Warcraft: A New Dawn - Heroes

[Turminator8]

We've come a long way in creating a sequel to the Warcraft 3 game, and we're at the stage now where we must decide how exactly heroes will play out in melee gameplay.

Just like how we wanted your idea on our lore, we want you all to help us determine how exactly heroes will play out in Warcraft: A New Dawn.

The Two Main Options:

1. Option 1: Warcraft 3 Styled
   
   The first option we can go with is to copy the style in which heroes played out in warcraft 3. This would mean that heroes would be very easy to get early in the game, they would be extremely powerful, and they would be absolutely necessary in order to win.
   
   Some of the advantages to this option would be:
   • It would bring that warcraft 3 feel into our mod, and remind people of the difference between Warcraft 3 and other RTS games.
   • It would allow developers to not be concerned as much with reducing the potency of spells, as heroes should and would be very very strong.
   
   Some disadvantages to this option would be:
   • It would force people to use heroes, so if you didn't care for the hero system as much, you're out of luck.
   • It would make our game entirely based around micro-gameplay. Like Warcraft III, other units would be relatively unimportant in the big picture. (some may not see this as a disadvantage)

1. Option 2: Limited Heroes
   
   This second option would include making heroes more of a choice, rather than a requirement. Heroes would either be considerably weaker, or they would be very expensive to invest in. The main goal with this idea is to make heroes still interesting, yet not a requirement. This would include changes like the first hero not being free, heroes would not have as many levels, but they would level up from creeps quicker, and having multiple heroes would be limited.
   
   Some of the advantages to this option would be:
   • This type of method would allow both players and developers to experiment in both using and skipping out on heroes. Some people may find they like the micro-intense gameplay while others don't.
   
   Some disadvantages to this option would be:
   • A large part of what made Warcraft III so unique and successful would be changed. Players may feel as if this mod really isn't warcraft anymore, and it would be de-evolving the game instead of progressing forward.

 

[Jumbo]

Certainly the 2nd option. The Campaign should have heroes in focus, but gameplay shouldn't be as dependent on them as it is in WC3. I'm all for more choices strategy-wise. Having 4 heroes, and the combinations they bring is ok but i'd rather have them toned down. This way you could add even more possibilities strategy-wise - it is a strategy game after all, not an RPG.

Hope it helps

 

[PROXY]

Both options are quite good, though, in the Warcraft universe, there always were big heroes, who made the final fights etc. who lead the armies and stuff. When someone decides to not use heroes, who it will look then for example, in a cinematic?
I mean, a footman won't scream at arthas main defense wall that he should come out, quite lame. For these things, heroes are needed. Certainly the first option.

 

[Turminator8]

Both options are quite good, though, in the Warcraft universe, there always were big heroes, who made the final fights etc. who lead the armies and stuff. When someone decides to not use heroes, who it will look then for example, in a cinematic?
I mean, a footman won't scream at arthas main defense wall that he should come out, quite lame. For these things, heroes are needed. Certainly the first option.

Melee Gameplay

 

[GhostThruster]

Option 2, make them considerably weaker. Would be good if you could counter them too with other units, otherwise they are just OP imba assfaces.

 

[w3.player]

I go for Option 1... in the end it's a sequel to the game so keeping some of it's basics isn't that of an bad idea... I like the Warcraft styled campaings and such... it mainly gives the player an RPG feel to the it, but also keeps the melee into it.

 

[Chucky]

One man army heroes suck big time...it ruins the strategy points like army positioning, macro-management...wtf Warcraft 3 sucked so bad at pvp melee gameplay...all the retards would pick one hero (the same always) then harass the hell out of other players...that's not rts in my opinion.

 

[w3.player]

I think the problem was that heroes were to strong... indeed that is a good point of view... Keeping the idea of a hero that is the main story character, but making him less powerful... somewhat nearer to the power of a unit but able to gain experience, therefore having a little advantage, would make things quite good and would still keep the Warcraft style into the game.

 

[Chucky]

I think they made them more powerfull so you could control them easily and not die after 3-5 hits like some units...I say keep them for campaigns and leave the melee settings without heroes...

 

[w3.player]

Even in RTS games like Command and Conquer you still have a certain unit you can make only one... and it's a bit more powerful... but still it's part of the story... that is what i meant.

 

[Edhel-dur]

The second option sounds more like a hybrid.

You either go the Wc3 style with small armies, and very micro intensive where Heroes are the most important unit...

or

You go the SC:BW style with larger armies, very macro intensive where Heroes do not exist at all. Remember Wc2 didn't had heroes either.

