New Island Defense Version

[Hash]

The amount of work you guys have done is much appreciated. What I am suggesting, to reduce the amount of bugs, because getting stuck with a version on ENT that has issues isn't fun (it takes a lot of time to update maps on ENT), is that the map be uploaded to ENT link so that people in the community can host the games. From there people can familiarize with the map and report bugs so by the time its hosted on ENT.60 it's a much more polished version. Would you prefer that or to release it on ENT.60 as is currently. @remixer

[Remixer]

The problem with that approach is that majority will continue playing ENT.60, instead of testing the new version. The fastest way to fix the possible bugs and issues is to publish the map and make it the public version. I personally don't understand why ENT takes so long to upload the maps. What was suggested already was to upload the new version for a week's time or so and in case it is found very buggy, then just re-host the older version until the bugs are fixed (which should be in the weeks' time).

[Hash]

Now if ENT could quickly and easily update maps for ID, I probably wouldn't care about this, but sometimes we are stuck with versions that have bugs/imbalances for months. Knowing that, I am hesitant to support the implementation of a version with that many changes made that quickly. Maybe if some of those changes were spaced through a few different versions, it wouldn't be such a drastic change to the game. It sounds easy saying let's just re-host the old version, but we don't know how long that could take if it has to come to that. IMO it's easier and saves some head-ache for ENT to just have this on ENT link for a bit, but promote the map on forums/discord so that players will want to test out the new version more.

[Neco]

Just saying @Hash, I didn't say I don't think this map should be hosted. That's up to the community. I have no opinion one way or the other. This isn't my work and I haven't had the time to check whether I agree with all the changes or not.

I'm simply putting myself forward in this thread to kill any drama around this all happening without my knowledge.

[Hash]

Thank you for clearing that up @neco your input is always appreciated.

[Remixer]

I know and I do understand your concern, I do share the same concern, but I think enough testing has been done and most crucial bugs have been found. Perhaps a few still exist, but that is unfortunate and I do not think that further "limited" testing is able to track them down. The risk of multiple bugs and community's ability to adapt are the main concern why this large updates should be avoided, however I see no point holding this update back, seeing that most people who have given their word to say here, are confident enough and willing to take the risk that the version should be uploaded to ENT.

I would still like to learn how the progress of a bot hosting of ENT is so slow when it comes to changing he version.

The best option I can see here, is that we upload the new version to considerably boost the rate at which we gain information, feedback and discover bugs. And in case of something major errors, we can then host the old version in other platforms, like manual hosting, the way you're proposing to host the new version now via.

The fundamental problem of the current situation is that:
A) Play the old, somewhat "bug-free" version of the map.
B) Find the lobby of the new, possibly more buggy version of the map.
I see people have no real interest in playing the new version if they have to actually find out where to play it and so on.
Instead we could do following:
A) Play the new version that is possibly more buggy than the old version.
B) Find the lobby of the old, more stable version of the map.
This way the people would initially play the new version, and if they disliked it, they could go play the old version. I'd call this a win-win situation: we devs get the information needed faster and the community gets the new content and fresh gameplay faster too.

[Neco]

I would like for ENT to be able to change the map more often on ENT.60. Maybe we should pressure them for that instead of wondering whether to host this or not.

It's something I've wanted for a long long time.

Polls aren't a good way to gauge what's right for this decision, especially when 5% of players actually look at this forum...

[Neco]

@aRt)Y who is actually handling ENT's backend now? HazarDous?

[Hash]

I know and I do understand your concern, I do share the same concern, but I think enough testing has been done and most crucial bugs have been found. Perhaps a few still exist, but that is unfortunate and I do not think that further "limited" testing is able to track them down. The risk of multiple bugs and community's ability to adapt are the main concern why this large updates should be avoided, however I see no point holding this update back, seeing that most people who have given their word to say here, are confident enough and willing to take the risk that the version should be uploaded to ENT.

There was plenty of people that given their word here but would prefer not to take the risk and have some more testing be done before it being released also. Personally I am not aware on how the process of uploading maps on ENT works, I just know from playing on ENT for so many years, that it is a slow process. Anyone who has been around ENT for a while knows, it takes a while to update maps, not sure the reason to it, but it what it is. What bothers me is if the version is buggy or has imbalance issues (which is a pretty high chance considering the amount of changes made), we might be stuck with it for a while, I mean its not like it hasn't happened before.

The biggest problem for me wasn't slow fixes, it was no reporting. I didn't fix the demo bug because I only learned about it a few months in... Then when I did have a fix the next day it took a few weeks for ENT to put it up.

Now if ENT could speedily update new maps to ENT.60, that would change my viewpoint on implementing this version, because it wouldn't really matter as much if we could put out new fixed versions asap. I agree with @neco I would like to see that happen, but if nothing changes about that, than I stand by my opinion that we shouldn't implement the map just yet.

[FollowingPath]

I've been actively engaging in discussions about changes on the Discord server, suggested and implemented, and I'll start off by saying this:
Changes are absolutely needed, this is something we all agree on. If ID wants to survive it needs something new and to be regularly updated. Remixer and IAmDragon bring this to ID, and although I don't necessarily agree with all of their changes I recognize their importance in terms of keeping the map alive.

