Sc Heroes

Status
Not open for further replies.
Level 2
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
31
True the last thing i need is DotA for Sc2, its bad enough i already have a crippling addiction to it on WC3 TFT. But they did have some kind of hero's back in SC they were just stronger then the original unit. like kerrigan when she was ghost, thats all she was, a stronger version of the terran ghost.
 
Level 26
Joined
Mar 18, 2007
Messages
3,669
Heroes have no place in melee fighting. In wc3, heroes made a sort of RPG-ish impression that made wc3 a very unique game. To add this to sc2 would be overkill.
 
Level 6
Joined
Apr 4, 2005
Messages
299
There was heroes in original starcaft and them spiced game a lot and I cant see any reason why they should not be in SC2. Who says them must by in multiplayer? And why not? I want SC2 to by at least such variable and with at least such powerful editor than warcraft is and that including heroes as well.
 
Level 26
Joined
Mar 18, 2007
Messages
3,669
There was heroes in original starcaft and them spiced game a lot and I cant see any reason why they should not be in SC2. Who says them must by in multiplayer? And why not? I want SC2 to by at least such variable and with at least such powerful editor than warcraft is and that including heroes as well.
the "Spiced up" heroes have no place in science fiction. starcraft heroes are just fine. i don't want my hero progressively getting stronger with "experience" and gaining new abilities and such over time, because it wouldn't be realistic. having heroes in melee will be bullshit.
 
Level 26
Joined
Mar 18, 2007
Messages
3,669
Having a hero gain experience would be realistic, but it would ruin the SC atmosphere.
No one gains that much power over that short a period of time just by killing things. it takes years and years to gain noticeable amounts of power, assuming he doesn't die by then. And even more, how do you expect to revive a hero? And "gain and upgrade abilities" through this experience? DotA or not, it still would be bullshit.
 
Level 8
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
313
No one gains that much power over that short a period of time just by killing things. it takes years and years to gain noticeable amounts of power,

Yes...that is true. But in RTS games, everything is compressed....for example, in WC3, you can build a Town Hall in five minutes.....but in real life, building a Town hall would take weeks or months.

Ok, I think we've beaten this subject to death..someone close it....unless anyone has anything else to say.....
 
Level 26
Joined
Mar 18, 2007
Messages
3,669
Yes...that is true. But in RTS games, everything is compressed....for example, in WC3, you can build a Town Hall in five minutes.....but in real life, building a Town hall would take weeks or months.

Ok, I think we've beaten this subject to death..someone close it....unless anyone has anything else to say.....
In the past, battles have taken mostly a day or less. Heroes don't get that strong over such a short period of time.
 
Level 13
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
1,313
Just as long as they get devastating and usefull abilities and are considerably stronger than normal units would be fine. That an having the heroes have individual graphics (not like in SC where they had a hero for EVERY UNIT thats just lame)

EDIT: some kind of item + inventory system would be neat but not neccicary, too.

O btw: SKIRMISHES took like 1 day, BATTLES (which could mean any military conflict) can go on for a while, I'd say in a worst case scenario, a week tops and even then probably only in the past.

Im all with you on the no lvl up thing though makes sense plus having them cost alot of time and $ to revive would be nice too.
 
Level 34
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
5,367
I still think that commander units would be a fine addition. And I personally would not mind if Blizzard would spice up Starcraft,

And actually some battles lasted for days on end. WW2 island battles in the pacific could last an entire month 30,000 dead in the first few weeks, WW1 the entire war went on and no side gained sway for long on the lines of "no man's" land.
 
Level 8
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
313
Ok, just to get one thing clear, I DO NOT support heroes in Starcraft.

But with that said, I have to disagree with what Massive Attack said. Starcraft is not more complex, it is less complex, with much less tactical stuff. But then, that's why we like it so much......
 
Level 26
Joined
Mar 18, 2007
Messages
3,669
Ok, just to get one thing clear, I DO NOT support heroes in Starcraft.

But with that said, I have to disagree with what Massive Attack said. Starcraft is not more complex, it is less complex, with much less tactical stuff. But then, that's why we like it so much......
Perhaps he should have quoted it.
Artanis said:
Stop poking me!
What do I look like, an Orc?
This is not Warcraft in Space!
It's much more sophisticated!
I know it's not 3D!
 
Level 34
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
5,367
I for one while not supporting "heroes" in the sense of RPG like as warcraft heroes are.