----

Anyway, you yourselves should try what is best. There is no better opinion than of someone who actually tested the theory. To be honest, at high end level, I don't like the Wc3 style where Heroes are the most important unit in an army. Because it's just so micro intensive, so maybe the second option is better. But really, maybe you guys should just try both types and see what's better.

 

[Grey Nightmare]

I agree wholeheartedly that trying both would be a great idea but since so many other gameplay elements and balancing will stem from heroes (if they are the core of the game) it'd require a vast amount of time to try both, still. Thanks for the feedback so far everyone, I think we're beginning to garner a good idea of where we need to head!

 

[Chucky]

I agree wholeheartedly that trying both would be a great idea but since so many other gameplay elements and balancing will stem from heroes (if they are the core of the game) it'd require a vast amount of time to try both, still. Thanks for the feedback so far everyone, I think we're beginning to garner a good idea of where we need to head!

Better stick to the second option. It has no relevance whatsoever if the game has heroes or not. Frankly heroes are stupid. You want strategy not RPG. Or at least like someone here said, if you're gonna add them don't make them essential to the game but more like optional. I personally always liked macro-management instead of micro-management. It's like in real war, not everyone survived, you sacrifice units for the sake of victory. In micro if one unit dies to your opponent you already have a disadvantage.

 

[GhostThruster]

Well, imo it would be great if you guys included the RPG element (which made Wc3 what it is) with heroes, but the only thing is, in Wc3 it was too heavily focused on them and they were often overpowered.
I disagree with Chucky; macro is for Starcraft and micro is for Warcraft. Realism is irrelevant. That is all.

 

[Chucky]

Well, imo it would be great if you guys included the RPG element (which made Wc3 what it is) with heroes, but the only thing is, in Wc3 it was too heavily focused on them and they were often overpowered.
I disagree with Chucky; macro is for Starcraft and micro is for Warcraft. Realism is irrelevant. That is all.

I did not say realism was relevant I was only making a bridge between the two...you're twisting my words. And it's either overpowered heroes or normal unit heroes and see how in the second case you'll hit your head on the table when your heroes die so quickly you can't even know what hit them. So that leaves us with the overpowered heroes option which still isn't good so remove that as well...Result: NO HEROES !

How about you remove heroes and add more units to the tech-trees ? More strategy, more options...With heroes it's all hack and slash.

 

[GhostThruster]

I did not say realism was relevant I was only making a bridge between the two...

/facepalm

you're twisting my words

...no I'm not

And it's either overpowered heroes or normal unit heroes and see how in the second case you'll hit your head on the table when your heroes die so quickly you can't even know what hit them. So that leaves us with the overpowered heroes option which still isn't good so remove that as well...Result: NO HEROES !

...no it's not. You're thinking that they must either include Wc3-designed heroes or no heroes. What I suggest is to include a unique designed hero mechanic, that can maintain balance and strategy all the while.

How about you remove heroes and add more units to the tech-trees ? More strategy, more options...With heroes it's all hack and slash.

Heroes actually do add lots of strategy, just a different kind of strategy and tactics compared to more 'standard' RTS games.

 

[w3.player]

Why would heroes die quickly? Think of SC for example... Zeratul and other heroes from the campaign are basically really close to units, in power comparison. Yet if you know how to play, you won't lose them... Making heroes a bit less powerful but keeping them as primary characters in the story might make the game just better.
And remember we are in Warcraft... i think if you keep the altar idea... a hero's death isn't that of a big problem since you can revive him.

 

[Chucky]

/facepalm

...no I'm not

...no it's not. You're thinking that they must either include Wc3-designed heroes or no heroes. What I suggest is to include a unique designed hero mechanic, that can maintain balance and strategy all the while.

Heroes actually do add lots of strategy, just a different kind of strategy and tactics compared to more 'standard' RTS games.

Are you really that much of an idiot to reply on with a facepalm ?

 

[GhostThruster]

Just like to point out making something relevant is making a bridge between the two.

Don't call me an idiot.

 

[Chucky]

Just like to point out making something relevant is making a bridge between the two.

Don't call me an idiot.

Well I wasn't calling you, I was asking you. And I was referring to "bridge" as a connection between the two. Not necessarily the same thing.

 

[Turminator8]

Well, imo it would be great if you guys included the RPG element (which made Wc3 what it is) with heroes, but the only thing is, in Wc3 it was too heavily focused on them and they were often overpowered.

Yea, that is what I was thinking of. Powerful heroes, just not as powerful upright as wc3. Perhaps, they could POTENTIALLY become as powerful as they were in wc3, but it would take longer and be more risky.

