This Dogmai is a pretty funny guy(Well..I find him somewhat amusing).
I will remind you that we oversee this community as a whole. Note that this message is not in response to your replies in this thread but rather whats been observed over the course of many weeks. You`re attitude in most cases has clearly become more disruptive and annoying than anything else. The effect of which has certainly reached our attention(the moderation staff) as of late. You have a way of undermining fellow mapsters, dissuading them from their goals, creating an environment for hostility and all the while boasting and overbearing both your perception of yourself and your map in the process.
Ive seen/experienced and dealt with your type in the past(I wont mention their names.). Take careful heed to what I say.
If you plan on helping or contributing to this community. Do it in the right way. Drop the agenda, cynicism and overall pompous sh1tty attitude. Consider this your first warning. I do it publicly to set an example and to further remind everyone that Sc2mapster is a friendly home to all fellow mapping enthusiasts. No person is greater than the other, No map is greater than the next.
While this is a more philosophical debate and I honestly don't want to get into it with great detail in this particular thread, I'm going to disagree with the idea that humans are selfish by nature in so far as it being a fact. Again, let's not get into it with great detail, but there is both great evidence for and against the concept that humans are selfish by nature. So I'd like to avoid the nasty argument that could stem by that by removing that as a supporting point for either argument. Let's just agree not to use it and push that pitfall of a conversation topic off the table :)
Now I'm going to skip all the crap about Tofu and DOTA's history. That actually isn't relevant for today's popular game. If we were comparing two games that have a longstanding history THEN we could talk about the history of the game. This particular conversation is about introducing a brand new game (regardless of whether ideas and concepts are being borrowed) into the current pool of existing games and vying for the "popular votes" if you will. Simply put, nobody cares about the history of a game when comparing it to a new game. They take the current rendition of a game, push them together and see which one falls over.
Thus my point that the game is complex AND popular still stands because obviously the game designers added complexity rather than removed it and as such the game continued to grow. That is a sign that complex gameplay doesn't deter the average player.
No! Wrong - with the utmost respect. The only thing that changes are the abilities, items stay the same, shops stay the same, creeps stay the same, lanes stay the same, the only thing that changes are 4 little variables known as abilities. Yes technically, stats, movement speed, change as well - but for arguments sakes the only thing that changes are abilities, the game itself is the same.
I think you're missing what I was getting at. No hero uses every item in the game. In fact they probably use 25-30% of the items across all of their builds. Maybe more if they're an incredibly flexible hero. That means when you've "learned" the game as a hero you've only learned a small portion of the items because you aren't using the other items. When you change heroes yes, technically, all that changes are your abilities, but I think you're underestimating just how much actually changes in a game.
Take melee and ranged heroes for example. You go from last hitting defensively to harassing, denying etc. The lane does in fact change for you because you aren't interacting with it in the same way at all. In fact, there are even heroes where you want to stay [away from]/[closer to] the creeps because your abilities work better that way.
Another important factor is the lane itself. Depending on what lane you are, your relative style should change yet again because you're either alone (mid), soloing (have a jungler), farming (easy lane), pushing (hard lane). The different combination of heroes changes the interactions players will have. It is a mistake to believe that human interaction is not a crucial part of any PvP game.
That level of intricacy isn't present in most "simple" games. This is why I don't believe that the key to a popular game is mind-numbing simplicity.
Complexity has nothing to do with negative popularity, it can only help. It is how this complexity is presented to the player (learning curve) that counts. Therefore, saying only simple games rule is ignorant. Saying easy to learn games rule, now that's more accurate.
I did a lot of generalizing in my post so I am definitely aware that TDs can be complex, but you can agree that compared to DOTA, TDs aren't nearly as complex, yes?
That was the purpose of the comparison. DOTA has much more room to be complex without effort whereas TDs must struggle just to reach the level of complexity that DOTA starts at.
When you learn a TD, not a lot changes after that.
When you learn a DOTA map, everything changes when you switch to a different hero.
If you're talking about the average AoS and the average TD, then yes I do agree with you. However, the genre itself isn't the limiting factor in terms of the complexity of the map. That (shameful) award goes to the game maker.
I have trouble agreeing with you because I have seen high level TD play that was just as cutthroat, skill+strategy intensive, and rewarding as DotA. In other words, I don't see it as a struggle to reach a complexity similar to AoS with a TD.
