Staredit Network > Forums > SC2 Custom Maps > Topic: Temple Siege 2
Temple Siege 2
Dec 17 2011, 5:54 pm
By: Ahli
Pages: < 1 19 20 21 22 2325 >
 

Jul 4 2013, 3:40 pm Roy Post #401

An artist's depiction of an Extended Unit Death

I understand where you're coming from and I don't mean to complain. If you skimmed over my post as a complaint, I urge you to reread it as a solution to a problem you created and continually refuse to address: you've abandoned your old fanbase. They are the only people complaining in this topic about the new game, and their complaints are focused on the more superfluous modifications that stray the sequel further from its predecessor. I think branching the project (with absolutely no obligation by the current dev team to maintain TS:C) is a reasonable solution to this problem. If the reason you don't want to do this stems from being protective of the source map (or some other reason), say so and move on, rather than citing that it already has been done and failed so everyone should just play the new map or go back to SC1. Again, I'm just observing a problem and trying to offer a solution (which you suggest is welcomed here).

As for a suggestion for TS2: have the option for a 6v6 game. It never made sense to me why you'd be forced to have one lane short a hero because you could only have 5 players on a team; in the original DotA, of course, this was because Warcraft III had a max of 12 players, and two were reserved for creep, forcing the max team size to be 5. But SC2 supports up to 16 players, so this limitation doesn't exist anymore. I always disliked in DotA how the game very often hinged on how well the solo hero did (because they would level faster) to determine which side won, because it's supposed to be a team game.




Jul 4 2013, 4:49 pm luzz Post #402



6v6 is a good idea, but I feel that if we actually did this, some heroes (Mainly the summoner) would become completely useless. We could probably buff the summoner based on the number of players though which would fix the problem. Like say... In a 3v3, his summons have no buff. Then as the number of players increases, increase the resistance of his summons to AoE spells.

4v4 - Summons have 5% resistance
5v5 - Summons have 10% resistance
6v6 - Summons have 15% resistance

The above is just a suggestion to make summy more reliable in games with more players.



None.

Jul 4 2013, 7:05 pm NinjaOtis Post #403



Quote from Roy
I understand where you're coming from and I don't mean to complain. If you skimmed over my post as a complaint, I urge you to reread it as a solution to a problem you created and continually refuse to address: you've abandoned your old fanbase. They are the only people complaining in this topic about the new game, and their complaints are focused on the more superfluous modifications that stray the sequel further from its predecessor. I think branching the project (with absolutely no obligation by the current dev team to maintain TS:C) is a reasonable solution to this problem. If the reason you don't want to do this stems from being protective of the source map (or some other reason), say so and move on, rather than citing that it already has been done and failed so everyone should just play the new map or go back to SC1. Again, I'm just observing a problem and trying to offer a solution (which you suggest is welcomed here).

As for a suggestion for TS2: have the option for a 6v6 game. It never made sense to me why you'd be forced to have one lane short a hero because you could only have 5 players on a team; in the original DotA, of course, this was because Warcraft III had a max of 12 players, and two were reserved for creep, forcing the max team size to be 5. But SC2 supports up to 16 players, so this limitation doesn't exist anymore. I always disliked in DotA how the game very often hinged on how well the solo hero did (because they would level faster) to determine which side won, because it's supposed to be a team game.

Amen, I would quote more but that just wastes space. I and many others feel abandoned. The least the mapping team could do was learn about 5v5 before they make a 5v5 map, I feel like there was no background experience or research done prior to making a 3v3 map into a 5v5 one.

3v3 all the way. Anything else just creates problems. 6v6 means there are no individual fighting, mainly teamfighting, ganks would be outrageous... 6v1 gank, 6v2 gank, insta kill considering all units have dps spells.

Thank you for expressing what I couldn't get onto 'paper'



None.

Jul 4 2013, 7:10 pm BlackParade Post #404



Quote from HighGuyInBankai
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.

<3 I could go on and on about each of your points being so accurate. 5v5, spawn scaling, dps heroes are god awful.



None.

