To our Sanctum Community

[arre]

The last few weeks at Coffee Stain Studios have been very busy, however now we’re incredibly happy to see that everyone can finally play our game after 18 months of hard work!

Let’s look back at what’s happened since Coffee Stain Studios was started. Sanctum was developed right after college in a crowded office with kitchen-chairs as office chairs and desktops held up by cardboard boxes. After the success of the first game, we put all the money into the development of Sanctum 2. We wanted to make something new and different – we’re all gamers ourselves and we were tired of playing sequels that were only rehashes of their predecessors. We wanted to keep the core idea of Tower Defense /FPS, but make it fresh and new in a way that you wouldn’t just call it “Sanctum 1 with updated graphics”.

We of course want our old players that loved Sanctum 1 to love Sanctum 2 as well. However, we are fully aware that we can’t please everyone - a reviewer such as IGN can give Sanctum 2 an 8.5/10 review (Sanctum 1 received a 5/10 from IGN); while a long-time fan of the original series might give us a user-review of 3/10 because their expectations of similarity to the original were not met.

As Coffee Stain Studios is completely self-funded, we are 100% dependent on our players. We love making games more than anything else, so if players no longer support us then our dream ends here and we all have to get other jobs. We don’t develop games in order to make money; we make money so that we can continue developing games. As the game was released only yesterday, we have not had time to plan all the updates we want to do to, but there will be many updates, and we will listen to our players.

We tested out many different design decisions and ended up with those we have now because we felt they were the best and the most fun. Some of these things are not easily changeable since they are core mechanics that are balanced accurately. However, if enough customers think something is a concern, then it’s obviously a concern for us as well. We are here to deliver great games to our fans.

[Deka]

So did you test everything on xbox players who had never played sanctum 1 or what? Because that is what it feels like.

[Leezeebub]

Thanks for the reply! Its good to know that you are at least concidering some changes.

In essence i think all the complaints boil down to the limitations that have been enforced (towers, resources, enemies). If you guys could give us more towers/resources and just balance it with more enemies, then this would in turn give the player more options, and I think would make the majority of players exceptionally happy.

EDIT: I would also like to direct the devs to this topic -

http://steamcommunity.com/app/210770/discussions/0/828939163693840915/

This seems like an absolutely fantastic compromise. All players from both sides of the fence seem to agree that this would indeed solve all of the worlds problems (with exception to poverty, crime and various others).

[taco]

OBVIOSLY some1 posted without reading. they were trying to make it DIFFERENT. sure, they messed up some stuff, but its still a fun game all in all. if you didnt like it, there goes 15 dollars. just eat ramen instead of Red Lobster your next 2 meals and your square

[Rocketbeer]

I admit that I'm enjoying the game as-is. I was not really enjoying myself initially because of the leveling system, since you have so few options available during the first few hours. But now that I've unlocked more toys it's actually really good.

However, I DO miss the more traditional TD experience from Sanctum 1. It would be really great if you guys could bring it back as a separate game mode or something.

[The doctor is in]

wall of text = nothing will be done

re: reviewers

lol, users cant be wined and dined and they give it a 4.5

re: no sales = no studio = no jobs

u got that right.

u want people to buy this game and season pass

piece of cake, easy as pie, no problem

by know u should know what u have to do.

the list of things is not that long.

i bet less than one (1) month worth of work.

just in case u still dont have a list yet it i and others have taken the time from our very busy schedule to put a to do list enumerating what needs to be done

http://steamcommunity.com/app/210770/discussions/0/828939163655543228/

so get out the sanctum one source code and cut and paste ;)

but its mostly about changing config settings

lasly it would be very embarassing for u'all if the hackers fix it before u do ;)

[Leezeebub]

I dont think there is any need for the attitude, guys.
The game has been out for a day, at least give the devs a chance to decide whats best, before making them out to be some kind of mentally disabled hell spawn lol.

There is a difference between being justly upset and simply being a ♥♥♥♥.

[MagicMD]

I think it boils down to how small the game feels right now. Sanctum 1 was fun because of the maze building and tower defense options. It didn't feel great as a first person shooter, but made up for it with how fun the multiplayer is. IGN may have hated it, professional review sites may have hated it, but you made enough money to make Sanctum 2 thanks to your fanbase who actually loved your game. So instead of rewarding that fanbase, you cater to those who prefer the gun-game to the tower defense. You decided to make a different game for a different group of people. Sure, IGN may love it, professional reviewers may love it, but you can tell that there's a vocal group that don't and most were people who logged tons of hours into Sanctum 1. Most were people who absolutely loved that game, like myself.

