DONT NAME THE HEROS. NAME THEM AS CLASSES. KEEP IT THAT WAY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

I see some talk of dota type mechanics and not enough Temple siege mechanics. I know you understand UU. Keep it Temple siege. D:

Named Time mage k thx.

Also just throwing it out there maybe their should be a sort of 'mode' for each hero. I was playing some Marvel vs Capcom the other day and got it from that. Every time you pick a character from that game you have the option to choose its 'mode' or whatever. Whether it be Anti air type, Expansion type, melee type, etc. It changes the move pool a bit to fit a better role for teams. Maybe something like that could be used instead of having something like an item shop.

I think it's the items and the shop the allow for character customization in the other dota games right? Well thats my proposal for an alternative to shops.

The "Mode" idea is interesting, but we have to put it into the right context.

All "Move pools" should be available.. and the players get to choose between them... that way, they can choose the "Anti-Air tech" in game.

This is why I'm having trouble with the spell system because this is somewhat what I wanted to do (expand each hero)

I said this in ETEFT's thread. Make sure you put in a banning pick. Just in case you fuck up and have a few people who are ALWAYS picked, having a banning pick will force new units to be used.

I suggest not making it unless you're willing to put at least twice the amount of time you put into Temple Siege.

Thissssssssssssss

What about 5x the amount of people instead?
O, and thanks for not helping, you deserve a gleaming gold distinctive negativity trophy.

@rockz .. a banning pick as in host gets to pick which heroes cannot be used?

Interesting L3 effects .. I'll remember to o that.

I think rockz means that each team either gets one ban or they alternate bans, like they do in banning pick in HON.

Also, I love the idea of not using an item shop and instead using the different "modes" although I'd suggest maybe giving 2 or 3 per character, and making the hero choose it in the beginning of the match, in game, and making them stay that way the entire game. I can't see these modes changing the spells too much. Like, not having support, carry, and tank modes for say, warrior, but instead having like, tank, stun, and power modes for him that make certain spells of his stronger.

Pretty much, they shouldn't completely change spells but should maybe add something to certain spells the hero has.

What do you guys think about using a different spells system other than the standard 4 spells system?

Currently UU wants a 3 techs system, and each tech can have several different spells that you choose between. But some of the others in the dev team, myself included, want to keep the old 4 spells system, with each upgrade of the spell making it stronger. We'd appreciate your opinions.

As for the warrior l3 killing normal units, this would be a decent counter to battle tanks massing everything. Imagine a line of guys all the way back up to the base, cast l3, and the warrior steadily makes his way to the base. He probably shouldn't get exp for those kills though.

I like the 4 spell system, maybe with a 5th choose able spell. Shoot, I don't even think we should add spell upgrades in. This isn't a DoTA clone, it's a Temple Siege clone. However if you do that, spells will have to be nerfed and made easier to purchase. I really liked the simplicity of Temple Siege. It made it easier to learn.

Banning pick is where the first person on the team gets to ban a character from being played. I'm thinking 2 per team, so 4 heroes out of the lineup, but probably only if you allow repick of already picked characters (could be a game of 4 light mages), or at least 1 per team. Otherwise, 1 banned hero per team for 2 heroes. This will help you balance the game in the long run by letting you know who to nerf, and gets rid of the overplayed heroes. Once you get more heros you can increase the number.

I really would like to keep the 4 spell system. One of the main issues I have with a tech system where you choose different spells is that you have no idea what the other team will choose, and may get blindsided in the beginning. It also almost might allow for too much customization. You don't want a light mage that can be both a healer and a glass cannon, you want him to always be a glass cannon. If you want a healer in the game, make a new hero.

Basically, adding too many spells per hero will make the game a lot more boring, IMO, since you will have significantly less heroes, since ideas for spells will be used up on heroes already in the game. Keep it simple is my opinion on the whole thing. The 4 spell system really worked well, so why get rid of it?

