Even though you made the first, v1.5-7 were the equivalent of spinoffs. No one likes them, no one plays them. You're obviously doing something wrong. Temple Siege would be dead if it were all up to you.

You didn't work on TS when TS needed you to work on it. You release something bad, when there's something already better out there.

The last REAL thing you did was v1.4. Everything else was a joke or disappointment. Even compared to MT, 1.4 is like a half finished map in comparison. Most of the work at this point in time was not done by you.

Also, I'll add something to the bottom of the original post, since you're all about the fame.

Yeah, I was just trollin to see whether anyone would want me to touch it or not. Of course I'd never sacrifice HS time for another map =). Sorry about that CAFG.

I would much rather have this handed to pigy than anyone else... especially norm. He is one who would have enough time to work on it. He definitely has the skill to make the job happen, and he is an active player with the community, so he would know what they want. To make the versions of chaos, we know that he has the dedication to make better versions. He can map seriously, the chaos version was only something fun that he did because he was bored. It's not bad to play it once in a while... He does tend to overcomplicate things, though, but that could be resolved by the community. Who else would be suited for the job?

Lots and lots of people. Finding someone qualified is easy, the only issue is finding someone willing.

After reading through this argument, I have to agree with CAFG. UU, when you went and made 1.5, you were adding new ideas (like new heroes). There's nothing wrong with that, but you didn't take the time to fix the bugs. The m8 and m9 threads remained active because CAFG and Moose would give updates and release new versions with bug fixes. People stopped caring about 1.5 and 1.6 since it was always in beta, and you never fixed the problems to release a real version. Seems like you just gave up on 1.6 and gave it to Flashbeer, who went and made TS 7. Meanwhile, Moose and CAFG worked on making real, bug free versions that people loved to play. Nobody on Bnet plays the versions that you made because you didn't dedicate the time that Moose and CAFG have. You just keep taking credit because you originally made the map, but you haven't done much else with it.

Also, @

I don't really want to become involved in this, but I feel I have to say my share. When CAFG introduced me to TS, the version out there was 1.2. It was fun, of course, but quite unbalanced and quite buggy. I came up with lists of suggested balance changes and bugfixes. You released 1.4. It was better, but had a long way to go towards realizing its potential. I continued with my lists of suggested changes and fixes. At that point, I didn't feel that changes were being made fast enough and took matters into my own hands. So, I began making edits and obtained your permissions... bugfixes and balance changes. These gradually increased in number until we have the massive change list that we're familiar with. Bluntly put, I don't feel that TS would have become anything like what it is today in terms of either popularity or balance if I had never touched it.

How many times did I actually credit myself? At the start, I probably went through a good 20 or 30 1.4 edits before I even stuck my name anywhere in the map. I put in a "Thanks to Moose etc etc" towards the end of the briefing. Later on I put myself in the mission objectives of the briefing (which soon get replaced by spell information in-game). People were consistently telling me that I should acknowledge myself more, but I always left the credit to you, Unholy. I was editing TS for the good of the map itself, never for my own accomplishment.

As my edits continued, you asked for an open copy of 1.4M. To my knowledge, you wanted it so that you wouldn't have to run down my change list and do all of those bugfixes and balance changes yourself. Not to mention all of the trigger efficency improvements and organization I did because you used StarForge. I'm sure that I complained out of frustration many times how triggers for various things were all over the place and how I did something in a couple hundred less lines of triggers. The time that I invested roughly equals the equivalent of creating my own versus AoS map, minus terrain.

It was, of course, very logical of you to ask me for my version -- it saves a lot of time and effort to incorporate my work. I did give it to you. This also means that 1.5 and subsequent versions were based on that M version that I sent to you. The simple fact is that essentially every version of Temple Siege played today has been based off of a version containing my edits. The ONLY exceptions are alpha/beta builds (if there are any released), 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, the stolen 1.3, and the un-edited 1.4. But, people don't play those. Whether it is 1.5 or 1.6, version 7, or some kid stealing it from one of my 1.4 builds, my hands have been there. You created the map, but I made Temple Siege what it is.

Post has been edited 5 time(s), last time on Jul 24 2010, 3:58 pm by Mini Moose 2707.

Given that it is unclear who, if anyone, deserves "ownership" of the map in the first place...

...that by now, pretty much everyone knows the contents of the initial credits...

...that the map has been shown to benefit greatly from having many different sources of input...

...that with SC2 coming out and time passing, it's hard to be sure exactly who's going to be around for how long...

...that there are already a great many versions of the map in circulation...

