Solo Tower Defence

[Matriox]

Hello,

Solo tower defence is asked for a lot and i think its a great idea tho some peoples suggestions are just wrong; A 1v1 mode in tower defence would not be possible. The reason for this is:

There would be far to little coins making the game extremely boring and slow, a solution would not be to just give out more coins, then yes the rusher may be able to rush a lot faster but the defender would have enough coins to counter it. the reason you win in team tower defence is because someone or some people will tip the scale and know how to get coins faster. Yes a pro could win against a noob in a 1v1 version but a pro vs a pro would be slow and boring and in the end it would more than likely be a draw. this is why i come to the conclusion that a 1v1 mode is not the correct way to proceed in a solo gamemode of tower defence

A solo game would have to be a multipal player game wich imo is an even more exciting route to go in:
(i am really bad at explaining things) my idea for solo tower defence is a 6 player mode(1v1v1v1v1v1)

lets take me for an example, im player 1. Player 1 sends zombies, those zombies then go to all other players(5others) then increasing coins for all people because at all times 5 people will be sending to them,this may seem like a lot but with 5 people sending and you getting all those coins i emagine this would be very doable.

me player one would go for some powerfull troop like pigmen, with my pigmen player 2 and 3 are knocked out, i then go for blaze making player 4 die and then with my magma i finish off player 5 and 6
giving me the victory(yah)

Maps- i emagine maps as shorter than teams maps tho not to much shorter i made a quick example here

this is not a map submittion, 1. it would be longer and 2. design ofc. Tho this would be the general idea

So in conclusion, solo td is impossible as a 1v1 my idea is that a 6 player(1v1v1v1v1v1) would be looked at making fast fun games and maybe causing a new spark in interest for tower defence that is well needed

 

[LemonMan512]

Agreed, today I was in a 3V1 and I was on the 1 player team and it took me forever to do anything because I was spending on troops and towers... solo wouldn't work well

 

[Matriox]

 

[dartz42]

@Matriox

The idea for a 'Tower Defense: Battle Royale' mode is intriguing, but I have a few concerns. Here is the summary:

1. There is a Win / Loss imbalance in the 1v1v1v1v1v1 gamemode sugggested, which may discourage players from playing it.
2. It is unclear how AOE potions would be handled: affecting all enemy maps at the same place or affecting only one player's map?
3. It is unclear how EXP should be handled: likely would need to be like survival gamemode.
4. It is unclear how lobby queueing would occur: would it require 6 players to start, would it not, or would it simply split a 12 person lobby?
5. There is potential in this gamemode for heavy imbalance in favor of a group of players who wish to play together vs randoms.

Spoiler: Details

Win / Loss Imbalance
In the suggested 1v1v1v1v1v1 gamemode, only one player will win, unless a tie occurs, which may discourage certain players away from playing it. Many experienced players as well as new players likely only enjoy playing games to win. Whether it's winning to get high points, winning to ascend the leaderboard, or winning to feel like you're accomplished at the game, winning is certainly a draw for many people playing TD. A regular 6v6 mode results in 6 wins / 6 losses, but this gamemode would result in 1 win / 5 losses, and I suspect this would discourage many party/new players from playing in this gamemode, if their major incentive is to get wins.

AOE Potions
AOE Potions are a core part of TD games, but it isn't clear how they would apply in these 'battle royales.' For example, if a player wishes to attack multiple players, will they only be able to make an effective push on one player's map, or on all. If it should be on all, then the AOEs should be coded to affect all maps at the same place. This issue also relates to parties joining into the battle royales, because if parties can concentrate on knocking out one player (by throwing speed on only their map), the game would be even more imbalanced.

EXP Gain
EXP in a normal gamemode of TD is gained when your mobs are killed. In this mode however, you would be gaining 5x the EXP, since 5x mobs are sent. So the EXP would likely have to be similar to in Survival gamemode, where EXP is gained directly when mobs are sent. This would prevent EXP stalling.

