Quiting

[Satoshi Nakamoto]

I was looking forward to the new season but this matchmaking is simply ridiculous. Why do I have to play many times in row with some one who has about 100 points better score than me? I remember from season 1, where I was playing with players like QoOQ, about 1300score while I had under 1000. I would say its unfair. Every player should be able to clibm the ladder by winning (losing) against same-ranked oponents.
If there are no skill borders in matchmaking, then winning/losing against same level player should give you more points than If you win/lose against much better/worse opponent.
What I want to say is that its unfair If I have 1000 score and lose with same 1000 rank, I will lose about 10points. If I lose against 1300. I lose the same, so whats the point...? If there are no players with the similar rank, then I shouldnt be able to play the ranked game.

Its same like in other games. Lets say CS:GO, Starcraft, etcetc, everywhere are battling players with the same ranks. Unfortunately not here.

this is just one of the many things which could be improved long time ago, but since I purchased the game (2yrs ago), there were released 2(?) maps and thats it.. no towers, no units, no skins, no voice chat, simply nothing, just stupid AI anounced every week since end of spring.

Honestly I started with TW in W3 and going to continue playing Tower Wars in SC2, where are so many great TW mods made by community and much better updated, ballanced, maintained etc.

I had a lot of fun with your game, but we all know that once ur behind with workers or waves, U can never win. Many skilled players told me how boring is it, once u lears the best tactics.

Good luck with your game.
PS. Even this game costs almost nothing, I would say Its bad enough to be a f2p game.

format c:

[Marc MabMichael]

Yes, this guy is pretty much the most foul mouthed person in the game. Comments like 'nooob', when he loses etc etc. I beat him loads of times, and then, one day he actually beats me (I wasn't really concentrating to be honest, he was always so easy before...) and he just lets out a string of insults... lol, he is funny. I'm guessing he's young though.... (not that all people aged 10-16 are like him of course).

[Sharkfood]

Instead of shooting the messenger, how about focus on his criticisms?

He brings up several valid points:
1) Matchmaking could still use more polishing. It can place 1000 rank players with 1300 rank players.
2) Rank adjustments could use more tweaking. There is no reason why a 1000 rank loss and 1300 rank loss both result in a 10 point reduction.
3) There is very poor momentum balance.. i.e. once you have a certain amount of momentum over your opponent, the game is basically over long before the Defeat screen as there is no way for an opponent to catch-up or counter at that point.
4) The game could definitely use some more maps, even if it in the form of add-on/extra cost DLC or expansion pack.

#3 above is probably the most important one for me. Defense Grid 2 is spending a tremendous amount of time trying to ensure that in DG2, good, strategic players switch lead position back and forth several times during a game as there are counter strategic tools available for desperate measures when behind.

Looking today, Tower Wars is on sale for $1.99 for the Steam Halloween sale. This likely means a huge horde of "noobs" at 1000 rank will soon be flooding the ranked queues. While the AI update theoretically will give them some better skill-building tools to use before joining ranked play... I have a feeling the majority will just leap right to online and get their arses handed to them as they are matched occasionally with top 100/1300+ ranked players.

Tower Wars is a great game.. one of the best and a huge value at under $10 (INSANE value on Halloween sale for $1.99!), but the playerbase can definitely help the devs make it even better.

FYI- I have TW here but don't play it on this account.

[Gallaorn]

1) Allready addressed by the dev there is a 500 max range now. Could be reduced I suppose but we need more players so we dont wait hours for a game.

2) That is simply not true if a 1300 player lose to a 1000 player he lose 12 points but if the 1000 player lose he lose 2 points

3) Again not true, many a times I was able to win after a bad start. Of course if you play one of the best player at the game and have a bad start you lose. Honestly what else would you expect? And if you have a horrible enough start of course there is no going back. But getting a little behind isnt a big deal if your late game is strong you still win. Most likely your late game is subpar and you are counting on your early game to win. Of course if thats your whole strategy and you fail at early game you wont win.

4) I agree there. More official maps, more towers, more units. That would be nice.

[Ghetz]

For nostalgia purposes.

Season (Un)One as I call it :)

Rank - Player - Score
1 25\17 2,173
2 QoOQ 2,132
3 zetthen 2,066
4 Gallaorn 2,028
5 timeforfunxD 1,983
6 meyer 1,937
7 Opal V 1,928
8 CRAY CRAY CROW 1,925
9 piranha asia 1,908
10 EXE 1,865

As for the first three points, Q and Gallaorn have summed them up nicely. #4 is a slow process. We have a small team working on TW, content comes out (free mind you) at a pace that our team can get it completed. We are always working on content, it is just a slow process.

[Ghetz]

You really don't have to awnser, but I always wonder how you guys can keep making free content untill now for an already cheap game.
Doesn't SuperVillain Studios have bills or paychecks?

We keep ourselves busy at all times :) TW is just one of the many projects we have going on.

[Gallaorn]

would be nice if you could upload these as pre-season or something on the ranking page.

[Ghetz]

Escrito originalmente por Gallaorn:

would be nice if you could upload these as pre-season or something on the ranking page.

Maybe someday. They are two entirely different systems (Steam vs our own) and we would have to import the old Steam flat file data into our DB. Not impossible but most likely not going to happen.

What I can do it format it better and then stick it up on the wiki for you guys. Hows that sound?

[Sharkfood]

>>"As for the first three points, Q and Gallaorn have summed them up nicely"
I disagree, which I'd also suggest is why TW still has such a small userbase.

I'd also challenge that if you work to polish these issues instead of siding with your top 10 players, then you will see much greater success.

