Warcraft 4 Ideas

[Dreadnought[dA]]

Here we name ideas of what they could include in Warcraft 4.

1) Multiplayer campaign like skirmishes.
2) Ship Battles (I LOVED THIS ABOUT WARCRAFT 2)
3) Demon race? Chaos?

The multiplayer skirmishes could be like missions in the campaign. Perhaps like a take and hold like the final UD mission. Night elves massive attacking Orcs as they try to get Chaos upgrade. Stuff like that.

Basically more variation in ladder play other than just different maps. Different objectives, set races. Could have special units on each map as well that you only use for that map (like Chaos orcs).

I think it would be absolutely awesome. Definitely hard to balance though since each map would play differently.

 

[I)eadnerzhul]

How about better graphics, a powerful physics engine, epic and enormous battles, higher damage/less health, giving each one of Warcraft's playable races race-specific races (only humans for "humans", only dwarfs for "dwarfs", etc.) so that the units don't look so out of place? Damn, I just got way ahead of myself, didn't I?

The only reason I enjoyed WCIII so much is because of the Campaign. I just wanted to see how the story would unfold- I thought that the RTS gameplay itself was focused more on small groups of units (like, you know... 12) fighting eachother, therefore not being as epic as the Campaign's story (or cutscenes), and not really putting a "War" in "Warcraft". In the past, battles were fought with hundreds upon thousands of units, not ten or twelve or what have you. Now I know that asking the new engine this supposed "WCIV" to include the capability to have thousands of units fighting is ridiculous, but atleast letting you control 25-30 troops would be a nice change, and fit more with the theme that the whole game is based on: war. If they do this, Warcraft IV will be golden.

Regardless if my dream Warcraft will come or not, I'll still buy the game- but I'll only play the game like it was meant to be played (such as in ladders and stuff, not custom games) if I get my wishes.

 

[MGCǂSpectre]

I remind again - the very idea of an RTS game is the melee, then the custom crap. For the melee, the less units make the game like a chess in a way, where few mistakes may make you lose. This was the very nice thing, outplaying your opponent in skill and in losing less. So players must be able to micro with units and that happens when the units are fewer. This is a competitive gaming and thus cannot be made 1000 units vs 1000 units. campaigns can have thousands, tha'ts the storyline but not when you compete... I really like that an average melee game is 15 mins, most of them 12-13], longest 40 minutes. In starcraft a normal game is 30 minutes... What, you will play 3 hours 1 melee game just to get your 500 units??

 

[I)eadnerzhul]

This was the very nice thing, outplaying your opponent in skill and in losing less. So players must be able to micro with units and that happens when the units are fewer.

In Age of Empires 2, you could control about 30 units at a time. But it still requires skill to play- charging with cavalry while your archers rain arrows on enemy troops' heads, and coming around the back with a force of infantry/siege units. If you just blindly rush your troops, you're bound to fail.

This is a competitive gaming and thus cannot be made 1000 units vs 1000 units. campaigns can have thousands, tha'ts the storyline but not when you compete...

I was giving an example. I don't want to have 1000 units, but I don't want to have 12 or 24 either.

I really like that an average melee game is 15 mins, most of them 12-13], longest 40 minutes. In starcraft a normal game is 30 minutes...

Competitive doesn't mean playing a game for 5 minutes and game over.
"Competition is a combat between individuals, groups, nations, animals, etc. for territory, a niche, or allocation of resources. It arises whenever two or more parties strive for a goal which cannot be shared." Source

What, you will play 3 hours 1 melee game just to get your 500 units??

Like I said before, not 500 troops, but not 12 or 24 or whatever.

 

[syltman]

A powerfull WE

 

[Dr Super Good]

For WC4 I would like to see multiple zoom levels supported.
There is far view, which renders stuff a little better than WC3 but has a huge view area.
Then there is normal WC3 style view, which adds a lot more detail like simple grass and non linear terrain.
Finally there is emersive mode, which allows near FPS / RPG level of detail but with small vew angle, for cinimatics or rooms.

Ofcourse those are just detail levels, the actual view distance is cotrolable. The main thing is that it would support this at real time with minimal delay during switching, so that in a campaign you could suddenly be in a huge epic battle seeing 100s of units, but when you enter a cave nearby in a highly detailed cave environment.

A dream? Not really as WC4 will be around 2016+ on DX11+ atleast, so by then god knows how cool stuff can look. I however definatly want to see graphic detail levels become more easilly modable, so the most coolest of things could be done, even if they are as extreem as being able to apply a full screen toonshader.

