Store Page
Kingdom Rush 5: Alliance TD
All Discussions Screenshots Artwork Broadcasts Videos News Guides Reviews

Kingdom Rush 5: Alliance TD

Store Page
View Stats:
Global Achievements
Fast & Furry-ous 9 Jan @ 12:04pm
Wishes for KR6
I want to look at the future at the next game in the KR series. Below I will list my own wishes/ideas for what Ironhide could do better in KR6. Everyone is welcome to present their own wishes/ideas for KR6 in this thread, so that KR6 could potentially become the best game in the series! Since Ironhide is an indie studio, there's a good chance our thoughts will be seen here and considered... or not. At least we can try, and say we tried.

[Towers Rule Again]
KRA is the KR game which has strayed furthest from the series' core gameplay established in KR1. This is mostly due to the dual hero system in KRA with the greater focus on micromanagement and increased spell usage that came with it. I'm personally not a fan of that. I wish the series could return back to basics in KR6 with more focus on the towers again, with balancing similar to KR1 and KRF. KR6 could use a new system with this setup: One hero (with hero passive), hero spell, and reinforcements. It's basically KRV's system but without a player spell (like Soul Impact). I wouldn't be against it if some stages do require two heroes. Starting such a special stage could bring up the hero room and prompt the player to pick an additional hero. Having two heroes at once is fine in small dosages, but having an entire game revolve around that is overkill.
Linear towers are here to stay but specializations could still make a return in KR6 in some capacity. For example, there could be rare towers in KR6 which do have two specializations. This is sure to make long-time fans happy!
I would love to see quality standalone stages (like Sarelgaz's Lair, Ruins of Acaroth, and Darklight Depths) return in KR6.
Overall, KR6 could be a "hybrid" game, combining the best of the original trilogy with the best of the newer games KRV and KRA.

[Fresh Locations]
The KR series is in dire need of new locations for the main campaign. One reason why KRA felt so derivative was because all its locations seemed like places you have already seen in previous KR games (for its third act, it's actually literal). As an example, KRA is the third KR game after KR1 and KRO to start in a green beech-forested area. That setting is used too much. I only wish for Ironhide to find new inspirations and take us somewhere new! As for ideas on new settings in KR6, from the top of my head I have the African savanna or a cold desert with snow like the Gobi Desert. The real world has so many places to be inspired by. It could also be new fantasy-inspired locations like how Ironhide did with the ethereal fairy forest and the floating ancient elven city from KRO. Ironhide deserve serious praise for not only the new locations but also the location variety in KRV. In its main campaign KRV gave us the dwarven kingdom and the Scandinavia-inspired cold north, and its mini-campaigns gave us the underwater city, the China-inspired bamboo plains, and the dinosaur underground world! It's strange that after so much creativity in KRV, that Ironhide would take such an uninspired approach in KRA.

[Improved Progress Tracking]
In all KR games so far there's only one set of stars for beating a stage regardless of difficulty. For example, if you beat a stage on Casual with 3 stars and later beat the same stage on Impossible with only 1 star, the world map still shows 3 stars for that stage. My suggestion for KR6 is to implement a unique set of stars with a different look for each difficulty and only the highest difficulty you have beaten a stage on will be shown on the world map. So if done correctly, in the example I mentioned, the world map will be updated to show the 1 star for beating that stage on Impossible. If you then click on that stage on the world map, it should show full details for all difficulties, so your 3 stars from Casual are still visible there. Let KR6 be the first KR game to make this right! This must also apply to the ornaments on the stage flag for beating Heroic/Iron challenges - they should also look different for each difficulty. Players who beat all stages with 3 stars on Impossible can experience even more satisfaction while looking at their world map filled with Impossible-only stars. Upgrade points for buying permanent upgrades should only be awarded once per star regardless of difficulty just like in KR1 (a stage in campaign mode can only give a maximum of 3 upgrade points as usual).