Speaking only from my experience, I would say that a good TD does not fall under "once you learn it that's it" type of characterization. It may just be that I make them better than everyone else, but that statement is far from true for my own game.
I haven't actually played your TD so I will give you the benefit of the doubt, but I do believe that in order for a TD to be more complex, you stop being a TD and start becoming a Tug of War or Bunker Wars type map in that you're no longer focusing on TD itself. I don't really know of a better genre name than those off the top of my head so don't take that as an insult. It's just how I would describe a TD game that starts becoming complex in a PvP setting.
TD just doesn't lend itself well to a PvP setup given that the PvP is typically just sending units at your opponents; standard Tug of War/Bunker Wars.
You'd be surprised what a countdown timer (to next wave) can do when it starts upon someone clearing their area. In case it is not clear, rushing people out of the game to be the last survivor is quite PvP.
Agreed, Formation Defense's new competitive mode can get quite intense towards the end. You stop controlling your troops for a couple seconds and somebody's going to wipe you off the map.
Meh, make it a double, I like living on the edge. As I said in previous threads, I am going to try and phrase my posts better.
Without inflating my ego anymore, I find it hard with the amount of knowledge I have to explain things in simplier ways for the masses to understand, yes I understand most do not have my level of knowledge, and with no doubt more knowledge leads to a different way of thinking. As such, because of my skill level being higher than the people I try and help, I kinda try and push them to get up with me here faster and expect more from them that perhaps I should.
At the end of the day all I want to achieve is to help everyone improve their skill level up to the point where all the maps produced from this website are amazing, hence the 101 tutorials I started writing up. I have either Moderated or Administrated more websites than you can count on all your digits, and have been a darn good at it, but 13+ years of doing it? I am over the drama and would rather concentrate on my mapping.
People will always be better than others, maps will always be better than other maps. This is not some ladida fairyland where everyone is equal - equality does not exist in real life and thus does not exist in Sc2mapster. Whilst it is fair enough to wish for such a thing, reality check proves otherwise. Only by choosing to accept this fact can mappers look at maps better than theirs, draw inspiration, set themselves a quality goal to reach for.
And if I have been a bit pissed off in the last few weeks, the anger is directed at myself for taking so long to finish Tofu. It feels like I have almost taken it out on fellow mappers for my own shortcomings as a mapper. Oh well, shit happens, my bad.
@ All the other posts I will reply later, its 5.30am still working on Tofu, could care less atm.
IMO, I actually do like it when people say harsh things about my map or mapping skills. I would rather have someone say "Your dialogs are complete crap" than "You need to improve on your dialogs!"
I also do the same to other people. I don't use euphemism at all
Yeah, but there's a difference between using euphemism and just being downright condenscending. Like I mentioned in another thread, I'm completely honest with people (if I don't like someone's terrain I'll say so) yet I manage to not come across as an asshole, or so I like to think.
In both of your posts you described a situation where you are sending units at someone else (Bunker Wars) or rushing them off the map (Tug of War).
All I'm saying is there is a TD and then there are the TD variants you both are describing which are less a TD and more a different genre.
I agree with both of you. I agree that in its essence a tower defense needs to be combined with another genre (to some degree) for competitive mode. On the other hand, Karawasa is right in that a td can be difficult and strategy oriented without needing another genre's concepts.
I think it all comes down to competitive modes...they simply aren't part of the standard TD formula. You add in a competitive aspect into the map and it evolves into a hybrid.
But it's not impossible for a solo or team-oriented TD to have some solid strategy behind it.
For FD, I've always said it's a strategy game first and a defense map second.
All I am saying wingednosering, is that when I first go play Formation Defense, I have no clue... So it's not like StarBattle in which when I first play I get the grasp of it.
StarBattle will get more complex as you are talking about build type, etc. etc. strength and weakness of each build etc etc.
I am talking about the first 2-3 minutes... Honestly I have been in your situation. I have released a TD back in Nov 2010. Reached bottom page 2 I think. And those who played it simply loved it. No negative feedback. I got tons tons of praise saying the best TD they have ever played. I got bunch of emails too. Got pinged left and right at Bnet. Heck, I even got a great great fan poem for the lore of my TD... I still have the screenshots of some of the players Match History. Those fans... uhhhh... They play nothing but my TD during that 2 weeks.... But does it matter???
