couple of new common enemies and different nightmare enemies that would shake up builds a bit more, and you'd have a fresh new take on Dungeon Defenders that I would consider a lot more fun. Instead, we got DD1 for the third time. Also, I'm still pretty salty about them dropping the CDT like a sack of potatoes. Most of the CDT were willing to continue contributing to DD1, and some even willing to start contributing to DDA.
  9. OP is talking about drakenlord on random maps, not the drakenfrost keep map. Also, I don't think you can use the oil/fire pickups on that map against enemies; i thought it only worked with the torches.
  10. Giving the summoner their own MU would be a fatal mistake. Do you balance Massacre survival around only defense units, or DU and MU? If you balance difficulty around only DU, congratulations! Use your summoner to effectively double your DU and easily win without any challenge at all. If you balance difficulty around the presence of both DU and MU, congratulations! You are now absolutely 100% required to level up and play summoner. If you don't, you're gimping yourself by not using half of your available DU. In DDE, minions used DU, and they were still used in almost every build. Aside from that, I can understand and appreciate what the summoner has to offer, but I would much rather have a net-new hero instead of the third rehash of the same hero.
  11. 1) This was exactly the same way in DD1. No clue why CG copied this flaw. 2) This is what happens when multiplicative mechanics scale with tower stats. You get a 100% worthless tower early game, and a blatantly overpowered tower late game.
  12. HOLY FREAKING GUACAMOLE THEY LISTENED There's still the whole issue of buff beam (ahem... overclock beam) stat scaling making the towers worse, but I anticipate that's a pretty easy patch. The fact that we're not getting a broken cloned DD1 buff beam with multipliers has really restored some of my faith in this game. There are still a lot of other issues that require attention, but I genuinely enjoy and appreciate that they are trying, and listening, and I can tell that they are putting their all into it. I'm personally still waiting for the Switch version before jumping in and playing with my family. I look forward to trying out EV:A!
  13. I liked their post for you Patch notes are now live. Looks like they were just a little bit late getting it into the hands of the community. However, no mention of DU changes...
  14. (Sigh) We just had to take it there, didn't we. Is it a remake, or is it not? Oh, so it's a new game then? Not a remake. An up-to-date experience for DD1? So it is a remake? Okay, so definitely NOT a remake. Now remind me which heroes are in the game? What weapons they use? Their summoned defenses? DU and mana cost of said defenses? Abilities? Stats on gear? Armor types and set bonuses? XP and leveling requirements? Surely those aren't the same? ...They are? So this surely is a remake then! You can't just say "not a remake" and then copy literally every single game mechanic from the game. This has to be a remake then. It is quite literally Schrodinger's DD1 remake. It is both simultaneously a DD1 remake and not a DD1 remake. There are tons of claims from CG themselves that it's not a remake, and yet everything that is DDA indicates that it is, indeed a remake. I have tons more of these, btw. For both sides of the coin. "Is DD1 a remake?" is a question that cannot be answered, because there is so much contradictory evidence supporting both sides.
  15. I'm not gonna rag on your definition of fun - if you enjoy the brokenness of buff beams, more power to you. But as for me, I take enjoyment in my choice of what towers, heroes, abilities, and pets I use to beat waves. Introducing a copy of DD1's buff beam removes that choice, because the game has already picked for me. The balance of the game dictates that I use it in every map, or else I'm severely gimping myself and making the game much more difficult than it needs to be. This is the importance of balance - it allows players to pick their favorite ways to defend without making the game unnecessarily difficult. Pets, heroes, and their abilities can be tweaked to be properly balanced. Buff beams acting as a multiplier that scales with stats, no matter how they're tweaked, cannot be properly balanced. Don't bring over the summoner because: If I want the DD1 summoner experience I can just play DD1 I would rather those development resources be dedicated to a new and unique hero, and not a rehashed one that everyone has already played Introducing the summoner is yet further proof that DDA is just a copy of DD1 (as if it needs more proof lol) If minion units are a thing, then that further boxes players into a single type of gameplay, especially if buff beams in their current state are released While an RTS in a tower defense game is a pretty novel and interesting concept, is not the most efficient way to play that hero. Instead, effectively doubling your defense units with minions and plopping them on the broken buff beams we're talking about here is the most effective way. Doubling your DU with minions, once again, removes the choice of building. I digress though, as the summoner in DDA is not confirmed. I don't plan to bring it up until a) it's announced; and b) we have an opportunity to see how it plays, and specifically if the hero uses MU or not.