I still think the ideas of modes are cool, but they shouldnt actually change the nature of the spells. Say, mech has 3 "modes" to choose from in the beginning of the game. One is siege, one Speed, and the other Burst. Siege makes his tanks do extra damage to buildings, speed makes his level 2 10% faster, and his spell last 10% longer, and Burst makes his spells do 40% more damage but last 40% less time, giving him a faster damage output (which might actually be too good). It would be a lot easier to balance these too, as you could always just change numbers around for them, while still giving the player a bit of variety.

And since when has there been a dev team?

The more like Temple Siege from sc the better, if it's gonna be a completely new game then don't rename it temple siege or anything related to that, as to not soil it's good name.

If he wants to create a DotA map fine, name it "Blah Blah Generic DotA copy"
If he wants to make original Temple Siege with 4 spell system, 4v4, limited items, clone terrain, same heroes + more(roach, hellion, infestor, marauder, thor, immortal, stalker, collosus) fine name it "Badass Temple Siege I own you DotA"

You know, personally I think most of the effort to create this game should be put into making it 4v4 and balanced, plus creating a whole add-on fresh unit set, or maybe holding back units as a gimmick for newer versions. Reinventing the wheel would just make the game too much unlike good ol' Temple Siege.

@Banning pick: I don't care either way, but seems kind of gay if a n00b host bans a unit because he thinks its "super OP", maybe he should learn to counter and quit QQ'ing

@Vortex banning pick: Thats basically the way it works with a noob host. It's good to have it in there however, especially if ts2 winds up having a competitive scene at all, since unbalanced heroes in tournaments kill.

Also, realize we're not limited at all unit-wise. Theres infinite possibilities for heroes with the sc2 editor.

Unholy also said he would stay true to not making it a dota copy.

Since around beta I think. There's currently 5-6 people in the team.

Thanks for your opinions guys, keep them coming

Was only really concerned with noobs doing it, but anyways there shouldn't be any unbalanced heroes if it's a well crafted map or you can counter it

Really? Maps ALWAYS have balance issues. There is never a map out there that is perfectly balanced. It also takes some time to patch things, especially f they're hard to fix.

Even the game starcraft itself after all the time it has been played, does not have completely perfect balance.

I have a hatred for mutant. He's picked in every game. He's not easily countered.
Assault: probably the only counter, even then it's not much of a counter, as you still need multitasking skills to play well
Medic: stalemate early game. Mutant after l3/4
Assasin: is owned
Warrior: Instant death if he l2s. In general, going melee with mutant is asking for death, and warrior is only melee.
Volt: another decent counter, I suppose. Hard to hit with l1 though.
LM: stalemate early game. Mutant after l3/4. Mutant very early game.
Archer: About even
Summoner: can't train well
DM: easy to dodge curses, hard to hit with a mael.
Mech: big l2 target when not in vult. Can usually run away easily, so pretty much a stalemate.
Special ops: About even

Of the counters, volt is sickeningly weak vs archer and mech, and many other units. Nothing can survive a perfectly placed l2, and often times you only have to take 1-2 hits when setting it up, so you can have 200 life and kill something with ease if they don't have many hp ups. I rather think a nerf wouldn't be hard (take away some of the l2/l3 units). However, my skill with dealing with mutant is irrelevant. Point is he's always picked. How about playing someone else for a change? Banning pick is an easy way to balance the game, regardless, and tell which characters need balancing.

Yea, don't give TS advice please.. half your descriptions are pretty low level and inaccurate. Anyways ling is a pubstar unit, you must play in a lot of pubby games I guess?

Back to TS2, I was wondering it the experience caps for leveling were going to be the same as TS?
Also for the character choosing process in the beginning, I feel like putting your teams civ in a circle like TS and letting them see units is much better than what SOTIS has done with the simple box that you can pick a unit from.

Don't talk like this please...

What rockz said still hold value even if it's not completely accurate at a higher play level. If a hero is ever made that doesnt have any counters, then bp is a much better option.

Just because his logic is a little meh, doesnt mean that it couldnt hold true in the future.

Ok, banning pick is actually a great idea now, on one condition; people who are at similar skill levels play each other instead of some random pub.

Also suggestions:
-Lifetime win/loss counter
-lifetime kill/death counter
-stuff like the above that I can't think of