Jump to content

Rick Sanchez

Junior Defender
  • Content Count

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Rick Sanchez

  1. Trendyent are towers going to be baseline viable without the sets? I'm worried with sets and making abilities viable only when we get them, we follow the D3 model of progression which has largely been a failure as evident by their current balance system. Can we expect trendy to take a different route? Edit: Was told to post this from the live stream tonight. Thanks for getting back to us! I am Duke_Von_Sausage from the stream btw, just in case anyone worries that I stole the question.
  2. Did some NM first wave trash farm today. Honestly after 3 hours, it just wasn't worth it. You can get to farming NM4 a lot easier just going to NM2 and climbing the gear steps up. We're on double loot week and the loot was still super sparse doing this tactic.
  3. Yeah, whats the deal with that. Squire and Apprentice blockades should both be good, just take different approaches into keeping monsters back. I think Apprentice blockades should have a knock back, freeze, or some kind of elemental CC that helps them last longer, so they still do the same job, just offer a different playstyle and mechanic to introduce into the game. This whole mentality from DD1, where 1 class has only one thing to offer and nothing else needs to go. I want robust options to enter into multiplayer with, not this 1 tower per class nonsense.
  4. That is exactly what I want. I want plenty of ways to beat stuff. I want to be able to go back and say I wonder if I use this combo will it be better. I just don't want to see like other games like WoW and all the Diablo games, where if you don't build your hero in this way then you are not gonna get it done. That will be what happens in the end because everyone will complain it is to easy so they make it so hard only the best meta of gear and skills will beat it. But you're going down the opposite route by limiting the options per class. I made a pretty good reply depicting the confusion that seems to be going on here. Having well developed heroes, each with 4 useful towers that can be stand alone or incorporated into group play, has more options available to a team than only 1 useful tower per hero. You're mathematically suggesting limiting options, then saying you're opening up options which is isn't coherent to the outcome. Heroes should be more than a frost tower, a water trap, a barricade, or a dps bot.
  5. Then that is precisely the problem (though I don't agree with your sentiment). One hero maps SHOULD be fun, not because you can spam heroes, but because heroes should be well rounded enough to be fun playing. If you can't have fun playing one class, and you need to play MULTIPLE classes to get any kind of "fun", out of high level maps, as well as clear them, then there is something drastically wrong with the game. Have to disagree. What makes the game fun to me is having to look at what heroes I have and figure out what towers I can use to best beat it. If this game was one hero only I would never play it. If every hero can beat all the content solo then that means the game has no depth of thinking, puzzle solving. On the contrary, it actually involves a much higher development time and intricate design detail to create independent classes able to pull off solo play. Additionally, why should other's be forced to play classes they have no interest in just to be viable. By making each class have a specific tower or ability that is only important to the overall scheme, not only do you water down the game by making that the only viable top build, you water down mechanics. You basically do exactly what you're suggesting would happen if solo classes were fully developed and functional in their own unique way. Having strong classes that are well developed doesn't make the game watered down, it makes it more advanced, and it brings that added layer of design to multiplayer games, giving us a much greater option to theorycraft and build into a variety of different things. I can't see this at all. All I can picture right now is everyone has the same squire build because that build beats the game. Each hero has 4 towers 5ish if you count uber swapping. If the game is beatable by all heroes only using their 4/5 towers it means shallow difficulty because every hero has to be able to do it. Now you take a scenario that can't be beat by just one hero but can be beat by combinations, now that adds depth and flexibility as to how you play each map. Well its just a simple mathematical observation of the number of useful abilities. What sounds more intricate to you: A class with only one tower to contribute to both the solo and multiplayer options, or a class that has multiple towers and abilities that can be useful to each. The second clearly adds a lot more depth and theorycrafting to the game, as having more options per hero would give us more builds overall in the end. I think you're confusing the idea that having one well developed class with multiple abilities somehow limits gameplay. If each class is developed specific to its powers and playstyle, for example having 4 useful towers overall to get the job done, its just as advanced as having 4 different classes with only 1 useful ability.