  16. This is clearly a superior implementation to the buff beam than DD1 and what we've seen of DDA so far. Instead of acting as a multiplier, it simply passes some of EV's builder stats to each affected tower. It still makes EV gear progression important, because you'll want her to pass as much of each stat as possible to affected towers. However, the ratio (or percentage boost) would remain about the same from beginning to end. CG could then balance it by determining how much of the builder stats get passed to the towers. Buff beams getting used in every build when they pass 30% of EV's tower stats to defenses? Reduce it so it's only 20% of EV's stats. Buff beam feels worthless and never used? Increase the portion of EV's stats that get passed to towers. Eventually you'd hit that sweet spot where it would be advantageous in some builds, but not a requirement everywhere.
  17. Be careful what you wish for - once the buff beam is introduced, it will unlikely ever leave the meta. Ever. I can quite literally personally attest to this. As part of the CDT we wanted to incrementally nerf DD1's buff beam in hopes that it wouldn't be a requirement in every build. The community was super divided on the topic, and we couldn't make any changes unless the community was in full support of a change. So, the buff beam remained a requirement for every nightmare build. DDA is a new game (at least it's supposed to be), and the buff beam isn't in the game yet. There's still a chance to avoid the same meta that DD1 has. The pet that boosts towers is much more manageable - as long as the DPS increase of the towers it boosts is (relatively) on par with the damage output of a regular DPS pet, you have an element of the game that is relatively balanced. Monk boosts are a little bit more difficult, but I feel with balance passes could achieve a hero that feels good without being completely broken. I'd personally balance monk so he has a little less DPS than other heroes without boosts, and a little more DPS with boosts active. Monk boosts are also temporary and isolated to a single location; buff beams are not. I'm afraid that's not how the buff beam (at least in its current state) is going to work. It's going to be 100% worthless in every situation until a magical arbitrary point in the game to where it's then a required defense in every build. That magical arbitrary point is dependent on how CG scales the buff beam multipliers, and how well it scales with stats. I would absolutely love for a buff beam be for "a few select towers", but from a game design perspective, that's not going to be the reality.
  18. This is the third time I'm raising this conversation over the course of this series. Please do not bring the buff beam to DDA! Buff beams are unmistakably and undeniably BROKEN. Not just as its balance in any Dungeon Defenders game, but as a core game design and balance concept. It is literally impossible to balance correctly. That's not just opinion; it is the equivalent of attempting to force an exponential curve to match a linear line. It is a mathematic impossibility. The mathematical concept (and paradox) behind the buff beam Kay, so, you've got this beam that buffs towers. It multiplies damage, attack rate, damage resistance, and range. As you increase its stats, the multipliers increase. There are three huuuuge issues with the concept behind the defense: Its a damage multiplier. This alone is more than enough to completely skew the entire balancing of the tower. It's also an attack rate multiplier, which exponentially increases damage output. On top of that, you can further increase its effectiveness by dumping stats into it. Altogether, you have the buff beam's damage multiplier, attack rate multiplier, and your gear making this insane exponential curve. In DD1, the exponential curve was approximately equal to the (relatively) linear defense damage curve in the ballpark of level 30-40. This means that if you had a choice between summoning, say, 2 harpoons or 1 harpoon on a buff beam, you'd get approximately the same damage output. Beyond that, the buff beam's damage output skyrocketed. In full trans gear, a buff beam multiplies a single tower's damage 6x-8x. 4DU for that kind of multiplier means that every defense should be on a buff beam or it's 100% worthless. DDE's started out a little tiny bit better, but a balance patch made it even worse. The attack rate on some towers was just absurd. Ended up exactly in the same position as DD1. DD2's buff beam is literally worthless until you have mostly C8 relics, and only if you have exactly the right mods and shards on it. They learned from DD1's mishap, but made it irrelevant to 99% of the players. The exponential curve meets the linear defense power curve at very end game, so it sees virtually no use. 60DU for a super minor increase in stats isn't worth it. In almost all scenarios, you might as well just summon a second tower. It also only increases damage and not attack rate, which helps alleviate the exponential curve that buff beams conceptually have. From what we've seen so far, DDA's buff beam is much closer aligned to DD1's buff beam, and since they're balancing stuff, they get to choose where the exponential buff beam curve meets the linear defense power curve of other towers. Gut the buff beam so it's 100% worthless early game and relatively balanced in massacre (similar to how DD2 did it) Keep original balancing, making buff beam a 100% required defense for literally every build (similar to how DD1 did it) Mathematically speaking, there is no middle ground. Either it's 100% worthless early game and balanced late game, or it's balanced early game and 100% broken late game. You could also make it worthless early game, balanced mid game, and broken late game. How would you balance the buff beam here?