Jul 6 2013, 2:43 am LoveLess Post #405

Let me show you how to hump without making love.

I pitched having up to 12 players already and it was a no go from the whole team. Yes, I did read your whole post and it does make sense, but I no longer have any say in TS2. Always had a problem with the direction the map was heading and it has been getting worse at an accelerated rate. The problem is that trying to cater an audience that wants Temple Siege and simultaneously catering the audience who preferred our adaptations just isn't possible. They want entirely different things, then the current development team just slaps damage on the abilities to appease the TS crowd and the newer crowd wants more utility. Then when one of them is appeased, they switch up what they want, now the TS fans want utility and the newer players want damage. It has been going through that cycle for a while. Rather than just arguing more with someone who thinks that they know the best direction for the map because they have been playing the game half as long as it has been in production just isn't something I want to do.

I wanted to add some unique fundamentals, varying degrees of strategy and dynamic elements to the game. It feels like the development team just wants a map where you kill stuff, then kill players and ways of getting ahead of players that don't know better. That is what TS2 is to me at the moment, you can argue all you want, but there shouldn't be a skill cap this early into the game's life and the fact that there is... That's the real problem. Getting really sick of the posts where people are arguing about how they want things in the game that didn't actually add anything to it, but are okay with shit that is directly ruining what could be a good game. Get your heads out of your ass, actually make insightful posts and attempt to add onto the game, not bash it. That's not how development works.

Also, for those of you who seem to think otherwise, I constantly reached out to the community. All I ever got was, "When is the new hero coming out?" and "Make it more like Temple Siege." Those aren't helpful at all. We originally emulated TS and the map was horrible, nobody liked it, it felt horrible. We tried to salvage the problems, but they existed in the core concept of porting TS as a map just wasn't going to work. When significant changes were made to it on an overall scale and crafting a whole new game that didn't carry over every little detail from it, it started to feel right. If you disagree, hop on the editor and reproduce TS, tell me how it feels to you.

Post has been edited 5 time(s), last time on Jul 6 2013, 3:14 am by LoveLess.



None.

Jul 6 2013, 5:52 am 00MTR887 Post #406



Hello, I am MTR. I am a very frequent player of the Temple Seige 2 Map. It is a good paced game with exciting elements; however, there are some things that could be improved on:
1) The item shop
-Should be the nexus itself
Reason: It allows more efficient game play at start up if one wishes for probe capturing. Also, it allows one to efficiently heal then upgrade their necessities without redundancy. It will make the game smoother.

2) "How to Play" Button at the character selection screen
-Should add some instructions in selection for those who do not know about the menu and the game.
Reason: It gives new comers a better idea of the game.

3) Spawn redirection
-As a tribute to the first TS1, the spawn directory should be implemented. The old TS1 had only 3v3 which made the directory easy to handle; however, now there is 5v5. My suggestion is setting a price on the redirection of spawns. Perhaps 15 minerals per switch? The option should show up by the nexus menu on click.
Reason: It adds different element to the game, making it more unpredictable and exciting.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jul 6 2013, 9:20 am by FaRTy1billion. Reason: Quoted post instead of edit; removed quote tags.



None.

Jul 6 2013, 6:33 am NinjaOtis Post #407



Quote from LoveLess
Also, for those of you who seem to think otherwise, I constantly reached out to the community. All I ever got was, "When is the new hero coming out?" and "Make it more like Temple Siege." Those aren't helpful at all. We originally emulated TS and the map was horrible, nobody liked it, it felt horrible. We tried to salvage the problems, but they existed in the core concept of porting TS as a map just wasn't going to work. When significant changes were made to it on an overall scale and crafting a whole new game that didn't carry over every little detail from it, it started to feel right. If you disagree, hop on the editor and reproduce TS, tell me how it feels to you.

@LoveLess

I don't ever mean to be one of those people "Make it more like Temple Siege", so I apologize if I come off that way.

http://www.staredit.net/topic/12498/8/#282505

Everything needed to change the map can be found in this thread, but I guess UU, Jack, and the others overlooked the solid ideas in it. DoLLe speaks the truth about the direction this game should take.

