Should SC II have Heros? or maybe something different. [Archive]

Draix

07-30-2004, 5:20 AM

I'm sure everyone here has played Warcraft 3, so you know that they have heros and all that bs. The question is, shoud SC2 have heros as well? I say no, its cool for Warcraft 3 but not for SC, i have a totally different idea, why not let all units get a sort of "battle experience" like lets say you have a marine with 5 kills, that marine would gain maybe 1-2 damage and maybe 1 armor and perhaps some more HP? This would make it much more important too save units that have seen more action, it would add a whole new aspect too the game without making it a Warcraft 3 in space. Or maybe something more extreme? Maybe a unit can reach a "Hero" class when it gets enough kills, one of those two i think would be tight.

So what do you think? :cool:

Akuma

07-30-2004, 6:47 AM

Definetely not. WCIII put too much focus on Heroes; so much so that it seemed like Diablo II on Azeroth. Heroes were a major drain on resources and sucked a lot of the strategy out of the game by being necessary wherever the fighting was going on. (Seriously, I MADE a WCIII Diablo II map; the system felt ridiculously the same.)

Beef

07-30-2004, 8:02 AM

Sometime when I'm playing Starcraft, I wish you could get heroes somehow. Mabye not producing them and definitley bringing them back to life except mabye the Zerg or Protoss.

tFighterPilot

07-30-2004, 9:49 AM

No heroes please. They just end up being ub3r buffed and can't be killed. That's not very realistic.

Kopaka

07-30-2004, 3:43 PM

Actually, maybe. Some of them could get killed, or Retire, or whatever.

Original_JaminGrit

08-05-2004, 1:45 AM

I really like the battle experience idea. I've always wanted to pick out on marine out of a group and make it speacial somehow. Giving a regular unit hero-status would be fun.

Tenebrae

08-05-2004, 4:04 AM

In my eyes I would love hero's in SCII as long as they didn't have the ability to pick up items that beefed them up of gave them new abilities. That is the only thing that I felt made the Hero's cheep. They could get an item to give them the mind control ability, attack stronger, almost impossible to kill, ect...

I say add Hero's that lv and get new abilities and such BUT keep the items out of SCII...

Topace

08-06-2004, 3:40 PM

I think having heros in SCII is perposterous. The experience is kind of cool but there are way too many ways to minipulate that idea. The melee games would become very cheap. Though they might be nice, the overall gaming experience I feel would not benefit from heroes. I bet you can guess my vote.

Kopaka

08-06-2004, 3:49 PM

You could also have veterans, who can give you advice in the battlefield.

Cross_Fire

08-11-2004, 3:24 PM

SC II should have heros, but not like WC III's heros. They should be left the way they were in SC. I didnt like the leveling up idea that they did in WCIII.

I also think they should be left for the single player, no heros in multyplayer.

Sodertalje

08-11-2004, 3:38 PM

No heroes, but a ranking/battle experince system would be cool
EDIT: Terran should have rankings, and protoss battleexperince. Zerg should'nt have it.

Case_in_point

08-11-2004, 4:49 PM

They're probably going to include them anyway. Starcraft was much more about micro-ing then the earlier warcrafts, so heroes will most likely be in Starcraft 2. If you don't like them, you can always make a map where there are no heroes, so it won't change things that much except in the single player campaigns.

Kopaka

08-11-2004, 4:52 PM

No heroes, but a ranking/battle experince system would be cool
EDIT: Terran should have rankings, and protoss battleexperince. Zerg should'nt have it. Yeah, they should do that, sorta like Command an Conquer.

Krossbow

10-21-2004, 11:26 AM

I think as opposed to hero units, you should be able to create your own avatar unit that would appear 30-60 min into multiplayer. this would be cool, and add a little bit off individuality to the games, as people could recognize each character as a person. no experience though, the heros in WC3 sucked.

they could have something like the create a skater mode in tony hawk, where after you design your character, you get a set amount of points to purchase stats, range, and spells. this would be cool, as while guy A might decide he might just want to create a ultralisk type unit with beefed up stats and no spells (torrasque II? ROAAARRRRRR!!!!!!), while Gal B might decide to make a ghost with low stats, but high energy, and the maelstrom, lockdown, and psionic storm attack. this way, while guy A's avatar is much better at destroying weak units like marines and zerglings, Gal B's would be much better at taking out large units, like ultralisks, BCs, and carriers, not to mention guy A's avatar.

also, you should not be able to ressurect them, so you would feel a need to protect them as well, like a queen in chess.