[Challenges Matter Again]
KRV started a bad trend that continued in KRA. Heroic and Iron challenges stopped giving upgrade points. This change has only lowered the desire to play the challenges. Players who don't care about achievements can completely ignore the challenges if they wish so. We need to go back to how it was in the original trilogy. In KR6 challenges should absolutely give their usual 1 upgrade point for beating them. It takes no genius to figure out that if challenges awarded upgrade points, people WILL play them and do their best to beat them as early as possible. Challenges should also be hard again, so that the extra upgrade points feel earned. In KRV and KRA you had to get very far in the campaign before challenges got hard. Challenges in KR1 are pretty hard - the Iron challenge for the stage Pagras is a great example of an early difficulty spike.
Last edited by Fast & Furry-ous; 24 Feb @ 7:51am
< >
Showing 1-11 of 11 comments
Panpan2019 10 Jan @ 3:35pm 
I think really the most vital point here is getting stars/soul points from each Iron or Heroic challenge you complete. Of course, I went and completed every Iron and Heroic challenge in due time, but only after I beat the game. Bringing back the old system would be so much better... and if heroes were nerfed a bit then we would actually have a motive to do these challenges during the main campaign to get more upgrades in the shop.
During the early stages of KRF and KRO when we couldn't use anything like Boneheart or Wilbur, I'll admit that the games were super challenging. In fact, when I played Frontiers on Flash many years ago, I actually got stuck on Crimson Valley, though in retrospect I don't think that stage is too difficult.
Still the point stands that previous KR games were much harder. Don't get me wrong, Alliance and Vengeance still have really difficult bits in them, though a lot of them are unfortunately random tower-destroying BS like Abominor and his legion of trained hydras. In fact, I haven't even beaten that level at all yet.
But back to my main point, getting stars from challenges balanced out this challenge, allowing us to get max upgrades quick if we braved more challenging levels. Reintroducing this mechanic into our hypothetical KR6, along with changes to balancing to make the games more difficult, (not through flying enemy and hydra spam) would be highly beneficiary.
One flaw in this system that I will point out though, is that even in KR1-3, you wouldn't get any stars or extra upgrades once you completed the initial tree, something you could do relatively quickly just by completing Iron or Heroic challenges. Therefore I would suggest that Ironhide implements a system where extra stars can be used for other purposes. You might be able to convert them into hero XP, use them to apply small permanent buffs to your towers, (like you might find in a rougelike) or even buy cosmetics for your towers and heroes. That would give us good motivation to complete these challenges, for the endgame player who is the best of the best, and the new General as well.
Tl;dr, I hate hydras. :praisesun:
Last edited by Panpan2019; 10 Jan @ 3:35pm
#1
Agreus 11 Jan @ 4:30am 
I like the idear of this topic but I think there is one thing that people seem to forget:

This game is made to make money so a wider audience is a good thing for the game and its devs while a small hardcore fanbase is nice but irrelevant.
That means a game that is for the most part easy so that "casual gamers" can beat it with a little bit of work is the right decision to make as is (as much as I hate it) the selling of stronger characters and towers.

Hardcore fans/gamers that want a real challange are not the audience of a game that focusses on the mobile market first and everything else second especially not if its an indie game that has to care about funding.

These games are fun little nostalgia-trips and thats worth the money for me but I don´t think you will be happy if you expect the franchise to make a hard turn to cater to long-time fans.
#2
Engin 11 Jan @ 4:55am 
Maybe not so short game was nice , Kr 5 66 Stars only 22 Maps is a bad joke. Kr 1 was 130 Stars with no dlcs Frontiers was 110 Stars Venegance 96 Stars with dlcs 126 Stars , but 66 Stars only is really short.
#3
Fast & Furry-ous 11 Jan @ 6:56am 
Originally posted by Agreus:
I like the idear of this topic but I think there is one thing that people seem to forget:

This game is made to make money so a wider audience is a good thing for the game and its devs while a small hardcore fanbase is nice but irrelevant.
That means a game that is for the most part easy so that "casual gamers" can beat it with a little bit of work is the right decision to make as is (as much as I hate it) the selling of stronger characters and towers.

Hardcore fans/gamers that want a real challange are not the audience of a game that focusses on the mobile market first and everything else second especially not if its an indie game that has to care about funding.

These games are fun little nostalgia-trips and thats worth the money for me but I don´t think you will be happy if you expect the franchise to make a hard turn to cater to long-time fans.