Map Queueing
Gamemode selection for normal TD occurs in a 12 player lobby. Would this gamemode also occur in the same place? Would it be a gamemode selection (rivaling normal / survival)? Or would it be in a different lobby altogether? If it is going to be playable from the usual 12 player lobbies by vote on the gamemode, the game would have to split (?) the lobby into two even games of 1v1v1v1v1v1 or if there are less players, 1v1v1v1 and 1v1v1v1 for example. I think the details certainly need to be worked out here.

Party Imbalance
Imbalance due to parties is a widespread issue in many games, including games on CC, and also in TD. If, say, a 5 person party wanted to play in this gamemode, we would need to be sure that either (1) cross teaming would be OBVIOUS and reportable, or that (2) there is no imbalance whatsoever regarding cross teaming.

(1) - What is meant by 'obvious' is clarified with the example of AOEs. If AOEs only affect one player's map, then a party could rush to eliminate a particular player (not in their party) by throwing ATK AOEs and coordinating their attacks. Of course if any one of them attacks, they will be attacking their party members, but if those 'collateral damage' attacks aren't supported by 5 potions, they could build defense enough to not be knocked out. In other words, if a player records mutiple people throwing AOEs on their map, we would need to consider that as cross teaming. The issue with that is that players may have incentive to knock out a player, especially if their castle health is higher than the rest of the participants, and so it would be difficult to verify cross teaming here. This leads to the notion of making AOEs affect all maps (so that parties would be 'attacking themselves')

(2) - What is meant by 'no imbalance whatsoever' is that parties would be discouraged from playing this gamemode to gain an advantage, since there would be no measurable advantage. It would be like if in eggwars players who were in a party were randomized to teams, their skins and IGNs were removed so nobody knew who was who, and that in game messaging was disabled during the game, so that the players may end up focusing their friends by accident. The issue of course with this option is that parties would have no incentive to play battle royale unless they are purely interested in the gamemode (not in supporting each other / cross teaming / farming wins).

Conclusions
As stated at the beginning, I believe new gamemode ideas are worth exploring, but we need to be sure that the gamemode does a few things:

1. Encourages experienced / new players to play TD
2. Is balanced with regards to mechanics / parties
3. Is suitable for the current queueing /voting system in TD lobbies

Solo TD could do these things, but only with appropriate care. I hope that @Matriox and anyone else reading can find these solutions. It would be very exciting!

 

[Matriox]

@Matriox

The idea for a 'Tower Defense: Battle Royale' mode is intriguing, but I have a few concerns. Here is the summary:

1. There is a Win / Loss imbalance in the 1v1v1v1v1v1 gamemode sugggested, which may discourage players from playing it.
2. It is unclear how AOE potions would be handled: affecting all enemy maps at the same place or affecting only one player's map?
3. It is unclear how EXP should be handled: likely would need to be like survival gamemode.
4. It is unclear how lobby queueing would occur: would it require 6 players to start, would it not, or would it simply split a 12 person lobby?
5. There is potential in this gamemode for heavy imbalance in favor of a group of players who wish to play together vs randoms.

Spoiler: Details

Win / Loss Imbalance
In the suggested 1v1v1v1v1v1 gamemode, only one player will win, unless a tie occurs, which may discourage certain players away from playing it. Many experienced players as well as new players likely only enjoy playing games to win. Whether it's winning to get high points, winning to ascend the leaderboard, or winning to feel like you're accomplished at the game, winning is certainly a draw for many people playing TD. A regular 6v6 mode results in 6 wins / 6 losses, but this gamemode would result in 1 win / 5 losses, and I suspect this would discourage many party/new players from playing in this gamemode, if their major incentive is to get wins.

AOE Potions
AOE Potions are a core part of TD games, but it isn't clear how they would apply in these 'battle royales.' For example, if a player wishes to attack multiple players, will they only be able to make an effective push on one player's map, or on all. If it should be on all, then the AOEs should be coded to affect all maps at the same place. This issue also relates to parties joining into the battle royales, because if parties can concentrate on knocking out one player (by throwing speed on only their map), the game would be even more imbalanced.

