Up until here, you had a solid argument and I agreed with you on some parts. I haven't been around for awhile and have no idea what the game's current state is because I am having problems with SC2 for whatever reason right now due to the recent updates, so I cannot make any comments on it's current state. Instead I will discuss things about the design process.

I am not a fan of the Call of Duty series because they are generally the same game on the same engine with new guns, so essentially, an expansion of the previous one. You used MW2 and MW3, they are literally on the same version of the same engine that was developed by Infinity Ward but with some additional content and a new storyline. That means it is what StarCraft was to BroodWar. Are you trying to tell me that StarCraft 2 is just an updated version of the same engine as StarCraft? With the new engine in StarCraft 2, we cannot simply port in the heroes from Temple Siege using the same statistics and abilities. Especially since abilities were spawning units which means we would have to recreate things like the AI used for targeting. Before you say that isn't what you mean, that was one of the harshest reasons of why we cannot just recreate the game when talking with people who do not understand. As for the statistics on other portions, yes we can recreate them, but they would not look good with the animations in StarCraft 2. We want the game to look good and feel fluid, aesthetics are extremely important even though people tend to forget about them. Unless the game has a bad aesthetic feel, they will notice it immediately and the game will feel inherently bad.

We have lives that we live and rarely have any time to work on the game, we are spending so little time on the game that it's crawling in progress. Then it has a massive boom in a short time span when the team has the time to work on it. Balancing isn't easy either, everyone seems to think it is so simple that if we gave them the reins it would be worse in every way imaginable. Not meaning to bash on anyone, but let's give Luzz for example when he finishes a new hero with his own numbers. They were always absurdly imbalanced number wise, but then we would round robin some ideas and numbers on how to balance it until it fell into acceptable parameters. If you wanted me to give you an idea on how far along this game is in balance, I would reply without a doubt that it's horrible and needs a lot of attention. Sadly, we are in the process of getting it to where it needs to be.

You want Temple Siege, you already have it. We never said that we were making a carbon copy of it. Temple Siege 2 is a work in progress and I would say it is in Alpha testing, not Beta. With the team working on it when possible with the little viable feedback we get, don't expect much. Everyone just gives us the feedback that basically falls along the lines of, "It's not Temple Siege," you seriously cannot think that helps. We do work with the ideas from TS1, but we want to evolve from them and create something new. We want to make a game that allows more people to play with one another, which of course adds a new level of game play because the room for error also increases. Anyone who ends their opinion with a, "If anyone disagrees with me..." pretty much just said that they know people won't agree. When you have an idea or opinion that contradicts what you are being told, rather than argue about it because that gets you nowhere, get to know the subject matter. Make sure you learn more about what you are discussing so when they speak, you know what they are talking about and when you speak, you are stating sound information. This has been a great practice in everything I have done and people often get annoyed because they would rather bathe in a sea of ignorance than know what they are talking about.

I apologize if this all came off as a rant, but it was meant to address the conversation picking up from when I left and to anyone who was offended, that may have been intentional because it may have been directed at you. If it holds no basis on what you have said in the topic, then it wasn't directed at you. In the end what I am trying to say is that the team is working to bring you a good game, if you do not want to be around for the development process, that's fine. We aren't making this game for fame or money, we want to create a game that we would enjoy and it will be a rough ride for anyone that wants to stay on board. The team often disagrees on certain aspects and often proceed forward with, or without, ideas that weren't unanimous among us which may very well be the reason the game is in such shambles. Then again it could very well be the opposite in that we are still going about the implementation process wrong.

To summarize this entire post, we are doing our best with the time we have to make a game that we ourselves would enjoy. Some of the changes may not make sense to a large majority of users because they do not want to adapt, they want to stick with what they know. This often leads to conflicts of interest between us, and our user base, but we keep moving forward because we feel that the game is going in a direction we want to follow. Instead of trying to bash on the design, explore it and see it for what it is now. Discuss with us the flaws you find in certain changes, break down why they are flaws and if you think of some good ways to fix it, that's even better. Not every new idea may work and could inherently be more flawed than before, maybe you just found the flaw but don't have a fix that you find would work. That's fine because what I listed is the best kind of feedback that anyone can give us because it is thorough and constructive.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jun 2 2013, 9:54 pm by LoveLess. Reason: Grammar

I would say, unlike the majority, the game is in a state of major imbalance


You're right, but what scares me is that nearly every player I have talked to does not recognize this, and have accepted the game as such, broken.


