Anyone play this? I saw it on steam and it looked pretty fun, free to play. I ended up playing it for an hour or two and it was alright. Does it get really difficult later on? How's the balance?
The way I understand it is that the campaign is piss easy at the moment (which the devs say they're looking into) but the additional modes you unlock afterwards are an actual challenge.
I have this in my library and it updates almost every time I open Steam. Relatively big updates considering the size of the original download too.
I booted it up a couple of weeks ago and it still feels empty for the most part, but at least it feels like they somewhat addressed the fact that Mana was really scarce.
It has potential to be good, but right now the first one just feels much more satisfying.
I actually worked at Trendy during the Jeremy Stieglitz era of DDII, and the game that was intended to exist was scrapped entirely after he was forced out (for the worst). The guy went on to make ARK though, thus proving that he was almost singularly responsible for any sort of success we had at Trendy.
The problem is that the content is adjusted to you, so it will always feel "mildy challenging", Regardless of what you do or how bad you are. Without any need for tower building strategies, because towers only serve to slow down the fodder anyway. Also Nightmare is a little too easy.
If you want a tower defense with a shitload of content, replayability and that has the gimmick of you being able to defend as well - play DD1.
If you want a game where you have to defend towers and the only purpose of them blocking paths, with every game ending with what feels like a clutch to you because of level scaling and has a super limited content - then play dd2.
>Fire up the game, 700+ Hours in DD1
>First level is a clusterfuck compared to the first game, and new players will be quite confused.
>RUBBERBANDING ALL OVER THE FUCKING PLACE IN SOLO PLAY.
Woah fuck let me out of this nightmare. I'll come back to it when it's out of alpha/beta.
>The guy went on to make ARK though, thus proving that he was almost singularly responsible for any sort of success
The reason ARK was successful was because of PR, getting all those "famous" e-celebrities onboard and catering to their design wishes to have an audience of 12 year olds play a game. ARK looks worse than Delta Force from 1998 and still only runs with like 20 fps on a 980, that's not sign of a good game.
thats a lie because At Trendy, we empower our employees to create games they are passionate about. We build tools for our players to influence these games. And we share our technology with other developers, so they can focus on making great games, not everything else.
We want to make a contribution to the world of gaming—through our products, our employees, and our technology.
It's possible, if they overhaul a system again, but it doesn't look like it's going to be the case. In either way, every time they wiped progress they also rewarded players with permanent stuff depending on their progress before.
Can monk play solo? it seems all his defenses are buffs and shit.
My only concern with the first game is you pretty much had to multitask all classes and place defenses, then switch to your main hero, which hopefully had an overpowered pet that did half the work. It was kinda annoying farming every map switching characters, specially in between waves and then you were locked out of your main char.
All defenses are shit and no, you can't play solo with any character even if you have them all in your deck. You need to actively defend every lane, the only reason youre putting up defenses is so that stragglers dont get to the core.