Warcraft: A New Dawn - Heroes

[TaShadan]

they are not remaking wc3 so they dont need to stick to the old hero model

 

[Knife]

@66Dragon6
Heroes were a shot in the dark in Warcraft 3. People liked them. In WCII, heroes had simply been units with slight bonuses. Even if the team simply made heroes to be unit with a new model, slightly increased damage and armor, and a fancy name, as long as it had the environment, the feel of Warcraft, it'd still be Warcraft.
I personally voted for option II, if you are using the champion system. The three together would probably equal a hero in strength if done correctly, and than it isn't a one man army - it's just a good match up. It'd leave a bit of micro in the game, while still remaining a feel that you aren't a group of one-man armies.

 

[Grey Nightmare]

^This

We're trying to find a healthy balance between micro and macro, we like heroes, but we don't want the game to revolve around them. We just want it so if you wish not to use a hero, you won't be at any pbvious disadvantage for doing so. In warcraft 3 you couldn't win without them.

 

[lonelighters]

while I go with option 1 I'd like to throw in a possible idea, keep in mind I have no experience in modding and I don't know how difficult it will be or how much work is involved I don't even know if it's possible but the idea is a modification onto the champion system.

I was thinking of making the increase in power smaller, but each possible unit can have one champion and that champion is automatically assigned to the unit with the highest kill count. The champion has quite a few bonuses, and it might encourage people to use a more diverse army.

Another idea is to make it so that the kill count's matter and in that case, at certain points units gain better bonuses, so at 5 kill's the unit gains 10 health and a percentage of attack speed, etc. something like that. and with better bonuses the higher the kill count, you could make it at mark points, so 5 kills,10 kills,20 kills,30 kills something like that.

The units involved in the above idea's cannot be resurrected however.

 

[TaShadan]

This system was used in Armies of Exigo but i dont know if it was good.

 

[Knife]

@Lonelighters,
Although I do love the system of ranks, I don't think it'd be viable in a normal play situation. Seeing as you're already at a disadvantage if you lose an early fight (they have surviving units, you don't), it would be adding insult to injury if those units also got better. It would allow for quick snowballing early game, and late game people would become rather annoyed when someone walked up and oneshoted their champion, as they would then have to farm some sort of enemy until they were able to have another champion of the same power level.

 

[lonelighters]

@Knife,
Well in the first of my options champions always exist if there is even one of those units on the field, you'd have to make it so that if two units have the same kill counts the unit that came first would get it. and so while it forces a diverse army the death of a champion doesn't matter since another would be promoted to take it's place, and the champion doesn't have a leveling system so farming is not required.

In the second of my options I do agree you would gain advantage if you survive but logically the units that survive are more experienced. plus the advantage can be almost useless in a full battle unless its really high if you want, you could make it so that all gaining a kill count level gains you is a 2% accuracy boost, useless on its own. but really high kill counts could make it so that they have more bonuses (health would come last after damage and accuracy bonuses)

While the advantage to the player that survives still exists at early game you could make it so that the difference is negligible. Also the first option could require an upgrade, that would prevent early champion rushes.

 

[Knife]

@lonelighters,
I see. I may have misunderstood.

For the champions, are they just units with slightly increased stats, or do you plan on having them have different abilities? In my opinion, it'd be better to have them be build by their self instead of being units that just appear when they have the highest kill score. If they are just the units that have the highest kill score, it'd be a hassle to kill them because the moment one died, another would just become stronger for it.

For the second of your options, I just don't agree with it. It's basically giving every unit the leveling system heroes get in WC3, and taking away the abilities that go with it. Sure, it'd be negligible at first, but it'd begin to stack up. The boosts would cause your three soldiers, when fighting three of their soldiers (if they had all killed 5 units, and the enemies hadn't), your soldiers would be guaranteed to win because of the slight bonuses - and than they'd be even further strengthened. It'd continue to stack like that, because if the bonuses were so negligible that they didn't actually increase your strength past that of the same unit, they have very little purpose for being here.

