Random elements and selling towers solution

[Slimysquid]

It seems like you're not interested in removing the 100% sell value in random elements.

At the moment those of us who find random elements the most fun, but 100% selling to be cheesy, are pretty much left with no good option.

Why not make it so when we host a game, we can set it to 80% sell value instead of either no selling, no interest or no random fun?

While you're (hopefully) at it, why not add a random ranked that also uses 80% sell value instead of 100%?

Make no mistake: a small "feature" such as having 100% sell value on what is (to many) the only fun game mode turns the game into an apm manager instead of what a td normally is - and consequently makes people like me refund the game instead of enjoying it (and this is coming from a wc3 ele td veteran, who you seem to try to cater to by keeping 100% sell in the game)

[Slimysquid]

I'm sure they'll do what's right: especially when it's such an easy and small fix :)

[Taencred]

@HouseParty
There's no such thing as a flawless game because everyone likes different things.
Furthermore, disagreeing with you is not the same as not listening or not caring about what you or anyone else thinks.

@OP Doing a "normal sell ratio" random mode, or heck, even a submenu for deciding it yourself I think would be nice. Usually it comes down to how much of the playerbase that actually wants things like this, or in other words how many would use it. So if any other potential readers see this, sound off about this being something that would improve your overall enjoyment of the game or not.

[Karawasa]

Originally posted by Slimysquid:

It seems like you're not interested in removing the 100% sell value in random elements.

At the moment those of us who find random elements the most fun, but 100% selling to be cheesy, are pretty much left with no good option.

Why not make it so when we host a game, we can set it to 80% sell value instead of either no selling, no interest or no random fun?

While you're (hopefully) at it, why not add a random ranked that also uses 80% sell value instead of 100%?

Make no mistake: a small "feature" such as having 100% sell value on what is (to many) the only fun game mode turns the game into an apm manager instead of what a td normally is - and consequently makes people like me refund the game instead of enjoying it (and this is coming from a wc3 ele td veteran, who you seem to try to cater to by keeping 100% sell in the game)

The problem with an additional ranked queue is splitting the playerbase. We don't want to make it harder to find a match.

As for a lobby setting, definitely not opposed to that just trying to think of the best way to do such a thing. The options are already quite extensive and it's a bit cluttered. I think we'd want to remove or convert an existing setting (like no sell to partial sell).

I'll ask on the Discord, maybe converting the No Sell to "Sell Restriction" so that on pick it's still no sell but on random it's 80% could work.

[Karawasa]

Originally posted by HouseParty420:

bro they dont care about what their community wants. I honestly think they balance the game for themselves.

You come on our Discord and say things like "nerf X" or "buff Y" without any reasoning or explanation. When someone tries to converse with you and understand why you're saying that, you ignore them.

Is there something that we did to offend you? You continue to flame us, but when we try and interact with you on Discord to actually try and improve the game, you go silent (or flame others who get involved).

[Slimysquid]

Holy duck, seems like I opened a can of worms.

Thanks for the reply Karawase :)

For now I'm enjoying hard, random and no sell mode as a substitute - it makes the game far more strategic instead of apm-focused (better be careful about your tower placement!)

I mention it because I hope you're not going to remove the no sell mode for an 80% sell mode instead.

I can't see the issue with adding one additional, and very sought after, option for hosting a game , but hey, I'm not a game designer.

Enjoy your day :)

[Taencred]

Originally posted by HouseParty420:

Dude the game is stale as hell and no one is doing anything to help and make the game better. No 2v2 ranked, there's no voting for anything in ranked, the lobbies are boring to look at, no levels for players in games, no emotes, there's 7 maps to play, and you guys added the variant maps to leaderboards without an actual leaderboard section for the variant maps. All the towers are unbalanced as hell. Servers have issues. Like it's an unfinished game realistically. I'd guarantee people would spend another $15 to make their own maps in this game and use them in online matches.

If you're referring to the game having a meta with the game being "stale as hell", this is the case for any multiplayer game. Meta changes with each patch, that's about all you can ever do.

I'm also not sure what you mean by "no one is doing anything to help and make the game better"?
We have plenty of people that do.

2v2 ranked would be cool, old suggestion that just hasn't been prioritized. There's always the issue of splitting the playerbase too much, but I'd personally argue more people are likely to play it with 2v2 ranked. There are many people that dislike soloing.

"The lobbies are boring to look at", we don't have a UI designer, it is what it is. I'd personally argue they're fine as is for an indie game.