 

[syltman]

7 years until Wc4...

I doubt I'll be intrested in playing it when I'm that old.

 

[Avex]

7 years until Wc4...

I doubt I'll be intrested in playing it when I'm that old.

We'll be dead in 2012 so, WEEEE X_X

 

[Bontrager]

Camera System (credit to Dr.SuperGood)
-Three levels of camera height. 1) Far 2) Medium (Normal) 3) RPG (A WoW-like camera to zoom in on your heroes)

Graphics
3D can stay but it needs a level of 'brutal' realism to it.
-Magic needs to be stronger and chaotic. If a night elf casts Starfall I want to see a array of blue and white comets showering down on the battlefield leaving craters. If earthquake is cast I want to see the battlefield crack and tremor leaving permanent marks.
-The battlefield should be more involved. Things like fire should leave scorched earth.
-A more powerful engine, but nothing to steep. Physics would be nice also. I would love to see a steam tank truck through some type of castle wall

Combat
-More units. Not at a Total War scale but something along the lines of AOE.
-New units. More variety.
-Better defenses. A fantasy game with no castles? I would love to have some maps that allow some type of true castle siege. Even if it is not build able in regular melee it should not be neglected.

Heroes
-More customization. I hate having the same generic paladins fighting. Maybe as you advance online in rank you can add things to your heroes such as armor. It would only be for eye candy and no stat benefit. Maybe allowing your own created symbol or color blend for your army.
-More spells, more levels, and more item slots for the campaign. It was pathetic having to juggle six slots. And the +stat spell was a poor excuse to not add anymore spells after a certain level.

Online
-Blizzard is always raising the bar. I want a better Battle net. More players per lobby. Larger maps.

Campaign
-Along with the campaign Blizzard should also throw in some bonus RPG type campaigns as we saw in TFT with the RPG camera system and better hero features.
-Add more replay value with a optional Turn based map. Divide all of Azeroth into different regions where players can fight CPU for the regions with his chosen faction. Would be interesting and something to do when offline.

Of course this is all smoke getting blown into the wind. Oh well.

 

[Ghost765]

squads

 

[Gilles]

squads

I really don't feel it fits with wc3. The style suits a unit by unit build.

 

[I)eadnerzhul]

I really don't feel it fits with wc3. The style suits a unit by unit build.

If Warcraft was focused more on largescale warfare instead of smallscale skirmishes (meaning maybe 32 units at most), then it would "feel like it fits with Warcraft 3".

 

[Gilles]

And I don't think they should do that. Wc3 is about small tough armies, where you need to use abilities and whatnot. It's an RPG RTS, and it should stay that way.

Go Mark of Chaos or Battle for Middle Earth for large scale stuff.

 

[I)eadnerzhul]

Like I've said before, Warcraft (from a story perspective, anyways) is about what it's title suggests: WAR. MASSIVE WAR! Do you remember the introduction video for Reign of Chaos? THAT'S the kind of battles Warcraft is about! Not small specialized groups of 12 fighting eachother. There's a difference between a war and a skirmish.

 

[Gilles]

Meh, I like the "skirmish" style. Wc3 is pretty unique.

 

[I)eadnerzhul]

But it doesn't match up with the story, and it isn't as cool watching a few guys fight eachother as it is watching armies charge at one another.

 

[Tyranid]

I'd be ok with Squads in Warcraft 3. However I think they would be better as smaller squads rather than the huge 50-man formations that are in BFME. something like 5-10 would be ok with me (as long as each of the units functions as an "independent" unit like in Dawn of War).

 

[Gilles]

But it doesn't match up with the story, and it isn't as cool watching a few guys fight eachother as it is watching armies charge at one another.

I've found that I prefer games with smaller armies. DoW2 > DoW, never liked Age of Empires or BFME, and WC3 > SC imo.

 

[I)eadnerzhul]

DoW2 > DoW

I don't know what Dawn of War 2 you were playing, but in my Dawn of War, my small squad of space marines fights against hundreds upon hundreds of Tyranids and Orks.

 

[Gilles]

Hundreds? You sure you know how to count there?
I usually have about two squads of Warriors, two squads of gaunts, a couple zones, and some ravaners. That's 3+3+8+8+1+1+3+3=30. Not even 1/3 of 100. Throw in some swarmers and that's still not half of a hundred. Can you even hit 100 units with pure gaunts? Let alone hundreds upon hundreds?

Actually you could probably get more units in wc3 than you can in DoW2. DoW2 is definitely a skirmish game.