@Team

My first suggestion is removing 5v5 altogether and making game mandatory 4v4, or 3v3 and let the community play test to see what it's like.
Cooldowns are garbage, and I quote (earlier link) from Jack, "Most spells in TS won't have cooldowns" which is bullshit, because literally all units do. Why are cooldowns needed? The only reason I can see cooldowns being needed is because literally EVERY spell does damage.

People do want to help, but it's hard knowing how to help when not asked a specific question as opposed to a vague one. "How can we make this map better" is not a question that allows us to give an answer that can be easily implemented. A better question is "We want spawn to be used tactically still, what do you think about spawn scaling, do you think there is a better approach, and if so what?".

In the end my rambling will end up doing nothing since this map is most likely going no where since all devs are mia.



None.

Jul 6 2013, 11:04 am Jack Post #408

>be faceless void >mfw I have no face

Quote
Cooldowns are garbage, and I quote (earlier link) from Jack, "Most spells in TS won't have cooldowns" which is bullshit, because literally all units do. Why are cooldowns needed? The only reason I can see cooldowns being needed is because literally EVERY spell does damage.
Wasn't my choice, both cool-downs and damage. I feel like cool-downs are a limitation imposed on the player which prevents them from having as much freedom as they could otherwise have, and as you said, having damage on every spell meant that it was necessary to have cooldowns. A prime example would be assassin's second spell. If you could spam it, then you could just teleport up to anyone and then spam it a few times and they'd die, because it deals damage. (Not getting into the L4 issue here :P).

Given that I left the team now, worth noting that almost 100% of the time my input was essentially never implemented. I fought hard for a bunch of things which I think would have improved the map but because a) I didn't have a PC at the time, and later didn't have the time and knowledge to implement anything, nothing got implemented, and b) the rest of the team generally disagreed with what I said. Blame the team as a whole, sure, but singling me out when my being on the team had almost no change to the map seems a bit unfair. I ended up being basically a community guy. I don't want to point fingers, what's done is done, but I don't particularly like being blamed for something that I didn't do, and most of the map changes are stuff I didn't do.

I still think the team did an excellent job with the map, even if I didn't agree 100% with the direction the map was going.

5v5 is not the core of the problems TS2 faces; certain problems can be accentuated by 5v5 but there's nothing wrong with 5v5 inherently, and I can't think of a solid reason to enforce 3v3. The option is available but the community rarely used that option, so I think the community made the choice for us there.

DoLLe's ideas for the direction of the map are "put these guys on the map dev team (not that most of them wanted to), don't do X thing about DotA/HoN that I don't like, and keep Y about TS1", with Y already having been kept from TS1 anyway so his input is near useless.



Red classic.

"In short, their absurdities are so extreme that it is painful even to quote them."

Jul 7 2013, 2:59 am luzz Post #409



Most spells have cooldowns not because they do damage (Though that may be a factor with some spells) but so that players cannot stun lock enemies for an indefinite period of time. They are also there so that enemies can tactically respond to an enemies failed spell.

For example, LM uses l2, you know that you have at least 5 seconds before he can blow you up again, so you poke during that time. If the cooldown was not there, then he could just shoot an unlimited amount of light balls. Enemies wouldn't stand a chance to endgame LM.

Heroes like assault have cooldowns so that he cannot stun or control enemies indefinitely. Like his l1, we have it a cooldown because he could make enemies without a teleport basically useless. His l4 has a cooldown so that he can't stun lock.

I feel like most of the damage in the game needs to be reduced, especially for some spells. If this were done we could eliminate the need for cooldowns and effectively please you guys. Giving all the heroes the "freedom" you guys want, but making them weaker in the process. Your choice.

We can even edit some spells, so that they have decaying damage, or deal no damage if the stun is still active (So it just reapplies the stun). Assassin l2
For example, we can make the first trigger of the stun deal damage, but make it so that more casts on the same target while the stun is active (And possibly just a little bit longer than the stun) won't deal damage. We can also do this to assault l4.

These are my thoughts on your comments. Please think about it. You guys have yet to give us any solutions to problems you give to us.

