Feedback on Early Version of Tower Offense Game
Hi all,
I've been working on a tactical, squad-based tower offense game, currently called "SciSquad" - name suggestions most welcome!
An early version of the game is available here. I would really appreciate any feedback, suggestions and blatant trolling on it. There is a little survey at the link above, or you are welcome to email me with comments.
Thank you so much! I'd really appreciate your time and input.
Bradley Marques
Electric Llama Labs
I've been working on a tactical, squad-based tower offense game, currently called "SciSquad" - name suggestions most welcome!
An early version of the game is available here. I would really appreciate any feedback, suggestions and blatant trolling on it. There is a little survey at the link above, or you are welcome to email me with comments.
Thank you so much! I'd really appreciate your time and input.
Bradley Marques
Electric Llama Labs
SciSquad_Still_01.jpg
1280 x 720 - 1M
Comments
On to the game:
I really liked the "layout your squad" positional element. It was really strange at first because it just didn't make sense when I only had marines though. Once I got heavies it clicked though. Heavies felt really OP though, it didn't matter if they didn't take out turrets if nothing was dying. Putting heavies at the corners allowed me to kill a couple of towers with marines. Then when grenadiers got introduced, that solved ALL the death problems. Shell of heavies, grenadiers as a crunchy center. Yay for the fast forward button, I guess.
Lasers didn't seem to make much difference, 2 shield dude things covered pretty much everything, squad-wise. Crunchy center + shields = win.
Then the snipers (is that what they're called?) didn't make much impact I felt, because they didn't get any explanation. The artillery turrets just nuked everything I had though, was annoying having to turn off the heavies and even then not many got through. I assume that the strategy required was to use shields and snipers to take stuff out at a distance and not get melted by lasers, then do some cleanup with crunchy center? TBH, that's where I stopped playing after wiping a bunch of rounds.
I have no idea what's with the whole reinforcement queue thing you've got going. It felt like something that's only in the game to introduce a time element that can be "fixed" by IAP. Which is just icky. Design-wise, there's no reason not to have all the types available and simply charge me gems whenever I place them in a squad. I don't care how long something takes to get to me, because I'm watching my wave trudge along anyway, right? Are there ever going to be multiple waves on the same path? Wondering about that, are there ever going to be multiple paths that I might pick to send units along as a tactical choice?
Finally, the gameplay feels very, very binary: Something either dies instantly or it lives forever. I'd prefer it if you had more of a feeling of attrition to the game - right now you either turn your heavies on at the right time (mostly ALWAYS) and then watch stuff not die for a while. If you screw up, your squad gets picked apart and then a bit you needed for a later set of turrets is dead and the whole thing feels useless. It would be neat if your units had more health and that health affected their performance, so a damaged marine can't fire as often, a damaged heavy is even slower and lags behind the squad, etc. Make unit deaths feel inevitable (this is a TD game, after all, that's expected) but give yourself a feeling of struggling to the last man each wave instead of just being instantly wiped out should the smallest thing go wrong.
I also think that your abilities should probably be time-based. Like, set your marines into regenerate mode for 10 seconds and they won't shoot, but they'll regenerate health instead. The heavy shields should definitely be a time-limited thing to make it more interesting to use instead of an on/off thing. Grenadiers could have a short-lived range increase or a mega-bomb or lay a smoke-screen that stops/lowers certain kinds of damage, etc.
There's definitely an interesting game here though :)
I played your game last night.( I did not do the survey. It was the red wine maybe, as it is tonight, even though I thought the survey was presented well)
Thought the graphics were very cool. I'd like to see some decals and blood and bodies dropping when squad members are hit. They just disappear? WTF, how can I feel sorrow when they simply evaporate? :) They need to mean more than just cannon fodder. The "hurry up" mechanic when you pay more made me LOL, but also felt cheap. (I know it takes credits to use and limits ones effectiveness as the game progressed and you need the funds, but...). It's almost as if it needs an additional penalty? Don't know what though.
I did not play past the first few levels due to time constraints. I'd like to see some teasing mechanic where I am dissed more to entice me to try harder (e.g. "You suck", "is that the best you can do?" type of thing). Dunno just spinning ideas here.
The game seems smooth and interesting - the placement of units seemed strategic at first, but does it really have an effect on gameplay?. It is missing something though, what that is I cannot verbalize yet, but my interest is definitely peeked. :)
Going from point A to point B is not interesting. Going from Hot LZ to rescue hostages and defuse nuke at point B is a bit more interesting? I hope I don't sound like an asshole that loves dissing here, I can see lots of potential in this game.
You know what, even in League Of legends I always feel disappointed with a win. Why? All those troops amassed around that last enemy structure. It implodes, then what? I want to SEE the impact it has. I want to see my nemesis (NUNU!) get the hiding of their life in a short anim or something... THAT would satisfy me immensely...
Keep hacking at it, I like :)
I definitely agree that something is lacking in the game. The gameplay is currently too shallow and too binary, as @disleksia points out.
@dislekcia I agree that the balancing of units is definitely not working. I had a few ideas around this: changing control over individual unit states, as opposed to all of a single type; and introducing unit facing as something the player can control. Then, things like the Heavy and the Shielder will only have a very limited area of effect. Perhaps also introducing a limitation on the strength/time of their shields will make for more tactical choices? What do you think of this?
@MCA; agreed. I think ideally there should be no need for a fast-forward button. The player should be engaged and making decisions all the time. I think allowing the player to control individual units' facing, special abilities like raising shields and throwing grenades, all with some limitation (like "Action Points", or something) would enable this.
Perhaps addressing the unit balancing will also correct for the very binary gameplay, as pointed out.
@dislekcia The tutorial didn't do a good job of introducing the different unit states: the Shielder can be toggled to defend against artillery towers, but then your own artillery can't fire, and snipers can shoot over the Heavies, but not the Shielder. This really needs to be introduced, so thanks for pointing it out.
@konman There certainly needs to be more of a drive and motivation for the player; very true. And, of course, non-vaporising units. ;)
My ideas for improving the game mechanics:
- Making it asynchronously turn-based, like Frozen Synapse
- During the planning phases of your turn, rotate the units, assign priority targets, use special abilities on a per-unit basis
- Perhaps impose limitations on these actions by some resource (Action Points)
- Control the squad movement yourself, to be able to favour one path over another
What do you think of this? Do you know any other games that you think I should check out for inspiration?Thanks again for the insightful and fair feedback; it's much appreciated!