Spartan-II

10-21-2004, 9:36 PM

Avtually you can get queens back in chess.. And I like the battle experience thing. Something like once a unit gets 20 kills it becomes a veteran unit with about 10-15 more hp and 2-4 more attack.

Krossbow

10-22-2004, 11:35 AM

Avtually you can get queens back in chess
I know that, but it is still unbelievably hard to do.

And I like the battle experience thing. Something like once a unit gets 20 kills it becomes a veteran unit with about 10-15 more hp and 2-4 more attack.
though that sounds good, I have to dissagree. that would put the zerg at a huge dissadvantage since very few of their units ever live that long (unlike toss archons and terran tanks or rines)

Spartan-II

10-24-2004, 10:01 PM

There is also a veteran cap and zerg are about MASSES not single powerful units. Also there should be heroes but it shouldnt be hero based like wc3

Krossbow

10-25-2004, 10:57 AM

Dark_Viper

10-25-2004, 4:45 PM

I'm simply saying, it'd be unfair to have a race that can't really access a starcraft feature like the others; it'd be like giving a race no cloaking units and stating that they were all about the frontal assault (though I have to admit, the zergs did get screwed on the cloaking end...):concern:

The Zerg equivalant to Cloak is Burrow.. even though you cannot move.. it does not take energy and you can gain back heath safely....

Krossbow

10-25-2004, 5:17 PM

yes, but the only zerg unit that can attack and stay cloaked is the lurker, and

that means it can't move. while the DT is permanently cloaked, and has a

wicked attack, and wraiths can shread air units.

deathwing_1986

10-25-2004, 7:56 PM

Every race has these advantages and disadvantages. Protoss only have permantly cloaked units (I count the arbiter's field as permanent) , terran have cloakable units, while zerg have a sort of stationary cloak. It wouldn't be as good a game if every race had a powerful cloakable attacking unit. It would start to revert the game back tp warcraft 2 with every race having an equivalent unit in another race.

Ragnarox

10-25-2004, 9:09 PM

BogoJoker

10-25-2004, 10:51 PM

Intresting ragnarox.

I like your idea a lot. Imagine a siege tank that can see its actual range!! Or a marine constantly on stimpacks. A zealot/goon with more armor. And maybe a hydralisk that burrows and becomes a lurker!!!!!

Ooo these sound like real sweet ideas. Too bad I couldnt come up with too many toss ideas. Maybe reavers that dont have to build scarbs! Vultures that use energy for mines. Devourers that deal double acid spores or something... I keep going on and on :)

Ragnarox

10-26-2004, 1:02 AM

I like your idea a lot. Imagine a siege tank that can see its actual range!! Or a marine constantly on stimpacks. A zealot/goon with more armor. And maybe a hydralisk that burrows and becomes a lurker!!!!!

Ooo these sound like real sweet ideas. Too bad I couldnt come up with too many toss ideas. Maybe reavers that dont have to build scarbs! Vultures that use energy for mines. Devourers that deal double acid spores or something... I keep going on and on

Hey I like those ideas. Hmmm...I esspecially like the one where a seige tank can acctually SEE ITS RANGE!

Hmmm...permanently cloaked Wraiths perhaps?
Carriers don't need to build interceptors? They auto regenerate free perhaps?

Original_JaminGrit

10-26-2004, 8:55 PM

Maybe this is one of those cases where things should be made simple as possible; anyone who wants it differently can create their own UMS campaign based on their rules.

Battle Experience sounded good to me at first, but I'm changing sides. Heroes should work the same way that they do in SC/BW, with no level-ups or item collecting. If the SC2 map editor provided some tool to create your own heroes based on existing units and heroes, then you could probably implement your own sort of level-up system. That would be fun in some multiplayer games, but for the campaign and melee maps, just keep it simple with regular heroes.