@ MTR

I really like your ideas. I'm not sure if it will be possible for us to make the shop be the nexus (With the way we are currently making the shop work) but if we can find we can find a way we will do it.
All your other ideas are great tho, not sure about the money costing for the transfer of spawns, but I agree it definitely needs to be put back in. An idea for this could possibly be:
Players 1 and 2 (On the team) control bottom lane spawn. If one of them sends the spawn, only half of that lanes spawn will go to the selected lane (Because 2 people control it). This way, the bottom lanes could equally enforce both top and bottom if the game were a 4v4 or 5v5. This may to too complex, and the mineral idea would probably be easier to implement, but the "One player controls half the spawn" would add malleability to te system.
Thoughts?

~Luzz

This was typed on my iPhone, so if there are typos or anything is mixed up just ask me for clarity.

P.S. I'm not Mia, I just can't work on the map atm (I'm on vacation) but I'm keeping up with conversations on the forum.



None.

Jul 7 2013, 4:37 am NinjaOtis Post #410



@Luzz

Quote
Most spells have cooldowns not because they do damage (Though that may be a factor with some spells) but so that players cannot stun lock enemies for an indefinite period of time. They are also there so that enemies can tactically respond to an enemies failed spell.
That isn't representative of the gamestyle that TS is. If you mess up a spell that's all it should be, messed up, but not punished even further.

Quote
For example, LM uses l2, you know that you have at least 5 seconds before he can blow you up again, so you poke during that time. If the cooldown was not there, then he could just shoot an unlimited amount of light balls. Enemies wouldn't stand a chance to endgame LM.
L2 does way less damage than in TS1, it has an 8 second cooldown which is HUGE. He could not shoot an unlimited amount with a limited mana supply, if he wants to spam that spell and burn all his mana let him, and then let him pay for not being able to escape. There should be a cooldown, but one that is in proportion the cooldown of the original reavers. Feel me?

Quote
Heroes like assault have cooldowns so that he cannot stun or control enemies indefinitely. Like his l1, we have it a cooldown because he could make enemies without a teleport basically useless. His l4 has a cooldown so that he can't stun lock.
Same concept as LM. I understand the reasoning for L1, but for L3 I don't see any good justification. If I stun a unit a fast unit like ling, it really doesn't mean that much because he can just escape after 2 seconds. I've heard counter-arguments such as just use l1 to continue the stun, but does that honestly mean I need to use 180 mana for continuous stuns? Wow that seems a bit unreasonable. Assault's role is not assault anymore, it's a squishy unit that sideline ganks. When aimed for in teamfights, and hit by any form of CC, it will die instantly. The current unit/spell aren't cohesive because reaper is ranged. I will explain further if you don't make the connections as to why.

Quote
I feel like most of the damage in the game needs to be reduced, especially for some spells. If this were done we could eliminate the need for cooldowns and effectively please you guys. Giving all the heroes the "freedom" you guys want, but making them weaker in the process. Your choice.[quote]
I do think cooldowns are necessary in some form or another because we've moved past gateways spells for the better. Durations of old spells are now the cooldowns of new spells, so it plays out. I just don't think that the duration of current cooldowns are accurate with the old, and it definitely affects the mechanics/feel.

[quote]We can even edit some spells, so that they have decaying damage, or deal no damage if the stun is still active (So it just reapplies the stun). Assassin l2
For example, we can make the first trigger of the stun deal damage, but make it so that more casts on the same target while the stun is active (And possibly just a little bit longer than the stun) won't deal damage. We can also do this to assault l4.
I see you have good intentions, but remember that making things more complex does not necessarily mean it will make it better. Simple approach leads to simple result leads to easily changeable. When you mention Assassin, I don't think l2 should do any damage, but just simply stun, he's already strong enough as it is. He can nuke and run easily.

Quote
These are my thoughts on your comments. Please think about it. You guys have yet to give us any solutions to problems you give to us.
We aren't here to give solutions, we want to work with you to come up with a solution we both agree on. I'm happy you're here to listen though.