EXP Gain
EXP in a normal gamemode of TD is gained when your mobs are killed. In this mode however, you would be gaining 5x the EXP, since 5x mobs are sent. So the EXP would likely have to be similar to in Survival gamemode, where EXP is gained directly when mobs are sent. This would prevent EXP stalling.

Map Queueing
Gamemode selection for normal TD occurs in a 12 player lobby. Would this gamemode also occur in the same place? Would it be a gamemode selection (rivaling normal / survival)? Or would it be in a different lobby altogether? If it is going to be playable from the usual 12 player lobbies by vote on the gamemode, the game would have to split (?) the lobby into two even games of 1v1v1v1v1v1 or if there are less players, 1v1v1v1 and 1v1v1v1 for example. I think the details certainly need to be worked out here.

Party Imbalance
Imbalance due to parties is a widespread issue in many games, including games on CC, and also in TD. If, say, a 5 person party wanted to play in this gamemode, we would need to be sure that either (1) cross teaming would be OBVIOUS and reportable, or that (2) there is no imbalance whatsoever regarding cross teaming.

(1) - What is meant by 'obvious' is clarified with the example of AOEs. If AOEs only affect one player's map, then a party could rush to eliminate a particular player (not in their party) by throwing ATK AOEs and coordinating their attacks. Of course if any one of them attacks, they will be attacking their party members, but if those 'collateral damage' attacks aren't supported by 5 potions, they could build defense enough to not be knocked out. In other words, if a player records mutiple people throwing AOEs on their map, we would need to consider that as cross teaming. The issue with that is that players may have incentive to knock out a player, especially if their castle health is higher than the rest of the participants, and so it would be difficult to verify cross teaming here. This leads to the notion of making AOEs affect all maps (so that parties would be 'attacking themselves')

(2) - What is meant by 'no imbalance whatsoever' is that parties would be discouraged from playing this gamemode to gain an advantage, since there would be no measurable advantage. It would be like if in eggwars players who were in a party were randomized to teams, their skins and IGNs were removed so nobody knew who was who, and that in game messaging was disabled during the game, so that the players may end up focusing their friends by accident. The issue of course with this option is that parties would have no incentive to play battle royale unless they are purely interested in the gamemode (not in supporting each other / cross teaming / farming wins).

Conclusions
As stated at the beginning, I believe new gamemode ideas are worth exploring, but we need to be sure that the gamemode does a few things:

1. Encourages experienced / new players to play TD
2. Is balanced with regards to mechanics / parties
3. Is suitable for the current queueing /voting system in TD lobbies

Solo TD could do these things, but only with appropriate care. I hope that @Matriox and anyone else reading can find these solutions. It would be very exciting!

I see the problem with 5x exp hopefully when we get a chance to discuss this well come up with a solution

As for queuing either a simple 6 player lobby like the 12 player one with the same design just less ppl and another option would be for ppl to spawn in cages as they click on the game

 

[Matriox]

And my thinking around AOE's is that it would only show up on 1 track, so let's say ur rush is working on 4 tho not on the fifth you can give that rush a boost I think it would be a bit op for it to be on all 5

 

[heavenly55]

I think this is a great idea, and it has a lot of potential if all issues are resolved.

Overall, great job @Matriox for coming up with this and creating a thread, as well as @dartz42 for voicing some of the possible issues that should be addressed.

If the AOE's only show up on one track, won't that increase the probability for cross teaming, since multiple people will be able to throw AOE's on one person's track to make sure their castle takes damage?

Also, will the solo game mode only start with 6+ players, or will a 1v1v1v1 (4 people) also be possible (like in reg TD lobbies)? And lastly, will Armageddon be incorporated in this game mode? If so, will it remain the same, be de-buffed, or change in some other way?

I am very interested in this idea, and I hope to hear more about it!

 

[BubbleF1sh]

The idea has the right to exist, but clearly requires improvement.
It will be nice to get rid of teammates, sometimes they just ruin everything (not because they want to, but because they aren't so good). And 1v1v1v1v1v1 can be like a hunger games, where win the last survived player.