 

[I)eadnerzhul]

Hundreds? You sure you know how to count there?
I usually have about two squads of Warriors, two squads of gaunts, a couple zones, and some ravaners. That's 3+3+8+8+1+1+3+3=30. Not even 1/3 of 100. Throw in some swarmers and that's still not half of a hundred. Can you even hit 100 units with pure gaunts? Let alone hundreds upon hundreds?

Actually you could probably get more units in wc3 than you can in DoW2. DoW2 is definitely a skirmish game.

Did you ever try playing the campaign? At all?

 

[Gilles]

No, didn't like it.

 

[I)eadnerzhul]

Then you missed out. After the first few missions, your squad of Space Marines end up taking on hundreds of Tyranids.

 

[Arowanna]

camera system (credit to dr.supergood)
-three levels of camera height. 1) far 2) medium (normal) 3) rpg (a wow-like camera to zoom in on your heroes)

graphics
3d can stay but it needs a level of 'brutal' realism to it.
-magic needs to be stronger and chaotic. If a night elf casts starfall i want to see a array of blue and white comets showering down on the battlefield leaving craters. If earthquake is cast i want to see the battlefield crack and tremor leaving permanent marks.
-the battlefield should be more involved. Things like fire should leave scorched earth.
-a more powerful engine, but nothing to steep. Physics would be nice also. I would love to see a steam tank truck through some type of castle wall

combat
-more units. Not at a total war scale but something along the lines of aoe.
-new units. More variety.
-better defenses. A fantasy game with no castles? I would love to have some maps that allow some type of true castle siege. Even if it is not build able in regular melee it should not be neglected.

heroes
-more customization. I hate having the same generic paladins fighting. Maybe as you advance online in rank you can add things to your heroes such as armor. It would only be for eye candy and no stat benefit. Maybe allowing your own created symbol or color blend for your army.
-more spells, more levels, and more item slots for the campaign. It was pathetic having to juggle six slots. And the +stat spell was a poor excuse to not add anymore spells after a certain level.

online
-blizzard is always raising the bar. I want a better battle net. More players per lobby. Larger maps.

campaign
-along with the campaign blizzard should also throw in some bonus rpg type campaigns as we saw in tft with the rpg camera system and better hero features.
-add more replay value with a optional turn based map. Divide all of azeroth into different regions where players can fight cpu for the regions with his chosen faction. Would be interesting and something to do when offline.

Of course this is all smoke getting blown into the wind. Oh well.

Online:
-I like this, but the Melee Online gaming owns, so there is nothing I would like to change there, expect your "Hero" idea.
I would like to customize all the heroes, so they somehow looks more "personal" to you account.
This should be limited tho, Night Elves are Night Elves, Humans are Humans.

-The Chat.
A large window, which's always to be found in the lobby!
(OMFG! You cant whisp this player because he/she is in the News List BLA BLA).
It can be opened in-game (but the orginal chat should still be there).
You can change the size of everything in the chat
window and shuffle it around as you want it to be.
Nothing dissapeares from the chat before you log-out.

Short version: A better chat-system...

Campaign:
-500 hours of campaign and I'll be happy for the rest of my life.

-And I would also love to see more "Side Campaigns"
about the other small tribes in Azeroth, like my favorites, Centaurs.
Why not revive the WC and WC2 Campagins? Would be awesome...

Add-on/Extra:
-For us, map-makers and WC lover,
thier should be LOADS of extra things in the WE, a full set-up of buildings and units for Taurens, Centaurs,
Tuskarrs, Elves (High and Blood), Dranaies (or how the fuck its spelled),
Gnolls, Trolls (many factions!), the diffrent Orcs, Dwarfs and Gnomes, Ogres, Nagas and more!

-More Videos...
(I would love to see a full animated film about the WC Lore.. Geek? NO!)

 

[HFR]

Can someone create all this until 2016?

 

[brayden430]

2016 uh i know blizzard some time takes a while but dident they same starcraft2 and warcraft 4 would use the same engine so units models all have to be made and they can just update wc3 models more vertex's so those thinking direct x 11 i think it will probably be direct x 9+ sense thats what starcraft is and i sure hope warcraft dosent end up being only direct x 10+ excursively cause i will never give up my XP until windows 7 removes all stuff that came with vista

 

[Dreadnought[dA]]

DoW2 is a disaster. Terrible balance, half the units are worthless, the game has more bugs than an ant hill and it uses GFWL.