@MTR

MTR's ideas are spot on.
I know it's not aesthetically pleasing but my suggestion as always is to have a building for each hero in the top right of the map where all upgrades are, or a building per team that can be accessed any time. The only buildings in base should gates, temple, probe buyer beacon, Tele's, cannons... etc.

Spawn direction would work best as classical TS.. or give control to team leader but may have negative consequences i.e. players not cooperating.


I know you're not MIA Luzz. Just make sure you don't get too wild on your vacation or drink too much lol.



None.

Jul 7 2013, 5:47 pm 00MTR887 Post #411



@ Luzz
Your idea of player 1 and 2 controlling half of the creep sounds a bit too complicated. Why not simply have the team selection perform another function: Select team leader. Designated team leader has control of spawn. During anytime of the game, the leader can relinquish his role as a leader and pass it on to some one else.

On to something else...
Balance:
Volt vs EMP
-No move, in this game, should deal over 2000 damage alone. A direct hit of EMP against Volt while in L4 is over 4500 damage. Considering that there are stuns in this game, EMP on a volt is not exactly the hardest thing to do.
Suggestion: EMP should not do damage based on percentage. It should do flat damage to shields. Maybe something like 300 base and +25 per upgrade. The damage can still scale about 100%-->75%-->50%
Reason: The moment Volt faces Marine with friends is almost a death sentence for volt.

Impossible match ups
-Mutant vs Assault on the ground is a silly but fun match up. Assault will win by superior kiting; however, he can make the match up impossible to lose by simply getting on his drop ship.
-Late game Assault vs Warrior. Assault cannot kill Warrior and vice versa. It becomes a base race. Considering how high temple hp and shields are, the game will drag on to a very boring experience. Warrior surprisingly will win because he does not necessarily require creeps to tank for him (unless assault has the base advantage prior to everyone else dying).
Suggestions: Mutant needs a form of anti-air. Perhaps make his L2 a ground/air attack? Warrior as well. L3 should become ground/air attack.
Reason: Games are not fun when you have absolutely no chance of winning. The point of a hero game is to be able to kill each other. If Assault gets on his ship, he can't die to Warrior or Mutant. If Warrior and Assault are left in late game together, Warrior is too tanky for Assault to kill.



None.

Jul 7 2013, 8:37 pm Jack Post #412

>be faceless void >mfw I have no face

Quote from 00MTR887
@ Luzz
Your idea of player 1 and 2 controlling half of the creep sounds a bit too complicated. Why not simply have the team selection perform another function: Select team leader. Designated team leader has control of spawn. During anytime of the game, the leader can relinquish his role as a leader and pass it on to some one else.

On to something else...
Balance:
Volt vs EMP
-No move, in this game, should deal over 2000 damage alone. A direct hit of EMP against Volt while in L4 is over 4500 damage. Considering that there are stuns in this game, EMP on a volt is not exactly the hardest thing to do.
Suggestion: EMP should not do damage based on percentage. It should do flat damage to shields. Maybe something like 300 base and +25 per upgrade. The damage can still scale about 100%-->75%-->50%
Reason: The moment Volt faces Marine with friends is almost a death sentence for volt.

Impossible match ups
-Mutant vs Assault on the ground is a silly but fun match up. Assault will win by superior kiting; however, he can make the match up impossible to lose by simply getting on his drop ship.
-Late game Assault vs Warrior. Assault cannot kill Warrior and vice versa. It becomes a base race. Considering how high temple hp and shields are, the game will drag on to a very boring experience. Warrior surprisingly will win because he does not necessarily require creeps to tank for him (unless assault has the base advantage prior to everyone else dying).
Suggestions: Mutant needs a form of anti-air. Perhaps make his L2 a ground/air attack? Warrior as well. L3 should become ground/air attack.
Reason: Games are not fun when you have absolutely no chance of winning. The point of a hero game is to be able to kill each other. If Assault gets on his ship, he can't die to Warrior or Mutant. If Warrior and Assault are left in late game together, Warrior is too tanky for Assault to kill.
It's a 5v5 game though not a 1v1. If you're laning vs one of those impossible matchups, go swap with someone else.