  19. Skyward challenges look and sound super fun! Glad to see some unique content actively developed. Looking forward to playing all of this on the Switch with my family when it's released for consoles!
  20. Considering that DD2 has more concurrent players than DD1 and DDA combined, and considering that DD2 has a better review score than DDA, I wouldn't call DD2 a failure. Sure, it didn't reach critical acclaim like DD1 did, but neither has DDA. In fact, I'd submit that DDA's lack of critical acclaim is precisely because it refuses to stray from DD1.
  21. Just watched Juicebags video on EV, and I'm really disheartened to see that it is basically a tit-for-tat copy of DD1's EV. No improvements or lessons learned, including the most disappointing part: an immediate shift to a buff beam meta. It is another direct copy from DD1 without even any attempt at something original. This gives continued evidence that DDA is in fact just a copy of DD1 minus 90% of the content. Instead of CG using their valuable dev time to create unique and original content, they are squandering it to attempt to play catch up with DD1, who is still many years ahead in terms of content. I don't want DD1's EV. I don't want a meta centered around a buff beam. Instead, I want an EV that combines the best of both DD1 and DD2, and tosses her own unique flair in the game. Reflect beam is a great defense, and a staple to her arsenal. Maybe have another go at the weapon manufacturer. Instead of making it a damaging tower, return to its original design of being a pickup-based defense. Crank up the damage of the nukes and let EV shine at burst damage. How satisfying would that be to have a weapon manufacturer build a nuke throughout a wave, and give you the ability to one-shot a couple ogres no sweat? Give us a brand new tower that we've never seen before Give EV her own weapons, otherwise EV will always be at odds with apprentice and huntress at who uses staves/guns better. If THIS was the EV that was announced, I would be a lot more excited. I don't want parity to DD1. I want a new take at a tower defense RPG with DD1 core game mechanics.
  22. Just caught up on this thread. I haven't been involved in the DDA scene for a while, but allow me to share my perspective on a few different things. Bottom line (TL;DR): DDA played it too safe by copying too many elements of DD1, and it suffers from the exact same flaws that DD1 has. They had an opportunity to improve upon the original design of the game, but didn't. Fun fact, when DD1 was very first released, nightmare difficulty was not initially on their roadmap. Due to the success of the game, they wanted to introduce more content, and more difficult content. However, there was a major problem: the stat scaling and number crunching was designed for insane difficulty being the cap. If they wanted to allow stats to go higher, those stats had to be treated differently. This is why in Nightmare you have hugely nerfed projectile speed, crazy different health scaling, pet buffs, DPS nerf, and a whole slew of other major balance changes compared to insane. One of the most confusing game design decisions I've ever seen is why CG opted to intentionally include these tacked-on balance changes in DDA as well. They had an incredible opportunity to rebalance this game for a smooth progression curve from start to finish (easy to massacre), and they instead opted to include the awkward insane to nightmare transition again. This is just one of the many red flags that indicate that CG is just trying the whole "you can copy my homework answers but change it up a little so it doesn't look like you copied from me". DD1 and DDA are just too similar - you can't avoid comparing them. On one hand, you have all the same core game mechanics down to the precise amount of XP gained per map being identical between DD1 and DDA. On the other hand, DDA isn't technically a remaster of DD1, so they left out almost a decade's worth of content. So you have DDA in this weird limbo of "It's DD1! ...But it's sorta not", creating this never-ending controversy. If DDA was different enough from DD1, we wouldn't see the content comparison argument. But the fact stands: DD1 and DDA are too similar not to be compared. CG tried straddling the two sides of "remaster DD1" and "make a brand new game", and honestly ended up getting the brunt end of both sides. If CG had simply stuck to one side or another of "DD1 remastered" or "Brand new game with new heroes, towers, enemies, and maps", we would see a lot more pleasant reception from all parties. CG could have stuck to the core mechanics of DD1 and given us a new defending experience with new abilities, towers, enemies, and maps. I feel like this would have been the best of both worlds. This is what I also communicated in my review of the game, which aggravatingly got a literal canned response from the developers (still salty about that btw). Unless CG makes some major revisions to their roadmap, I don't expect much progress here. In fact, the only reason why DDDK exists is because Trendy had a bit of extra time prior to DD1's initial release. While I would absolutely love a DDA SDK (enough so that I'd consider getting back in the game to take a crack at making content), I don't think it's very high on CG's priority list.
  23. I've always wanted an item of mine in the game!
  • Create New...