u/Imagination-Port

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:

• 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’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?

One thing I’ve noticed in a lot of FPS games is that progression systems can be a double-edged sword. Unlocks, upgrades, perks, and gear progression can make the player feel stronger, but they can also reduce tension or make earlier challenges irrelevant.

I'm curious how people think about this as players and designers. What kinds of progression actually improve an FPS experience for you? New tactical options? Sidegrades instead of straight upgrades? More enemy variety that keeps pace with player growth?

Are there any FPS games that you think handled progression particularly well without making combat less interesting over time?

Basically, what makes character or weapon progression enhance an FPS rather than undermine the core shooting gameplay?

I’m curious how other tower defense players/devs think about difficulty.

​

Some TD games are hard in a way that makes you instantly want to retry because you understand what went wrong: bad placement, wrong upgrade order, poor economy, ignored enemy type, etc. Others feel hard because the game hides information, spikes too suddenly, or expects you to already know the wave order.

​

What usually makes a difficult TD level feel fair to you?

Is it enemy telegraphing, wave preview, refund/respec options, clearer tower roles, slower early pacing, or something else?

​

Also curious where people draw the line between “good challenge” and “I’m done.”

I’ve been thinking about base-defense systems where enemies don’t simply chew through walls. Instead, the danger comes from bypasses: tunneling, climbing, disabling power, forcing the player to leave safety, poisoning resource routes, etc.

On paper I like this more than the usual build → repair → rebuild loop, because it turns defense into active problem solving. But it can also feel unfair if the player reads it as “the game ignored my base.”

What signals make this kind of threat feel fair? Early warning sounds? Visible pathing? Specialist enemy silhouettes? Counter-buildings? Tutorial encounters?

And where is the line between “clever enemy that makes my base design matter” and “cheap enemy that invalidates my preparation”?

Every time I show a build to players, they end up commenting on something completely different from what I expected. Sometimes it's a tiny UI detail, a sound effect, a movement animation, or some small quality-of-life feature that took very little development time. Meanwhile, features I spent weeks building barely get mentioned.

​

What's the biggest surprise you've had where players became attached to something you thought was insignificant?

I’ve been thinking about the tiny bits of feedback that make building/placement systems feel good: ghost previews, snapping, rotation increments, cancellation, sounds, resource previews, blocked-placement feedback, etc.

In first-person survival/building games, what detail made you think “this just feels right”?

I’m especially curious about examples where the system stayed readable under pressure (intense FPS combat), not just during calm building mode.

I’m curious how other designers judge whether a level’s pacing works while it is still rough. Before final art, lighting, sound, and polish are in, what tells you the layout itself is working?

Do you look mostly at player movement, combat rhythm, sightlines, time between decisions, backtracking, navigation mistakes, or something else?

I’m especially interested in levels where exploration, combat, and resource collection all compete for attention, because it can be hard to tell whether a section feels tense or just messy.

Has anyone seen meaningful results from submitting their game to all the various game databases and lists?

I'm talking about sites like IndieDB, RAWG, MyGameDB, upcoming game lists, genre-specific directories, and similar places that let you create a game page.

As an indie developer with limited time, I'm trying to figure out whether this is worth the effort compared to spending that same time on Steam page improvements, social media, Reddit, festivals, or contacting creators.

Have you seen measurable traffic, wishlists, or community growth from these listings?

Which databases or directories were actually worth it, and which felt like a waste of time?

I'd love to hear some real numbers or experiences.

In a lot of base-building games, expansion eventually becomes automatic once the player can afford it. I’m more interested in expansion as a tradeoff: more room and production, but also longer travel, bigger defense surface, more power/logistics strain, harder recovery if something goes wrong, etc.

What systems have you seen that make you pause before expanding without making the game feel like it’s just punishing you for growing?

Examples from base builders, colony sims, survival games, tower defense, or strategy games are all useful.

I’m curious how designers separate good survival/resource pressure from chore-like micromanagement. Hunger/thirst/ammo/power can create great decisions, but they can also become repetitive meters that players babysit and even get fed up from. I personally have shelved a lot of games where I felt like all of the systems are fun except for the character stats management or resource gathering grind.

What usually makes resource management feel meaningful to you? Is it scarcity, tradeoffs, risk while gathering, consequences of running out, or something else?