My complaint is Rodrigo and others appear to be stating that tds as a genre suck as a fact. Re-reading Rodrigos post he does appear to say that td's only suck to mapmakers because we all played them on wc3 and sc1 so their fun is obsolete, but this argument seems pretty weak to me, people still play and make all sorts of other map genres that have been around since sc1. Also plenty of people on this forum didnt play sc1 or wc3.
As for the business with fonne, he's just pulling an old negative word thats pronounced similarly to fun. It adds nothing to his argument and I don't know why its there. Is he saying people who find td's fun are fools because they enjoy learning something that he considers obsolete? Or that td's
Personally I don't even like td's much! But plenty of people do and its not for me to call them stupid for enjoying something I happen to find a bit boring. I expect a lot of people in the world would find map making for sc2 boring but does that mean map making is fonne? Hopefully you disagree.
I'm not sure if those of you not in the UK can watch this but this video probably shows the average person behind the riots.
Basically they are from the really poor areas in London and have grown up hating "rich people" and the police. That they attacked (poor) shops in their own district shows that rich people means anyone.
It was triggered when the police shot and killed a suspected criminal on Thursday. There was a peaceful protest on Saturday and some twats hijacked it.
Its mostly school kids out for a laugh and free stuff and its resulting in this: and this .
1 person was shot last night and hundreds of lives have been wrecked by having their homes and businesses burnt down.
Appologies I was clearly putting the words stupid and wrong in your mouth there. However, you are with out a doubt saying TDs suck and are obselete and along with Tacomanstan you are saying they are not fun. Your are both stateing this as if its fact. Yes its an old genere but people will decide what they find fun for themselves. Td's clearly are fun to the majority of gamers on battle.net.
It may not be your intention but its coming across as if your stating your opinion that td's sucks as fact and this looks very arrogant which might be why people are getting wound up by you. Your whole attitude towards the average battle.net player in other threads does make you come across as thinking the average person there is stupid or immature and cant be trusted to know whats fun and whats not for themselves.
This is getting ridiculous, its kicking off again for a 4th day and spreading to other cities.
Its just greedy bored teenagers looking for some fun ruining families lives and their own once they are caught.
I'm usually a big fan of rehabilitation over punishment for crimes but I just want all these people shot by plastic bullets and locked away for years. There is no excuse for looting and burning down peoples houses and businesses.
Look, I know I've complained about the pop sys in a lot of threads, but this thread is only intellectual. It has nothing to do with my maps or the popularity system. So, don't be rude by saying that I am "pretending" because in no moment I said I have no idea what you're talking about. I know what you're talking about, and I said that no, I'm not complaining. This thread is about sharing something I learned about what makes a TD popular. If you see any complains or hate on this thread, it's only in your eyes.
You just said "Tower Defense games suck because they are obsolete", pretty much writing off an entire genera as crap just because you personally don't like it. Lots of people do like TDs however. In life people are not always going to share you interests, this doesn't make them stupid or wrong.
People on this site are constantly writing of TD's and tugs as boring and easy to make and complaining that they are popular, but they are popular because people like them and generally want a change from the fast paced micro of melee.
A lot of people complain about the childishness of the people playing starcarft, and its true mainly because there are a lot of children playing it, but the childishness I see here is getting obscene. The popularity system is annoying because its hard to get your map played but the criticism of entire genres is ridiculous and makes you appear arrogant and stupid.
Vexel's comment about the maturity of battle.net players is a perfect example of this.
I'm looking for some feedback on a idea I'm developing for a Tug of War space battle I'm very very loosely basing on the Forever War book by Joe Haldeman where Humans are fighting an alien race called the Taurens and the effects of relativistic travel have on the solders fighting the war.
Idea
The idea is to have 3 or 4 players (or maybe 3 or 4 teams, 2 to a team) each with a home planet on the edge of the map. Every tick your fleet takes off to attack the enemy. The fleet starts composed of just a transport ship carrying marines. As the game progresses you gain escorts, battleships and can upgrade the transport to carry larger armies. Currently I am just planning a Terran race but once the game is working I'll add in the Protoss and Zerg. The game will focus more on technology than building large armies with all units being heavily upgradeable and customisable, and forward planning with regards to fleet orders that are unchangeable once they leave base.
