@LoveLess
It's not elitism just because I use the word clown. A critically thinking player (which is a rarity now-a-days) would have the capability to understand these matchups and see past them. It is one thing to be angry and post bad ideas and another to be an asshole and post accurate information. I'd rather be the latter. MTR did have some great suggestions, but others were not so great, I pointed out that some of his ideas were smart.

@Jack
Azrael is right. He isn't using strawmen excuses. The map is not excellent, and it won't get where it is supposed to be until the mappers work on it which I don't see anytime soon, or ever. I propose handing control of the map to someone who will work on it and only be able to upload with the consent of others. I'd like to point out that another reason the map is currently in a state of garbage is because people like BloodreaveZ can make suggestions and changes which are uncalled for, and out of line. My main example of many instances is summoner. The leash on this unit is like having your balls clamped between a bear trap. It's totally unecessary, even when this unit does not have the hard counters it used to. It was never OP, and it will never be OP. People have generally feared summoner because no one is smart enough to counter it (which only takes the common sense of a 12 year old). I actually like some of the changes to the units (banelings and modified L2), but seriously there is so many uncalled for changes and restrictions to the unit it sucks. I'd also like to point out changes to units like Ling and medic. Has no one ever seen a late game medic and ling together, where ling is in l4 being constantly healed and l4'd by medic so his form won't end? What the fuck kind of thinking is that? Does no one have foresight?

@BlackParade
Good on you, that shit needs to be heard. I definitely see the validity of MTR's ideas for spawn, but at the same time see his matchup comments as misinformed.

@General
It's hard to make a map, when the community on SC2 has only played TS1 post-CAFG era.

Problem is that none of the changes that go for what you guys are asking for never get implemented because nobody gives changes a chance. Unless they fix exactly what you guys want, they are bad and everyone refuses to give them a chance. This then leads to the team wanting to revert it... The map will never get anywhere like that and will stay in it's current state. If you guys think the original Temple Siege didn't have any problems you must be high and this project gave it a chance to become better because it was able to escape the limitations it had before.

Believe it or not, I fucking despise the term MOBA because that doesn't even describe what the game is. The closest anyone has got to naming the genre is calling it an Action Real Time Strategy game (ARTS), but people seem to be abandoning the strategic foundation of the game for a game where all that matters is the heroes. I find that a central component to the genre since way back in the days of Aeon of Strife and the many maps that built off that concept, were the computer controlled units that went down the paths laid out. They weren't just food but forces that you could use in helping your team win the game through various means, such as pressuring lanes without even having a hero present and as a protective force if you need to. StarCraft limited mappers from going further into this but WarCraft 3 did not and it added a lot to the games that followed, not limited to DOTA.

Don't you dare whine to me about how I tried to make the game into LOL/DOTA because there are so many things I despise about each and every game in the genre. They seem to eventually abandon their older mechanics that brought a lot to the game because players don't recognize them and instead focus on what the player base wants, which is more heroes that use mechanics they find fun. This leads to older heroes becoming obsolete and the newer ones having several imbalance issues, but they keep pumping them out because that is what people want. You complain about wanting more heroes, but why should there be more when the current ones don't even work correctly? Which brings us back to the point, why do you complain about how heroes don't work at a fundamental level and when we change it, complain that we changed it? Then want the old one back? This has been consistent throughout the development and to be honest it isn't your fault.

Before I quit the development I had wanted to make a lot of changes that would help drive the game into a direction that none of the other games have done and would give Temple Siege 2 a very unique feel to the game. The problem is that nobody seems to want to deal with change. Then there seems to be a restriction on what our community allows us to do and that is a horrible way to develop a game. There is a time to listen to your community and a time to just let them complain for a while. Giving a new concept less than a day worth of a chance before changing it is probably the biggest reason I couldn't stand working on the team anymore. "We need to fix this." So I did a change that would fix it, "So some people didn't like it over the course of two hours and we reverted it." Well no fucking shit they didn't like it because they aren't used to it. Give people time to adapt.

It's just an overall buzz kill when someone who hadn't worked on the map before is given more privileges than the entire team combined by someone who was pretty much a backseat driver the entire design process, simply because the latter individual didn't like how fast the map was being developed. Then when that person makes mistakes, it's all of our faults for the issues that his changes bring. I wanted to take the game in a completely different direction that it currently sits within but was never allowed to because it wasn't the exact way you wanted. For a more in depth strategy I wanted to make heroes have a rock/paper/scissor feel to them throughout the match, sometimes shifting their role from say scissors to rocks depending on how they were built. However that idea didn't sit well with people because it wasn't the way it was in TS... But you come and complain about how heroes countered other heroes... Isn't that the same thing? Apparently not because the idea was flamed at, even though you sit here and talk about counters. Guess it's different because I wanted to broaden the horizon and streamline it.

