Jump to content

LemonyNebula

Junior Defender
  • Content Count

    32
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

29 Excellent

About LemonyNebula

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. You have to be careful with host kicking as people could get people to play up to a point, then kick them last second, and just abuse it as much as they can. It can put people off playing altogether and make finding people to join your game harder as everyone would want to host their own. You could also go the way of majority vote, as at least then there would be less chance of abuse. If you are already in a game with a majority who behaves like that, then you wouldn't want to be in a game with them anyway. However this could also mean hijacking of your game from a joined team, or losing control of kicking a particularly bothersome player. I honestly don't know what is best.
  2. A question that would be valuable to know would be, are people okay with ready timers for each wave? So when the majority click go, the other players are then timed to demote people hanging up multiplayer games when with randoms. Also, if so, would people prefer the ability to unready and the timer to be able to be canceled if it loses majority? I presonally think, even with infinite time to build, ready timers would need to remain as multiplayer games are hardly the place to have a leisurely stroll. Unreadying may still give the ability to hang up a game or to pester someone, but if the majority is doing this, they probably are not the people to be playing with.
  3. I came up with a character in the turret ideas thread that could phase turrets and enemies, switching between two layouts for turrets, and phasing back targeted enemies through time to push them back in front of defenses they just past. Time manipulation makes a lot of sense in this game. Now I'm also thinking difficulty modifiers that speed up or slow down time in game, not just the build timer. I want this to be like DD1. sure, but I am all for new twists if they make sense and are fun.
  4. Build timers have never really been an issue. I find I often had plenty of time to know where my placements should be and don't have enough points to put many more towers that take up the time. Only multiplayer did it slow people down as communication takes up most of the time. Keep it or don't though, doesn't really bother me personally. In fact, I never even considered them as a way to adjust difficulty, just a way to make sure public games start without someone time wasting in the build phase. Then again, I didn't hero swap or destroy and replace turrets much, so never had much to do in the build phase. If it has to be included, an option to have one or not is good. Have it as a difficulty modifier like you would hardcore mode, and make difficulty affect it so you have all the time in the world earlier and less later. It shouldn't be something you miss out on not doing, but something to challenge those who find it makes it difficult. That way people can play their way and you really can please everyone. When in doubt, make it optional. As for people who have to have that challenge. Even if timers don't exist, just time yourself. Get a stopwatch, limit your options. You can make a game as hard as you want that way. It is better to make a game appeal to more and challenge yourself in it, than to remove the fun for those who struggle just so the game tells you to do what you can do yourself.
  5. Have to say, I like the character concepts you guys have been sharing on Twitter. So happy to see them designed with the DD1 style in mind, but refreshed rather than rehashed. Can't wait to hear more.
  6. I believe if your survey isn't locked in, or you have recieved nothing, you can go back to that link on the email confirmation for filling in the survey to make some changes. Past that point, I am unsure if you can make any changes but it is worth asking.
  7. This I agree with. Not everyone who backed is on this forum, but they are all on the kickstarter page which has a section specifically for updates and comments. They should make that the first place to post important information, not here. Or at least link the discussion there to here so people can see it in more depth. They tend to not be following the rules of kickstarter very well, first with the lack of delivery info and now not ensuring new info goes out to everyone through the right channels. All I am saying about updates is that updates are nice however, but they don't make much of a difference this early on over a large part of development and will most likely bring little news. Yeah it shows they are active on it but we should assume that anyway, we backed them for a reason and we would expect that they are working hard in the background. Not saying I don't want as many updates as they are willing because I would still, who wouldn't, we are excited after all, just not to panic and give them the time they need. We got a lot of time left and we could get a flood on info when they have decent info to share. Still feels a bit early to worry thats all.
  8. Crombell is right. When we know that the release date is months away and we are supporting them to make the game, it is often best to stand back and let them get on with it. There is a lot to do after all. It's great that people are excited enough to want to hear its progress every step of the way, but it's just as good to have a little faith in their progress and wait for bigger announcements than a stream of updates. There is also nothing stopping us from talking about it between too and they have been posting a few teases on twitter. I 100% agree about communicatin with the delivery costs however. I really felt I had to constantly push just to get an answer on the option of a partial monetary refund and the original choices just were not good enough for many. It was this delay that made a few refund entirely who probably would have much prefered to partially refund the physical items only. If an issue is affecting the backers now, then they should have been a lot more active in helping solve it now, than they were. Especially with the surveys possibly being timed. They really should put more info on the kickstarter page too as that should be their first port of call for contact with the backers. I took it upon myself to update people where I could and it should not be on us to do so. However, they have done the right thing with the refunds in the end, and I am happy to say we can put it behind us regardless. So I'd rather not go into that any more really. We just have to play the waiting game until the next update for now.