Red classic.

"In short, their absurdities are so extreme that it is painful even to quote them."

Jul 7 2013, 10:35 pm luzz Post #413



He is referring to the endgame Jack, not the beginning. Assault is still outclassed by warrior in the beginning as well though.



None.

Jul 7 2013, 11:29 pm BlackParade Post #414



@MTR

Volt vs. Assault: So you're saying that EMP is too strong against Volt when that is the one unit out of all other heroes it can be used to it's full potential on? No, just no. 160 mana for EMP.. plus you can't use gizmo at same time of vessel so... what's the problem?

Assault vs. Ling: Ling never had an advantage over assault ever. Don't embarrass yourself by saying ling needs anti-air, that's just clownish.

Assault vs. Warrior: Same as ling, just no. Warrior does not need anti air.. that's clown status. Assault wins easily against war. No denying it.

If you're not happy that assault can get in his drop and not die to war, then counterpick. Or better yet refer to classic strategy, which is and should be still accurate
http://www.staredit.net/topic/6408/5/#238410



None.

Jul 8 2013, 4:00 am NinjaOtis Post #415



I like Parade's comments. Especially about how classic strategy should be equivalent to new strategy.

I'm concerned about the leveling system. Is it really necessary to give units the option of more than the standard 450 max mana? Once it's capped shouldn't all other points go towards HP automatically? Some units are just crazy with 600+ mana... it doesn't promote a balanced end game.

Also mech's 15% hp regen per transfer is so unnecessarily complex. There's enough nukers as it is it won't matter how fast you switch and burn mana you'll still die. Highly consider reverting back to the simple full mech hp on each form. It's such a ridiculous idea to begin with and counter-intuitive. There are so many forms of crowd control that if mech get's stunned or dazed he's a sitting duck.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jul 8 2013, 4:26 am by NinjaOtis.



None.

Jul 11 2013, 6:06 am ShredderIV Post #416



Quote from luzz
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
Coming a bit late on this, but i feel like this is the best example of what the issue has been.

The issue for me was never with remaking it for the sc2 engine. I knew from the beginning there would be changes. Stuff such as the stun system could never be replicated, and the map would have to be balanced around the changes as well. I knew it would never be TS1 at all, since well, it's impossible.

My issue was that while it could never be TS1, the direction it was taken in didnt make it TS2 either. To me it felt like all of the ideas and charm of the first game were completely gone. Skill and counters seemed to be done away with to make room for a 5v5 map that has few heroes, like the original TS, and yet didnt have any of the variety you would expect. Gone are the days where each hero had something extremely unique to bring to the table, and where knowing how to counter a summoner early was key in him not being out of control. Instead you lose the feel and get another limited summoner hero, who could easily have a place in any other moba.

Changes were made that didnt need to be made on the new system, and yet were given the treatment of "oh, its a new engine so we gotta change it". It hurt to see light mage's L2 changed from its TS iteration to what it was before. Why could it not just be a spell that randomly attacked anything in an AOE with shots that did splash and followed pathing? At least when i played, although ill admit i havent in a while, Volt could cast spells in his L4. Why? Why take away the entire drawback to a spell? While i believe light mage's l2 has been changed (once again i really havent played recently), It's still this kind of stuff that is what people are having a hard time with.

The 5v5 is another area where, while the limitation didnt have to be there anymore, why change it? TS was good because you had limited players and heroes. You bump it to 5v5, and suddenly the game is not nearly as fun until you have like, 5 times as many heroes. I'd understand 5v5 if TS1 had 50 heroes. Look at DotA. Part of the reason the game is fun is because it has a large hero pool, and even then it can start to feel stagnant depending on the metagame. Even 4v4 would have been a good jumping off point, not changing it too much while still changing it.

Sorry for the rant. It's just difficult to see a map that had such high hopes from the community drop short due to a lack of response to community input. No, you cant change the game based on every personal opinion, but when your player base has been telling you from the beginning they dont like the direction the game is going, you should listen. TS1 gained the popularity it did partially because it reacted to community input extremely well. TS2 still has potential, but with the way the community seems to be reacting to it now, it'll fall short if nobody listens.



