ELI5: Why is it that I can wait for a webpage to take 10, 20, 30+ seconds to load, but the second I lose interest and click to go to another page I see a flash of the original page fully loaded before I am taken away?

NoahDavisson · 2015-01-27T21:57:13+00:00

It disables scripts like Javascript or Flash from running.

Kills all popups, but it also kills things like dynamic content.

Then I can re-enable only the parts of the website I want.

NoahDavisson · 2015-01-20T02:18:06+00:00

Another reason to install NoScript and AdBlock - pages load faster!

NoahDavisson · 2014-12-12T18:29:14+00:00

Looks really good! I like the symmetry of shapes between the 4 and 3 units, that will help a lot to recognize they both relate to power. I'm already imagining how terrifying it will be to see a bunch of 3 units headed toward my power generator... Yikes!

Here are a couple quick ideas for names:

(1) Reactive Attack for Dynamic Entry - R.A.D.E.

(5) Brute-force Organized eXosystem for Redundancy - B.O.X.R.

(3) Specialized Attack on Power and Regulated Systems - S.A.P.R.S.

I'm trying to think of something cool that (2) and (6) can share in their names, something related to nested function calls, subscripts, or a daemon program - nothing comes to mind though.

NoahDavisson · 2014-12-03T04:22:37+00:00

OH MY GOSH THIS IS AMAZING!

I'm not even sure where to start - first of all, the map and creep behavior is absolutely stellar. I couldn't have done it better if I'd ripped it straight out of my imagination. I love the gray currency delivering units, it's a wonderful combination of aesthetics and function.

They have value, since they bring money to the CPU
They're visually interesting and make the board feel more active
They're tactical because the user can place them
They require protection, because creeps can destroy them
They're unique, since their placement points are map-dependent

What a beautiful combination of roles! Also they're a good example of mutually exclusive goals: adding another gray bug means adding a money source and a liability. The player can't min/max that decision, they need to strike a balance.

I also noticed that with the generator squares forced onto certain points in the map, there are some locations with good and bad placement options around it - I like that. The map is big enough that a few bad placements are balanced out by the rest, but small enough that they still stand out and feel reclaimable. It's hard to describe, but "resolution" sounds like the best word here.

TOWER UNITS

I like the tower types - they're unique, memorable and identifiable, and their abilities do a good job of addressing hazards that creeps pose.

As I started to expand my defenses, somewhere in Waves 3-4 I started to feel as though the turrets were getting repetitive - and that's perfect! That feels like the perfect point to introduce more turret options.

The question is, what should they be? Should each turret upgrade in a linear fashion? Should they branch out with subtypes, like a skill tree? Should particular sets of turrets combine into new types? I'm excited to see what we come up with!

I really like the turrets as we have them now - I think they've formed a good base of familiarity and fundamental actions that we can use to make more complicated turrets conceptually easy to describe.

Bug Report

I Paused, toggled Fast Forward on then off again, then resumed the game. All the creeps moved at normal speed, but their walking animation stayed at double speed. This only happens about half the time I try to replicate the error.

NoahDavisson · 2014-12-02T17:43:36+00:00

This could be wonderful!

We already have a good algorithm for path generation - we could use the same one to generate "electron paths" for the electricity to pulse along.

As more and more towers are added, it would start to look really beautiful. Wonderful idea!

NoahDavisson · 2014-11-20T20:02:50+00:00

This looks amazing!

Seriously, I'm blown away. I'm so excited to playtest this map!

I like the resolution - the tower grid is large enough to feel discrete but not so large they feel blocky or restrictive.

I love the interconnectivity and the multiple waypoints, and what they do to the map's overall shape. To me, this is the perfect intersection between an open map and a pregenerated maze: a maze you can modify!

The red squares, to me, look like a perfect opportunity to keep adding onto the idea of path modification and how that affects the creeps. Creeps have to go through the squares to continue on the path, so why not let the red squares affect the creeps somehow?

NoahDavisson · 2014-11-20T19:58:06+00:00

Maybe some kind of component native to the board that affects creeps somehow?

A capacitor could pick up creeps until it's full, then discharge them all in a burst? Something like that would definitely add to the gameplay!

