I kinda like the idea of thwarting the nuke strike. I don't know about negating it all together though, I'd probably throw my phone across the room if the AI did that to me. What about cards that Raise or Lower the number your stronghold must be at for a launch? So you can play a card that forces your opponent to go to 70 instead of 60. Or lower your number from 60 to 55 or something like that. But you can't lower it more than whatever number you are currently at. It might make a good expansion for 3.0 DLC since it would add several cards to the game
Just posted and went back a page to see you posted this. That's a great idea, and I'm surprised you got it into the new update.
That sounds like an interesting idea, though in a sense it's the same as just directly attacking the enemy stronghold or upgrading your own stronghold. It's not the final number that matters, it's the difference to the final number. It'd just be much easier to use settings to make the required total. The only difference that putting settings would make is the scoring. If you manage to win a game where the strongholds have to reach say, 80, then would the scoring not be a bit different than 60? You don't want those to be mixed in the high scores. On another note, I STILL can't beat my first time score, must be beginner's luck.
In the custom game mode table of records does not work for obvious reasons Stats and score will show but not submit to online leaderboard.
The new update screens look very promising. I personally don't care much about the multiplayer, although I'm sure many would enjoy that. I'm so glad to see the new statistics, and the breakdown of the high score. I would still like to see an explanation of how the scoring works, but this looks great overall. I hope the gaming sites pick up on your work here.
Personally, multiplayer will be the bane of my existance. Any word on how the online system will work though? A login server with IDs or just random connect and play with certain settings?
Multiplayer wil be server based with leaderboards and with one very big and nice surprise, but i cant say more now. But it will be developed only if advertising and update 1.1 do they work properly.
I'm not a native english speaker, so maybe my words were harder than my intension. I am a customer and I bought this game. And sorry, but a strategy game that has no difficulty setting and allows me to win my first 5 games without even knowing the rules is very basic IMO. I hope so, but this also shows that V1.0 was a basic version. Patches for an AI that is actually able to regularly beat an inexperienced player? It's their first iPhone game and the Appstore is quite different. First of all they want to earn money and that's ok. Don't get me wrong - I like the game and I think it has potential. The only problem I have is that it seems they expected to sell a lot of copies of an IMO incomplete game. I don't have a Mac and my graphic skills aren't good enough, but this doesn't influence my ability to see if a game is too basic or not. I'm 35 years, owned almost every popular gaming system since the Commodore C64 and played 1000+ games in my life. This should be enough to review a game and point out weaknesses.
No, you're right. But console games take a year or longer to make. Many indie devs have put out products which didn't have all the features they wanted but were a complete game nonetheless. The revenue from sales shows the publics interest and fuels the addition of new features. iShoot is probably the best example of this model and how it is in the devs best interest to slowly build up a games features. The appstore hasn't even been open for a year. So it's pretty hard to call ANYONE experienced at seelling on the appstore. You can say that gameloft and chillingo are but they are publishers and have games on many mobile platforms already. However when it comes to selling on the appstore everyone still falls within the first year. So it's only that they have been on the store longer AND have the money to advertise. Just because you aren't happy with the difficulty does NOT make the game incomplete. As someone that has had experience with older games you should know that some of them were BRUTALLY, FRUSTRATINGLY, BREAK YOUR CONTROLLER AGAINST THE FLOOR, Difficult. Some of them I have YET to complete even though I've owned them for 20 plus years. Does that make them incomplete? no. The game could end on level 4-2 for all I know cause I can't get to it. If a game is too easy some will complain and the dev can adjust things or make a harder difficulty mode. Start the AI off too hard and no one will want to play it and even rate you with one star. It's smart to go easy and increase the difficulty then start too hard and alienate the people that just payed money for a game that crushes you. I'm ten years younger, have all the same consoles, played just as many games, and my job is beta testing video games. So I apologize but I still think you're wrong.
Looking forward to it. You guys are moving up the ranks of quality developers who care about the interests of their customers.
New screenshot from upcoming update. We decided to rename it in update 1.5 in view of the fact that many changes have been made.
Looking sweet. Should probably add a "reset to default conditions" button to automatically scale it to normal in case someone wants to play regular settings and doesn't want to spend time adjusting. I'm having fun poking at the AI. I'm wondering if I get to >57 HP and the enemy down to 3< HP, then use "Helipad" to see if it would switch on both victory conditions. That would be interesting to test.
1) Custom game is a button. Another buttons are Easy game, Normal Game. So if someone wants to play regular settings he doesn't need to spend time adjusting. 2) In such case player always win.
Right, different game modes. My last point was questioning whether I would be shooting a nuclear missile at a dead base or not. What's the case for both bases dying or reaching 60 at the same time? I assume the one who plays the card wins.
Ah, ok. If both bases dying or reaching 60 at the same time player is always win. In first case with >57 <3 You launch the nuke first. Base is won't be destroyed.
You've really spent too much time thinking about this game... Having said that - after you mentioned it, I tried to do that exact thing just to verify Ashenebal's response. I haven't managed yet, but I'll probably give it a few more tries.
I actually was one move off earlier, and then the AI used "The Verdict" and made me launch my nuke at him. >_> And it takes a while, because the cards are so random. I keep getting Stronghold builds when I'm trying to wear down his perimeter/stronghold.
Really looking forward to the update, has it been submitted yet? Also, in the pre-game settings, are we allowed to set any of the building levels to zero? I know that sounds a bit odd, but I think it'd be fun because you'd really have to be strategic with what cards you pick (moreso in the beginning, as you will need to hold off for a building upgrade card).
Update is almost ready, but not submitted before solving anti-piracy problem. No, u cant set any buildings level to zero. Main buildings initial conditions is 25-100 with a step of 25 Resources buldings initial conditions is 1-10 with a step of 1. Conditions of victory is 60-200 with a step of 20 These restrictions are made for reasons of preserving the game balance.