You speak the truth. I actually didn't think about it from that aspect. I see myself as an optimistic KR fan, even if KRA pushed me onto a tipping point of being alienated. I guess I should focus my energy somewhere else. Thanks for waking me up.
#4
Agreus 11 Jan @ 11:16am 
Originally posted by Fast & Furry-ous:
Originally posted by Agreus:
I like the idear of this topic but I think there is one thing that people seem to forget:

This game is made to make money so a wider audience is a good thing for the game and its devs while a small hardcore fanbase is nice but irrelevant.
That means a game that is for the most part easy so that "casual gamers" can beat it with a little bit of work is the right decision to make as is (as much as I hate it) the selling of stronger characters and towers.

Hardcore fans/gamers that want a real challange are not the audience of a game that focusses on the mobile market first and everything else second especially not if its an indie game that has to care about funding.

These games are fun little nostalgia-trips and thats worth the money for me but I don´t think you will be happy if you expect the franchise to make a hard turn to cater to long-time fans.

You speak the truth. I actually didn't think about it from that aspect. I see myself as an optimistic KR fan, even if KRA pushed me onto a tipping point of being alienated. I guess I should focus my energy somewhere else. Thanks for waking me up.

Now I feel like I destroyed your fun... sorry for that I hope you still have a nice day.
#5
Shyguymask 24 Feb @ 9:02am 
Originally posted by Agreus:
This game is made to make money so a wider audience is a good thing for the game and its devs while a small hardcore fanbase is nice but irrelevant.
That means a game that is for the most part easy so that "casual gamers" can beat it with a little bit of work is the right decision to make as is (as much as I hate it) the selling of stronger characters and towers.

Hardcore fans/gamers that want a real challange are not the audience of a game that focusses on the mobile market first and everything else second especially not if its an indie game that has to care about funding.
KRA is objectively just as challenging as the first three games, if not more difficult im certain parts.
#6
Fast & Furry-ous 25 Feb @ 7:33am 
Originally posted by Shyguymask:
KRA is objectively just as challenging as the first three games, if not more difficult im certain parts.

What makes a stage difficult in KR1, and what makes a stage difficult in KRA, are for entirely different reasons. OG trilogy, KRV and KRA all play wildly different from each other.

OG trilogy established the series standard. Even early/mid-campaign challenges can be seriously hard due to upgrade limitations. What I especially love about OG trilogy is that enemy waves don't have path indicators like in KRV/KRA - this greatly contributes to the trilogy's puzzle approach and difficulty. This is where a lot of the trilogy's fun comes from: not knowing the enemies' exact path. So you have to observe enemy movements and adapt. Surprises can lead to several restarts. I remember when I replayed KR1 last year in anticipation of KRA, I had the most fun in the Curse of Castle Blackburn mini-campaign, because of the atmosphere and pure epicness. The stages Ancient Necropolis and Castle Blackburn have open-ended designs, enemies can come from anywhere and go for any exit. That was fun! I had a big smile on my face. It felt like peak Kingdom Rush right there. If there ever is a poll for best mini-campaign in the KR series, my vote will go to Curse of Castle Blackburn in a heartbeat.

With KRV the series went in a radically different direction, with a laidback LEGO approach: you are given lots of pieces (towers and skills) and you can build from those whatever you want (tower setups/builds). I'm sure this was done to appeal to a younger audience and that would explain the absence of real strategy and brutal difficulty.

Then KRA went in a third direction, with micromanagement galore due to the dual hero system, to the point of being RTS-lite. I don't play KR for hectic action. I play KR to relax and think. My head actually hurt after completing the third act of KRA on Impossible. This is why I prefer the emphasis on towers and the puzzle approach in OG trilogy.
#7
Shyguymask 25 Feb @ 8:08am 
Originally posted by Fast & Furry-ous:
Originally posted by Shyguymask:
KRA is objectively just as challenging as the first three games, if not more difficult im certain parts.
This would only be true if KRA and KR1 were fundamentally very different game, which isn't the case. Micro'ing, enemies with bothersome attributes, strategies through limited tower spots etc, every KR game shares these traits.

OG trilogy established the series standard.

Nitpick but more like duology, Origins is noticeably a step back from Frontiers and in general I'd call it the worst game in the series now with how much KRV has improved. Bad tower balance, overpowered Lightning spell, everything dealing true damage, towers being particularly spammable (arcane archers with bleeds and the barracks). KRA in a way feels like what Origins wanted to be but with better execution.