You took that multiplayer away with the limitation of resources and building. The gun-play is pretty amazing now and it's much, much better than it is in Sanctum 1, but you added that and removed the best part of Sanctum 1: the tower defense.

There's barely any mazing, 10 towers is a terrible idea and no gun upgrades? Who's idea was it to take away core concepts that make games good? When has anyone ever said "I don't want to be able to upgrade my gun, just let me shoot things."

Really, it just feels like a smack in the face to me. Buying Sanctum 1 was one of the best decisions I ever made, and buying Sanctum 2 completely leveled that decision out. I'm happy I bought it because I still think you're a good developer. Sanctum 2 is a fun game, but the multiplayer - the best part of Sanctum 1, is a total crapshoot. Hopefully you'll see that, make some changes and live up to what I know you can do as a team.

[RyuKaiser29]

I can appreciate trying something new. What I can't appreciate is not throwing the lovers of the original a bone, either in a Classic game mode, or mixing this game AND the original into something called Hybrid. I enjoy the leveling system, the perks, the change of characters, the extra weapons. You got the shooter part down pat, and all guns remain useful no matter what. What I do not enjoy, however, is the tower limit, and the inability to spend my current funds to build.

I like mazes. I just spent 2 hours on Sanctum 1 playing Bridge, and having a blast trying out new strategies. What Sanctum 2 forces people to do is become incredibly more active, pulling away from TD and focusing more on shooting. This is also apparently with the lack of the heat system, and the two weapon limit (at least, that's how many I'm currently limited to carrying). What I hoped for was what Borderlands 2 did for Borderlands 1: Improved drastically on the former experience while adding something new.

I will admit, I'm very frustrated with the game. Some of the maps won't even let you build on half the maps, forcing you to play the adrenaline shooter game, rather than take full advantage of creativity to create a unique maze for your foes. I'm not going to comment on towers, as I have yet to unlock them (hoping to see Killing Floor and Slow Pads in the game), but I feel like I got more of my money's worth from the free retro game than from this game.

Take my complaining as you will. I doubt you'll read this. Even then, I can just boot up Sanctum 1 if I really want what Sanctum 1 gives. That's what I've been doing recently. I do enjoy some of the improvements, but I wish you could have kept Sanctum and the upgrades, such as perks, taking damage, tower height, etc together. I love the new height of the enemies, since I can now get down in the fray with them, but the lack of being able to build true mazes boggles my mind.

Edit: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/7161-Perfect-Pasta-Sauce is the best way I could think of putting this. You made so much money and were able to make Sanctum 2 because you offered a niche no one else offered. Now you're moving towards the super popular Horde Mode, rather than what made you unique. That's just my feeling, anyway. Take it as you will.

[Azi]

Truthfully if you take this game just by itself it is a good game, but it does have its flaws. I don't think people should bash CSS as much as they have. I see this game as more of a proactive TD more then just build towers and help here and there now. I can say though that co-op is almost non existent in its current state with how resources are set up.

[Cheibriados]

I've voiced my opinions on coffee stain studios forums under the thread "First thoughts on what was good and bad in Sanctum 2." I've played some more Sanctum 2 since then, but the talking points still hold, more or less. (The only thing I've changed my mind a little on is bosses. Still can't decide how I feel about them one-shotting towers and walls). Naturally, like some that were fans of Sanctum 1, I was a little confused by many design choices. I understand that you, as developers, have the final say on what you want your game to be, but allow me to talk about expectations a little.

I was extremely pleased with Sanctum 1 and, upon seeing gameplay trailers for Sanctum 2, was enticed into preordering. In a quote in an interview with incgamers, Coffee Stain said: "...we realized that Sanctum 2 would have a very different feel compared to the first game. This suited us fine because we don’t really care for making the same game again." I can understand this, and I appreciate the notion. I would agree that sequels should not be a reskin of the previous game. They should expand upon the concepts that players enjoyed from the previous installment in the series, and explore new areas of development. What made Sanctum appealing was the ability to interact with your maze and create whatever type of tower strategy you wanted. I would expect that an adequate sequel would have to cut certain aspects and improve others. An example of what was a good exploration and different from the original was the addition of classes. I enjoy the unique characters, their personalities, and their roles. They allow for different playstyles and do not restrict the player from using a certain strategy. What a sequel should not do is to make the fun parts of the previous game seem diminished and reduced significantly at the expense of adding other content. While enemy interaction and player necessity in combat phase is fun, and a good improvement from Sanctum 1 which definitely sets the two games apart, it is clear that this comes at the expense of restricting a lot of the fun defensive tower building aspects.