 

[lonelighters]

@Knife,
I don't know if that's really a problem since it works both ways but if it is a problem maybe upgrading a unit to a champion requires resources, time, and the terms still apply? (one per unit, highest kill count). The champion would get increased stats though you could make them have an aura that is useful to their type of units, (eg. long range archer provides aura that increases range and accuracy) and maybe if time allows a small visual change so as to allow distinction? both points could be discussed later though.

For my second idea I guess that such an act would imbalance the game.

 

[Knife]

@lonelighters,
Yeah, I think the first of those ideas could work if it was done like that, although at that point I don't think it really needs the highest kill count.

 

[Deleted member 212788]

From what I've read I can't really see a huge difference between champions and New "weaker" heroes. If you think about it, in warcraft 3 it's not how strong are the heroes but how they are used. When most people think of a hero, they imagine he is level 10+ but at the start, they are much more vulnerable. Instead of making them weaker, make the bonuses they receive per level smaller, e.g. If an agility-based hero receives 2.2 agility in Warcraft 3, it should receive around 1.6 and lower here. Also, I very much agree that macro is for starcraft 2. I'm not really interested in making a big army and throwing it against another one. It's just not as dynamic as warcraft 3 where you need to constantly prevent you enemy from gaining experience while at the same time leveling up yourself. Also, another way of balancing it reducing heroes' AoE spells' damage. This way they won't be "OP", although I'm not so fond of the idea of a "mighty commander" having to run away from 2-3 "puny" footmen/grunts etc.

 

[Grey Nightmare]

I concede your view and will draw attention to your argument but whatever we do, general strength will be nerfed ALONGSIDE any stat acquisition nerfing, or so it currently seems...

Currently this poll is agonizingly even, everyone has very good points, for both sides.

 

[Deleted member 212788]

Yes, at this point there's not telling which side will win. I'd also like to mention something, which you have already seen, probably; in SC2 the pathing is way better thus making the AoE for spells shorter would solve some power issues. Also, I would be very interested to see a third resource be added e.g. - bring back oil or add magical essence(needed for supporting spell-casting units?). I really hope this project gets completed

 

[Elfansoer]

Well, in my opinion the champion thing was good, that is served as "right-arm" of the leader (yeah, Hero the Leader)
Have you ever play W3 campaigns? I think the champion thing is more like "Naisha" (single more powerful huntress) or "Captain" (single more powerful footman), they aren't heroes, but strong enough... Just like Footman lv. 2! (or, lv 1.62 to be precise)

Um, as for melee, i'd rather choose op.1, because this is a "sequel" of Warcraft, so at least we want to re-show the "traditions" of Warcraft (there must be one, if you play W2 and W3, you can find it. Just like another franchise [well, this is a franchise!])

Personally, I think a Hero is "a leader" (well, you've mentioned it above), or "an actor" (yeah, they done cool things, such as abilities). So they are just a unit, which can gain experience, and using powerful abilities.
A RTS is strategy, so it's sounds like (or, in this case, written like) "How do you use the Hero?", not "How to beat opponents with the Hero?"

Well, that's my opinion (and mine too!), and no offence, peace... (or please defence, cease...)

 

[Brambleclaw]

Wc3 seems to have pretty decent balance. So i don't see the point of changing it. Besides Heroes are what breathed life into the whole franchise. Do i really need to cite all the many thousands of custom maps created for Wc3 which are based all around the hero system.

Also to those who say "Heroes are op" "They make me cry" "I WANNA USE UNITS IN STRATEGY"

...... If you don't like it go and play Sc2 ._.
Wc3 is different in Sc2 by game play.
Wc3- Micro on units and hero - Very difficult since the scale is so minute
Sc2- Macro macro -- SPAM the F**** of units with variation and there is no counter. I think i heard it as something like the "Ball of death"
The only real way of breaking it up was an equally large ball of death using crowd breakers etc.
I don't really call that strategy. That kind of strategy should be reserved for games like Supreme Commander where you actually have reliable and decent ways to get rid of 99999 units on 1 spot.


