I’m making Encave, a first-person base-defense game where you can build killrooms and defensive setups, but enemies can also destroy parts of the base and create new paths.
I opened the playtest today and would love feedback from tower defense players especially.
Does that sound like an interesting twist, or does destroying player-made paths undermine the fun of designing defenses?
Game Title: Encave
Playable Link: https://store.steampowered.com/app/3246990/Encave/
Platform: Steam/Windows
Description: Build customizable killrooms, scavenge, craft, upgrade and fight off waves of bioengineered monsters, that smash through walls, break your defenses, and carve new paths toward you in this hybrid FPS, tower defense and base builder set in a fully destructible underground biotech facility!
Free to Play Status:
Involvement: Developer
I’m comparing the old and new run cycles for this creature.
The new one feels smoother and more expressive, but something about the movement still looks off to me...
Any ideas, opinions, technical feedback, or even random observations would be appreciated
Edit: Thanks everyone for the genuinely great ideas!
Hey content makers! I have a question that I feel you are experts on.
We are preparing an Open Playtest for our game on Steam, it has something like good 30 minutes of gameplay if rushed, but the game itself is systems based, so the playtime can be extended for way more. Currently, we struggle to find creators to cover our current build. My expectation was that creators would want to do something early just to stand out from others and have some unique.
However, my conclusion is that creators doesn't want to do playtests at all, is it right?
I am trying to upgrade the floor in my game, however all of my current results seem to be too sci-fi compared to the environment. What do you think?
I’m working on Encave, an FPS/base-building game where mutants can smash through walls and create completely new routes.
I like the panic this creates, but I don’t want building a clever defense to feel pointless.
Right now I’m considering obvious breach warnings, dedicated breacher enemies and stronger walls that buy you time to react.
As base-builder players, would this feel like a fun stress test or like the game was cheating?
https://reddit.com/link/1uu8prd/video/n0tqprkc4rch1/player
Just wanted to share some animations from a new monster.
Do you find it weird or satisfying? Or both?
I'm working on a game where you build the killroom, then have to survive inside it while creatures tear it apart and I've been experimenting with a mechanic where enemies don't always follow the path you've prepared—they can destroy walls and create entirely new routes into your base.
The idea is to make defenses feel less "solved." Instead of building one perfect kill corridor, you have to react when your carefully planned layout suddenly stops working.
The challenge is balancing fairness. If enemies can break through anywhere at any time, it feels random. If it's too predictable, players just optimize around it and the mechanic loses its impact.
For those of you who enjoy strategy, tower defense, or base-building games:
What would make this mechanic feel fair?
Should wall breaches be rare but devastating, or frequent enough that players are always planning for them?
What games do you think handle dynamic enemy pathing particularly well?
I'm interested in hearing different perspectives before I iterate on the design further.
I’m working on Encave, a PC game that mixes first-person combat, tower defense, and underground base-building.
The basic loop is:
Explore the floor
Build and expand your base.
Create corridors, rooms, chokepoints, elevators, and defensive positions.
Then fight alongside your defenses when enemies push into the structure you designed.
The part I’m most interested in is making the base matter during combat, not just before it. I don’t want the building phase to feel like placing decorations or watching numbers go up. Ideally, every corridor shape, turret position, elevator shaft, and fallback point should change how the next attack plays out.
I’m especially looking for feedback on the pitch:
Does FPS + tower defense + underground base-building immediately make sense to you?
What would you expect to see first: building clips, enemy wave clips, exploration, or before/after base-defense examples?
And for this kind of game, would you rather have more freedom to build messy creative bases, or tighter constraints that force stronger tactical decisions?
Steam link, where allowed: https://store.steampowered.com/app/3246990/Encave/
One of the goals with Encave has always been to make the underground feel like more than just a series of caves. Every time you descend, you're balancing exploration, expansion, and survival.