  9. I noticed my characters where gone, even from unranked after coming back to it for ages. Is there still chance of getting them back? Sad thing is, I restarted to check if it would fix it, so I know it may be unlikely.
  10. Yeah but I would rather the game release legitimatley without the resentment of dissappointed backers. You may be okay with spending more than first pledged, which is great, but not everyone is, especially those who already gave everything they could and are unable. I'm grateful for every backer regardless of amount for helping to support a make a game I know I will love happen and would never expect nor want them to be in a position where they have to give more on top, or lose the rewards they get in return. The ability to refund part of their pledge by lowering the tier, without having to lose it in credit/gems or refund the whole thing, means they can still support the game as much as they are willing, happily, and is honestly the best thing they could do to solve the situation and all that many asked for. I am glad they decided to allow for this. We can pretty much put the mistake behind us. Also remember. Kickstarters are not charity and they still fall under trading laws. It is clearly stated on kickstarter itself that this falls down to the project creators and it cannot be used to skirt around the law. All sellers on kickstarter are a buisness like any other and any money taken through it is to be treated as a contract. It is quite an important distinction, especially if you use it a lot and come across any scams.
  11. Thank you for the information. The ability to lower the pledge and get a money refund and not just credit for the add ons makes a huge difference. Most people I have spoken to with the problem believed their only options was to lose the cash in gems, lose the cash in credit or cancel the pledge entirely. This changes a lot. I don't have the issue myself, but I will be sure to let people know that they are able to lower the pledge without the refund being tied up as credit. This is the best option as it keeps people as backers without them feeling tricked into spending more than they should. It is very much appreciated.
  12. My apologies, I thought you meant the gems that are given instead of delivery, not the ones you currently have. The other posts saying: "getting Gems from DDA for DD2 " and "The options provided are the best options available." Made me think otherwise.
  13. Why are gems the best option instead of the ability to refund just the physical products? We have the option to lower the tier, but why does lowering the tier leave your refund stuck as credit in backerkit? This problem is all down to you guys not preparing enough by arranging delivery or estimates and not telling the backers about delivery even though the process tells you you should. The backers really shouldn't be out of pocket at all for something that was so preventable.
  14. hailminion is hitting the nail on the head about the delivery problem. You should always at the very least have an estimation for the cost of delivery to give to consumers. If you don't even have an estimate, then you should not be promising physical products at all as you have not enquired with a delivery service before stating to even know if it is feasible. As long as it was stated up front that it is an estimated cost, then people get the chance to decide if they have enough funds to cover the cost and the potential delivery, be it £10 or £50. The Kickstarter process itself states that these costs are to be known beforehand. Without any indication of a delivery cost at all, consumers are expected to believe that there are no additional costs, and it is calculated within the pledge, as a lack of delivery cost before money has been accepted is illegal in most countries. Delivery issues happen. Services back down last minute and unforseen problems can arise. In these cases, if the company cannot cover the costs, consumers are to be given the option to a full refund (which you can do through Backerkit), a partial refund for the goods that you are unable to recieve (which you can't do), or the company can offer compensation with an item of equal or higher value (gems in this case, which has questionable worth). It is never on the consumer to eat the cost. Unfortunatley, Chromatic screwed up by not setting this up properly and has put the burden of their decision on the consumer. No I do not believe this was intentional in the slightest, no I don't think it is a con or fraud and no I don't believe Chromatic is out to get anyone. I believe it to be an honest, yet foolish mistake, that they should address better, as they seem to be making more and more errors surrounding this issue. I believe the correct outcome should be to offer a partial refund to those who have to turn down their physical goods, and they should own up to and apologise for the issue, instead of just vaguely explaining it as just the delivery services fault and what they are doing for us to fix it, like it is a favour. People can call it throwing a tantrum as much as they like, the truth is, this is a valid issue that needs to be better addressed. People are allowed to excersise their rights, without being judged, and doing so does not mean they care for the company or product any less and should not be shamed.
×
×
  • Create New...