The balance issue for AOE and stuff on heroes is that "In SC2 You can Macro your units" instead of a limit of 12 at a time. This causes people to go "oh goody" and start charging their whole army into death by AOE, instead of splitting them into groups like in Wc3, then microing them into battle. Heroes were designed to scale into late game, and if used correctly to decide the fight/Considering armies were so small.

You had heroes to give buffs and heals and to dmg depending on the hero. Also to kill other heroes.
It just adds another part of the game. It doesn't devolve it.

Also the fact people will rush heroes and start harassing adds to this strategy even more. Since now you have the option for trying to create duress for the enemies.

Command and conquer generals/Zero hour is a horrible reference to try and take balance from. The last time i remember that game evolved around spam expo spam nukes and rape the enemy. Or when nukes were lesser involved spam vehicles get your special unit. Rape enemy armies while sending special unit into back of base and taking out everything you could. ._.
Not to mention how OP the crowd breakers were pretty much insta killing every unit in Xhundred AOE



"You don't want to make the game revolve around heroes" "If people don't want to have a hero- That okay too"

"Because obviously for those who are incapable to use a hero effectively "We must babysit them like noobs"
I wonder what Dota2 Would be like if we babysit the new guys.

Without heroes there will be "no creeping - The whole anthology and world of strategy based around creeping anti creeping"
"Fights will no longer have any real micro into them. It will be like Risk micro on SS. You simply pull unit re-enter cast spell. Pull unit Re-enter cast spell. In a Monotonousness circle for the next 5 minutes.

Or it will become like Sc2 which i have already mentioned. "Micro non existent"

Wc3 Wc2 Wc1 all had huge micro. Wc1/2 the most due to the "1 unit at a time selection limitation". I would assume that is a game feature in design considering at the same time TA had been released which could not get any more spammier although it might of just been a limitation.

While Wc3 had 12 units making micro slightly easier and bringing a better macro management for units. It brought the Micro macro balance. Heroes added to this by creating more features in game play. There are literally pages and pages and pages on heroes and how to counter heroes. It is a core feature.

Also "You can't win the game without heroes fighting against heroes"
"Tower rush"?
"Use that extra food to get a Tauren implace of the hero"
"Replace the Tauren with some Druid of talon and perma cyclone that hero for the battle length"
"Replace the DOT for some Necromancers to spam rape with skeletons"
"Replace the Necromancers with some Raiders--"Perma esnare"
"Replace the Raiders with some Knights + healers" "Micro rape"
"Replace the Knights+Healers with some Wyrms or Chimeras "More rape"
Replace with Giants -- Mass taunt pull the hero into your army "Insta death"


??????????????????????None of this was considered.

 

[Grey Nightmare]

Of course it was considered, we just haven't made a final decision yet.
I couldn't agree more with the Warcraft is "Micro" and Starcraft is "Macro" and believe me, we're not trying to make this into the Fantasy equivalent of Starcraft.

 

[Knife]

I thought what breathed life into WC3 was Bliz--- Nevermind, I don't want to be that much of an ass.

Command and conquer generals/Zero hour is a horrible reference to try and take balance from. The last time i remember that game evolved around spam expo spam nukes and rape the enemy. Or when nukes were lesser involved spam vehicles get your special unit. Rape enemy armies while sending special unit into back of base and taking out everything you could. ._.

Kinda sounds like heroes to me, if ya replace nukes with ultimates, vechiles with peasants, and back-of-their-base with.. everything in three leagues.

It takes much longer to get a Tauren then it does a hero. Rushing a Tauren will not cause that Tauren to scale like a hero does. Thus, a hero will kill that Tairem the majority of the time: at the same time, any Orcish player could simply get a Tauren Cheiftan instead of rushing for a simple tauren.

Creeping can definitely still work; make all units able to use items, increase the monetary gains from creeps a lot and such. Even without experience, they can become small risk-or-reward pockets around the map, to get you gold+get your champions items to counter the enemy champion who counters your champion, or get items that counter the counter to the enemy that you oh-so-cleverly used on your champion that is countered by the enemy's champion.