We do have it in some form, but it's still not TS, and instead of calling out the people who say this maybe it's a better idea to ask them, "Hey, I know you don't think it's TS, but how can we make it better?"


I would just like to mention that I introduced Luzz to SEN, and for whatever it's worth, my ideas should be respected accordingly.

Well I am glad that we can agree, but I have not been around for awhile so I do not know what has been going on and hope to try to at least remedy some of the problems that exist at the moment. We do ask people to give us their insights, but I am dead serious that no matter how we word it and explain what we are doing, the only response we get is them asking us to "make it the same as TS." If it were that easy, we would have done it, but it's not. UU's iteration of TS was extremely imbalanced and one of the best balancers that ever existed in StarCraft, Moose, was the solution. I am serious, he balanced quite a few of the most unbalanced maps and made them so balanced that it was scary, maybe it was from the souls he collected while he was the admin of SEN. Unfortunately we do not have that kind of majestic moose-like powers at our disposal and are trying our best to balance the game without making the balance worse. Planning and patience is pretty big here, we have discussed making a bank file to track hero-related stats so we have some numbers to work with but they could end up being inaccurate and falsified. What may end up happening is I try to pitch the idea again, but it won't help that much.

I seriously hope that I can work out this SC2 problem... Going to get back to it. Thanks for the clear headed response.

As for the referral we do appreciate it, but that is kind of like giving a kid up for adoption and saying you raised them when they turn out to be successful. Just kidding, Luzz is still an apprentice, Ahli is the Grand Dojo Master.

At this point, the state of TS2 is much like that of TSv1 on bw in terms of balance. I don't see it getting any better in the foreseeable future unless an experienced balancer comes along, and even then balancing 5v5 will be near impossible given that the heroes are completely unlike heroes from other various 5v5 games.

My role as devils advocate is seen as detrimental by many other players, and they just don't understand the game. They have petty logic and no understanding of AoS.
Some have never even heard of 5v5 games outside of SC2, let alone have played any major games such as Dota2, HoN, LoL...

You continue to say the game's balance is out of whack, but you never give solid evidence as to why it is this way. As the game is right now, most players win because of teamwork and skill (Take GPO for example, they work together very well). And most players lose because they are outplayed by the opposing team. Yes there may be some imbalances, and that may stem from the fact that we are now allowing 5v5s but that does not make the game as unbalanced as you continue to say it is. If you can, try to give some reasons to why the game is unbalanced instead of just saying it is, so we can actually give your claim some merit.

~Luzz

Yoo just logged on and played this for my first time today, usually am on EU server.
My 2 cents:

Why is there literally no utility on heros? Everything scales with damage.. spawn, spells, EVERYTHING
What the fuck is "assault"? "Assault" is a FIREBAT not a reaper dps'er.
You're kidding about 5v5 right? You trying to make this Dota or some shit like that? Like have you tried to understand why 5v5 works (TS doesn't even have jungling and it attempts to be 5v5, not that that signifies the genre)...
Seriously kids get your shit together.

Excuse me for being harsh, but I get pissed easily. Oh and I definitely agree with most of the stuff 'NinjaOtis' says... except he bitches a lot, but it's totally understandable, I'd bitch too if someone handed me horseshit on a plate and called it filet mignon.

Message me if you want to talk about this shit kthx, can't promise I'll reply, life's tough when you have to support 2 daughters.

Are you my twin? At least someone other than me has common sense.

I just think its funny that months ago I was told that my critique about how they changed the feel of the game by changing basic staples of heroes (such as lm's new dumb boring nuke) was simply being resistant to the inevitable switch over to the SC2 engine and that they wanted to keep it the same but different.

It doesn't seem to have the feel TS had at all anymore, and not just cuz of the new engine. It seems like thats where a lot of the complaining is coming from. The utility and counterpicking aspects being two big things that made TS unique that seem to have been dumbed down a lot.