Mindslaver

10-31-2004, 8:29 AM

Hmmmm...I think that heros have to be created through kills. Once a unit has achived enough kills that unit begins to be decorated (or enhanced for Zerg) and will earn a small bit of improvement in all of their basic stats (i.e. Hit Points, Attack power). Then, when an incredible amount of kills has been achived, the unit becomes Legendary and is then classified as a Hero/ine and get a large boost to their basic stats.
Yes, I totally agree with this statement. Heroes should be trained, not created in a building. If you can have a marine have 50 kills, then it deserves heroship. It should also learn a specific spell that normal versions of that unit cannot.

Joszer

10-31-2004, 12:49 PM

I think that instead of Heros, a race should have specific abilities or something like that, that or like your regular guys get more edxperience for everyguy they kill thus making them slightly buffer. I think that would be way better. Personally i hate Warcraft 3.

Basan

11-04-2004, 2:23 PM

Stick 2 the SC system... That's my opinion. :smirk:
Altought the experience bit is interesting, provided it's only appliable in the game campaigns / UMS maps.

Lain

11-07-2004, 6:45 PM

A hero System would be interesting. But not like Warcraft 3. Warcarft 3 is based soley around heros. Without one its harder than the devil to win. I was thinking maybe instead of just supply Depots to give you moe peple. You need a commander for certain amount of Military units. 12 marines=Raynor Marine. Or Battle XP sounds cool you actually ad a marine get 5 kills now it has 2 more attack than the newer marines or something. A hero system would be awsome but nothing like Warcraft 3's.

Warcrfat III's Hero System = Sick Joke!

Dr_Inferno

11-17-2004, 3:28 PM

Bleh, as long as they don't take away inventory, I'll be happy.

Original_JaminGrit

11-18-2004, 4:52 PM

Ha, I just thought that it would be crazy to give normal units inventory. I wonder what it would be like...

VYTOCRAFT

12-03-2004, 10:23 AM

Heroes Must Be But Only In Single Player!

Heroes Only In Single Player!!

Keisuke-kun

12-03-2004, 4:46 PM

NO STUPID SPELLS> Maybe yeh archons or DA and Templatr and ghosts butr not marines. Aybe like thay get weapons upgrade but not spells. at least spells in the sense of the word. Throwing a grenade is fine.

HellspawnDragon

12-06-2004, 2:17 PM

We should have a setting where the units become "veterans" as they progress in kills. They should have a slight armor/attack/health bonus, but are only slightly stronger than the average unit. They should be only certain units that can become veterans, such as marines, wraiths, maybe even ghosts. Zerg should have something like advanced breeds. Protoss, well, should have veteran units in the same fashion as Terran

Spartan-II

12-07-2004, 12:21 AM

I think it would be cool if you could select one ehro unit and ONLY one in multiplayer.. Like the gantrithor (Higher tech before hero = higher tech hero of course v.v) But of course it would have to be balanced out, and it should b x-pensive

CorvusCorax

12-13-2004, 10:35 PM

I like the idea of an avatar-like "hero." I can't really say if this would work, nor do I whole-heartedly support heros in SCII, but if you had one type of unit, design it how you like, skin color, size, horns, wings, whatever. As long as it is unique, and this creature could change depending on what race you use, or you could make one for each race. This avatar would not, under any circumstances, use items. I hated that about WC3, and I thought it really took a lot of strategy out of the game.
Your avatar could have a few abilities, based loosely on how you design it, ( I liked the auras in WC3. This makes it more of a leader that raises morale and whatnot.) The hero should have only two or three spells that are no more powerful than the regular spell casters, because I think Starcraft is a game of balance, and this is where I disagree with myself and think that there should not be any heros, but then again, if every one has one that has specific weaknesses, it should all work out. I don't think the hero should be a battle-winner, it should only look cool and give an little extra edge to your fighters. I also like the idea that heros could lower prices but a little bit, or lower your psi/supply/control count.
The most important part: How do these guys get stronger? I think your hero should start out weak. Like, zergling or marine weak, so that they cannot really dominate an early game, and as the avatar gets kills, it gets stronger, maybe a little more life and damage for every ten kills. On second thought, I don't think you should start with one of these guys, so there is still early game strategy. It would be hard to determin how and when they come into play though. I'll leave that to Blizzard.
Overall, I don't think that heros should play as large a role as they did in WC3. I like the idea, because you can say, "damn, my Masterlisk or Chaos Templar looks freakin' sweet." Basically, I would like them as a custom-built unit that runs around and does do some damage, but not enough on it's own to make other units obsolete and upset the delicate balance that is Starcraft. It really is a delicate subject though. Heros could make or break SCII. It all goes both ways. Like a bisexual (for you Family Guy fans.)

