Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Chiquihuite

  1. I've been hearing this come up a lot. We've been taking steps to address it (most recently, lengthening the next wave timers a bit). If you have any other thoughts on what could be done, we're definitely open to hearing them
  2. Radius is a very unique tower (hence the delay). Its style of dealing damage will be most comparable to the Quark Tower, though it has its own special mechanic.
  3. It's easier to bring the one thing that's too good down than to buff every other thing. I imagine the creep HP tweaks will serve to offset the loss and help make alternatives viable. You guys made it very clear that other towers were much weaker, mathematically, so it makes sense to bring towers' relative power closer together, right? We can always bring it up again if it turns out to be too severe
  4. Length of clone is 80 seconds at level 3. This means you can get 5 clones rolling at a time per deceit tower, plus a 6th for a few seconds. For 20 seconds out of 80 you can have two clones of the *same* tower (lol3pures). It's noticeably stronger than Well/Forge before positioning is considered.
  5. Much like the (LN) Life towers, the goal is to set it up so that a line of very injured creeps leaves your main damage area (generally short range aoe towers), and is then picked off by these towers. It requires a bit of care to use them correctly, but they can be *very* powerful in the right hands.
  6. This would be kind of cool. Kara?
  7. Throwing in more slow towers could work, but seems terribly unimaginative. I wonder if a knockback tower (which buffs creeps to make them immune to further knockbacks within X time) might serve the same purpose effectively.
  8. I don't know if "range bracket" priority is something we can actually do. What about making it really work like Impetus from DotA, where the damage is calculated at the time the projectile arrives? We could then either slow down the projectile, or offer a toggle for fast/slow projectiles so you can use the mode that best suits your situation (fast at a distance, slow up close).
  9. I don't love tons of micro at all You should've seen obliteration tower and magnify tower during alpha. Now THAT was painful.
  10. This comment is interesting because other people on this board have claimed that Deceit is way OP. I personally think they're about even because L2/L3 Deceit's effects are a bit stronger than Well/Forge, but at the cost of the aforementioned positioning issue. What kind of effect would it have?
  11. In a recent update we added death sounds to units so they're doing more than simply exploding on death. Trouble is, at least for me, it feels like those sounds are playing constantly and it's driving me bonkers. We have the ability to tweak the % chance for a sound to play on death, but I wouldn't want to make a change like that without getting other peoples' opinions on it. Anybody else think it's too spammy? Or do people generally like it the way it is now?
  12. Fair argument. We do seem to have a fairly passionate bunch of people offering feedback. Perhaps it'd be good to recognize their efforts, then so they'll be inclined to keep up the good work?
  13. I'm virtually certain that any type of rewards would be purely cosmetic. Giving a power bonus to more experienced players in a competitive game is just horrible design.
  14. We've actually got the Radius tower mostly built already. Those are some cool ideas though - I especially like the second one
  15. Your enthusiasm is greatly appreciated, but try to keep in mind that SC2 would not exist if people were unwilling to pay for it. Likewise, Element TD for SC2 would not exist if SC2 did not exist. Continued improvements to SC2 and Battle.Net (and, by extension, Element TD) hinge on the support of people playing legal copies of the game. If you enjoy Element TD and would like to try the new version, I strongly encourage you to buy SC2. There are many awesome maps aside from ours on Bnet already and many more to come - I'm quite confident you'll be getting your money's worth.
  16. Well, assuming the purpose is just to test the towers and not play a serious game, we could just attribute all damage from flamethrower's associated effects to its DPS. Drowning Tower comes to mind as one that wouldn't really work in this way, but I think it wouldn't be too bad to just create a formula for that one and do it on paper.
  17. I think we could benefit greatly from an optional debug interface with roughly the following functionality- Collects data on everything that happens for player 1 both wave over wave and for the overall game - data can be displayed using dialogs (and screenshot or, if possible, copy/pasted). This would be off by default, but could be enabled by developers who have the map file locally for testing. Data collected would include: 1. Total DPS for all towers 2. DPS per tower type 3. Hits per tower type 4. Avg Dmg per tower type 5. Bounty and Interest 6. Anything else we want Should also include the ability to manually spawn a wave without waiting for the timer if possible. We're getting a lot of strong feedback on balance and I think much of it is well-placed. It'd be great to be able to run side-by-side comparisons and get good solid data from them.
  18. I believe it uses default priority (proximity). Could be wrong, though.
  19. The thought of doing this is enough to give me nightmares >_> That and I believe Karawasa wanted it to spin only one way so that positioning would be an important choice.
  20. Attack Ground is not a function that is innately present in SC2. We had to be rather creative in implementing a work-around and that's likely the source of what you're seeing. Of course, if it's not functioning adequately, we can definitely take a look at it
  21. It's good to get feedback of this nature and it's absolutely been a major discussion point during the development process. I've personally found myself shying away from towers like Ice and Mushroom because of their unwieldy nature. That doesn't mean they're inherently bad, but we're totally open to discussing the possibility of changes. It's worth noting that "attack ground" functionality is not innate in SC2 and so its implementation can be kind of hacky. Smart targeting for something like celerity could also prove tricky. Not that either would stop us from doing it if we felt like it was a good idea
  22. Ok I pitched about a half-dozen ideas to Kara and it looks like the single/multi target toggle is winning. Any other suggestions before we move forward with implementing that?
  23. Oh no, if anyone tries to change the visual on that tower, we're gonna have words Anyway, mechanics... I've had a few ideas, but I want to pitch my favorite and see if it'd be considered too horribly OP. What about placing a toggle on the tower that would allow you to switch between Light and Dark damage? Could even change the color of the spawned fighters based on which element is chosen. I figure it shouldn't be too crazy since you need access to L and D to build it in the first place. It'd give it a very unique flavor in terms of flexibility and I think it'd be pretty fun in practice.
  24. Chiquihuite


    Given the choice I'd prefer a visual distinction between levels in the pickers. I agree the current icons are not ideal, though. Perhaps we could recruit a 2d artist now that we're a smash hit?
  25. We've got a pretty healthy number of micro tower experiments rolling already. I'm not sure we'd want to add to that lightly. It's definitely something to consider, though I've got a number of ideas kicking around, but I'll hold off on posting them until I'm more coherent.
  • Create New...