Finally some people have come out and rightly criticized this highly maligned map called "Temple Siege 2" as bad. Seriously you guys really need to take off the SC2 goggles and go back to basics. Again a rehash of what the horrible aspects of this game are and what needs fixing:

- No 5v5 please, just for the love of god please no.
- Every single hero does not "ROFL PRESS ME FOR DPS" spells, the logic for creating these has been faulty, for every hero, AT BEST.
- Huge hero imbalances.
- Assims? There are assims in this game? Joke.
- The cringe worthy Summoner in this game.
- The Massively overpowered volt.
- How armor literally means ZERO in this game.
- Cooldowns nearly for everyone? Xcuse me sir...This TS?
- Map design is not conducive to assims or assim strategy, catering the assims to 5v5 play was an awful choice.
- How badly this game has discarded the TS fundamentals to Dota/LoL "lite"
- The bad communication between developers and the community. Clans and Moose really reached out for community input.
The team and community on this project has been awful.
- Also the level of arrogance of the team as a whole toward the pros and the community in general (Jack is a prime example)

This project has way bigger problems than just the map.

P.S: I think LoveLess ranted about aesthetics in a game, up to a point this is true, but when you have Minecraft looking like SNES graphics with one of the largest player bases then the rant about aesthetics kind of fades away. TS was not about looks it was about good, solid core gameplay.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jul 3 2013, 3:55 am by HighGuyInBankai.

You both prefaced and closed by insulting the work and members of the team, which devastates your ethos, a very bad move if you want to convince them to take certain courses of action. I suggest revising and rephrasing arguments you (or others) have for the changes you want to see, otherwise the dialog will be quite unproductive and/or circular.

I don't know why people should need to write long arguments with dozens of points and sound reasoning, written in a very specific way, when nothing can be said to dispute their reasoning other than the way in which they wrote it.

Temple Siege 2 is the sequel to Temple Siege in name only, and it's clear at this point that the map developers are both aware of this and don't care. Alienating fans of the original gameplay is something they chose to do, purposely making the map more generic and simplistic in the hopes of finding a new, larger market. Basically, they sold out. Not a very ethical thing to do in my opinion, but their choice all the same.

Since they're uninterested in making a sequel to Temple Siege, instead of trying to convince them to do so, maybe it would be better for someone to simply make a high-quality sequel with a modified name. After the map developers see the popularity of such a map (for the second time, the first being the original Temple Siege), they may have a change of heart, since maximizing the potential popularity of their map is the only thing they care about now.

So it sounds like this is the scenario:

1) Several developers that have contributed to TS1 wanted to remake the game on SC2, and have changed it drastically because they no longer face the limitations from SC1. As a result, strategies have changed and SC2 players new to TS seem to enjoy the game.
2) Most TS1 players wanted to see a near-replica of TS1 to be ported to TS2, and have been relatively disappointed by each change decided by the development team.

I can see the argument for both sides, and any compromise is going to disappoint both sides. So why don't we branch the game into two projects? Those that want to reinvent and redesign Temple Siege can continue to develop TS2, and those that want to bring TS1 in all its glory can contribute to a new map, perhaps called "Temple Siege: Classic" or something similar.

Would it be easy to branch the project? And are there any SC2 mappers interested in working on TS:C?

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jul 3 2013, 11:04 pm by Roy.

TS: Classic was already made by luzzotica before he joined the project. It was basically an exact clone, down to casting spells using gateways. It was pretty awful (no offence luzz). New engine doesn't OFFER new mechanics and gameplay, it DEMANDS it. It's not really possible to replicate TS1 in an enjoyable way in the new engine. If you want to play TS1, go play TS1, there is still a community of people who do play it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't that have the exact same heroes as TS1? I assume people want the gameplay of TS1 to remain a vital part of TS2, all the while having new heroes with interesting spells.

A spokesperson said the exact same thing about the Xbox 1 when asked about people who don't have daily access to the internet. I'm pretty sure he was immediately fired.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jul 3 2013, 11:32 pm by Dem0n.