It doesn't matter... My TD has non-standard game mechanic. Fully custom tower units. Competitive and complex strategy... It needs more than 2-3 minutes to get the grasp of the game mechanic. But the fact is whenever people play 60-70% quit within the first 5 mins because they got confused.... Typical chat log would be: "what just happened?" "I have no idea just following the flow lol" ... Only those who were willing to spend time to understand the game will get addicted.
I have been trying to simplify the game since and I still haven't been able to do that up until today. So 2-3 months ago I kinda gave up... And since then I've gone back to the scratch book trying to make the game understandable in the first 2-3 minutes..
Think Civilization... Wonderful, great great game... But will never sell as well as StarCraft 2.
Yeah, but there's a difference between using euphemism and just being downright condenscending. Like I mentioned in another thread, I'm completely honest with people (if I don't like someone's terrain I'll say so) yet I manage to not come across as an asshole, or so I like to think.
I am direct, things are black or white for me, no grey area. This; if people are not use to it, makes me sound arrogant, when in reality I am merely direct.
You said that before, but you're missing my point. When someone makes a terrain that looks horrible I'll say "That's pretty bad. What are you aiming for? Try this and this, possibly improve this". That's direct, but it's not arrogant or assholic. When someone makes a dialog that looks horrible (or even ones that aren't horrible, just 'alright' as I imagine this map's to be), you say things like "I have no doubt that you could find a cliche group of people that like it, but I don't. It gave me a headache, I lost interest and the UI hurts my eyes.".
But that isn't even as bad - the bad part kicks in when you claim to be so much better than basically everybody without even giving any real credentials. Or heck, your credentials being "oh yeah but I *will* at some point make a map so awesome that I can now boast about it". Not to mention the fact that you've hauled up your '101 guides' which also generally point out opinion more than fact. Or heck, for as far as we on mapster can know the facts, a guide that reflects the opinions of at least the majority of experienced and/or involved map makers. There's nothing inherently wrong with some arrogance if you know you're right, but you're taking it to the extreme. It's close to a case of god-complex here.
That said, even if you want to throw all that to the side, I can make it really simple for you: things might be black and white for you without a grey area, but guess what - that's not how the world works. There's a lot of ethical dilemma's one can't give a clear answer to, but even I feel safe enough to say that there is always a grey area. Regardless, that's not how it works here on Mapster either. So keep it off the boards, as in most cases you're annoying more people than helping them with an attitude like that.
I'm just going to avoid the whole Dogmai battle that's going on...
I hear ya, Maknyuzz.
Every update I did to 1.0 (and now the first update that's going live for 2.0) is making the game easier and easier, with additional help available for new players. I'm leaving the high difficulty settings where they are though....the high difficulty is part of the game's charm IMO.
2.2 will feature something that Dogmai mentioned (yes it was already in the works). If you're in the game on your own there's no time limit for the first round. It just starts when you want it to. This gives people more time to read the tutorial and whatnot.
Quote:
When someone makes a dialog that looks horrible (or even ones that aren't horrible, just 'alright' as I imagine this map's to be),
Sadly, my dialogs aren't bad at all, it's just a consistency issue. Some of the dialogs (probably the ones Dogmai was referencing) are directly from FD 1.0. When 1.0 was released, my dialogs were absolutely terrible. I've altered nearly every dialog since then and all the ones I've added for 2.0 look great (although again, I'm not sure how the text reads on lower resolutions...Dogmai's comments made it sound like that could be an issue).
I'm hoping to make a whole new achievement dialog after today's update, which should be fairly impressive if I can pull off what I'm picturing.
I'd like to reiterate what I said on the last page. I never said my dialogs were the "best you'll ever see", I said I found my dialogs impressive. I did not necessarily say that based off of aesthetic appeal, it's due to their functionality.
You can go backwards or forwards through tips at any time (even after you've died) to help you learn how to play. There's a tutorial which provides information on startup if you ask for it.
At any time, you can pull up a tech tree, which lists every units' stats, all upgrades and abilities associated with the unit, what it's prereqs are, and so on.
There's a scouting dialog which gives tactical advice in competitive mode, based on what your opponent has built.