Spartan-II

12-14-2004, 8:08 PM

LOL I LOVE THAT EPISODE!
On other news.. I agree with you Totally corvax and btw has anyone said Welcome to Warboards?
If they havent WELCOME TO WARBOARDS

Modred

12-20-2004, 10:06 PM

Hmm, it seems that most people are ignoring the few who have said, "keep it the way it was in SC." Personally, I think that would be best.

Why? In the original games, heros were much as they were in War2, units with higher HP, higher damage, and some significane to the plot (much moreso in SC than in War2). You couldn't build them, and if they died, they were dead (and you lost the mission, since they aren't supposed to die in the storyline). Perhaps giving them inventories would be nice, but that is the only feature I see worth implementing. As far as what items they could use, it would be best to limit the power of such items to prevent the heros from becoming too important.

That is what was nice about SC. You controlled the key players in the plot, but they still depended largely on the military forces that you used to assist them. Without the support of the standard units, the heros were doomed to utter failure. That is how I think SC II should be.

Lain

12-22-2004, 1:58 PM

Something like the command and conquer hero veteran system.

FoRgOtTeNoNE

01-06-2005, 10:24 PM

I got an idea, what if not only we had new units but we improved on our exsisting units. For example you can upgrade the units weaponry like the armor. the marine could start with the gauss rifle then improve to a shotgun and then a bazooka. The tanks and goliaths could transform into other units.

The zealots psi blades could upgrade to double psi blades or something.
I think blizzard should give protoss some kinda good seige unit (beside the reaver, it suxs) like the zerg have the gaurdian and the terran have a seige tank. One ability that would be cool for the arbiter(since it is a time machine) it could take a part of land and restore it back like 5 min to whatever it looked like. Oh and i think that carriers and reavers should be able to auto build their units.

Sorry I dont have anything for the zerg yet.

Well what do you think, be honest. If you think it suxs just tell me.

CorvusCorax

01-08-2005, 2:11 AM

So, basically, you want to defecate on the fine balance of starcraft? I don't think Blizzard thought, "Hey, lets make the reaver suck." The reaver deals massive damage. If it was like a siege tank, or if the protoss had another unit like the siege tank, the game would be a push-over for the protoss. Especially if the arbiter could restore minerals. That would be ridiculous. Why don't you go play fastest map v.128474 if you want unlimited resources. I can tell you favor protoss. Besides, that isn't so much as an idea for a hero as for the game in general. Starcraft is beautiful because of the balance. I think heros should exist to look cool a lot and help out a little.

theblueknight

01-09-2005, 3:05 PM

take a look at the level one units. (marines, lings, and zealots) they are NOT balanced. the marine is the worst, then ling and then the zealot. so i dont see ur balance bro.

CorvusCorax

02-26-2005, 2:51 AM

take a look at the level one units. (marines, lings, and zealots) they are NOT balanced. the marine is the worst, then ling and then the zealot. so i dont see ur balance bro.