As for multiplayer, I have read a lot about what others think, but I have an inquiry: does the health and difficulty, or number of enemies scale with the amount of people in-game?

I know you made a lot of improvements with Sanctum 1 from release date until now, and I appreciate that. Don't get me wrong; I still have a lot of faith in you as developers, and I would like to support you because I can see the potential that you guys have, you listen to the feedback your customers provide (which is rare), and most importantly because both Sanctum 1 and 2 are fun, in their own ways.

Once again, these are only one person's opinions and I'm trying to give you a good idea on why I am criticizing certain aspects and praising other aspects. I wouldn't ask you to change anything based only on my concerns, but if enough people voice the same thing, it might be a legitimate issue which, if resolved, could help make the game more enjoyable.

Thank you for your time
John

Side note: Sweet's model seems to have some funny shading for me; skin tones look too dark, especially around her eyes. Not sure about the other models because I don't play them much; Sweet's the best (opinion).

[Raviden]

Good to hear you concidering changes from your fans! I was about to give up on you guys based on what I saw on some other dev comments. Its not that I wanted a reskin of the game, its that i wanted a game with the same main core mechanics. I wanted it to be like half-life 1 too half-life 2. Two great games with the same core mechanics, but a diffent levels and story. Now there good things, Tower bases were vary clever. However there are the let downs that really bothered a lot of us, like the 10 tower limit. I would hate to see this company die and I hope you listen to all of us to make this game better. There are a lot of people over reacting, if you dont get to the peoblems of this game modders will.

[arre]

Originally posted by leezeebub:

Thanks for the reply! Its good to know that you are at least concidering some changes.

In essence i think all the complaints boil down to the limitations that have been enforced (towers, resources, enemies). If you guys could give us more towers/resources and just balance it with more enemies, then this would in turn give the player more options, and I think would make the majority of players exceptionally happy.

EDIT: I would also like to direct the devs to this topic -

http://steamcommunity.com/app/210770/discussions/0/828939163693840915/

This seems like an absolutely fantastic compromise. All players from both sides of the fence seem to agree that this would indeed solve all of the worlds problems (with exception to poverty, crime and various others).

During the first hours you play Sanctum 2, it might look like towers aren't as important as you'd want them to be. However, strategical tower placement is now even more important than in Sanctum 1 due to the tower cap. Many players think that Armored Heavies are too hard, but I don't know how many times I've been saved from Armored Heavies by an overcharged Lightning Tower perfectly placed in my maze where it does the most damage. We feel that the tower limitation should guide players in this direction, as upgrading a tower on an excellent choke point is much more efficient than building three towers next to each other.

I can't provide an answer this early after launch about the big balance suggestions in your link, but if enough players request something then we'll do our best to implement it. Sanctum 1 only had 3 maps and no multiplayer on launch, but after listening to a lot of feedback it's become an excellent game, and we have our players and their feedback to thank for that.

[FattyMooMooMan]

If you add a classic sanctum 1 type mode to the game that can be played in survival after beating the main campaing then I am sure that will appease most of us unhappy customers.

I dont like the new format, nor do many others but I am sure most of us will slog through it once to get back to the game we originally enjoyed

I do find some aspects of your changes odd though even if you did want the game to become more of an fps, why remove gun upgrades? why no towers that heal/boost players stats when nearby? I am sure many other things could have been added to enhance the fps side.

Your best option would have been to follow the lead of games like dungeon defenders - sanctum 1 was good but theres a reason DD outsold it by a vast quantity - it gave us tower defence and playable characters with unique skills that worked alongside the towers, we werent pigeon-holed into playing one way or the other.

You could adopt these tactics and lessen the fps abilities of some of the characters or maybe introduce a perk that allows a given character to place extra towers at the expense of say 50% of their ranged damage - but make those towers only placeable and upgradable by that character.