I am on a 27" IPS screen running Sc2 in 2560x1440 on max settings. It is not an issue, the text is simply too big. Thats why I said for buttons use "StandardButton" or "ResourceButton" as your style. Also light blue text does not go well with a green button, change it to white.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This Dogmai is a pretty funny guy(Well..I find him somewhat amusing).
I will remind you that we oversee this community as a whole. Note that this message is not in response to your replies in this thread but rather whats been observed over the course of many weeks. You`re attitude in most cases has clearly become more disruptive and annoying than anything else. The effect of which has certainly reached our attention(the moderation staff) as of late. You have a way of undermining fellow mapsters, dissuading them from their goals, creating an environment for hostility and all the while boasting and overbearing both your perception of yourself and your map in the process.
Ive seen/experienced and dealt with your type in the past(I wont mention their names.). Take careful heed to what I say.
If you plan on helping or contributing to this community. Do it in the right way. Drop the agenda, cynicism and overall pompous sh1tty attitude.
Consider this your first warning. I do it publicly to set an example and to further remind everyone that Sc2mapster is a friendly home to all fellow mapping enthusiasts. No person is greater than the other, No map is greater than the next.
While this is a more philosophical debate and I honestly don't want to get into it with great detail in this particular thread, I'm going to disagree with the idea that humans are selfish by nature in so far as it being a fact. Again, let's not get into it with great detail, but there is both great evidence for and against the concept that humans are selfish by nature. So I'd like to avoid the nasty argument that could stem by that by removing that as a supporting point for either argument. Let's just agree not to use it and push that pitfall of a conversation topic off the table :)
Now I'm going to skip all the crap about Tofu and DOTA's history. That actually isn't relevant for today's popular game. If we were comparing two games that have a longstanding history THEN we could talk about the history of the game. This particular conversation is about introducing a brand new game (regardless of whether ideas and concepts are being borrowed) into the current pool of existing games and vying for the "popular votes" if you will. Simply put, nobody cares about the history of a game when comparing it to a new game. They take the current rendition of a game, push them together and see which one falls over.
Thus my point that the game is complex AND popular still stands because obviously the game designers added complexity rather than removed it and as such the game continued to grow. That is a sign that complex gameplay doesn't deter the average player.
I think you're missing what I was getting at. No hero uses every item in the game. In fact they probably use 25-30% of the items across all of their builds. Maybe more if they're an incredibly flexible hero. That means when you've "learned" the game as a hero you've only learned a small portion of the items because you aren't using the other items. When you change heroes yes, technically, all that changes are your abilities, but I think you're underestimating just how much actually changes in a game.
Take melee and ranged heroes for example. You go from last hitting defensively to harassing, denying etc. The lane does in fact change for you because you aren't interacting with it in the same way at all. In fact, there are even heroes where you want to stay [away from]/[closer to] the creeps because your abilities work better that way.
Another important factor is the lane itself. Depending on what lane you are, your relative style should change yet again because you're either alone (mid), soloing (have a jungler), farming (easy lane), pushing (hard lane). The different combination of heroes changes the interactions players will have. It is a mistake to believe that human interaction is not a crucial part of any PvP game.
That level of intricacy isn't present in most "simple" games. This is why I don't believe that the key to a popular game is mind-numbing simplicity.
Complexity has nothing to do with negative popularity, it can only help. It is how this complexity is presented to the player (learning curve) that counts. Therefore, saying only simple games rule is ignorant. Saying easy to learn games rule, now that's more accurate.
If you're talking about the average AoS and the average TD, then yes I do agree with you. However, the genre itself isn't the limiting factor in terms of the complexity of the map. That (shameful) award goes to the game maker.
I have trouble agreeing with you because I have seen high level TD play that was just as cutthroat, skill+strategy intensive, and rewarding as DotA. In other words, I don't see it as a struggle to reach a complexity similar to AoS with a TD.
Speaking only from my experience, I would say that a good TD does not fall under "once you learn it that's it" type of characterization. It may just be that I make them better than everyone else, but that statement is far from true for my own game.
I haven't actually played your TD so I will give you the benefit of the doubt, but I do believe that in order for a TD to be more complex, you stop being a TD and start becoming a Tug of War or Bunker Wars type map in that you're no longer focusing on TD itself. I don't really know of a better genre name than those off the top of my head so don't take that as an insult. It's just how I would describe a TD game that starts becoming complex in a PvP setting.