Now this is where I have to disagree, and until you see why I disagree, you won't understand why this thread is full of complaints and criticism.

This new engine offers new mechanics and gameplay: there is quite simply nothing in SC1 that you cannot do well in SC2. If the replica of TS1 was "pretty awful," it means that either TS1 is "pretty awful" or the port didn't properly replicate the game. If your argument is "TS1 is pretty awful, so that's why TS2 is significantly different," then you can understand why literally your entire TS1 fanbase disagrees with your decision: you cannot be a fan of something you think is awful.

Now, let's get into an example of a positive change: casting actual abilities over the build-unit system. Why did the build-unit system exist in TS1? It's because it wasn't possible to have actual custom abilities, and so it was a hack to allow user input to function as casting a spell. If given the option, having actual abilities belonging to the unit would be preferred, but because of SC1's limitations, that was the best that could be done.

Here's the key to understanding the criticism in this thread: a negative change is adding a fifth team player to the game. On the surface, it looks like the exact same issue as above: SC1 couldn't support more than eight players, so there were only four players per team. However, the game wasn't designed for 5-vs-5: it was built on top of SC1 as a game for 3-vs-3 and was balanced as such. The terrain was built for 3-vs-3. The abilities were made in mind that you're facing against up to three opponents, and that you would have to support up to two teammates. The game is oriented around this number of players. You may say the remedy to this is simple: just close two player slots on each team when playing TS2, and you have your traditional 3-vs-3 game. But is the game built and balanced around a 3-vs-3 scenario? Of course not: 5-vs-5 is the ideal/standard match-up for the new Temple Siege, and any balances built around that changes the way the game is played for smaller teams.

Now, let's go back to your assertion: a new engine demands new mechanics and gameplay. Did SC2 demand you to change a Firebat to a Reaper? Is it impossible to use the Firebat unit as a hero, and attempting to will break the game or outrage players? Or is that a change you made because you have the option available? A change you made because you felt that's the direction you want to take Temple Siege, an unnecessary divergence because you have a fancy new engine to play with? You may very well believe your change is for the better: maybe Assault is absolutely fantastic as a Reaper, and you'll never look back at the deprecated melee unit. But you're making a big and non-mandatory change here, and you need to recognize it as such.

You say it's not possible to replicate TS1 in an enjoyable way, which implies that making Assault a Firebat would automatically make the game unenjoyable. Is this accurate? Can you defend every change you made with this statement? You must remember that what you think makes the game more enjoyable will not be what everyone thinks makes it more enjoyable, and in some cases the majority of players may think it less enjoyable.

TS:C can be done well in SC2. TS2 is built on the belief that you can make TS1 better, rather than remaking TS1 well. But to insist you cannot avoid taking the liberties you do with the sequel is dishonest.

Herein lies the problem: people want to play TS1, but you insist it can only be properly done on SC1. As long as you fail to acknowledge that you've unnecessarily diverged from the original game, and as long as you ignore the concerns that come with that, this thread will be filled with complaints and criticism. You made it clear you don't plan on preserving the original game, and that's perfectly fine, but it has created an issue with your old fanbase that should be addressed. I hope I've explained this thoroughly and you understand what I mean to say.

Back to my question: can the TS2 project be branched to two projects, and are there mappers willing to work on each version?

You don't understand, man. These guys made something people didn't like. They can only repay society for their vile deeds with blood.

Before starting it's worth noting I'm no longer part of the TS2 team as I've moved on, so what I say is not what the team thinks and is entirely my own opinion.

It had the gameplay and same heroes and spells if I recall right. The TS1 people who complain about TS2 usually want exactly the same heroes and spells. And my comment is still fair enough. TS2 is a DIFFERENT MAP, different game. If you don't like it, and don't think it's going to get changed to how you want it to, and you DO like TS1, go play TS1 and stop clogging up this thread with useless rhetoric.