 

[GhostThruster]

@Chucky: FFS relevancy IS the connection between two objects/events etc. I don't even know why I talk to you.

@Turminator: I really think you should make them counterable as well, that would at least make sure they are optional and more balanced.

 

[Turminator8]

@Turminator: I really think you should make them counterable as well, that would at least make sure they are optional and more balanced.

The problem with making them "counterable" is that a hero is a big investment, even in Wc3. So, if they could be countered by units, which are easier to diversify, Heroes will be utterly useless.

Maybe, a hero could be slightly less effective against a certain type of unit, but counterable heroes probably isn't the answer.

 

[GhostThruster]

...then you could make the heroes...not a big investment (ie. make them weaker, cheaper, whatever)? You could also just make them counterable by one unit type.

 

[Turminator8]

...then you could make the heroes...not a big investment (ie. make them weaker, cheaper, whatever)? You could also just make them counterable by one unit type.

Well that's the whole question we're asking. Should we make Warcraft 3-like heroes? Or a new, weaker/not as powerful type?

Even if we made only one single unit counter each hero, the point is that it's easier to switch your unit production than to switch to an entirely new hero.

 

[w3.player]

As far as i see it... i say you keep heroes so that the story has main characters, make them weaker so they can be countered but not by one unit... but by 2-3 units at once. Make them so that the player doesn't base only on the hero but still uses it due to some special advantages like some auras only he has or something. Or create certain stages of the map in which only an ability of the hero may give access to continue, therefore making the story more hero-dependent but still keep him weaker.

 

[Turminator8]

As far as i see it... i say you keep heroes so that the story has main characters, make them weaker so they can be countered but not by one unit... but by 2-3 units at once. Make them so that the player doesn't base only on the hero but still uses it due to some special advantages like some auras only he has or something. Or create certain stages of the map in which only an ability of the hero may give access to continue, therefore making the story more hero-dependent but still keep him weaker.

What? We're talking about melee gameplay....

 

[GhostThruster]

Well that's the whole question we're asking. Should we make Warcraft 3-like heroes? Or a new, weaker/not as powerful type?

Even if we made only one single unit counter each hero, the point is that it's easier to switch your unit production than to switch to an entirely new hero.

Lol that's the same question I'm answering. 2nd option, but also with counters to add some strategic decision-making and balance.

I suppose you have a point, although I'm sure your team can think of a way to allow heroes to be countered, but not too easily.

 

[w3.player]

You said you are making a sequel... doesn't that mean you make a campaign? Of course with melee gamplay but still... if it's a series of maps that tie each other with a story then i'm still saying the same thing.

 

[Grey Nightmare]

Old Idea, similar to suggestions?

 

[Chucky]

F*** this...this is bogus. Heroes are not what made Warcraft III.

 

[Grey Nightmare]

Please keep your comments constructive.

 

[Edhel-dur]

What will the max supply be? Because the number of heroes should be direct proportionate to the max supply. If Wc3 had 200 supply max, than heroes wouldn't have been as powerful on the battlefield.

Also will there be items which drop off creeps? Because those just make the game more random and luck based.

 

[Turminator8]

What will the max supply be? Because the number of heroes should be direct proportionate to the max supply. If Wc3 had 200 supply max, than heroes wouldn't have been as powerful on the battlefield.

Also will there be items which drop off creeps? Because those just make the game more random and luck based.

The Max supply will be slightly higher, but around the same as Wc3. We want to keep that small unit count feel. As for items, there will be item drops off creeps and such, but we're changing it up as far as creep spawning goes. Throughout the game, you'll always be able to potentially get any item in the game. Also, items will be sellable to your item shop building, so there's potential to use a hero to kill creeps and sell extra items for more income, stuff like that.

You said you are making a sequel... doesn't that mean you make a campaign? Of course with melee gamplay but still... if it's a series of maps that tie each other with a story then i'm still saying the same thing.

This is melee discussion only. Heroes in the campaign will play out MUCH differently.

 

[w3.player]

Very well, my bad. Please accept my apologies.

Then i have to say that heroes should keep their wc3 style. They should be powerful than units, being a main asset, a bit dependable, but they should be made so that they can't do much alone against many units.

 

[GhostThruster]

@Grey Nightmare: Sounds good, though, I'm not sure if you should only allow two, since they've been nerfed already.

Will units be able to use items btw?

 

[Turminator8]

@Grey Nightmare: Sounds good, though, I'm not sure if you should only allow two, since they've been nerfed already.

Will units be able to use items btw?

To the first part of your response: We might make each hero more in depth, thus making a maximum of two heroes okay because each hero will have more to it.