What I especially love about OG trilogy is that enemy waves don't have path indicators like in KRV/KRA - this greatly contributes to the trilogy's puzzle approach and difficulty. This is where a lot of the trilogy's fun comes from: not knowing the enemies' exact path. So you have to observe enemy movements and adapt. Surprises can lead to several restarts.
Path Indicators are pretty much just QoL and the games are better with them. Making the game skew ever so slightly closer to trial & error isn't a good thing. You should be able to know what's coming and prepare for it through the strategy aspect of the game, that's why we have info cards and wave previews. The games would be badly designed if waves were hidden & there was no info cards.

With KRV the series went in a radically different direction, with a laidback LEGO approach: you are given lots of pieces (towers and skills) and you can build from those whatever you want (tower setups/builds). I'm sure this was done to appeal to a younger audience and that would explain the absence of real strategy and brutal difficulty.
KRV's tower system isn't mutually exclusive with difficulty and strategy. Old KRV in particular felt like it had little strategy due to the bad balance of the game for the longest time. And it was "easy" due to a combination of poorly crafted enemies & wave design in the third Main campaign area as well as how abusable the bad tower balance was.

Then KRA went in a third direction, with micromanagement galore due to the dual hero system, to the point of being RTS-lite. I don't play KR for hectic action. I play KR to relax and think. My head actually hurt after completing the third act of KRA on Impossible. This is why I prefer the emphasis on towers and the puzzle approach in OG trilogy.
Yeah I'm also not a fan of KRA leaning towards being an actual RTS. The relatively lower gold for towers is my least favorite aspect of the game by far, but at least the balance and level design are consistently above average this time around, so it makes up for it.
Last edited by Shyguymask; 25 Feb @ 8:09am
#8
Fast & Furry-ous 25 Feb @ 9:39am 
@Shyguymask. It's true that the whole series shares several common traits, but the games are still easy to tell apart.

I would rate the KR games in the order of release. I'm probably looking at OG trilogy through rose-tinted glasses, so there's that. Your points about KRO are completely valid. On Casual you can win the entire campaign by just spamming Arcane Archers, and a few barracks here and there (which IS ridiculous). But on Impossible you have to actually use the other towers. I prefer the flash graphics of OG trilogy rather than the overly cartoonish look of KRV and KRA.

I personally love the trial and error. In the example above with Ancient Necropolis, there are times when an abomination walks on the upper lane, and just when I expected it would go for the upper lane exit, it decides go for the lower lane exit xD I love it when that happens. I love the ambiguity when an enemy reaches a junction and where it will go from there. Love it and can't help it. We all get our dopamine in different ways.

And now that you're here, what would you like in KR6? I looked at that other thread I started, and I found this in a comment from you "I already dislike the lesser focus on towers compared to heroes & spells including reinforcements now having 3 units". Sounds like reinforcements should go back to being two, and just stay at two xD
#9
Edo 6 Mar @ 5:06am 
I wish there was a way to speed up the game and lower it again....
that is all
Last edited by Edo; 6 Mar @ 5:08am
#10
Todd 16 Mar @ 1:09pm 
I personally like when they change up the path sometimes. The enemy seems more real, not just on rails. And it creates more challenge. More thinking. More reacting.

I also like heroes (and two heroes) and being able or required to manage them more to win. It makes is way way more interesting than just setting towers down and drinking a coke with your hands off the keyboard as the enemy streams in. I want to be kept on my toes. I want to in real time be required to react. I mean not too super much, because it is a tower defense game after all, but they found a good balance I think.

I'm very happy with this newest release. I love all the tower variety. It all keeps me engaged.

I'd just like way more levels of course. I don't mind paying more for DLC. I think this game is a great value. And I'd like them to keep making more.

I agree with the stars and challenges. It was odd they changed that. I was happy with how it was before or could be improved. Make stars and challenges matter more. Make me go back and finish those other challenges before I can progress because I need more stars and upgrades.

I think they have been doing great on locations. But of course more variety is always good and fresh ideas.

Overall this was a solid entertaining release. I just want more of it though and I want the challenges to matter more because I feel less compelled to finish those now. Overall they did a great job on this release though.
Last edited by Todd; 16 Mar @ 1:11pm
#11
< >
Showing 1-11 of 11 comments
Per page: 1530 50

Kingdom Rush 5: Alliance TD > General Discussions > Topic Details
Date Posted: 9 Jan @ 12:04pm
Posts: 11

Discussions Rules and Guidelines