And please fix the resource system - why on earth did you make it so that one person grabs all the resources in a multiplayer game, this is blatantly open to abuse and grief play. In fact make it so that a placed tower can only be sold/edited by the person who placed it and split the towers and resources aailable by the number of players.

---

My ideal solution that could appease both fps and tower camps would be to increase the base towers to 12 per map. 1 player = all 12, 4 players all get 3. Give each player enough resources to build/upgrade at least one tower between rounds depending on level difficulty. Also give players a playstyle option - balanced/towers/fps If a player goes fps then set them to zero towers (or maybe one from a selection of stat boosting towers) and boost dps 100%, if a player goes towers then half their dps and give them two extra towers to place. This idea would also open up strategies where different players could be assigned choke points/cores to defend and do it however they want fps or tower defence, this would expand the available strategies. Also increase the effectivenes of the towers as now they currently feel pretty weak.

Note: This solution would increase the maximum towers if all players went tower mode to 20 - 12 base plus 4 x bonus 2 towers each. Surely the engine can still handle that many even for console players?

[[SG]Rock]

The last few weeks at Coffee Stain Studios have been very busy, however now we’re incredibly happy to see that everyone can finally play our game after 18 months of hard work!

Let’s look back at what’s happened since Coffee Stain Studios was started. Sanctum was developed right after college in a crowded office with kitchen-chairs as office chairs and desktops held up by cardboard boxes. After the success of the first game, we put all the money into the development of Sanctum 2. We wanted to make something new and different – we’re all gamers ourselves and we were tired of playing sequels that were only rehashes of their predecessors. We wanted to keep the core idea of Tower Defense /FPS, but make it fresh and new in a way that you wouldn’t just call it “Sanctum 1 with updated graphics”.

We of course want our old players that loved Sanctum 1 to love Sanctum 2 as well. However, we are fully aware that we can’t please everyone - a reviewer such as IGN can give Sanctum 2 an 8.5/10 review (Sanctum 1 received a 5/10 from IGN); while a long-time fan of the original series might give us a user-review of 3/10 because their expectations of similarity to the original were not met.

As Coffee Stain Studios is completely self-funded, we are 100% dependent on our players. We love making games more than anything else, so if players no longer support us then our dream ends here and we all have to get other jobs. We don’t develop games in order to make money; we make money so that we can continue developing games. As the game was released only yesterday, we have not had time to plan all the updates we want to do to, but there will be many updates, and we will listen to our players.

We tested out many different design decisions and ended up with those we have now because we felt they were the best and the most fun. Some of these things are not easily changeable since they are core mechanics that are balanced accurately. However, if enough customers think something is a concern, then it’s obviously a concern for us as well. We are here to deliver great games to our fans.

Please add massive levels with team battles that can last an hour with all players participating in the build and upgrade of towers/maze.

[Van Wolfswinkler]

I understand that you want to make each tower more strategic in its placement, but the problem is some maps do not even allow proper placement. Forcing us to have x amount of blocks really limits maze design creativity, which limits replayability. I spent so many hours in Sanctum 1 just designing new maze layouts with different tower placements. There was one map in Sanctum 2 where by wave 10 the map only gave us 20 blocks. There was no maze design possible, as I could only make one and a half row. That level simply was not enjoyable because the entire level was designed to shoot things in the weak spots. The first level with a boss was rather fun because we had to funnel the enemies into one area where we had all 10 towers destroy them.

The game's mechanics are very well done. The enemies are no longer static, the characters are unique, the level system is nice. If you want to appease to a wider audience, a simple fix could be to add toggle options where people could choose to have higher/lower resources per wave as well as a toggle option for a tower cap limit. Then just have the varying difficulty levels balance themselves and have some achievements so people could show they have beaten it on hard with low resources and tower cap.

This way, you can appease the crowd who enjoys playing the game for its strategic maze/tower aspect, and you will also appease the crowd who wants to focus more on the fps aspect.

Another problem is with using IGN as a reliable review source. They are utter trash as a review source. They pretty much go with flavor of the month genre and whoever pays them the most. I agree people who give Sanctum 2 a 1/10 for not being what they expected should not be reviewing it, but IGN is definitely not more reliable than them. "Credentials" are ridiculously overrated in today's society, especially when it comes to reviewing video games, because it is almost entirely opinionated.