TD just doesn't lend itself well to a PvP setup given that the PvP is typically just sending units at your opponents; standard Tug of War/Bunker Wars.
@ProzaicMuze: Go
You'd be surprised what a countdown timer (to next wave) can do when it starts upon someone clearing their area. In case it is not clear, rushing people out of the game to be the last survivor is quite PvP.
@Karawasa: Go
Agreed, Formation Defense's new competitive mode can get quite intense towards the end. You stop controlling your troops for a couple seconds and somebody's going to wipe you off the map.
[Edit]: Woah, two quick responses.
You do realize what you just described, right?
In both of your posts you described a situation where you are sending units at someone else (Bunker Wars) or rushing them off the map (Tug of War).
All I'm saying is there is a TD and then there are the TD variants you both are describing which are less a TD and more a different genre.
Meh, make it a double, I like living on the edge. As I said in previous threads, I am going to try and phrase my posts better.
Without inflating my ego anymore, I find it hard with the amount of knowledge I have to explain things in simplier ways for the masses to understand, yes I understand most do not have my level of knowledge, and with no doubt more knowledge leads to a different way of thinking. As such, because of my skill level being higher than the people I try and help, I kinda try and push them to get up with me here faster and expect more from them that perhaps I should.
At the end of the day all I want to achieve is to help everyone improve their skill level up to the point where all the maps produced from this website are amazing, hence the 101 tutorials I started writing up. I have either Moderated or Administrated more websites than you can count on all your digits, and have been a darn good at it, but 13+ years of doing it? I am over the drama and would rather concentrate on my mapping.
People will always be better than others, maps will always be better than other maps. This is not some ladida fairyland where everyone is equal - equality does not exist in real life and thus does not exist in Sc2mapster. Whilst it is fair enough to wish for such a thing, reality check proves otherwise. Only by choosing to accept this fact can mappers look at maps better than theirs, draw inspiration, set themselves a quality goal to reach for.
And if I have been a bit pissed off in the last few weeks, the anger is directed at myself for taking so long to finish Tofu. It feels like I have almost taken it out on fellow mappers for my own shortcomings as a mapper. Oh well, shit happens, my bad.
@ All the other posts I will reply later, its 5.30am still working on Tofu, could care less atm.
@DogmaiSEA: Go
This may sound slightly ironic, but I feel like I need to say this. Plus, it summarizes my entire thought right now into one sentence.
Your entire story is what psychologists have said about me, yet I don't act like a complete asshole.
IMO, I actually do like it when people say harsh things about my map or mapping skills. I would rather have someone say "Your dialogs are complete crap" than "You need to improve on your dialogs!"
I also do the same to other people. I don't use euphemism at all
@xKenneth: Go
Yeah, but there's a difference between using euphemism and just being downright condenscending. Like I mentioned in another thread, I'm completely honest with people (if I don't like someone's terrain I'll say so) yet I manage to not come across as an asshole, or so I like to think.
I agree with both of you. I agree that in its essence a tower defense needs to be combined with another genre (to some degree) for competitive mode. On the other hand, Karawasa is right in that a td can be difficult and strategy oriented without needing another genre's concepts.
I think it all comes down to competitive modes...they simply aren't part of the standard TD formula. You add in a competitive aspect into the map and it evolves into a hybrid.
But it's not impossible for a solo or team-oriented TD to have some solid strategy behind it.
For FD, I've always said it's a strategy game first and a defense map second.
All I am saying wingednosering, is that when I first go play Formation Defense, I have no clue... So it's not like StarBattle in which when I first play I get the grasp of it.
StarBattle will get more complex as you are talking about build type, etc. etc. strength and weakness of each build etc etc.
I am talking about the first 2-3 minutes... Honestly I have been in your situation. I have released a TD back in Nov 2010. Reached bottom page 2 I think. And those who played it simply loved it. No negative feedback. I got tons tons of praise saying the best TD they have ever played. I got bunch of emails too. Got pinged left and right at Bnet. Heck, I even got a great great fan poem for the lore of my TD... I still have the screenshots of some of the players Match History. Those fans... uhhhh... They play nothing but my TD during that 2 weeks.... But does it matter???
