Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem








Thanks for taking the time to write this up! I'll start by saying that the primary basis for this game was EdgeCrusher's battleships high seas, though we had played many other versions, including Crossfire, which I believe is Sked's version.
Alot fo your points are valid, however, they leave out an important factor that we've kept in mind throughout the development of Battleships: It has always been very important to us that the game remains fun and easy for a player their first time, without tons of strategies that they need to discover to compete.
For example, the idea to sell back items instead of combining them: Yes, as an experienced player, it would be really cool to be able to transition from one weapon tree to another. However, practically, we feel this would punish newer players. Knowing which trees are best to start with, when to switch to which other tree in response to which choices made by both team mates and enemies adds layers of complexity that we don't want a newer player to need to deal with. I admit that in a competitive setting, sell back could be considered (there are a few other drawbacks I won't get into), but for a game with the design goal of Battleships, it would be counterproductive
Your next point: lower level weapons in this version are vastly more efficient than higher level weapons, just like you suggest. You're absolutely right, and that's been in the game for years.
Your points about tradeoffs are well taken, but I think you'll find that our Dota 2 version follows this principle, in spirit if not in letter.
Sked > Supressor > Crossfire > Some other one i cant rmb > EdgeCrusher
Sked left the item choice rather limited, having about 3 shops of weapon. Since all of them were balanced, and the gold were distributed, there is always a chance for comeback. It is also important to note that he kept kill gold low, and respawn time moderate to prevent discontinuity.
Without certain complexity in game, it is very hard for a game to become popular. I would say that if older players dont have an advantage over the game, then they tend not to play it at all, and without a strong support base the game will no longer be relevent.
As much as I can list why it was a good or a bad idea, ultimately, you're the developer, and it is your game. Whether or not it will be adopted depends on the mechanism of the game.