I'd like to hear some feedback on this, which I think is pretty cool, idea.

The other day I was chatting with a friend, who like me likes to code. Until now we've worked with different languages (C# and Java), but now are considering to both move to C++.
Anyway, while we were talking he had an idea: Tower defense. [size=1]

[size=1]Multiplayer

Tower defense.

[size=1]

Now, while the sentence alone doesn't say much, try thinking about it for a moment: a turn based multiplayer game where you have to both manage your defense and offense against other human players... Tower defense style!

[size=1]

It would not only limit to units and turrets, here's a list of the points I managed to think of:

Building phase

- Build a "fort" with limited resources, a path must connect the exit and the main core, which is what you'll want to defend;

- Add towers! There'll most likely be a variety of towers, from ground units to anti air towers, to freezing towers, poisoning towers, etc.;

Note: Being a tower defense game you'll start with limited money. You'll have to manage it between building defensive blocks, towers AND units. I could even use separate budgets, but this isn't of concern at the moment.

Planning phase

- Select the path your attacking units will take;
- Select the units you'll use to disrupt your opponent(s)' defense;
- During this phase you can upgrade your turrets and/or units;

Playing phase

And now the game goes, just like a regular tower defense. Except that each fort is sending hordes of enemies to the others.
During this phase players might be able to have some control, like placing small traps. Not sure though.

Feedback phase

Heh, this isn't quite part of the game itself.

By the way, I forgot to mention that it will be 3D (probably 2D based for most of its aspects, think of Sanctum: It's all cube-ish but most calculations could be made on a simple 2D projection)

Anyway,

I'd seriously like to hear opinions and ideas about a game like this. I think it'd be the first of its kind.

The only problem I've come across so far is: "What should happen if the enemy horde invades your horde's path?". This is a question I'd like to ask to you, even if I tought of some solutions like:

- First to come, first to serve. If you're the first to select a certain path, the opponent won't be able to use it.
- War! Troops using their main weapons against each other. Let's say that two waves of goblins collide: they'll start to fight.
- Alternate playphases. Basically instead of sending every player's horde at once, they would be sent in separated turns. This seems the most easy to implement, and maybe even the best one out of the three. But feel free to suggest your way of action.

Thanks for your time!

There's a similar game on facebook I think. Monster something, which I can't quite recall at the moment.
I didn't exactly like their lore, nor the finer details of their complex game system (as it had to adapt to facebook constraints).
You may be able to do better if you K.I.S.S.

There's a similar game on facebook I think. Monster something, which I can't quite recall at the moment.
I didn't exactly like their lore, nor the finer details of their complex game system (as it had to adapt to facebook constraints).
You may be able to do better if you K.I.S.S.

Yeah, I'd like to keep it simple and limit the customization to maybe more units and turrets once it's done. I just hope for the best since I never had anything to do with packets and 3D. It'll surely be a great learning experience though.

My feeling is that many games have shown that many players aren't fans of the "plan it then watch it unfold" style of play. Most players want all phases to be interactive. So perhaps you do all the planning etc, you start the attack... and then you have an arcade or RTS control system to help your guys win. I'd suggest you only control the defenses and you hope you can hold out until your attackers beat the opponent. But then that might sound close to Orcs Must Die.

One thing I was thinking was that you need to ensure you make it a good idea to simultaneously control attack and defense. I would imagine at the moment concentrating solely on defense until my base was completely impenetrable. Then saving up my funds and building units until I send a -huge- swarm against my opponent.

I would suggest adding multiple possible routes to the 'core' and needing to preserve several of them. Usual tower defense games tend towards building a discrete path with your towers for the invading horde to follow. If you want choosing a path to be part of the gameplay you need to ensure that the players actually have a real choice, rather than just "walk to here, then follow the path my opponent has made between his towers."

"What should happen if the enemy horde invades your horde's path?"

I would say that the best idea is to have them fight each-other, basically to implement the opposing units as mobile towers. If they get within range of a target, they start shooting (though they keep moving). Allow the units then to have different weapons/ranges etc just like (I presume) the towers. You could even implement it so that the units are able to attack the towers in the same way. This could allow the player to send waves of units to try and attack the opposing defenses, and if the player does have a long winding path perhaps you could send a first wave of units to go and blow up a tower and create a breach.

My feeling is that many games have shown that many players aren't fans of the "plan it then watch it unfold" style of play.

I agree with jefferytitan here, especially in a multiplayer situation I don't like the idea of twiddling my thumbs while I wait for an outcome. I would be inclined to have something of an RTS element, having both players 'live' all the time, and able to send waves of enemies whenever they wish. If you could pull it off perhaps include a selective choice of gameplay; Phase based, or Real-time, so players can play in the way that suits them.

There was a good multiplayer tower defense in warcraft 3 - I think it was 'line tower defense gold'.

This compelled the player to buy the waves of attackers to send at opponents. This fed your opponents money, but also increased your own income. You'd get given money depending on how many monsters you'd summoned up to that point. By the end of the game, a more aggressive player would have so much money he could keep hurling max level bosses at his foes until they break.

This income system is a good example of how you can balance the defense and offense, rather than making players turtle all game until impregnable.

A key part of most tower defense is that you can't attack towers. Most units only have health or speed or reduced movement limitations as opposed to alternate attack power, although some games feature this.

In order to keep the difference between tower defense and just specialized scenario in an RTS I would suggest not allowing the attacking of towers.

Perhaps to counter turtling you could have an aggro bonus. Starcraft Risk had this where if you conquered a territory you got bonus minerals for that turn.

You could either do damage to enemy base or creatures made.

that many players aren't fans of the "plan it then watch it unfold" style of play

Funny you should mention that.
Recently, this was brought up in a meeting, and it appears the evidence behind the actual demographics is pretty thin, although very vocal (judging from our samples).

Alright, thanks for the feedback. As you guys already said, it'll not be that easy to balance.
So I think I'm removing the possibility of building the "fort", while giving more focus on units and towers.
This because multiple paths are probably better, but I think that implementing a system where you build the whole map could end up being exploited in many ways if not managed properly.

[quote name='jefferytitan' timestamp='1347511588' post='4979585']
My feeling is that many games have shown that many players aren't fans of the "plan it then watch it unfold" style of play.

I agree with jefferytitan here, especially in a multiplayer situation I don't like the idea of twiddling my thumbs while I wait for an outcome. I would be inclined to have something of an RTS element, having both players 'live' all the time, and able to send waves of enemies whenever they wish. If you could pull it off perhaps include a selective choice of gameplay;
[/quote]
True that. I have to find a way to prevent boringness during long matches. Though, sending enemies all the times doesn't sound a bit too RTS? My idea was to have a strategy-based game, not an actual real time strategy.

This can be perfected though.

Phase based, or Real-time, so players can play in the way that suits them.[/quote]
This sounds like a good temporary solution, but I'd be inclined in having a solid system. There's time to think anyway, I'll take some.

Radiant Defense on Android allowed players to use blocks to block/redirect the path of units as they moved through towards the base. You can earn a certain amount of blocks for so many kills or for finishing a round with a good enough efficiency.

You may also think of adding towers/units/tiles that give buffs for a certain time period-maybe to be earned or bought.