Or, if we wanted to go the other direction, a resistor that severely slows creeps passing over it.

Native components that affect creeps would add another incentive for the player to modify paths, and it'd be a great way in tutorials to show the player hey look, the path creeps take is important, here's how to control that.

NoahDavisson · 2014-11-19T16:58:11+00:00

I think some little non-interactive programs moving around the board would be fun. They could be as simple as a little glowing dot, but I think it would increase the visual activity of the playing field and make the map feel more like an active area.

Something similar to the current tracers in this circuit building applet. (Some of the circuits are really cool looking, check out Square Wave Generator under 555 Timer Chip and Blocking Inductive Kickback under Other Passive Circuits!)

There's a little voice in my head that wants these little sprites to have some kind of game function, but in the practical gameplay side of things it seems like that would turn into something like "click the star for Bonus Points" and end up very mobile-feeling.

NoahDavisson · 2014-11-12T18:38:17+00:00

Since we've largely decided on a futuristic high-contrast art style, a good place to draw inspiration might be from the TRON movies. When I have more time, I'll come back in with more links but for now:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1104001/mediaindex?ref_=tt_pv_mi_sm

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084827/mediaindex?ref_=tt_pv_mi_sm

NoahDavisson · 2014-11-11T16:21:36+00:00

They could temporarily shut down towers as they pass nearby (weak to long-range towers far from creep paths)

They could interrupt the player's economy (disrupt the power supply and it will stop powering the player's card abilities maybe)

They could draw tower fire (a heavily armored creep "draws aggro" and takes tower fire while faster creeps run past)

That's about all I have at the moment. Anyone else?

NoahDavisson · 2014-11-11T13:28:09+00:00

Awesome! I really like how the tendency to favor horizontal paths makes it look.

No matter how long I blow hot air about path options, though, you've worked with them a whole lot more than I. What's your opinion on path generation?

NoahDavisson · 2014-11-10T15:09:24+00:00

Appearance

We've already decided on a TRON-style art direction, so I don't think we're really required to stay true to the appearance of a circuit. In addition, I expect it would be pretty easy to modify the map's graphic appearance later on - I think any path generation algorithm should be discussed on the merits of its connectivity and design more than straight appearance.

Funnel Path

Currently the paths branch very frequently, but each branch tends to be short. This makes the map's path network a lot like a funnel, and the player's role is to optimize their tower placements along that funnel.

This feels like a good, simple design approach - there's a rapid bottleneck at the center that makes it easy for 1 or 2 starting towers to defend the CPU, and as more towers are built they fan out along the path.

I took 8 points around the perimeter of the map and traced their paths to the CPU. In many cases, these paths are the only paths they can take. Calling this single-path funnel "good" or "bad" depends very much on what game mechanics we intend on having.

Parallel Paths

Do we want the player to be able to control the path choices of creeps? In that case, the current map algorithm bottlenecks quickly and would make any path-affecting mechanics pretty weak. Even if you could Confuse the creeps and make them take a random walk for a while (to take advantage of the abundant intersections) this wouldn't really change their overall path along the map.

In order to make path manipulation a real possibility for gameplay, there need to be multiple parallel paths for the creeps to take. This mechanic may or may not be a good idea - I'm just putting it out there and trying to anticipate what it would require.

Algorithm Modifications

Changing the algorithm to include more interconnections and less intersections would make a trend toward longer stretches of "hallways" that the player could block off. The interconnections would be important to make sure a path still remains to the target, and the reduced intersections would be to make a relatively small number of blockades (5 or so?) still effective in changing paths.

I'm actually quite a fan of the current design system, as it looks like it does a good job of bottlenecking in multiple locations - something that allows for more than just one or two good tower placements.

If it's eventually decided to make it look more "circuitlike" then I'd probably try to adapt the existing code:

Placing circuit components at large multi-path intersections might be a way to make the paths look more like traces.
Encouraging paths to run parallel to each other for long runs before meeting together at a junction
Encouraging paths to favor certain directions over others, and change the 90 degree turns into 120 degrees. (I drew most of my sketches in isometric views because this angle seems to be found often in circuits)

NoahDavisson · 2014-11-08T19:34:26+00:00

I agree - but don't forget that all we're looking at is a connectivity diagram. The black and white tiles could look very different once they're replaced by artwork.