As I said, you are going to see your ranked queues flooded with new players in the next few days from the Steam sale and if your top-10 just wish to prey on them for self-glory, you will continue to see your game remaining a "niche" product instead of enjoying greater rewards, success and revenue. It will stay a game with an active player base a mere fraction of what it could enjoy.

The problem is the mindset of your Top-10 is what they wish to call "a few mistakes" early on is simply countering for a "strategy" game that rewards actual strategy or cleverness (games with counter strategies) for memorized patterns and methods(Tower Wars). The latter is boring and non-adaptive... the former awakens more fast thinking and provides for a more exciting experience for advanced players... and generally enjoy much greater commercial success.

It's foolhardy to argue early momentum = win game versus having mechanics that keep you on your feet from start TO FINISH: which of the two methods is more exciting or compelling to a wider base of players? TW is unfortunately the prior, vs. many other competing games (with millions of players vs thousands) being the latter. But don't let greater success deter you from appealing to your top 10-50 players. ;-)

There are already plenty of online "chess" or "resource momentum only" strategy games out there.... which may explain the limited and small userbase of Tower Wars which truly deserves a much larger audience and playerbase.

Regardless of how you receive the above, I DO hope you will at least consider what seems to be consensus with all sides agreeing-- which is for-pay DLC or expansions. There is no reason why this game, especially due to it's age, continues to get free expansion/updates. Your team is indeed small which further justifies for-pay content and upgrades. And THAT I'm certain will appeal enough to your bean-counters to put more time in that direction.

[Gallaorn]

Sharkfood FYI I am the one who lobbied hard to put in the rank difference max in the matching code because I do not want to prey on new players or weaker players. If I could only play top 10 players I would,

On your momentum argument you are just wrong sorry. Continue to play and get better you will see that someday. I just played a game with wirejet I was behind the first 10 minutes or so but I turned it around when I sent the first shielder waves. I timed it just so he wouldnt be able to defend against it very good and that gave me the advantage back which I was able to drive home and win.

I cant tell you how many times I had games with QooQ or 25/7 where we had a couple of momentum switch in the game. There are alot more strategies you can use than you realize. I lost many a game to 25/7 when I was sure very sure I had him.

That being said if we could have one new tower or unit every month or so or even every season it would help keep the game fresh and give way to new strategies. Thats how LOL is so sucessfull always a new champ around the corner.

Going back to us big bad top ten players beating on poor noobies if you lobby to reduce the max rank diff from 500 I will support it. Just have to be carefull to not make it impossible for people to find a game.

We all want to make the game sucessfull, we all want a bigger player base. But that doesnt mean we will agree on the method to achieve that goal. Personnaly I think we should divide the playerbase into tier or leagues so that weaker player play amonst themselves and dont get frustrated by being beaten into a bloody pulp by veteran players. But as QooQ said we may not have enough active players to make that happen just yet.

[Sharkfood]

You make very reasonable arguments Gallaorn, and I appreciate that.

Like I said, the $1.99 Steam Halloween sale will most definitely dump a large number of new players into the fray, but I'm betting more than 75% of them will quit... which I also bet is just like the current purchasers vs. active playerbase.

A tier system is another great idea to help segregate ranked matches.

The AI update was a great idea from the devs as this can and should raise the bar for new players. Having greater tools to learn the ropes was a fantastic idea and also has seen a more enjoyable experience at the beginning of Season 2.

Lastly, one other aside/crticism/input for the developers is that Tower Wars really needs rebranding or relabeling.... say Tower Wars 2.0 or perhaps Tower Wars SE? Then get your marketing team to reach out to the review sites. Quite frankly, Tower Wars suffers from a large stream of negative reviews which hurts future sales. And while these poor reviews were unfortunately well justified, the game today quite simply does not deserve this. Every poor review sites issues and things that are long since gone, fixed or repaired. So, the low reviews are no longer justified. A rebranding + re-review cycle will also likely increase the userbase + sales as the game deserves MUCH greate accolades vs. the original launch & reviewed title. Your current game is bringing along a LOT of baggage from the earlier builds that is simply no longer there...

Just my $0.02

[Ar-Pharazon]

I'm amazed at how this thread has evolved. :-) I appreciate what's been said here, on both sides. We listen to criticism as well as compliments, especially when it's constructive criticism, thoughtful and articulate, from someone who likes the game and just wants it to be better or more successful. SVS wants the same. We can't take action on every suggestion or complaint (nor should we), but knowing what the players think helps us decide what to do when we have the opportunity. When we do take action, naturally we have to be selective, doing what is in our judgment practical, weighing risk vs. benefit.

Originally I was against the 500 point difference limit in matchmaking, but user opinions resonated here and we were convinced. I could easily change that number to 400, 300 or whatever, but the lower that number goes, the more we'll hear "I waited an hour and couldn't get a game". We want to be really careful with this.

About momentum and balance, we don't want to change this game into a different game -- but I am personally hoping that we can make some careful, moderate balance adjustments to make things a little more varied and interesting. We've been talking about it, but I don't know yet when or if we will do it. We have to be pretty confident the changes will help more than they hurt.

What I intend to have on our next update, whenever that is, are fixes for a couple of longstanding bugs. Apparently, in private matches, mod maps can only be used via a convoluted and embarrassing workaround. That's a broken feature, and it will be top priority. Also, it seems that spastic mouse-clicking can get the interface stuck in a "ghost tower" state, which again can only be escaped with an awkward workaround. That needs to go as well.

[Ar-Pharazon]

How weird that that word got censored -- it wasn't profane! How about "frenetic"?