Yeah, they're balanced, dipshit. You need to look beyond hp and damage. Zerglings are built by the pair (that means two of them), and are cheap, fast, and produced quickly. They can sure as hell overwhelm a few zealots or marines. Zealots, on the other hand, are hard-hitters with pretty good hp/damage, but they're pretty expensive (relatively), and the build time is longer than marines and zerglings. Plus, they're slow as fuck without the speed upgrade. Finally, marines are somewhat in the middle, but they have range (which means they can hit shit from farther away), and can hit air, which can fuck up scouting overlords in the early game, which sucks.
So basically, you're an idiot. balanced does not necessarily mean equal. They all have different strengths and weaknesses. They're BALANCED. Besides, Starcraft obviously doesn't revolve around the zergling, marine, or the protoss, as you may or may not know, there are more than three units.

p.s.- don't call me bro, ass-hat.

swordsman

02-26-2005, 12:12 PM

I be concise. Keep it the same to best perserve the balance that made SC & BW great!!!!

Dwimmerlaik

02-26-2005, 8:47 PM

I say either keep it the same, or make it that very slowly (after a crap lot of kills) a unit slowly gets better, but not better stats, 'cause how the hell in the middle of a fight would your gun get better, but decrease the chances the oponent hit's you by a couple percent, and/or increase the chances you'll hit the enemy by a couple percent (that's what better expirience does for real life...), though it shouldn't lower the percent chance that a marine dodges lasers from something like a Battlecruiser... For something like a Battlecruiser (something slow that can't possibly hope to dodge something) they should get the higher % chance of hitting enemy thing + the ability to either auto repair (i.e. pretty much all the slow ships are freakin' huge capitol ships), though you'd have to pay, or for toss they could get faster regenerating sheilds. Also capitol ships could get an ability to be minerly upgraded (after like 50 kills).
The final thing is that zerg could get a rage ability, any ideas for that?

Finally if you think I'm an idiot, and should shut the fuck up, please tell me to do so.

Spartan-II

02-27-2005, 3:22 AM

p.s.- don't call me bro, ass-hat.*Gives Corvus a cookie for calling him an ass-hat. ^_^ :cookie: *

As I said before, go veteran system!

DeltaForce

02-27-2005, 4:57 PM

absolutely no invintory. also, stick to teh SC/BW style, it worked, made u actually care about ur units, and made it more mircoing. errr, this idea kinda came to me, but it kinda only works for terran, maybe toss

u only make standard infinity, like, well, marines. then, on the command box/area, there will be an upgrade icon which will give u choice of bat, zooka, heavy infinty, and such. of course, it would take time money to upgrade, but to me, sounds pretty cool. but, ghost and medics will stay standard. toss could be like.. plasma rifle lots like in the upcoming SC:Ghost

i donno, juss a thought

Dwimmerlaik

02-28-2005, 5:51 PM

With any kind of machine the upgrades could be: slab on extra armer, and upgrade your gun (either replace it, or replace old crappy outdated parts).
With zerg they could kind of hybernate, or mutate and transform a little (scales could harden scythes could sharpen, etc...)...

Overall I like my idea where the infantry could: (very slowly) gain a better chance of dodging the shots from a non-computerized aiming gun, and have a slightly better chance of hitting the enemy, as they gain kills, [though it would take quite a bit of kills (more than the average marine would get) to actually receive a noticable effect] the best...

pathfinder74

02-28-2005, 6:33 PM

battle xp would be a great new twist, i mean, think of the mariens in bunkers, they'd be like raynor's marine in no time

CorvusCorax

02-28-2005, 11:18 PM

I like the idea of different attributes for different units as they gain experience. One thing i don't like is the marine idea of upgrading to a bazooka or whatever. Marines are marines, and that is the image of a space marine. They have an assault rifle. If you want a bazooka, build a siege tank or something. Besides, if we are going along the lines of battle "experience," getting a different gun isn't experience. Better accuracy, faster speed, better 'dodging,' all that stuff is what I think shoulg go along with experience. I suppose I just don't like the trading of weapons, on any unit. What the fuck is a zealot if he has some stupid energy cannon. He's not a goddamn zealot. Dragoons shoot shit. Zealots tear stuff apart with blades. I would be really against any major unit changes. If you want a zealot to have a gun, make a totally new unit, call it a cool protoss name like 'Range Templar' or some shit like that, and leave the zealot alone.