Out in space there will be planets to conquer, wormholes to fortify (wormholes will be orbited by a small planet) and eventually the enemy home worlds to destroy. The map will be split into several areas linked by wormholes. Planets will be off the "lane" between wormholes so to capture them you effectively miss a turn with your fleets from attacking the enemy. So far my idea for planets are for them to be mining posts, sending a container ship of resources back to your homeworld. This means if a player captures the wormhole linking the planets region to your homeworld, this planet will become cut off and your container ships will probably get shot down, so you need to balance capturing planets with defending wormholes and attacking the enemy.
When arriving at a planet or wormhole your transport droops the ground troops. Ship to planet combat will be limited or non existent. On capturing a planet you will be able to loosely fortify it. Reinforcing a planet captured would involve spending resources to send a "Fortification ship" to a specific planet. This ship would contain updated tech for the planets defences which may be a stronger bunker, extra men etc. The risk is the planet could be captured en route wasting the fortification ship.
The main idea behind the fleets is to keep the army size small and focus on making it more important to upgrade. I'm thinking a maximum fleet size of 1 Battleship, 2 escorts and 1 transport with the largest transport with a cargo size of 14-16ish. All units will be upgradeable, weapons, armour, shields, sensors etc. However I intend for upgrades to only effect newly created units and not units already in the field. So as your army progresses further and further towards the enemy, their fleets will get stronger and stronger compared to yours. This also means if you capture a planet early in the game and don't reinforce it, the planets defences will be very weak compared to the hi-tech units coming to attack you.
Basically I'm not looking for massive battles, I'm going for smaller more tactical skirmishes were you have to risk strategic locations to progress. There is no faster than light travel or communication so once a fleet leaves your homeworld, the fleet is on its own with its increasingly outdated tech and old orders. Planets should feel isolated, if they come under attack there's no hope for quick reinforcements.
Anyway if your still reading I'd be really greatful for some feedback on any of the above and more specifically the points below where I'm stuck trying to balance gameplay with my ideas:
Navigation
Originally I was aiming for a large map full of planets in different areas linked by wormholes. When you arrive at a new area you could send probes through to scout around but you could only attack planets you had discovered. This would also mean rushing to discover the enemy homeworld. However I feel this doesnt fit into the tug of war style that well where units follow a set path. I am also worried that having to select where you want your fleet to attack would result in a messy interface or end up being too complicated. My idea for a solution to this is to the player will have the option to change the orders of the next fleet to leave the homeworld. The options would be attack the enemy or capture planets.
Attacking the enemy will order the fleet to attack directly from wormhole to wormhole until it reaches the enemy homeworld much like the standard tug of war following lanes.
Capture planets orders the fleet to attack a planet not currently owned by the player starting with planets closest to your homeworld.
Units
Basically I'm trying to choose between the army is fixed with units being unlocked through tech until you have them all, and the primary variation between armies is through your upgrade choices, or allowing you to pick the composition of your army.
I would prefer to allow the player to pick their army but this is not going to be about spamming buildings that auto spawn units. If the player can pick units they need to be able to change the build up quickly and easily in an obvious manner and I'm looking for ways to do this. There would be separate supply for ships and ground troops. Otherwise I intend to go down the fixed army approach.
So this turned out to be a lot longer and more rambling than I intended. I would be really interested to know what people think and any ideas on the concept etc.
Well the Prodigy and Daft Punk are pretty much gods of the genre, Pendulum are pretty good, their first album was excellent.
I was going to say how can you compare Justice and Deadmou5 to those 3 but it turns out Deadmou5 has been around for ages and I've barely listened to anything done by them so can't really judge them.
Yeah, when Italy annexed Rome from the Papel States the Pope refused to leave or recognise the Italian kings. The dispute wasn't solved until talks with Mussolini in 1929.
Its true the differences are there in the description, but people put their maps in project workplace to get feedback about ideas or the small bits they've done so far, plenty of people also put their ideas or pre alpha maps in map feedback.
I think that im trying to say is people are looking for feedback whatever stage of the process they are in, and theres not much need to differentiate between pre and post alpha.
Thanks for the response :) and also for formatting my post.
First concerning the command panel border. Can help me with the offsets I need to place a border on the top and left sides instead of the current bottom and right sides?
So far if I manage to get a border on the top and left sides it indents over the command panel covering some of the buttons. Obviously not desired, I've tried playing around with the anchors but I still do not really understand it all.
Concerning the frames, I also tried this but the stuff would not move.