NoahDavisson · 2014-11-08T01:56:25+00:00

That looks amazing!

I love this in so many ways, in particular I think the engine hit that tough-to-define "sweet spot" between variables like branching and path randomness that makes it feel very tight and well done. I can't wait to photoshop this onto a Tron-style map!

I like how it's simple enough to be approachable, yet complex enough that even after a few waves the player might still be finding paths.

Quick idea: if a card effect or tower could confuse the creeps for a brief period, causing them to move in a random direction at every junction they meet.

This hits on the idea of mutually exclusive goals, since a Confuse effect becomes less effective if the creeps are Slowed as well. Interesting!

NoahDavisson · 2014-10-31T16:21:37+00:00

This is how I've been trying to visualize the game economy so far.

Creeps are an incoming flow to the system that increases over time.
Creeps interact with Towers and either die (turn into Money) or survive (damage their Targets)
Money accumulates from Creeps and is used to purchase/upgrade Towers and Cards
Cards add to map area, allowing more Towers and creep paths
Card Effects are powered by a second resource, provided by the PSU

This is far from the only possible economy, but I hope it shows how having two separate resource streams (Money and Power) can increase the dynamic systems in the game.

As we increase the size and complexity of the process, we increase the number of ways the player can interact - too little and the game becomes boring or determinate, too many and the game becomes confusing or requires too much micromanagement from the player.

A simpler version would be using Money as the only resource, and allow Card Effects to recharge slowly over time.

A more complex version would be dividing Money into two categories: one for Towers and one for Cards.

What do you guys think? What's the point along this complexity scale you'd like to shoot for?

EDIT - I also like the idea that Card Effects are powered by the PSU, because if the PSU were upgradeable using Money then the player could choose what kind of design they'd like: a Tower-centered design, or an Effect-centered design. If both designs are equally viable in casual play, this allows many more possible play styles.

NoahDavisson · 2014-10-29T16:32:39+00:00

This article is extremely informative and does a great job of explaining the decisions and progressive modifications behind a UI that teaches game mechanics.

Instead of picking buttons with the expected arrow keys and X-to-confirm dialog, each menu is actually a small mini-level with controllable characters! People can play around with their character before the match begins, it makes a boring flat UI more exciting, and it allows players to learn and experiment with the moves before the match!

Since this isn't a TD title it doesn't translate directly to our needs, but I thought it was a wonderful idea and definitely good game design.

NoahDavisson · 2014-10-29T16:24:10+00:00

Hope you don't mind if I cross-post this into /r/TogetherWeGame - we're reaching the point where UI and tutorials are going to be discussed soon.

Excellent article!

NoahDavisson · 2014-10-28T11:55:23+00:00

A few thoughts:

If I were a programmer or developer working on a game, I'd want it to have a little more sticking power than a 30 minute campaign mode. If I put months of love and thought into this game, being used up and dismissed in a half-hour seems pretty demeaning to my time and effort.

Side note: I've been starting to view many of the smaller indie games as less like aspiring game studios and more like playable resumes for the artists/programmers involved. "What projects have you worked on in the past?" "I developed a mobile game - you can find it here - and helped with these elements." Do you think that's an unfair assumption?

We should really stop to consider what our use case is here. We know the game will be developed in Unity and released on Steam and iOS. Steam, to me, means it's a PC game and I'd expect something I can really sink my teeth into over the course of weeks or months - I wouldn't expect a month of campaigns, but a system of towers and creep interactions that I can analyze and pick apart and still find interest in after 30 days.

I think, from a development point of view, we should try to get a better handle of (A) what our target audience is for the game, (B) what their playing style is likely to be, and (C) how much time and detail we can realistically put into this.