We'll have to disagree here then. The engines are different enough that while it may seem similiar, you cannot make TS1 exactly replicated. And the closest copy we have is unpopular, not successful, and seems so bland and ridiculous when compared to what is POSSIBLE with the editor. TS2 is 2.0 not 1.8, it's a new map, so it is not the same. We were not trying to replicate TS1, we made that clear from the start, and we've always said that.
TS2 was designed for 5v5, and balanced for 5v5. TS1 was designed for 3v3, and balanced for 3v3. Different maps, different features.
Basically all of your statements stem from the idea that TS2 is TS1 remade. It isn't. It's a new map with different goals, players, market, heroes, spells, playstyle. There are similarities but it is different, in the same way that SC2 is different from SC1.

TS classic as you call it still exists somewhere on the arcade, although it may no longer work with modern versions of SC2; it's certainly possible to make it but I highly doubt anyone on the TS2 team will; anyone else is welcome to assuming that there's no major complains from the TS2 team or UU or whomever.

I tried to mak an exact replica of TS:C but it failed completely due to 2 things I believe:
1. The pathing of SC1 is too good for the game to feel and play like the original.
2. The stun system from the original could also not be replicated. To rephrase I could make the stun, but it would not feel like TS with the mass clicking to attack or things of that sort.

Now, problem number one can be fixed. People have already come up with a way to make units in SC2 act like units in SC1. However, problem 2 is tougher, because the stun was an integral part of TS1, and the ability to overcome the stun also made the game very interactive and fun.

I am very sorry to disappoint those who wanted an exact replica of TS1 and that we did not live up to your expectations. But I personally feel like the current game feels very close to TS1 gameplay. Also, I know a few people have said that TS1 gameplay is very deep, but I must disagree. I believe the very fun parts of the game felt like they were coming from the fact that you were always doing something. There was always something to do, something to kill, an ally to support. Another aspect of the game was the micro intensive style that it had. Players had to react quickly, and because spells were placed on another structure, it made it even more interesting. That being said, the gameplay of TS was very straightforward: Kill the enemies. You had to work together to accomplish this. I feel like TS2 is exactly the same way. I'm not sure if any of you have seen GPO play the game, but they work extremely well together an they have pulled of some amazing things because they worked together. They used their heroes to support each other. This is exactly what was done in TS1. Players worked together to accomplish some amazing goals. Yes there may be imbalances, and that may be from the fact that there are 5v5 games, but that doesn't mean you immediately disregard the game and call it bad. So far, all anyone has ever done is call it bad. I am all up for listening to you guys criticize the game as long as you come up with an idea to possibly fix the problem you see. Please stop bashing our decision making and instead just give ideas to SOLVE the problem you have discovered, not just be: "Oh man that hero is so OP this game sucks, it isn't a replica, WHAT? Assault is a reaper not a firebat?!"

Seriously guys.. All of these problems are so easily remedied with a good idea or a simple fix.

For example, we can change the name of the reaper from assault to... Something, and recreate the assault as a firebat. If you guys can come up with a good name for the reaper then we will change it. Bang, one of your main and ONLY issues that I can see was just fixed. I still have yet to see any solid evidence like a replay or something that shows the hero being op, or whatever problem you guys can come up with.

Good luck, and I hope you take what I said to heart.

~Luzz

In the end, people want a game that brings the workarounds that were done due to the limitations and bugs of SC1 to SC2. That's what they were, nothing more and nothing less. We added more players because we could, you can play the game 3v3 just fine and nobody wants to, they always try for a 5v5, so I think that is complaining for the sake of complaining. Don't give me the bullshit that it's balanced to be a 5v5 game, it's not. Then you say that the heroes are nothing like what they were in TS1, yeah that's true. If you want to have units being summoned and attacking, go play Luzzotica's old map and realize why we didn't go that way.

You guys are literally, complaining for the sake of complaining. I come back and try to fix the problems you stated, but you didn't want to deal with the changes they required you to go through. You guys complain about the current state and immediately disagree when the state is changed without giving it a chance. The biggest problem is that a member of the community that the team doesn't agree with all that often was brought in and that caused everyone to pretty much distant themselves from the project. You guys want a game that none of us want to create, sorry.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Jul 4 2013, 4:53 am by LoveLess.

There's nothing wrong with ts2, I came back after not playing for awhile and the balance issues are greatly fixed.

It's quite fine how it is right now.