Sqdef 1.2

[Manjuu]

Thanks once again. Keeps getting better and better.

 

[sparr]

I was excited to get to try sqdef, since I haven't had a GP2X since shortly before its release...

Let me start with the good... The interface is well executed, and the inclusion of a map editor is nice. The graphics and sound effects are very nice, and I love the retro feel. The idea of technology upgrades is interesting, as an alternative to upgrading individual towers.

And now the bad... The game lacks strategy. The towers are too generic, imho. They all "just shoot stuff". There is basically one kind of tower with a dozen range/power/targets variants, plus the +50% tower. After years of other 'tower defense' games, that really doesn't measure up. Where are area effect towers, special effect towers (freeze, confuse, etc), non-projectile towers, etc? Where are different kinds of enemies (other than the occasional boss)? In every other TD game I have played, there is some planning required to accomodate the map, different kinds of creeps, strengths and weaknesses of different types of towers, etc. In Sqdef, it feels like I am just racing the money-clock to get to as many of the single best tower as I can.

Sorry to be blunt, I hope you take this as the constructive criticism that it is meant to be.

 

[Alex.]

And now the bad... The game lacks strategy. The towers are too generic, imho. They all "just shoot stuff". There is basically one kind of tower with a dozen range/power/targets variants, plus the +50% tower.

Where are area effect towers, special effect towers (freeze, confuse, etc), non-projectile towers, etc?

I agree that towers with special abilities would add a lot to the game's depth, and I plan to add such things in a future version. Saying that it lacks strategy is untrue though, a few special abilities, while important, aren't everything. I won't bother listing everything, but there's a lot of ways you can play this game.

After years of other 'tower defense' games, that really doesn't measure up.

Years? Come on now, standalone TD games started to hit the spotlight little more than a year ago. Maybe Master of Defense is a bit older, I don't know. Anyway, I tried to bring some new things to Sqdef that I didn't see in other TD games, at least not until I started to implement them: multiple enemy paths, different money towers (not just interest, but flat rate too), dynamic pricing for the things that can really turn the game around, towers that can shoot more than one enemy at the same time, technology research in addition to upgrading individual towers, and building a large super-tower out of smaller ones.

In every other TD game I have played, there is some planning required to accomodate the map, different kinds of creeps, strengths and weaknesses of different types of towers, etc. In Sqdef, it feels like I am just racing the money-clock to get to as many of the single best tower as I can.

There's no single best tower (is there?), and some maps, especially the new ones with dirt tiles, made me change my strategy button mashing to suit each one. Different kinds of creatures are a good idea, and I'm thinking about having some mini-bosses as well. All in due time

Sorry to be blunt, I hope you take this as the constructive criticism that it is meant to be.

I do, and thanks for your feedback and ideas I'll try to improve Sqdef based on everyone's suggestions.

 

[Gruntfuggly]

Have you completed level 45 on any maps yet?

I've never played any other TD type games, but I find SqDef requires quite a lot of strategy - tower placement, selling/buying, etc.

Also - SqDef was not intended to simply be a clone of other games - I believe Alex wanted to make it a bit more original.

Lastly - it's work in progress - Alex is still updating it, so I'm sure any suggestions would be welcome...

 

[deps]

This game is great! Found it yesterday and haven't played much else since then.
Keep more nice features comming!

 

[sparr]

After years of other 'tower defense' games, that really doesn't measure up.
Years? Come on now, standalone TD games started to hit the spotlight little more than a year ago. ... Anyway, I tried to bring some new things ... multiple enemy paths, different money towers ..., dynamic pricing ... shoot more than one enemy ..., technology research ... super-tower ...Sure, standalone TD games might only be a year old, but the genre predates that by half a decade. All of the things you list except dynamic pricing and super towers were present in some of the original SC TD maps, and those must be at least 5 years old now.

There's no single best tower (is there?)
I love math discussions I would welcome any corrections to my knowledge here, I can only hope that I am overlooking some nuances of tower/turret operation that would further differentiate these results.
Water, starts at 6*1, upgrades+researches to 42*1 for $60(1), thats 0.70 d/s/$
Earth, starts at 8*2, upgrades to 28*2 for $82, 0.68 d/s/$
Ice, starts at 18*1, upgrades to 123*1 for $275, 0.45 d/s/$
Fire, starts at 16*1, upgrades+researches to 192*2 for $400(1), 0.96 d/s/$
Barricade, 345*1 for $500, 0.69 d/s/$
Split Barricade, 150*4 for $500, 1.20 d/s/$
Quad Fortress, 700*4 for $2000, 1.40(2) d/s/$
Sentinel, starts at 300*2, researches to 300*4 for $903(1), 1.33 d/s/$
(1) - For simplicity here I assume that the research cost is split between building 40 towers of one type, which could be off in either direction depending on the map, but not enough to really change things.
(2) - On some maps there is a negligible penalty due to the loss of bonus when a quad fortress is only half-covered by an armory.
As you can see, a high-range tower comes out on top whether there is room to build quads or not, so range is not really a consideration. That's probably one place you could easily address at least part of this issue, give the short range towers a little bit of a damage boost.
Also, if there was a significant bonus for not losing any lives at all then single-target towers would get a bump because they are more efficient on boss levels when there aren't enough targets to engage the better multi-target towers.

