• 🏆 Texturing Contest #33 is OPEN! Contestants must re-texture a SD unit model found in-game (Warcraft 3 Classic), recreating the unit into a peaceful NPC version. 🔗Click here to enter!
  • 🏆 Hive's 6th HD Modeling Contest: Mechanical is now open! Design and model a mechanical creature, mechanized animal, a futuristic robotic being, or anything else your imagination can tinker with! 📅 Submissions close on June 30, 2024. Don't miss this opportunity to let your creativity shine! Enter now and show us your mechanical masterpiece! 🔗 Click here to enter!

Smaller Units = Realistic?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Level 11
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
1,047
Ok, so my project is Scourging of Azeroth. The link to the map in the map development section is in my link. My goal with it is to make it as fun as possible and realistic (as all people want with their maps) as i can.

Now, my map is similar to Dark Ages of Warcraft and Azeroth Wars. What I noticed is that often times one race captures an entire continent with ease. What I noticed from this is that defending the continent can be quite simple, due to the fact that the units can travel over the long distances quite quickly.

However, in my map, I was thinking of making all of the units much smaller and having slower movement speed. That way, you will not be focused on creating a huge empire super fast, but you will focus on protecting your borders, slowly expanding through strategic battles, creating alliances, etc.


If this seems like a good idea, I will ask a quick question about it:
What values would I alter to accomadate for the movement speed and size change because if all units are slower and smaller, a unit with 700 range for example would destroy melee units.
So, I figured that these would be the values to alter:
Scaling Value, Selection Scale, Speed Base and Collision Size


So, all in all, is this a good idea?? If so, are there any other values I would have to change? If you want more clarification on what i am asking, just post. Thank you!
 
Level 10
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Messages
655
I was just toying with in the editor, here is what I got.

You would have to change the:
(In parentheses are the ones I did for a footman)
-projectile points (45)
-shadows (35,35,,80,80)
-animation of run speed (200)
-selection scale (.80)
-model scale (.70)
-attack range (60)
-collision size (22)
-speed base (160)
-Maybe more.


Some of those might not be needed, but to make it look clean, you should do them all. This would be a lot of tedious work, but I think it would be a very good idea. I just did it with some footman and played around on a default map, and it seems to be a nice change. If you did do this, I would highly recommend messing with the stats of to units to compensate. The current state of the units are based around a fast run speed. If that was balanced out well enough, I think it would be a wonderful addition. (Making the buildings a little bigger wouldn't hurt either, a lot of people do that one.)

As for the range of the arrows, well, you can shoot an arrow a REALLY far way, and there was a reason archers were very deadly. Just make them squishy as hell, and a long "reload" time, and I think it would be fine. Same thing with the Rifleman, just make their attack speed like 4 or 5, and have a very wide damage range, and even a crit. Stuff like that would help. I would also recommend adding a dodge + crit to every unit in the game.

Just some of my suggestions, good idea!
 
Level 11
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
1,047
thank you. i like your response a lot and after i finish with the races, i will work on that. trust me, i have done a lot of tedious work in my map (i am the only one working on it, haha) so i am used to that, no biggy. you are right about the archers. if i do do that, it could help with balancing issues.
This helped a lot to confirm my idea that it would work well. Thanks!!
Any other people have comments?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top