0
@Siretu: Go
My complaint is Rodrigo and others appear to be stating that tds as a genre suck as a fact. Re-reading Rodrigos post he does appear to say that td's only suck to mapmakers because we all played them on wc3 and sc1 so their fun is obsolete, but this argument seems pretty weak to me, people still play and make all sorts of other map genres that have been around since sc1. Also plenty of people on this forum didnt play sc1 or wc3.
As for the business with fonne, he's just pulling an old negative word thats pronounced similarly to fun. It adds nothing to his argument and I don't know why its there. Is he saying people who find td's fun are fools because they enjoy learning something that he considers obsolete? Or that td's
Personally I don't even like td's much! But plenty of people do and its not for me to call them stupid for enjoying something I happen to find a bit boring. I expect a lot of people in the world would find map making for sc2 boring but does that mean map making is fonne? Hopefully you disagree.
0
Blizzard released a multiplayer td called Blizzard TD, it was a survivor map but I don't remember any minigames.
0
@Mozared: Go
Pretty much! Its all kicking off again anyway. The police might use plastic bullets tonight and have 10,000 extra men out tonight..
0
@Reaper872: Go
I'm not sure if those of you not in the UK can watch this but this video probably shows the average person behind the riots.
Basically they are from the really poor areas in London and have grown up hating "rich people" and the police. That they attacked (poor) shops in their own district shows that rich people means anyone.
It was triggered when the police shot and killed a suspected criminal on Thursday. There was a peaceful protest on Saturday and some twats hijacked it.
Its mostly school kids out for a laugh and free stuff and its resulting in this:
and this 
.
1 person was shot last night and hundreds of lives have been wrecked by having their homes and businesses burnt down.
0
@RodrigoAlves: Go
Appologies I was clearly putting the words stupid and wrong in your mouth there. However, you are with out a doubt saying TDs suck and are obselete and along with Tacomanstan you are saying they are not fun. Your are both stateing this as if its fact. Yes its an old genere but people will decide what they find fun for themselves. Td's clearly are fun to the majority of gamers on battle.net.
It may not be your intention but its coming across as if your stating your opinion that td's sucks as fact and this looks very arrogant which might be why people are getting wound up by you. Your whole attitude towards the average battle.net player in other threads does make you come across as thinking the average person there is stupid or immature and cant be trusted to know whats fun and whats not for themselves.
0
This is getting ridiculous, its kicking off again for a 4th day and spreading to other cities.
Its just greedy bored teenagers looking for some fun ruining families lives and their own once they are caught.
I'm usually a big fan of rehabilitation over punishment for crimes but I just want all these people shot by plastic bullets and locked away for years. There is no excuse for looting and burning down peoples houses and businesses.
Is there anyone here in London at the moment?
0
You just said "Tower Defense games suck because they are obsolete", pretty much writing off an entire genera as crap just because you personally don't like it. Lots of people do like TDs however. In life people are not always going to share you interests, this doesn't make them stupid or wrong.
People on this site are constantly writing of TD's and tugs as boring and easy to make and complaining that they are popular, but they are popular because people like them and generally want a change from the fast paced micro of melee.
A lot of people complain about the childishness of the people playing starcarft, and its true mainly because there are a lot of children playing it, but the childishness I see here is getting obscene. The popularity system is annoying because its hard to get your map played but the criticism of entire genres is ridiculous and makes you appear arrogant and stupid.
Vexel's comment about the maturity of battle.net players is a perfect example of this.
0
I'm looking for some feedback on a idea I'm developing for a Tug of War space battle I'm very very loosely basing on the Forever War book by Joe Haldeman where Humans are fighting an alien race called the Taurens and the effects of relativistic travel have on the solders fighting the war.
Idea
The idea is to have 3 or 4 players (or maybe 3 or 4 teams, 2 to a team) each with a home planet on the edge of the map. Every tick your fleet takes off to attack the enemy. The fleet starts composed of just a transport ship carrying marines. As the game progresses you gain escorts, battleships and can upgrade the transport to carry larger armies. Currently I am just planning a Terran race but once the game is working I'll add in the Protoss and Zerg. The game will focus more on technology than building large armies with all units being heavily upgradeable and customisable, and forward planning with regards to fleet orders that are unchangeable once they leave base.