None.

Jul 11 2013, 5:22 pm LoveLess Post #417

Let me show you how to hump without making love.

Quote from BlackParade
@MTR

Volt vs. Assault: So you're saying that EMP is too strong against Volt when that is the one unit out of all other heroes it can be used to it's full potential on? No, just no. 160 mana for EMP.. plus you can't use gizmo at same time of vessel so... what's the problem?

Assault vs. Ling: Ling never had an advantage over assault ever. Don't embarrass yourself by saying ling needs anti-air, that's just clownish.

Assault vs. Warrior: Same as ling, just no. Warrior does not need anti air.. that's clown status. Assault wins easily against war. No denying it.

If you're not happy that assault can get in his drop and not die to war, then counterpick. Or better yet refer to classic strategy, which is and should be still accurate
http://www.staredit.net/topic/6408/5/#238410
This is what I mean, it's fucking elitism at it's finest. What if it is a bunch of players that are new to the game and one of them now has a clear cut advantage. To all of you that's fine because you had your close knit groups and did what you wanted with the map and had the most hated community in Broodwar. I really do mean that, people would leave channels simply because you were talking about Temple Siege because of the reputation you had built for yourselves. The use of the word clown just makes it worse.

I don't know how many times it was said that Temple Siege 2 was not going to be Temple Siege, that's all anyone here is asking for.

Quote from ShredderIV
Quote from luzz
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
Coming a bit late on this, but i feel like this is the best example of what the issue has been.

The issue for me was never with remaking it for the sc2 engine. I knew from the beginning there would be changes. Stuff such as the stun system could never be replicated, and the map would have to be balanced around the changes as well. I knew it would never be TS1 at all, since well, it's impossible.

My issue was that while it could never be TS1, the direction it was taken in didnt make it TS2 either. To me it felt like all of the ideas and charm of the first game were completely gone. Skill and counters seemed to be done away with to make room for a 5v5 map that has few heroes, like the original TS, and yet didnt have any of the variety you would expect. Gone are the days where each hero had something extremely unique to bring to the table, and where knowing how to counter a summoner early was key in him not being out of control. Instead you lose the feel and get another limited summoner hero, who could easily have a place in any other moba.

Changes were made that didnt need to be made on the new system, and yet were given the treatment of "oh, its a new engine so we gotta change it". It hurt to see light mage's L2 changed from its TS iteration to what it was before. Why could it not just be a spell that randomly attacked anything in an AOE with shots that did splash and followed pathing? At least when i played, although ill admit i havent in a while, Volt could cast spells in his L4. Why? Why take away the entire drawback to a spell? While i believe light mage's l2 has been changed (once again i really havent played recently), It's still this kind of stuff that is what people are having a hard time with.

The 5v5 is another area where, while the limitation didnt have to be there anymore, why change it? TS was good because you had limited players and heroes. You bump it to 5v5, and suddenly the game is not nearly as fun until you have like, 5 times as many heroes. I'd understand 5v5 if TS1 had 50 heroes. Look at DotA. Part of the reason the game is fun is because it has a large hero pool, and even then it can start to feel stagnant depending on the metagame. Even 4v4 would have been a good jumping off point, not changing it too much while still changing it.

Sorry for the rant. It's just difficult to see a map that had such high hopes from the community drop short due to a lack of response to community input. No, you cant change the game based on every personal opinion, but when your player base has been telling you from the beginning they dont like the direction the game is going, you should listen. TS1 gained the popularity it did partially because it reacted to community input extremely well. TS2 still has potential, but with the way the community seems to be reacting to it now, it'll fall short if nobody listens.