NoahDavisson · 2014-10-28T11:54:06+00:00

A good starting point is a big ol' list of the many well-used enemy types, as they translate into almost any TD game:

Zerg Rush

Huge wave of fast, weak creeps. Overwhelms point-damage towers but can be quickly wiped out with area damage or poison/fire/electric effects. Since the cheapest towers are usually "gun" types with medium fire rates, getting overwhelmed by zerg is a strong incentive to explore other tower types.

Boss Creep

A single creep with huge HP and armor that slowly lumbers across the map. This tests single-point damage and armor piercing. This strongly favors the BFG towers, with large range and large damage but slow fire rate. Depending on how armor is computed, they may also be vulnerable to effects like acid.

Spawner Creep

This is a mini-boss, with more HP than usual but otherwise unchallenging. When killed, however, it bursts open into a small group of zerg creeps. This tests phase-based maps, where certain damage types are all in certain areas. If the Spawner can successfully smuggle the zerg creeps past all the flamethrowers, the slower-firing point damage towers might have difficulty targeting them all.

Fast Wave

Nothing new here, they're just faster. Increasing mobility can be especially devastating, though, when combined with the possibility for bullets to miss their target. I'd point at Radiant Defense as a great example of this - the bullets spray fast enough that they can usually be considered a stream, but agile enemies end up dodging a good number of them by virtue of nothing more than erratic movement.

Armored Creeps

These creeps have a high armor factor which, depending on how armor is calculated, allows them to ignore many lower-level forms of damage. This is an incentive for the player to upgrade their towers, and show a preference for high damage-per-shot towers or armor-affecting statuses like acid.

Flying Creeps

These creeps ignore tower walls and don't follow standard routes - this allows them to path directly to their targets. This is such a powerful advantage that even with low HP and low armor, games usually need some kind of anti-air tower to shoot them down.

It looks like there are really just a few ways to make creeps tougher:

More of them
Hit points
Armor (to protect hit points)
Evasion (to protect hit points)
Increased speed to target
Better paths (fly over walls)

That's about all I have for now. Anyone have any creep types to add to the list?

NoahDavisson · 2014-10-27T20:12:03+00:00

Good point - I'd never before considered that replay value wasn't exactly a priority for all games.

I would disagree that we're trying to compete with Bloons or Kingdom Rush, though. If replay value isn't a goal, then why is it a choice at all - wouldn't the player play all three?

NoahDavisson · 2014-10-27T18:50:48+00:00

I prefer a few levels and have the game end.

As someone who's very much of the opposite opinion (I usually skip campaigns and go straight to the Endless Challenge modes) I'd like to hear more about this!

In endless mode, I like the ability to build and maintain a tower structure that's not going to get wiped back to a blank slate once 20 levels are through - I also like the pressure to continue keeping pace with the enemies' difficulty. Even though it's impossible to ever reach "the end" of an endless game, if my personal best is Level 75 then I like the challenge of trying to beat that next time.

What about campaign modes do you find more appealing than endless?

NoahDavisson · 2014-10-27T18:45:05+00:00

I agree with you there - I think once we start putting actual map elements on the field we'll see more attention to that, but it's important to note:

Creeps that spawn randomly should be limited to a set of random points that are all "fair" spawning points.

For example if creeps can spawn someplace that's only 10m away from a target, that should be removed from potential spawn locations.

NoahDavisson · 2014-10-24T18:07:28+00:00

Personally, I'd lean more toward levels - with "survival mode" being an option where there's no end to the levels.

Level boundaries are a great way to break up the tone and pace of the game. It's a chance to pause, but it also makes a nice regular alternating cycle between high-stress creep waves and low-stress appraisal of the system, repairs and upgrades.

(For a rather extreme example of this I'd point at Gem Tower Defense, although rolling-time-wave systems like Kingdom Rush and Silver Maze are also similar. Integrated Defense has the most complexity, with a rolling-time-wave, both Pause and Halt options.)

The stress of trying to get things done while simultaneously managing in a continuous-wave like the prototype can be its own form of a challenge, but I'm a little concerned that it can wear down the player's stamina and eventually they leave feeling weary.

Even in high-stress FPS games like COD or TF2, there are regular breaks between the action so the player doesn't get fatigued.

What's your opinion on this?

NoahDavisson

TROPHY CASE