Out in space there will be planets to conquer, wormholes to fortify (wormholes will be orbited by a small planet) and eventually the enemy home worlds to destroy. The map will be split into several areas linked by wormholes. Planets will be off the "lane" between wormholes so to capture them you effectively miss a turn with your fleets from attacking the enemy. So far my idea for planets are for them to be mining posts, sending a container ship of resources back to your homeworld. This means if a player captures the wormhole linking the planets region to your homeworld, this planet will become cut off and your container ships will probably get shot down, so you need to balance capturing planets with defending wormholes and attacking the enemy. When arriving at a planet or wormhole your transport droops the ground troops. Ship to planet combat will be limited or non existent. On capturing a planet you will be able to loosely fortify it. Reinforcing a planet captured would involve spending resources to send a "Fortification ship" to a specific planet. This ship would contain updated tech for the planets defences which may be a stronger bunker, extra men etc. The risk is the planet could be captured en route wasting the fortification ship.
The main idea behind the fleets is to keep the army size small and focus on making it more important to upgrade. I'm thinking a maximum fleet size of 1 Battleship, 2 escorts and 1 transport with the largest transport with a cargo size of 14-16ish. All units will be upgradeable, weapons, armour, shields, sensors etc. However I intend for upgrades to only effect newly created units and not units already in the field. So as your army progresses further and further towards the enemy, their fleets will get stronger and stronger compared to yours. This also means if you capture a planet early in the game and don't reinforce it, the planets defences will be very weak compared to the hi-tech units coming to attack you.
Basically I'm not looking for massive battles, I'm going for smaller more tactical skirmishes were you have to risk strategic locations to progress. There is no faster than light travel or communication so once a fleet leaves your homeworld, the fleet is on its own with its increasingly outdated tech and old orders. Planets should feel isolated, if they come under attack there's no hope for quick reinforcements.
Anyway if your still reading I'd be really greatful for some feedback on any of the above and more specifically the points below where I'm stuck trying to balance gameplay with my ideas:
Navigation
Originally I was aiming for a large map full of planets in different areas linked by wormholes. When you arrive at a new area you could send probes through to scout around but you could only attack planets you had discovered. This would also mean rushing to discover the enemy homeworld. However I feel this doesnt fit into the tug of war style that well where units follow a set path. I am also worried that having to select where you want your fleet to attack would result in a messy interface or end up being too complicated. My idea for a solution to this is to the player will have the option to change the orders of the next fleet to leave the homeworld. The options would be attack the enemy or capture planets.
Units
Basically I'm trying to choose between the army is fixed with units being unlocked through tech until you have them all, and the primary variation between armies is through your upgrade choices, or allowing you to pick the composition of your army.
I would prefer to allow the player to pick their army but this is not going to be about spamming buildings that auto spawn units. If the player can pick units they need to be able to change the build up quickly and easily in an obvious manner and I'm looking for ways to do this. There would be separate supply for ships and ground troops. Otherwise I intend to go down the fixed army approach.
So this turned out to be a lot longer and more rambling than I intended. I would be really interested to know what people think and any ideas on the concept etc.
0
The Salmon Dance :D
0
Well the Prodigy and Daft Punk are pretty much gods of the genre, Pendulum are pretty good, their first album was excellent.
I was going to say how can you compare Justice and Deadmou5 to those 3 but it turns out Deadmou5 has been around for ages and I've barely listened to anything done by them so can't really judge them.
Got to be the Prodigy for me though,
0
@Varine: Go
Yeah, when Italy annexed Rome from the Papel States the Pope refused to leave or recognise the Italian kings. The dispute wasn't solved until talks with Mussolini in 1929.
0
@Helral: Go
Its true the differences are there in the description, but people put their maps in project workplace to get feedback about ideas or the small bits they've done so far, plenty of people also put their ideas or pre alpha maps in map feedback.
I think that im trying to say is people are looking for feedback whatever stage of the process they are in, and theres not much need to differentiate between pre and post alpha.
0
Project workplace and Map Feedback could be merged as both fulfil almost exactly the same role with maps having posts in both.
0
@deathkad: Go
I guess this is why British people in american films always sound so posh, so you can understand us! :D
0
Thanks for the response :) and also for formatting my post.
First concerning the command panel border. Can help me with the offsets I need to place a border on the top and left sides instead of the current bottom and right sides? So far if I manage to get a border on the top and left sides it indents over the command panel covering some of the buttons. Obviously not desired, I've tried playing around with the anchors but I still do not really understand it all.
Concerning the frames, I also tried this but the stuff would not move.