I do support "special commander units" like the ones found in Dawn of War and other such titles.

Where they do not level up, instead recieve armour and weaponry upgrades and mabye a special ability or two from a buiding in a tech tree. Nor do they own the battle field, Instead supporting troops and leading charges and what not.
 
Level 26
Joined
Mar 18, 2007
Messages
3,669
I wouldn't like it. It still would concentrate the army, contrary to the original sc involving the utilization of units as not protecting a single powerful unit, but using multiple semi powerful units backed up by other units as well.
 
Level 8
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
313
I think that we can all agree that heroes in Starcraft would be complete bullshit. The original Sc was great game, and the new SC will be the same as teh old, with a few new units and revamped graphics. But this is a very good thing; what we are going to get is an updated, revived SC with a better editor.
 
Level 13
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
1,313
heroes in Dawn of War were not very powerful, for one , they costed more than a standard infantry squad, and 2nd, if you had about 3-4 squads of infantry you could easily kill them off if they do not have friends tagging along.

In DoW heroes are more like dudes who help boost the effectiveness of ones army, not the 1 man lvluping killing machines we've all become used to.

Hey why are we argueing about this anyway blizzard said "NO HEROES IN SC2" Why should we thing theyre lying about that ?
 
Level 40
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
10,532
But with that said, I have to disagree with what Massive Attack said. Starcraft is not more complex, it is less complex, with much less tactical stuff. But then, that's why we like it so much......
I'd say starcraft is more complex in the terms of options, what you can control and do, etc, but less focused. Thus, certain aspects of warcraft are probably much more complex, but as a whole, starcraft almost definately is.

However, as for heroes, seriously... there's already enough strong units in starcraft without some guy being able to shoot out a shockwave of death that kills your entire army in 1 hit x.x. No unit should be that powerful.

The mothership is SERIOUSLY pushing it already, in my opinion.
 
Level 11
Joined
Aug 15, 2004
Messages
710
I think blizzard's Karune aldready confirmed there would be no heroes in melee, though there would be heroes in the campaign. As to wether they would be the same as it is in wc3 or not, we dont really know. We will probably be able to use heroes for custom maps but no heroes in melee.
 
Level 26
Joined
Mar 18, 2007
Messages
3,669
As stated before Dawn of war styled commander would be a nice addition, Warcraft heroes would destroy the game.
I still think units that you can only make one of (like the mothership and heroes) should not be a part of starcraft and wouldn't exactly be realistic to begin with.
 
Level 7
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
326
i agree with Elenai and Massive on DoW heros but they could only work in games where you have squads not units which wouldnt be cool cause the SC units look like they were plaugerized out of 40k anyhow (i still love SC)
 
Level 13
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
1,313
Um no.

Make the hero cost 1000 minerals and make the marines cost 50. If blizzard knows what "balance" means, the greater force of the marines would kill the lone hero.

The main thing about those squads was that they had a large advantage of numbers, this could still be illustrated in SC2 providing build times were low enough.
 
Level 2
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7
I bet you they let you make heroes in the editor for custom maps (because they know that whats keeping wc3 alive is mapmaking, and they know a lot of it stems from heroes...)
 
Level 26
Joined
Mar 18, 2007
Messages
3,669
The gameplay is meant to be fast paced, with large unit battles, as with original sc. There should not be the same micromanagement that wc3 had. Adding the hero system into the editor was a good choice, though.
 
Level 34
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
5,367
As long as I can at least have atleast some sort of leader unit ingame (perhaps have an archon lead a charge of Zealots supported by vehicles) then I am fine with that.

I just like to have that unit that I can connect my "PUSH THE ATTACK AND RAISE THEM TO THE GROUND" sort of feeling of command to.

And as long as I can make heroes in the editor for custom games, then I am also fine.

However I dont want to just have a bunch of "vanilla" units that arent so special fighting around, thats soooo boring in my opinion, not at all as exciting as having a leader running infront of a horde of units NOW THAT IS EPIC.
 
Level 26
Joined
Mar 18, 2007
Messages
3,669
well then starcraft isn't exactly a game for you. starcraft is about large armies, not small concentrations. leaders have no place anywhere but campaigns and customs.
 
Level 26
Joined
Mar 18, 2007
Messages
3,669
The title of Commander in Chief has only been used twice in the history of the US. Real leaders lead from behind the front lines, and in the case of RTS's, you ARE the leader.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top