Have you completed level 45 on any maps yet?
Yes, on five of the first twelve maps of One-Point-Two. I didn't see that anything was really changing between the different maps, strategically speaking, aside from more or less incentive to place armories depending on the isolated-ness of the best tower locations.

 

[Alex.]

After years of other 'tower defense' games, that really doesn't measure up.
Years? Come on now, standalone TD games started to hit the spotlight little more than a year ago. ... Anyway, I tried to bring some new things ... multiple enemy paths, different money towers ..., dynamic pricing ... shoot more than one enemy ..., technology research ... super-tower ...Sure, standalone TD games might only be a year old, but the genre predates that by half a decade. All of the things you list except dynamic pricing and super towers were present in some of the original SC TD maps, and those must be at least 5 years old now.
Well of course StarCraft TD maps have tech upgrades and lots of diverse units and buildings. Did you honestly expect a hobbyist game made from scratch to be able to compete head to head with games derived from what is arguably the finest strategy game in the world?

I'm aware that StarCraft TD maps alter some numerical stats, but the game mechanics and specific ways in which different units behave play a huge role in those games, and are actual parts of StarCraft. Besides, in a world so full of clones and copies I'm satisfied with bringing forward even the two new things you mentioned. You're being unfair though, and this is starting to look less like constructive criticism and more like you trying to belittle my work.

There's no single best tower (is there?)
I love math discussions

[...]
I tweaked the game balance as I was going along, and based on feedback sent by alpha testers, until the game wasn't too hard nor too easy (at least at the time). I didn't take the time to look at it from a strictly mathematical point of view, and if you examine it closely like you did, it shows. I'm open to any suggestions on this front, you mentioned increasing the damage of close-range towers? The first thing to think about is how that would affect things early in the game, when the creatures are weak. Should the first waves be tougher? Should the turrets cost more?

I also like the idea of rewarding a perfect game with a substantial bonus.

Have you completed level 45 on any maps yet?
Yes, on five of the first twelve maps of One-Point-Two. I didn't see that anything was really changing between the different maps, strategically speaking, aside from more or less incentive to place armories depending on the isolated-ness of the best tower locations.

My bad for including lots of maps then, should have put in just one. :lol:

 

[prairiefire]

Have you completed level 45 on any maps yet?
Yes, on five of the first twelve maps of One-Point-Two. I didn't see that anything was really changing between the different maps, strategically speaking, aside from more or less incentive to place armories depending on the isolated-ness of the best tower locations.

I think a lot of strategy has to do with the maps themselves. I've tried making a few maps that would incorporate different strategy, but maybe i've failed in this. I would recommend you to take your experiences with the strategy you have used and design some maps that would make your current "always successful" strategy, an inevitable failure (i.e. if you start off using only water turrets, then design it so they can't get within range of their targets. if you find that it's too easy to build factories and accumulate money, then leave more dirt tiles about, etc.).

The game is only as good as the initial conditions (map design, starting money, number of lives). I've had some great experiences with some maps in the past I guess what that means is that what Alex. has done to this point in improving the game is amazing and the weakest link to it are the maps that we (i.e. you and I) create.

 

[sparr]

My strategy so far is to build a minimal number of earth turrets, upgrade them until I can afford split barricades, then just build as many of those and dual armories as are needed, spending all the extra money on colonies if i need more money, depots if im already rich. It has gotten me to level 45 on every map I have spent the time to play through. A map where low-range towers aren't feasible would just require me to spend a lot more money on ice or fire towers in the early stages, but it would still be solid split barricades as soon as they were affordable.

As an addendum to the "improve short range damage" above, perhaps some of the towers should not be long range?

PS: Just beat "The Bisquit - Hard" with two upgraded earth towers (later sold) followed by a progression from one split barricade up to 12 quad fortresses with 48 colonies.

PPS: What is up with Depots? They are only better than a Colony if you keep at least $2000 in the bank, and if you are not-spending that much then youve already got the map licked.

 

[fusion_power]

Should the first waves be tougher? Should the turrets cost more?

When making a game more interesting, you should do this per rewards and per "fun-stuff" and never with some kind of punishment. I.E. If you want that users use more of the small turrets instead of the big ones, dont make the big ones more expencive. Make the small ones more interesting! This can be done with the often mentioned element boni etc...
I like the current game balance by the way.
Another Thing, its very important, where to place the towers I had found out. In a late wave, one enemy survived my Defense. After reloading I've built an additional Quad Fortress and 2 Sentinels...but one enemy still survived. Same with powering up my old Fortress to 100%.
After reloading again I've built one single Sentinel at another place and all enemies died. I think with variable Fire-priorities of towers, there could be even more interesting effects.