You'll be building and defending your underground base, managing resources, setting up a killroom in your facility, and moving between floors via the elevator while dealing with whatever the depths decide to throw at you. Sometimes pushing to the next floor is worth the risk. Sometimes it's the reason your entire base ends up under attack.
As development continues, I'm constantly thinking about the balance between:
Careful planning vs. taking risks
Building stronger defenses vs. advancing to new floors
Expanding your base vs. conserving resources
I'd love to hear how you usually play games like this.
When you discover a new area, are you the type of player who:
Explores everything immediately?
Fortifies your base before moving on?
Rushes toward the deepest level as fast as possible?
Something else entirely?
Your answers genuinely help shape development priorities, so I'm looking forward to reading everyone's thoughts!
I’m curious how other devs handle onboarding in hybrid games.
For example, when a game mixes two big layers — action + strategy, combat + building, tower defense + direct control, etc. — the safe option is usually to teach one layer at a time. But then the first minutes can feel like a generic version of only one genre, and the actual hook appears too late.
How do you decide how much of the full loop to show in the first 5–10 minutes?
Have you seen any games that introduce the hybrid hook early without overwhelming the player?
Lately I’ve been noticing how most indie games end up being known for one specific thing.
In my case, I went into development thinking the main focus would be base building. But over time, it shifted a lot. Now it feels like the core of the game is actually about fighting incoming monsters in a TD + FPS manner. That’s the part people seem to latch onto when they see it. It got me thinking — the thing you spend the most time working on isn’t always what players remember or care about the most.
Curious if anyone else has run into this.
Did your game’s “identity” change as you were building it, or did you have it figured out from the start?
What ended up being the thing people associate your game with?
In games with waves, raids, or base defense, a lot of the fun should happen before enemies arrive: choosing where to fortify, deciding what to risk, predicting attack routes, placing tools, saving resources, etc.
But preparation can also turn into downtime where players just do the obvious optimal setup.
What makes pre-combat planning feel like a tense strategic choice instead of chores?
I’m interested in examples from tower defense, survival games, colony sims, extraction games, strategy games, or anything where “getting ready” is a major part of the gameplay loop.
I’ve been thinking about first-person / third-person tower defense hybrids like Sanctum, Dungeon Defenders, and Orcs Must Die.
The tricky part seems to be that the game can easily split into two separate halves: first you build, then you shoot. The best versions make both sides affect each other. Building changes how you fight, and fighting makes the layout matter more.
For people who enjoy this subgenre, what makes it work for you? Strong tower strategy, satisfying direct combat, clever enemy pathing, meaningful upgrades,
or the way all of those systems connect?
I’m especially curious what makes the hybrid feel like one game instead of two games stitched together.
I’ve been thinking about this from an indie dev perspective.
A lot of small developers hope streamers or YouTubers will cover their game, but I’m starting to realize that “is the game good?” is only one part of it. Some games are much easier to make content from than others.
For example, I imagine creators might care about things like:
* a strong hook that is clear in the first few minutes * funny, surprising, or tense moments that can become clips * readable gameplay for viewers * short sessions or good stopping points * enough challenge/failure to create reactions * settings for hiding music, UI, spoilers, or copyrighted content * a press kit, trailer, screenshots, and simple game description * a demo or creator-friendly build
For people who make content, watch a lot of game content, or have worked with creators: what features or qualities make you more likely to cover a game?
And for devs: have you ever changed your game, demo, Steam page, or press materials specifically to make it easier for creators to understand or showcase?
I’ve been thinking about this from an indie dev perspective.
A lot of small developers hope streamers or YouTubers will cover their game, but I’m starting to realize that “is the game good?” is only one part of it. Some games are much easier to make content from than others.
For example, I imagine creators might care about things like:
* a strong hook that is clear in the first few minutes * funny, surprising, or tense moments that can become clips * readable gameplay for viewers * short sessions or good stopping points * enough challenge/failure to create reactions * settings for hiding music, UI, spoilers, or copyrighted content * a press kit, trailer, screenshots, and simple game description * a demo or creator-friendly build
For people who make content, watch a lot of game content, or have worked with creators: what features or qualities make you more likely to cover a game?