As for the second part, yes.
We're going to remake the item system in our mod. Items will essentially be broken down into Two Major Categories: Heroic items and Regular items.

Regular Items:
Regular items include passive effects and minor stat bonuses. These items can be bought at the item shop, and you can find them off of creeps. We're looking into a way to make it easier to mass equip a certain unit type with the same item, or you can pimp out each unit individually with these items. Regular items are then broken down into three categories: Common, Uncommon, and Rare.

• Common: These items are very basic; usually just minor stat bonuses and can be worn by any unit.
  
• Uncommon: These items are a little more advance; include minor stat bonuses and some basic passive effects. These items can only be worn by tier 2/3 units, or tier 1 units after you've researched a certain upgrade (this may change).
  
• Rare: These items are the rarest regular items and can only be worn by tier 3 units, or tier 2 units after you've researched a certain upgrade (would be the same upgrade as mentioned before)

Heroic Items:
Heroic items are a little more interesting. They include the active ability items as well as auras. In addition, there will be certain requirements that may only fit certain hero types. Heroic items can only be worn by Heroes and Champions. Heroic items are only found by killing creeps/at some neutral buildings.

 

[GhostThruster]

I have a suggestion; using the Sc2 engine, would it be possible to show (and manipulate) the items in the overhead of a unit (near the HP bar) as well as its inventory, just for easier micromanagement? You could make their icons small enough and slightly transparent to not obstruct the player's view, and they would only appear when the cursor is over the unit.

Champions? What are these ...Champions... you speak of?

 

[Turminator8]

I have a suggestion; using the Sc2 engine, would it be possible to show (and manipulate) the items in the overhead of a unit (near the HP bar) as well as its inventory, just for easier micromanagement? You could make their icons small enough and slightly transparent to not obstruct the player's view, and they would only appear when the cursor is over the unit.

Champions? What are these ...Champions... you speak of?

I like that idea.

Champions are a new Sub-Hero unit we're adding. Basically, there's a new building (or we might fuse it into the hero building) that will allow you to upgrade one of your normal units to a champion. Basically, a champion has slightly improved stats and a unique aura buff. Each unit (except workers) can be turned into a champion and you can only have a maximum of 2 at a time. This was done so that we could give more ability/stat based items and make auras more of a choice/decision.

 

[Malygos10]

I think the first option is better since it's warcarft 3 theme and if it's changed it's not warcraft 3 you're playing anymore. It's like you're playing some kind of a hybrid RTS. If you don't like the melee in warcraft 3 go play something else.
Heroes might not be what made Warcraft 3 but they're a big part of it and warcraft 3 wouldn't be itself without them.

 

[Turminator8]

I think the first option is better since it's warcarft 3 theme and if it's changed it's not warcraft 3 you're playing anymore. It's like you're playing some kind of a hybrid RTS. If you don't like the melee in warcraft 3 go play something else.
Heroes might not be what made Warcraft 3 but they're a big part of it and warcraft 3 wouldn't be itself without them.

Well, to be fair this isn't Warcraft III. It's an unofficial squeal to the Warcraft III game. Warcraft II and Warcraft III were EXTREMELY different, so your argument doesn't really hold up for our situation. Still, many do agree somewhat with what you are saying: "It might not have that Warcraft feel without the powerful heroes that everyone's accustomed to in Wc3".

Thanks everyone for your input!

 

[w3.player]

To be honest... as long as you keep somewhat a big part of the Warcraft Lore into the maps... the gameplay doesn't matter because it will still have the Warcraft feel to it, trough it's units, terrain, heroes, etc.

 

[GhostThruster]

They're making a sequel, not a clone. I welcome any changes to the existing hero system.

 

[w3.player]

I said, "Warcraft Lore"... this refers to the type of races, units, etc... the fantastic content that appears in the game. It does not refer to the gameplay.

 

[GhostThruster]

And I wasn't talking to you.

 

[w3.player]

Sorry, my bad... but you should mention whom are you replying to unless your reply appears directly under the one you want to reply to.

 

[MogulKahn]

I am going to follow this !

 

[0neM4n4rmy]

why not make the heroes more of supportive rather than offensive? like how command & conquer generals' china hacker worked. and make only one hero can be present in the game. will that work?

 

[Grey Nightmare]

I think - currently - that's the kind of direction we're heading in, only it'll probably be two heroes per-player.

 

[66Dragon6]

You must go for Option 1 or else you are merely making Starcraft 2 with a pretty skins on all of the units. Warcraft 3 is about a complicated hero unit interaction that creates gameplay that allows for complex games that require you to consider many options when fighting in the middle of the battlefield rather than spamming expos and scouting to counter.