Or take the what I said earlier about creeps, instead of having them evolve I made it a steady incline because that made them more efficient as they game went. But players couldn't handle that change and immediately bashed it as trying to make it DOTA/LOL... Even though the systems shared a single concept together and were otherwise different from each other in a variety of ways. Though hey, you guys know everything about games that you apparently despise and refuse to play.

tl;dr This topic makes my head hurt.

It's not so much that you don't post accurate information, it's that you lack the actual information and are just doing broad strokes to rally up some kind of retarded "change" that will never happen. The development team is pretty much gone and all you have is a guy who balances the game with imaginary numbers, cannot create heroes or fix bugs within the game system. Then sitting behind him is a guy who doesn't know anything about those topics either and tries to speak up with his opinions talking about how they weigh heavily, yet didn't even contribute to a majority of the longevity/success his own creation had. Don't mean to sound like a dick but holy fuck am I just frustrated with the whole situation that I am taking sides with people that piss me off and raising a pitch fork towards former colleagues (of sorts). The game had a lot of potential and to be honest I find it pretty much a disaster that it's "creator" wont let be salvaged.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Jul 12 2013, 2:18 pm by LoveLess.

The rock paper scissor style you speak of is actually pretty representative of TS1, or at least I think we're on the same page..
It bothers me that there's no one around to enact changes, and believe me, I have had plenty of experience with owners not willing to release custody out of pride. My prime example, I may have mentioned a lot earlier in this thread, is with Desert Strike. The Squarely guy is a complete asshole who disappeared for nearly a year before coming back and letting everyone know he didn't have the time to work on the map so he handed it down to someone else, who also did the same exact thing, Turtle, and then finally it's in good hands with a buddy of mine named Dredlock. Most people discredit Desert Strike because they think it's simple but it's a complex game if you can see deeper.

Well, anyways, I know what you mean by spawn mechanics, and ARTS, and I don't like that this game isn't allowed to be salvaged even though it has great potential with radical changes. And just to be clear I never direct my comments towards you, LoveLess, in a negative way. I know where you stand and appreciate your input.

Honestly I wouldn't have a problem handing it over but I would prefer getting full control of it first if it came to that and see if the direction I take it would be preferable. Thing is that I am pretty radical and don't hold back, so it would be a rough ride. Since I left the team, the person to talk to would be Luzzotica, Ahli and UU. Luzzotica and Ahli put so much into the map while UU was the one who got the project started and kept it going, not to mention created the original concept.

It feels like UU pretty much did that with Bloodreavez and he gets so much more freedom than I ever did... Makes no sense.

It annoys me so much that updates come so rarely. I wish there was at least a public announcement that said "hey I can't work on the map for a while", or at least give it to someone. BloodreaveZ gets to make changes to units and his terrain was even used. Everyone's always given kudos to UU for the original concept but without Moose and CAFG I'd argue the game would have been nothing on BW.

Then again, the BNET2.0 community just feels so much weaker than BW. I blame the whole layout of hosting games and so forth.

I am very sorry, I need to start up work on the map again.

I am currently working on hunter, and I am trying to give him as much utility as I can.

Which is why we credit him for the conceptual design, Moose is amazing when it comes to refining games and a great example of that would be the Armored Core map that went from being mediocre to a classic. CAFG is also well known for taking a good map and making it great.

Personally the original TS just wasn't my element because of how "unprofessional" it felt because there were a lot of things that could have been cleaned up with some work but were purposely left because they were familiar to the players or had specific uses, that was something I understood, but it doesn't remove the fact that it made me cringe. I was always an annoying perfectionist when it came to mapping, which is also why none of my projects were released/completed, because the instant something came up that I couldn't accomplish due to limitations and a work around that fulfilled the same function wasn't possible, it was dropped.

Right now what TS needs is a redefining of the heroes to bring them to a good place again. Over the course of balancing, changing hands, mixed messages, and just an overall lack of confusion... Heroes are pretty much nothing like they were intended and play very differently from what made them feel good. Not trying to bash UU or Bloodreavez here, but after seeing their intentions for Hunter, they have no idea what they are doing when it comes to designing a hero and I told them this seveal times. This was always a big problem in the team because (using we for simplifcaiton, I am no longer in the team) we relied so heavily on Luzzotica to create them and Ahli to implement them, plus do a large majority of bug fixing. While I tried to balance the numbers out there was always a lot of confusion because of my lack of knowing the full operation behind the abilities. Seeing some of the numbers and designs being put out now really makes me cringe.