Like I said, I've been sharing my thoughts on changes and even come with my own suggestions on Discord. Something I haven't shared however, is the main reason why I dislike some of the changes. One of the most noticeable things with ID is how experienced Titan players always overlook some Titans. Not because they're necessarily underpowered, but because they don't cater to their playstyle. I personally like picking Molt because I like sieging, and his skills (his scouting, heal, and unique) all cater to making sieging really enjoyable for me. The recent updates will be bringing a lot of changes to a lot of Titans, and although some of the ideas are great in terms of balancing, some of them unfortunately seem to exist for one of the reasons I hate the most in all regularly updated games; change for the sake of making change. Basically, changes that change perfectly fine and balanced skills or buildings just for the sake of making them seem new and updated. An example of this can be found in the plans for Breezerious (Aetherious or whatever.) When Neco initially removed Breeze the community was under the impression that he needed to be balanced, the main problem being his nuke which was essentialy a line of damaging Wands of the Wind. However, when the ideas for the new Breezerious were shared, I was astounded at how literally every one of his skills had been changed. Another example (which I've already shared my concerns about on Discord) is Noxious' wind walk ability. To make the Titans differ from each other, Remixer has had ideas for wind walks with different uses. Noxious' is especially one that I just can't endorse, even though it's focused on sieging. For the confused:

Code: Select all

• New WindWalk - Poisonous Cloud - Create a cloud of poisonous gas hiding the titans and minions for 45 seconds - Deals damage and slows enemy units that enter by 35%


As someone who considers himself quite an experienced Titan player, I can with confidence say that wind walk is used for more than just killing builders at mound. The pressure it puts on builders when you're out of vision, the fear of Titan being able to quickly move from A to B thanks to the increased movement speed, etc. The sheer possibility of a wind walk is what stops builders from golding uncontrollaby, and with a wind walk so heavily focused on sieging (Titan and his minions are only invisible inside the cloud,) builders will very easily be able to obtain the 45g required to counter it and render it completely useless. This is something guaranteed to make experienced Titans avoid Noxious, and he'll be overlooked despite being new in favor of other Titans.

Now, like I said earlier, change is needed. The problem I have with change is when too much is changed for the reason I stated above. Remixer clearly had his own ideas for what ID should be, and as an editor he is entitled to add them to the game and introduce the rest of the community to them. However, this need to make as much change as possible will eventually come back to bite the map in the ass.
I said earlier that overlooked Titans were a thing, and with a bit of balancing it's not really a problem, I mean we all have our favorites. It can, however, be a very big problem. When Remixer introduced a brand new Titan idea, he didn't do so by adding it to the game. He did it by changing an existing Titan - Sypherious. Because of this, one of the oldest and most recognizable Titans are gone and it's unclear if it will ever return. These are the kind of changes I despise, and unfortunately the new version has quite a few of them. One thing is adding something that people don't like, another is taking away something they do like in order to make room for it.

I also understand Remixer wanting to add a different style of gameplay to ID. It has been very monotone for many years now. My problem with this is again, the sheer amount of change for no other apparent reason than just to make change. If all of the ideas are added, there'll be so many different things to do for both Builders and Titans that many of them will simply be overlooked once the "best" one is found. What I'm referring to here are the items that are planned to be added. Some of them focus on sieging, some of them focus on hunting Builders. I shared my concerns about this when Remixer first posted his ideas for scouting abilities (viewtopic.php?f=244&t=117117&p=457611#p457611)
TL;DR of what I said: Items (no matter their intention) need to have some sort of siege-benefitting stat boost or ability because of how much sieging takes up the game. An item focused entirely on killing builders with status effects or whatever is going to be sold as soon as the sieging phase begins, and it'll be a waste of money. This will eventually lead to items being overlooked as well. No one likes to buy an item they know they'll have to sell again later.

And really quick, what would happen if Remixer and IAmDragon used 3.0.9 as a standpoint for updates instead of the current 4.0.0 version? I think it could be interesting if nothing else.

Anyway, those are my thoughts.

Spoiler!

add Blinky or get 7 years of bad luck

[Neco]

I've checked over the map. Definitely some changes I want made before this goes live. Let's pull the idea for now, and I'll handle the upload / changelog information when the map is ready (in a few days most likely).

Thanks for your opinions everyone!

Could a mod please lock this thread, if anyone has any more points to discuss they may do it in the Island Defense development subforum.

[Schnuts]

@Fate Ghosting can easily be confused with familiarity.

I can recall several instances of being in discord with certain members of the azeroth discord who ghost. On a whole the discord is respectful of other players and the ent rules but to say it doesn't happen is a lie.

[aRt)Y]

I am positively surprised by how lively you discussed the topic. It seems that, after all, people have passionate for our beloved game.

Many of you have mostly focused on the factor "change(s)". Ever since Neco updated the map, I was in favor of having changes implemented. It's the only way to keep a map alive and competitive. Therefore, I would like to focus on the actual issue at hand, in my opinion: the timing.

It seems that many users are afraid of possible downsides of major changes in one map version, rather than entirely rejecting the changes themselves.

ENT does have a fixed procedure: a suggestion is posted and once the beta-testing has been confirmed, we put it in the pipe of our to-dos.
To answer your question, @Neco , currently, Haz, Jabba and I are responsible for map updates. Given the interface and structure, we can not integrate others into the process.

As I already said, though, I doubt ENT's updating process is the biggest issue here. The compromise I could see is that after Neco did his final changes, we publish the map as a - sort of - milestone. Going from there, the map devs should stick to a regular process of implementing changes/fixes, having it transparently beta-tested and then, with a little (calculated) time for ENT, updated on the bots.

I doubt updating maps on a daily basis is the way to go.. you might be actively maintaining the map now but ENT is still responsible for ensuring quality on our bots and I will not play the blame-game here of who's responsible for the situation we are currently in.

tl;dr; make the final fixes you want, have players further test the map (this thread surely gave it some importance) and we will update the map next weekend. Meanwhile, you provide the Staff Dept. a release schedule and we will work something out together.