And for devs: have you ever changed your game, demo, Steam page, or press materials specifically to make it easier for creators to understand or showcase?
I’ve been thinking about this from an indie dev perspective.
A lot of small developers hope streamers or YouTubers will cover their game, but I’m starting to realize that “is the game good?” is only one part of it. Some games are much easier to make content from than others.
For example, I imagine creators might care about things like:
For people who make content, watch a lot of game content, or have worked with creators: what features or qualities make you more likely to cover a game?
And for devs: have you ever changed your game, demo, Steam page, or press materials specifically to make it easier for creators to understand or showcase?
I’m working on Encave, a first-person game about building and defending an underground base while exploring and looting around the underground facility.
One design problem I keep thinking about is base attacks.
In base-building games, attacks can make your base feel alive and vulnerable, but they can also feel like the game randomly punished hours of work. I want danger to matter, but not feel like the game is just deleting progress.
For you, what makes an attack on your base feel fair?
I’m especially interested in games where the base feels valuable and vulnerable, but not constantly griefed by the game.
I’m working on Encave, a PC game that mixes FPS combat, tower defense, and underground base building.
One piece of feedback I got from other game designers was that the beginning should show the player the fantasy first:
Give them power.
Show what they can eventually become.
Then take it away and make them rebuild toward it.
That made me rethink the opening. The game’s normal loop is about building an underground base, mining into new areas, looting rooms, placing defenses, and fighting enemies directly when things go wrong. The problem is that this takes time to communicate.
If the first 5 minutes are only mining and placing basic structures, players may not understand the later fantasy.
If the first 5 minutes are only FPS combat, they may think it’s mainly a shooter.
If I explain everything with tutorials, it risks becoming boring before the game has shown why the systems matter.
So I’m considering adding a full intro level where the player is thrown into an active wave defense scenario.
The idea would be:
You start on a floor that already has an advanced defensive setup.
There is a proper killroom with traps, turrets, chokepoints, and a working base layout.
A wave is already coming.
The player gets to run around, fight, repair, watch traps work, and experience the “end goal” version of the game for a few minutes.
Then something goes wrong.
Maybe the base gets overrun.
Maybe the player has to evacuate.
Maybe power fails and the whole setup collapses.
After that, the real game starts with very little, and now the player understands what they are rebuilding toward.
The goal would not be to fake complexity or overwhelm the player. It would be to give them a clear promise:
“This is what your base can become. Now survive long enough to build it yourself.”
I can see the benefits:
It gives an immediate hook.
It shows the FPS and tower defense parts right away.
It makes advanced traps and turrets feel exciting before the player has to grind toward them.
It gives context to early-game rebuilding.
It may help communicate the whole genre mix faster than a slow tutorial.
But I also see the risks:
It could make the actual early game feel weaker afterward.
It could overwhelm new players before they understand anything.
It could feel like a fake vertical slice if the intro is much cooler than the first hour.
It might create frustration if players lose access to toys they just enjoyed.
For devs who have used this kind of “show the power fantasy, then take it away” opening: did it help players understand the game better, or did it create bad expectations?
And if you were doing this for a hybrid game, would you make the intro fully playable, heavily guided, or more like a short interactive set piece?
I’m working on a PC game that mixes FPS combat, tower defense, and underground base building, and I’m struggling with the cleanest way to explain it quickly.
The accurate description is: A hybrid first person shooter and tower defense. Build customizable killrooms in a fully destructible underground environment to eliminate waves of corporate bioweapon rejects! With strategic base construction and escalating threats, Encave delivers a unique blend of action and strategy.
The problem is that when I list all of that, it starts sounding unfocused, even though the actual gameplay loop is pretty connected.
For people who marketed hybrid games: did you lead with the strongest fantasy, the core loop, the genre combination, or a comparison to existing games?
And how much detail is too much before players stop understanding the pitch?