It needs to be taken back to basics and have a set design theory for the heroes so that they naturally comply/oppose with one another. I doubt something like this will ever be done because the community instantly rejects anything that is too new for them and nobody wants to adjust from the current build, yet they openly complain. Due to how Bloodreavez and UU take the community's opinion into account through such a biased manner... I doubt anything will change.

Putting out a new hero will not do much for the game.

LoL and HON had that problem. Dota has done it successfully with keeping older heroes still just as viable as new heroes, and only releases heroes every 6 months or so. Pretty much the opposite of the direction the other two went. So don't put them all together under one roof as a genre, they are all 3 vastly different games with differing depths and nuances.

Well I was referencing the genre, but I agree with the DOTA front to an extent. Most of the newer heroes have a lot of imbalance issues in DOTA but that has always been a part of the development process for it. They design heroes a totally different way than League or HON.

I am definitely guilty of being I guess what you would call a "Fundamentalist" for TS. Every so often I go back on BW and play a game, and notice how radically different these games are and it makes me frown. In business, there is this philosophy that's used at my company and many others called "Kaizan". It means continuous improvement from wherever you're at, and although it's mainly a business practice it can still be applied here. I never think that all hope is lost.

LoveLess, what you say about redefining heroes and setting a design theory is at the core of this game, as well as how players interact with spawn. Heroes and spawn are what define this game ultimately (imho). I don't know who controls the map (except for Luzz). I don't know what they plan to do with it. If they are looking for a one time cure, I can tell them I don't have it. But what I do have are a very particular set of skills; skills I have acquired over a very long career of pubstomping and temple killing. Skills that make me a nightmare for mappers like them. If they let control of the map go now, that'll be the end of it. I will not look for them, I will not pursue them. But if they don't, I will look for their map, I will redefine their map, and I will make it a classic. Just kidding this isn't Taken

Once Luzz has time I think whoever is interested (with exceptions) should start a Google docs with me redesigning heroes, spawn, and etc.
Thoughts?

I would rather not redesign. Personally, I'm having enough trouble staying motivated as it is, and working on the same heroes, just different spells for so long has definitely run me down. I'm definitely willing to repurpose spells, or make them deal less damage with more utility, high risk high reward, low risk low low reward type spells. But I feel like most of the spells (Though they do deal damage) can still be used as utility.

I believe the problem is not whether the spells aren't utility (I'm not sure I'm saying that right), it's the fact that that aspect of the spell is minimized because of the damage the spell does. Like assassin, his l2 stun is amazing and very useful for allies like spec ops trying to line up a stun, but the stun doesn't really matter because you just killed the guy with the damage you just dealt.

I believe in not reworking the heroes, but in changing the abilities to focus on the utility aspect and teamwork aspect instead of the damage the spell deals like we do now.

For example. We could make assassin l2 only stun. However, if he hits a target who is already stunned (By anything) then the spell deals damage. That would make teamwork with the assassin very rewarding. We could also buff the damage slightly to make him not feel so weak because it no longer deals damage. This was just a thought.

~Luzz

When I say plan out the design, that's basically what I meant, making heroes have different focuses on each of their abilities. Just played about ten games of TS over the past few days on BW and did surprisingly well even though I was never that great a few years ago. They have much more defined uses but the game also had a lot of questionable bits despite the praise it receives.

@Luzz

I totally understand about the motivation, but remember you don't have to be in it alone, I'm willing to learn what you know. Also changing the heroes as you described is what he was talking about, more or less.

@LoveLess

BW feels a lot more laggy than it used to feel. Also, G3f isn't a great representation of TS as a whole, it's not even a good one because of new heroes. What questionable bits did you have?

Is there any docs or anything with a table of heroes/spells/damage?

UU likes to keep track of all heroes damages and dps stats. However I haven't really kept up with the damages of spells and such because as you probably know, they change constantly and the effort to change the damage really isn't worth it xD all damage values and upgrades are in the SC2 map tho. The upgrades are all bundles up in a single function, but the actual base damages we have to look for.

luzz go take a vacation

The characters are all balanced and the gameplay is pretty fast paced. Making mountains out of molehills, this bunch is.

No, I don't think even the most die-hard fans would agree with that. I'm fairly sure you have little to no experience actually playing this, so I'm not sure why you'd gloss over the multitude of legitimate concerns people are discussing and make a vague statement that doesn't really pertain to the map or the current development at all. As far as taking a vacation, I thought it was clearly explained that being on vacation is why he hasn't been doing any work on the map, but you probably missed that when you skipped over every previous post for the sake of your gross generalization.