It doesn't matter... My TD has non-standard game mechanic. Fully custom tower units. Competitive and complex strategy... It needs more than 2-3 minutes to get the grasp of the game mechanic. But the fact is whenever people play 60-70% quit within the first 5 mins because they got confused.... Typical chat log would be: "what just happened?" "I have no idea just following the flow lol" ... Only those who were willing to spend time to understand the game will get addicted.
I have been trying to simplify the game since and I still haven't been able to do that up until today. So 2-3 months ago I kinda gave up... And since then I've gone back to the scratch book trying to make the game understandable in the first 2-3 minutes..
Think Civilization... Wonderful, great great game... But will never sell as well as StarCraft 2.
I am direct, things are black or white for me, no grey area. This; if people are not use to it, makes me sound arrogant, when in reality I am merely direct.
@DogmaiSEA: Go
You said that before, but you're missing my point. When someone makes a terrain that looks horrible I'll say "That's pretty bad. What are you aiming for? Try this and this, possibly improve this". That's direct, but it's not arrogant or assholic. When someone makes a dialog that looks horrible (or even ones that aren't horrible, just 'alright' as I imagine this map's to be), you say things like "I have no doubt that you could find a cliche group of people that like it, but I don't. It gave me a headache, I lost interest and the UI hurts my eyes.".
But that isn't even as bad - the bad part kicks in when you claim to be so much better than basically everybody without even giving any real credentials. Or heck, your credentials being "oh yeah but I *will* at some point make a map so awesome that I can now boast about it". Not to mention the fact that you've hauled up your '101 guides' which also generally point out opinion more than fact. Or heck, for as far as we on mapster can know the facts, a guide that reflects the opinions of at least the majority of experienced and/or involved map makers. There's nothing inherently wrong with some arrogance if you know you're right, but you're taking it to the extreme. It's close to a case of god-complex here.
That said, even if you want to throw all that to the side, I can make it really simple for you: things might be black and white for you without a grey area, but guess what - that's not how the world works. There's a lot of ethical dilemma's one can't give a clear answer to, but even I feel safe enough to say that there is always a grey area. Regardless, that's not how it works here on Mapster either. So keep it off the boards, as in most cases you're annoying more people than helping them with an attitude like that.
It's 7:30 am baby, I don't think I am getting anyones point atm. I am out of it.
@Mozared: Go
Well said. The world most certainly is not a black and white affair.
@Maknyuzz: Go
I'm just going to avoid the whole Dogmai battle that's going on...
I hear ya, Maknyuzz.
Every update I did to 1.0 (and now the first update that's going live for 2.0) is making the game easier and easier, with additional help available for new players. I'm leaving the high difficulty settings where they are though....the high difficulty is part of the game's charm IMO.
2.2 will feature something that Dogmai mentioned (yes it was already in the works). If you're in the game on your own there's no time limit for the first round. It just starts when you want it to. This gives people more time to read the tutorial and whatnot.
Sadly, my dialogs aren't bad at all, it's just a consistency issue. Some of the dialogs (probably the ones Dogmai was referencing) are directly from FD 1.0. When 1.0 was released, my dialogs were absolutely terrible. I've altered nearly every dialog since then and all the ones I've added for 2.0 look great (although again, I'm not sure how the text reads on lower resolutions...Dogmai's comments made it sound like that could be an issue).
I'm hoping to make a whole new achievement dialog after today's update, which should be fairly impressive if I can pull off what I'm picturing.
I'd like to reiterate what I said on the last page. I never said my dialogs were the "best you'll ever see", I said I found my dialogs impressive. I did not necessarily say that based off of aesthetic appeal, it's due to their functionality.
You can go backwards or forwards through tips at any time (even after you've died) to help you learn how to play. There's a tutorial which provides information on startup if you ask for it.
At any time, you can pull up a tech tree, which lists every units' stats, all upgrades and abilities associated with the unit, what it's prereqs are, and so on.
There's a scouting dialog which gives tactical advice in competitive mode, based on what your opponent has built.
That's what I meant by 'impressive'.
@Mozared: Go
But what if Dogmai IS God?
@.@
DUN DUN DUN!!!!!!!!!
runs back into the shadows
I am. I spys on u nekkid in the showhorezz.
@wingednosering: Go
I am on a 27" IPS screen running Sc2 in 2560x1440 on max settings. It is not an issue, the text is simply too big. Thats why I said for buttons use "StandardButton" or "ResourceButton" as your style. Also light blue text does not go well with a green button, change it to white.