Giving every unit an activatable effect could ensure that this is micro and not macro; perhaps make Pillage for Grunts a short term buff that increases attack speed, causes you to STEAL, not gain, gold on hit, but highly reduces damage; give Footmen a Shield Wall, decreasing movement and attack speed masssively, say, 75% but giving boosted armor and heavy splash reduction for every other footmen within 250 units, causing clumps of footmen to be highly armored; units in the footmen blob could also gain armor bonuses, causing you to gain bonuses from correctly positioning your champion in the circle of footmen; or something.

 

[Deleted member 212788]

@Knife:
You do realise that when you are talking about the champions you are describing warcraft 3 heroes but without the level system, right? Also, making creeps give -50 gold will make them only valuable in the start. The footman ball sounds similar to the "death ball". And if all units can use items, then what do you suggest, every creep drops 2-3 items and after a battle the first one to get to the battlefield takes all the items or make units revivable?

 

[Brambleclaw]

Knife your idea's sound horribly unbalanced. Stealing gold. HUGE ARMOUR BONUSES?

........
Which takes longer- Rushing a Tauren or leveling a hero to 10. The fact that heroes are not really that useful in comparison to units till level 6 where they shine must at least tell you that its end phase. By level 6 you should have tech3 and could of unlocked all the counters you need.

........
C&C was not balanced at all and if you are gonna compare "Special units" to heroes then fine. C&C special units were horribly balanced they were 100% useless against a decent enemy. Just Radar around base * insta death *

C&C is just a Super weapon fest or Army fest rush. You really should not keep on trying t compare it.

Also "You can still have creeping" "Yes for items for units" "More opness?

"Nukes with ultimates" You do know that 1 Nuke in C&C will kill A whole army or half a strong building or many weak buildings"

"I havn't seen any ultimate do such damage. "Centuar/POTM ultimates are easily countered with silence same with Firelords and Seers.
You can counter Wardens by aiming the 1000 hp summon. You can counter DK by dispel i believe same goes for Vampire hero's
You can counter MK by just aiming. Same with Demon hunter. Tauren Chieftan yeh he revives not that much of a biggy. Pretty much only ultimate in game actually have much of an effect and you can just dodge kill aim or run from them or silence. Dispel Pit lord ulti.

"Emphasis on the usefulness of a dispel. All races have dispel units and most Creep shops do to"

xO

You can counter, Blood elf by aiming egg. Archmagi ult isn't that much of a "WoW" While Paladin ulti is only 12 units again not much of a "WoW" factor. At best they give slight edges, but still can be countered. Nerubian aim him. Lich aim silence him.

 

[TaShadan]

sc:bw had much more micro than sc2

 

[Deleted member 212788]

It was more because of the engine rather than the lack of hero units

 

[BwForka]

Wc3 style afc warcraft is more micro oriented game

 

[simone]

i use the option 1 i love the warcraft and i dont want to change it ...

 

[Grey Nightmare]

Seems we're swaying back to traditional, thanks for all the votes and feedback so far everyone!

 

[Teelo]

they are not remaking wc3 so they dont need to stick to the old hero model

Why? Stick to what works until you have it fully functional port, and then branch out with your custom styles. If you go with a custom style, you're going to have so much more to do before anyone can see your work.

 

[Kazedor]

The first option is definitely the way to go. Heroes are important, not just to the classic story-like feel of Warcraft, but also to the personalization of units by the player. When my hero dies, I want to feel like I lost someone irreplaceable. When I kill my opponent's hero, I want to think that he's hopelessly crippled and halfway in the grave.

A good balance to a hero's power would be to include additional upgrades to regular units' abilities, thereby giving them the gumption to stand against a hero class.
For example, in a map I made in college where I thought to "expand" the Frozen Throne gameplay for my dorm mates, I allowed Humans to upgrade their "Forged Swords" abilities to level 6. With this and other similar upgrades for the four races, Heroes could be leveled up to 25, without seeming overpowered until the late teen levels.