"No levels for players in games"? I assume you mean in lobbies. This has been discussed and decided against so that people won't just kick "low" players.

There are 8 maps actually. I know that on the topic of adding more leaderboards, we already have 29 leaderboards(FFA Pick and Random 8 maps, Co-op 5 maps and Teams another 8), and the incentive to compete on them gets smaller when people won't even bother to check every map anymore cause it takes too long to go through them all.
There's a reason there's a mad rush to get top score on Forest cause that's what everyone will see.

"Towers are unbalanced as hell" - I see a good diversity of builds in ranked that are pretty decent. Most maps have different dominant builds(in ranked, leaderboards are misleading cause people get to play at their own pace).

"Servers have issues" - Yep, that happens occasionally with Azure having outages. Not much that can be done on that front other than paying significantly more for it, which I believe is not feasible.

"I don't play random cause that mode is trash" - It's fine to think that of course, but it has a rather stable playerbase and audience and is one of the most unique competitive experiences out there. To me, Pick is boring because it's so slow and it's more about optimizing something to death than actually adapting(which is an aspect I prefer).

A tutorial aside from the campaign would be excellent.

Most of these are things you've already been told, but you have no patience and seemingly no memory because you keep coming back with your negative attitude and pretty much demanding that your specific issues with the game are prioritized.
For the record, I know quite a few people with thousands of hours in this "unfinished" game. If you dislike it so much, then maybe you shouldn't force yourself to play it.

[Draktok]

i disagree with house party angry ranting typically but do agree on ranked random, i'd play it but i can't be bothered to meta game sell over and over. You join a random lobby with 8 people, if 1 of those people knows how to play you can expect the other 7 to completely get pooped on, not just in terms of clear speed and lack of leaks, but by the 30-40 wave they'll have 2-3k more income. and it simply stems from selling over and over. I watched a lvl 130 something decimate a lobby and the only one who held on for more than like 30 waves was me, and i wasn't selling ♥♥♥♥, just placement. So you could at least make it as far as i did via placement, but half the reason everyone was dying was due to clear speed which is due to rapid sell rebuild for max effectiveness on the wave.

I still lost and due to sell spam i was around 3k econ less at that point in the game. That extra quad worth of gold could have kept me in longer but it's way too boring to sell spam, IMO.

Really since no one uses the 'no selling' option anyways in my experience retooling that to just be a 80% sell button / 100% sell button that way people can play pick with max sell and random without max sell is ideal to me. Ranked random can stay as it is for people who enjoy that, I also avoid it because i can't be bothered to play normal speed lol

[Karawasa]

Originally posted by Slimysquid:

Holy duck, seems like I opened a can of worms.

Thanks for the reply Karawase :)

For now I'm enjoying hard, random and no sell mode as a substitute - it makes the game far more strategic instead of apm-focused (better be careful about your tower placement!)

I mention it because I hope you're not going to remove the no sell mode for an 80% sell mode instead.

I can't see the issue with adding one additional, and very sought after, option for hosting a game , but hey, I'm not a game designer.

Enjoy your day :)

The downside is decision fatigue. Adding one option is easy to do technically. But as we've found out, with too many options, people start ignoring them.

I don't believe "No Sell" is very popular so reusing it to provide as you said a much sought after feature seems like a win.

I'm curious as to your reasoning for wanting to keep no sell as it sounds like you are using it as a substitute for what you really want.

[KYLES]

Me and my group of friends prefer Random and we enjoy the selling aspect, because it puts us in situations where we have to decide how much to sell/ how many towers should stay permanent.
Has there been a change in how the scores are tallied? because it feels like completion time is heavily influences the final score. Some maps I feel like V.Hard is better in random than insane, which shouldn't be the case.

[Taencred]

Originally posted by 76561198051250908:

Me and my group of friends prefer Random and we enjoy the selling aspect, because it puts us in situations where we have to decide how much to sell/ how many towers should stay permanent.
Has there been a change in how the scores are tallied? because it feels like completion time is heavily influences the final score. Some maps I feel like V.Hard is better in random than insane, which shouldn't be the case.

What has changed somewhat recently is that you now lose I believe it is 0.01 every 15 seconds instead of 0.04 per minute. So it's more granular.

[Lobo]

Karawasa wrote:
"The problem with an additional ranked queue is splitting the playerbase"

I think it would add players to the playerbase instead of splitting it. Its the same for me (and some friends) - we like random but we hate juggling. So we never play that variant.