Not at all, I've extensively played ts2.

When I brought up balance issues with individual match-ups the answer was a resounding, "It's a team game, deal with it." I insisted that there should only be soft counters but the hardcore TS crowd said they wanted to preserve the original gameplay (Mech vs. Medic). Now they're complaining about hard counters? I am having trouble understanding this line of flip-flopping.

There are some good ideas to improve gameplay, but it's not like the game is broken in its current state (mutant l3 is bit ridiculous, but the game isn't falling apart at the seams because everyone is picking mutant).

There are plenty of utility spells. Mutant l1 and l4 (doesn't deal direct damage), Warrior l1 and l4, Assault's vanilla l1, l2, and l4, LM's l3, and there are plenty more. Also, most l0s are utility only.

As for being punished for making a mistake? It was worse in ts1, way worse.

---

I also mean for him to take a vacation from all of this. It's not a vacation if he's stressing himself out about it

I agree completely with Sac, there is plenty of utility in the current heroes, but people seem to want a lot more than there currently is.

So I'll make a deal, every other hero I create (Which will be a long time depending on the complexity of the hero), I will make one that is designed EXACTLY how you TS1 hardcore fans would like me to make it. I don't want to change the current hero pool, because I believe it is not game breaking, as Sac said, but the game isn't determined by the heroes people choose either (Skill can still trump a powerful hero like war). Is this to your like Otis? BlackParade? Others? I have asked all of you continuously to help me in the designing process of heroes, and continuously you have provided me and the team with no input, so I hope that you will finally help with the design process instead of just calling what we make bad. please and thank you.

~Luzz

I'm not saying there shouldn't be more utility. There definitely needs to be in order to add depth to the game, but the idea that almost every spell deals damage is plain wrong. I'm pretty sure the only l0 that actually deals damage is Dark Mage's spell, and I suppose I should throw in Warrior's spell as well since it doesn't have any utility outside of increasing damage dealt (Although I suppose it could be used in some form with DM's link ability somehow). And even for spells that deal damage, you'll find that most have utility purposes as well as a side effect or deal only minor damage, with the main effect being utility (warrior's l2, assault's vortex)

I believe items that are bought with minerals can add utility and solve the hard countering problem (like an AA missile). It's up to you guys whether or not you decide to implement this, since it shies away from core TS, but it would be nothing but beneficial to gameplay.

I've suggested spell changes in the past that would have created more utility/synergy. But those were rejected, which is fine. Really it only added my own flavor to the game (hard counters are part of the game, deal with it sort of thing). That's fine really, I'm not trying to push anything on the developers if it's merely my opinion how things should be.

As for mutant's l3, I would suggest creating a small cooldown between spikes and increasing the daze time. It's a pretty easy change to implement, doesn't destroy the strength of l3 (you can still chain them, just not as quickly, and due to increased daze time, it just gives allies more time to do something about it). In addition it has an added effect of increasing the potency of an l3 l2 strategy I came up with awhile back.



I'm not sure what to do with summoner, a possible upgrade to increase the range of the leash is an option. Or a simple matter of nerfing the leash's negative effects could help (also possibly as an upgrade, to allow the l2 upgrade path option).

I don't really know why you're bashing the strength of ts1 summy though. He really was a force to be reckoned with and a pure terror. Sure you can go reaver but that's not an instant win without sufficient backup. With summy it rarely ever was where he was stick with everyone else in exp. Either you had mech or some other strong anti-summy character or an extremely skilled player who could deal with him and keep him underfed or he was overfed and a death sentence to most characters. Except you know, warrior, lm, or mutant who could snap summy back so hard it'll leave the player's head spinning. But 1v1 summy had the upperhand with someone who could do multipronged attacks. Once the other guy is on the defensive the game is yours.

Az should be able to attest to this, I know he almost exclusively played summy in ts1.

You know with mutant's l4 he can also sit on the temple and guard pretty ruthlessly. I enjoy these little synergies. Teamwork is and should be rewarded. This IS the impression that I get from both the devs and the community. It seems silly to attack it. I do hope you also realize that Medic's l4 to consistently heal l4 Mutant is going to cost massive amounts of mana. It's no different than volt staying in l4 form for extended periods of time, although perhaps worse because of the required teamwork component.

Post has been edited 5 time(s), last time on Jul 19 2013, 7:34 pm by Sacrieur.