It did sell good though, but I've totally stopped playing it after 4 weeks. Back to Warcraft 3 and waiting for Starcraft 2...

 

[I)eadnerzhul]

DoW2 is a disaster.

Ha. Ha. Ha. He. He. He. Hoo. Hoo. Hoo... And I thought MY jokes were bad.

Terrible balance,

I highly disagree. I think the balance is perfect, but then again, I tend to play the campaign mostly.

half the units are worthless,

I beg to differ. Specific units are useful in different situations and for different strategies.

the game has more bugs than an ant hill and it uses GFWL.

I've never encountered any bugs, and big deal. Games for Windows Live works fine, for me at least.

 

[Dreadnought[dA]]

Ha. Ha. Ha. He. He. He. Hoo. Hoo. Hoo... And I thought MY jokes were bad. I highly disagree. I think the balance is perfect, but then again, I tend to play the campaign mostly. I beg to differ. Specific units are useful in different situations and for different strategies. I've never encountered any bugs, and big deal. Games for Windows Live works fine, for me at least.

Orks spam Stick Bommas till they go ALL THE WAY to Tier 3. Generator harass you till they can get there. Storm Boyz are beyond worthless, Tank Bustas can't do their job 1/2 as good as a Tac squad, Lootas are just LOL bad, Deff Dreads are terribad compared to other walkers. Once they get Nobs it's GG. Looted Tanks also rape. Shoota Boyz, Wartrukks, are only useful for truesight.

Space Marines spam Tacs until they get a Razorback. Then they continue to spam Tacs. Force Commander w/ Storm Hammer & Teleporter is the norm.
So lets see, they make 2 different units... Great... great design.

Eldar are probably the best designed race, but they are the weakest! Brightlance is... mediocre, Rangers are really bad, and Fire Prisms are almost as bad as Predators.

If I have to even begin to explain Tyranids then you are a complete noob with no concept of balance.

http://www.gamereplays.org/community/Will_this_game_die_before_the_patch_hitsl-t499026.html

Go here and learn some. Then come back an argument.

Also, GFWL + Steam = WTF you can't be serious these are ok?

 

[I)eadnerzhul]

Against the computer, I find the game is fairly balanced. I hardly ever play online since I hardly ever play DoW2. I'm starting to get back into it, though.

Why anyone would spam Tactical Squads as Space Marines I don't understand... being a Space Marine player (when I play my computer skirmishes) I find it a totally useless strategy, easily counterable by melee-specialists like an Assault Marine Squad, or even a Force Commander.

 

[ShadowFlare]

I would love to see more defence like stuff. Castles sieges like said above.

Also btw. If any of you knew in the next patch you can now host games up to 8mb and the dl speed will be alot faster. What do you guys think of that?

Also I hope for bigger lobbies too. Like 25ppl? lol too much? ok maybe 20 or even 18

 

[bboy-tiger-]

I also like small armies, wc3 is special by that. You have SC for large armies .
Wc3 is more like RPG RTS, 1st wc3 was more like huge army. TFT is small army like, RPG RTS game .

 

[Kurohata]

I do somehow like the idea of hundreds of units in a warcraft universe setting (200 units works wonderfully in Age of Empires II multiplayer games, but there are no unit abilities in that game, so it's really just macromanaging), but i allso have to agree that then it wouldn't really be Warcraft.

RTSes with lots of units can be really fun and strategically challenging as long as the units are relativetly simple. If they let you build walls, and strong bases, removes most non-passive-spells and give you the ability to get allmost endless resources (like for instance never letting the gold mines empty, so the battle for gold mines wil only be a battle for higher continuous income), the game would propably be verry fun and challenging.

But the price would be that it would definitively loose most of the warcraftish feeling, and the games would also propably last for hours (a 3v3 multiplayer battle in Age of Empires II can easily take 3-4 hours if players get time to entrench themselves).

If they should ever make such a warcraft game, i think it would be better to make it a new version of older battles, alowing players to play in the age of warcraft II. this massive-unit-game would propably suck at new storytelling, which is part of why i love warcraft 3. but a "Wars of Warcraft"-game that would alow you to controll huge battles would definitively be fun.

i hope they make it (they propably won't though), but not as warcraft 4.

 

[punwisp]

Well They changed warcraft to micro managemage, and starcraft to well, the opposite, i doubt they'll change it, but noneless battles will be bigger.

7 years? I dont think that long to be honest. WoW is doing well, d3 and sc2 are coming up soon. wc4 was def on there next list, they even hinted many times that its likely next. So maybe 5-6 years, 7 would be at most.