  6. This is an excellent post. Its incredibly precise, outlines the exact issues and flaws with the current system, and provides an eloquent and insightful response as to where this game should be heading for both thoughtful and fulfilling gameplay. Seriously Rotto, you've made an excellent post here. If you don't mind, I'd like to quote you in my original post so that others can see this, as its written much better than what I originally submitted.
  7. Then that is precisely the problem (though I don't agree with your sentiment). One hero maps SHOULD be fun, not because you can spam heroes, but because heroes should be well rounded enough to be fun playing. If you can't have fun playing one class, and you need to play MULTIPLE classes to get any kind of "fun", out of high level maps, as well as clear them, then there is something drastically wrong with the game. Have to disagree. What makes the game fun to me is having to look at what heroes I have and figure out what towers I can use to best beat it. If this game was one hero only I would never play it. If every hero can beat all the content solo then that means the game has no depth of thinking, puzzle solving. On the contrary, it actually involves a much higher development time and intricate design detail to create independent classes able to pull off solo play. Additionally, why should other's be forced to play classes they have no interest in just to be viable. By making each class have a specific tower or ability that is only important to the overall scheme, not only do you water down the game by making that the only viable top build, you water down mechanics. The single useful tower/ability per class does basically what you're claiming would happen if solo classes were fully developed and functional in their own unique way. Having strong classes that are well developed doesn't make the game watered down, it makes it more advanced, and it brings that added layer of design to multiplayer games, giving us a much greater option to theorycraft and build into a variety of different things.
  8. Then that is precisely the problem (though I don't agree with your sentiment). Each hero alone SHOULD be fun. Not rely on other heroes to get the job done. Each hero should be designed to be unique and fun to play by their own merit alone. If you can't have fun playing one class, and you need to play MULTIPLE classes to get any kind of "fun", out of high level maps, as well as clear them, then there is something drastically wrong with the game.
  9. Yet, we all know that is actually a really poor approach to take for the game. People are going to see that for what it is, or have seen it for what it is. I want a game with balanced classes, where 1 is enough to solo and has meaningful abilities so that you can enjoy its form of play, as well as being well rounded and have more than 1 tower per group play to be considered useful in a group. We need to expect more out of our classes, not less. The big picture is that doing so doesn't kill the longevity of the game, it increases it by making a game with worthwhile, exciting, and rememberable classes. People aren't going to quit just because they don't like a class, or don't want to play their class anymore. Like any other game with multiple classes, people will have alts, or secondary characters, or switch to new mains. Every job should have abilities that are useful and not have the illusion of being a class with just one useful ability. If this goes on, we're not looking at a game, we're looking at a gimmick. If the hero deck doesn't go, I promise you, you're going to be looking at a very small player base willing to put in the hours to max everything, just to be able to solo a map. There are far, far, far fewer of those people who will accept the gimmick for what it is, rather than the greater majority of people who are looking for a full fledged, well designed, and quality game they can play over the long term. P.S. I've seen a lot of complaints about multiplayer with Hero decks, where one person has all the useful classes geared and leveled, and then the rest of the team either AFK's or rolls damage. That's not a good multiple tower defense game, by any means. At this point, it would be a better game if it was designed around letting people play one class at a time (while switching in main menu), and developing each class so they have multiple aspects to offer to a team, AND can solo if they choose to. We need well developed, well rounded classes, not gimmicks.
  10. Including an excellent post by Rotto on the topic. To be concise: It kills varied styles for play, and kills leader boards for anything but multi deck builds in solo play. The game should offer variance in style which is offered by the amazing and unique classes, not forcing a player to max each of the heroes up to compete on the boards. What point is there to different towers, when to be the best, you level up the different heroes, pick the best single tower/trap/damage character from each, and then roll the map. Each class should have a few viable builds to solo with (Yeah, huntress included), when attempting solo ranked boards. I know this creates more work for the Dev team, but its an important part in designing a long lasting, healthy game and gameplay. As it stands currently, the Hero Deck system just isn't imaginative for solo play, and it undermines the idea of having fully formed classes. Please think about this design decision, it hurts the depth and play style options available to each class and player.
×
×
  • Create New...