You seem to forget that the AI is not the same, the targeting is not the same, how units collide with one another, the pathing, the interactions with terrain, the mechanics of the engine. It's not just the stun system, everything is different. I love how everyone here is telling us to just do what Temple Siege did, but cannot seem to fathom how that just cannot happen. We couldn't just throw in Light Mage's old L2 because of the way that Scarabs acted would be nearly impossible to replicate because of the horrible AI they used. Even if we worked to make it operate similarly, it would cause more problems than it would be worth in the end and we went with making it a new spell. Honestly it may be annoying to fight against, but it's really not that great and I honestly find it lack luster even in damage.

All anyone is asking for is TS2 to become a pretty TS1 and you are our fan base... It's no wonder there is no new heroes and people are throwing the project on the back burner, even quitting it altogether.



None.

Jul 11 2013, 6:22 pm Azrael Post #418



Quote from LoveLess
All anyone is asking for is TS2 to become a pretty TS1 and you are our fan base... It's no wonder there is no new heroes and people are throwing the project on the back burner, even quitting it altogether.

That's not relevant. Since that "fan base" has been openly ignored, it's more than a little dishonest to accuse them of being responsible for the developers' failings.

Not sure how it's difficult to understand the difference between "wanting a remake" and "wanting a sequel". You keep implying the former, when no one wants that. Roy already explained this extremely well, not to mention others like Ninja and Shredder who've also offered explanations; yet this same "you just want a pretty TS1" strawman keeps getting used over and over. A sequel implies some relation to the original, at least at some mechanical level, not in name only. Expecting that much from a sequel is not "wanting the exact same game", and anyone who thinks so should actually try playing a sequel to basically any game ever.

I'm curious what the purpose of calling it Temple Siege was if you were going to abandon every single basic gameplay element that people enjoyed about the original. To cash in on the preexisting fan base? How's that working out?

All anyone is giving is a dumbed-down restrictive MOBA with generic heroes and somehow calling it a sequel to TS1 when the gameplay isn't even derived from it... It's no wonder there is no fan support and people are throwing the project on the back burner, even quitting it altogether.




Jul 11 2013, 10:06 pm Jack Post #419

>be faceless void >mfw I have no face

Quote
All anyone is giving is a dumbed-down restrictive MOBA with generic heroes and somehow calling it a sequel to TS1 when the gameplay isn't even derived from it... It's no wonder there is no fan support and people are throwing the project on the back burner, even quitting it altogether.
I don't know what TS2 you've been playing but it's certainly not the same one that I was playing. There's a vocal minority of fans who dislike it because it isn't enough like TS1, and then there's a bunch of people who really do enjoy it. The heroes are not generic, the gameplay IS derived from TS1, and people are quitting or putting the project on the backburner because of real life getting in the way for the most part, or not being happy with how things are being done, or being unhappy with the community. You're the one using strawmen now. The map is not as bad as you're trying to make it out to be, it's an excellent map, it's just not quite where it could be yet.



Red classic.

"In short, their absurdities are so extreme that it is painful even to quote them."

Jul 11 2013, 10:35 pm Azrael Post #420



Sure, if you think having generic heroes with only damage abilities on cooldowns is a derivative of having all unique heroes with a lot of utility abilities. Just to remind you of one of the many factual things mentioned in this thread, and even the last page, which you glossed over by just saying "none of you are right, I'm right, believe it".




Options
Pages: < 1 19 20 21 22 2325 >
  Back to forum
Please log in to reply to this topic or to report it.
Members in this topic: None.
[08:46 pm]
RIVE -- :wob:
[2024-6-22. : 9:13 am]
NudeRaider -- :wob:
[2024-6-21. : 3:59 am]
Ultraviolet -- :wob:
[2024-6-19. : 6:26 pm]
Ultraviolet -- :wob:
[2024-6-18. : 8:38 am]
Zycorax -- :wob:
[2024-6-18. : 3:14 am]
O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- :wob:
[2024-6-15. : 11:09 pm]
Ultraviolet -- :wob:
[2024-6-12. : 6:23 am]
Ultraviolet -- got some light recalls behind too
[2024-6-12. : 12:07 am]
O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- 🦗
[2024-6-11. : 9:53 pm]
Wing Zero -- I wonder how he knew I was in the market for a good cricket bat
Please log in to shout.


Members Online: Oh_Man, lil-Inferno