...and that the Temple Siege community has, historically, been willing to make up its own mind about what version to play, instead of automatically preferring whichever is newest, and has at least a significant subset of players who place value on balance and skill-involving gameplay...

...why not change the map to open source status? Sure, maybe some edits will be more successful than others, but if people don't enjoy a particular version, they won't host it, and if they do, well, that's the job done, even though it may not conform to your specific vision. Limiting edits to one person is a risky strategy at best...after all, what if they fail to hand it off once they lose interest (an especially large risk these days)? What if their editing style happens to produce maps that, whatever their "objective" merits, the community doesn't like? Plus, if you're going to choose a successor, you're limited to the small subset of people who you know, or who respond to this thread; both the Temple Siege community nor the SC1 map-making community extend way beyond the boundaries of this website, and for all you know, the person who would produce the best next Temple Siege is someone who will never see this thread and never have a chance...that is, if the project remains on a closed-source basis. All the standard benefits of open-source projects apply: since the best ideas don't always come from the best sources, widening the number of contributors is the best way to ensure continual improvements. It's a big change, and possibly a scary one, but there are good reasons to think that it's the sensible way to go here.

Truth is for who can actually do what, I know that I can do whatever I want with my version. I passed all of my rights to TS down to Clans. I don't remember if I was given the right to pass down my version of TS to Clans. (but that would violate that I can do whatever I want with my version)
I don't remember whether or not I said Clans could pass down the rights he was given. Honestly, I didn't anticipate him dropping out of the map development for TS. I do remember imposing the condition that any versions off my work are to be closed-source. I do not plan on open-sourcing the map myself because I feel that open source is a decision that only Unholy can make.

The problem here doesn't run that deep.

I've already initially open sourced the map, so I didn't really care who'd edit my map.

The problem was that I wasn't "part of the group" anymore, and that decisions like this seemed big enough for me to at least know about it. You could say that it was worded badly, or I was in a very defensive mood. But that's what happened, and I'm only dissapointed about that.

Everything else is fine. Both you and CAFG deserves some right to the map, but so do I, and I just wanted to make that clear.

It's still UU's map. You say that TS wouldn't have become what it became if it wasn't for you, Moose, but it never would've become that if UU hadn't made the map in the first place.

There should be a "committee" dedicated to the production of SC2 TS. Even if all the members can't map they can still discuss possible heros etc. I'm willing to participate if this happens.

ok i don't want to read again but, who says that there maybe will be a "new spell system"

AND b.t.w., when u'll make c1T ?

AND, i've read about sc2, in a french website the cons of battle.net and map.
"u cant make a map with GOD word"
"no more than 20MB of maps and only 5 max maps per creator"
"no lan" ( this i understand, and i wont DL this game, i will respect Blizzard, and i'll buy THE game. )
"the most popular game will be at top of the list"
Maybe it was from beta... idk, i just read what i saw.

I'm pretty sure the 5 maps per person is beta only. That wouldn't make any sense at all if it was for the actual game.

If for some reason it is 5 maps per person, you could always get someone from SEN that doesn't map (pretty much 80% of SEN lol) to host it for you

http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=25026453020&sid=5000
Meet the new Blizzard.

This is a pretty heated argument for a map that's going to be essentially obsolete in 3 hours.

I agree with Moose and CAFG that Unholy, you always showed interest but after making the basic map you never really cared all that much for balance or bug fixing, you just wanted to add fancy new features (a la the nigh-unplayable 1.5 which most disliked). CAFG and Moose were gearing the map for the competitive community that had been demanding it since you first released TS. Whether you gave permission or not it would have been done; there was a demand and it deserved filling.

Either way, I don't think there needs to be a new version. If you haven't hit a semblance of balance yet with only 12 heroes, frankly you never will. Adding a male Ghost and Dragoon would be cool but just adds to the balancing even more. I don't see why anyone would want this, but good luck to you nonetheless.

The l3 of warrior is too lame, mutant l2 cant even be launched until l3 warrior effect is down...
its like : Warrior l3, mutant l2, but only the spell effect come (the dying devourer)

Yeah ummm... Thats supposed to happen. Just sayin

What is this I dont even.....




I'm fine with whoever is continuing Temple Siege as long as it's good .

I'm imagining this all started because Clans labeled the title of the topic with "Temple siege" (as in the series) instead of ONLY saying "The version I made from Moose's version". I think UU took it as a sort of blow since he saw it as your giving away temple siege or something. Also because I guess clans didn't give anyone else a heads up before made this topic (it seems).

Now then onto who's getting to edit what