Altering the conditions under which a hero can be summoned is also a good idea as it puts further emphasis on the value( and encourages further regard to the frailty) of a hero. Adding mechanics that increase a hero's downtime, delay its availability or increases its cost all shift focus to the player's general military body. I believe these are more viable alternatives than nerfing heroes, as they maintain that RTS feel while retaining our most beloved aspect of TFT.

 

[TaShadan]

Wc3 seems to have pretty decent balance. So i don't see the point of changing it. Besides Heroes are what breathed life into the whole franchise. Do i really need to cite all the many thousands of custom maps created for Wc3 which are based all around the hero system.

Also to those who say "Heroes are op" "They make me cry" "I WANNA USE UNITS IN STRATEGY"

...... If you don't like it go and play Sc2 ._.
Wc3 is different in Sc2 by game play.
Wc3- Micro on units and hero - Very difficult since the scale is so minute
Sc2- Macro macro -- SPAM the F**** of units with variation and there is no counter. I think i heard it as something like the "Ball of death"
The only real way of breaking it up was an equally large ball of death using crowd breakers etc.
I don't really call that strategy. That kind of strategy should be reserved for games like Supreme Commander where you actually have reliable and decent ways to get rid of 99999 units on 1 spot.


The balance issue for AOE and stuff on heroes is that "In SC2 You can Macro your units" instead of a limit of 12 at a time. This causes people to go "oh goody" and start charging their whole army into death by AOE, instead of splitting them into groups like in Wc3, then microing them into battle. Heroes were designed to scale into late game, and if used correctly to decide the fight/Considering armies were so small.

You had heroes to give buffs and heals and to dmg depending on the hero. Also to kill other heroes.
It just adds another part of the game. It doesn't devolve it.

Also the fact people will rush heroes and start harassing adds to this strategy even more. Since now you have the option for trying to create duress for the enemies.

Command and conquer generals/Zero hour is a horrible reference to try and take balance from. The last time i remember that game evolved around spam expo spam nukes and rape the enemy. Or when nukes were lesser involved spam vehicles get your special unit. Rape enemy armies while sending special unit into back of base and taking out everything you could. ._.
Not to mention how OP the crowd breakers were pretty much insta killing every unit in Xhundred AOE



"You don't want to make the game revolve around heroes" "If people don't want to have a hero- That okay too"

"Because obviously for those who are incapable to use a hero effectively "We must babysit them like noobs"
I wonder what Dota2 Would be like if we babysit the new guys.

Without heroes there will be "no creeping - The whole anthology and world of strategy based around creeping anti creeping"
"Fights will no longer have any real micro into them. It will be like Risk micro on SS. You simply pull unit re-enter cast spell. Pull unit Re-enter cast spell. In a Monotonousness circle for the next 5 minutes.

Or it will become like Sc2 which i have already mentioned. "Micro non existent"

Wc3 Wc2 Wc1 all had huge micro. Wc1/2 the most due to the "1 unit at a time selection limitation". I would assume that is a game feature in design considering at the same time TA had been released which could not get any more spammier although it might of just been a limitation.

While Wc3 had 12 units making micro slightly easier and bringing a better macro management for units. It brought the Micro macro balance. Heroes added to this by creating more features in game play. There are literally pages and pages and pages on heroes and how to counter heroes. It is a core feature.

Also "You can't win the game without heroes fighting against heroes"
"Tower rush"?
"Use that extra food to get a Tauren implace of the hero"
"Replace the Tauren with some Druid of talon and perma cyclone that hero for the battle length"
"Replace the DOT for some Necromancers to spam rape with skeletons"
"Replace the Necromancers with some Raiders--"Perma esnare"
"Replace the Raiders with some Knights + healers" "Micro rape"
"Replace the Knights+Healers with some Wyrms or Chimeras "More rape"
Replace with Giants -- Mass taunt pull the hero into your army "Insta death"


??????????????????????None of this was considered.

SC:bw had more micro than wc1 and wc2. Also wc1 and wc2 had no heroes. (dont get me wrong i loved wc1 and wc2)