Should Heros be in Multi-Player?

[Coolness53]

Should they use heros as they use them in WCIII? I think they shouldn't but i want to hear your side of the story to see what you think. The reasons why I think they shouldn't are. Makes the game involve around the hero to make sure it is a high level. (Just like WCIII). Well tell me if you want it or not.

[Shinigami]

As I stated in another thread, WarCraft is on a much smaller scale than StarCraft. The lower supply costs for basic units and higher possible supply overall are testament to this. Taking this out the game for a moment and into reality, one or two people aren't often going to sway a battle by themselves as they would in small battles similar to the ones you would encounter in WarCraft. StarCraft is on a large enough level that individuality isn't important and that only a few heroes - for instance, Jim Raynor and Sarah Kerrigan - are ever recognized. It doesn't make any sense that I can see to add heroes to StarCraft.

[blkmage]

Nor would it make sense if they were implemented the same way in the SC universe.

What would altars be? How can heroes be revived? How would they gain new abilities?

[arcalite]

I haven't played Warcraft but I don't think Starcraft should have hero's in multiplayer. If they did I would guess once they died that well, they are out for the rest of the match.

[Battlecruiser]

NO WAY. never that will ruin the game. And anyway how do you get them? Is it already there? I think in multiplayer melee there should be no heros. Only in use map settings

[Fenix-MSG]

Ya i would have to go to with everyone else on this one, no heroes on melee in the multiplayer. I never like in one unit making much of a difference in RTS games, unless of course it takes some micro to do it. The heroes are also more story oriented. It just wouldnt feel right to have them on Melee maps.

[Battlecruiser]

Ya i would have to go to with everyone else on this one, no heroes on melee in the multiplayer. I never like in one unit making much of a difference in RTS games, unless of course it takes some micro to do it. The heroes are also more story oriented. It just wouldnt feel right to have them on Melee maps.

yeah. haha I sure can't imagine a hero in fastest possible.haha the newbs will probably mass the heroes.haha

[SSA_Ultimasheep]

plus how would you make a terran hero? give hime better equipment?

[RelinaIonna]

Yes melee wouldn't be the same with heroes. But what about another style of melee where everyone had one hero that acted as a personal incarnation. If the hero dies, your forces have lost their leader and you lose the game. All though for Zerg you might end up a Cerebrate hehe. So... well... I don't know. It might be interesting. The hero is would be no stronger than the amount of force backing it or something like that. Thats one of the few ways I see a hero in multiplayer, not really ment for melee though. So who knows it could be just be an option to give SC2 a new element of game play.

[MacG]

dont mean u shouldnt have General like units that put out auras that require 20+ food.

[RelinaIonna]

Just a leader unit, and if that leader unit dies then you yourself die. He's your personal incarnation, as to say he is you. Your physical manifestation in the game. The more games you win and the more guys you command the stronger your personal unit. He will grow and be with you in every one of those special type of games you play.

[BSTRhino]

I like to use the phrase, 'This is not WarCraft in space! It's much more sophisticated!'

Heroes are a WarCraft thing. Let's leave it as a WarCraft thing. I don't agre with complicating the game with special units that 'control' others or whatever it is.

[cpt.beefhart]

no thanks!! NEXT!!! it may be good to have a single strong unit at the very end of the tech-tree
help a slowing long game a new kick to finish it off...but

[Battlecruiser]

Just a leader unit, and if that leader unit dies then you yourself die. He's your personal incarnation, as to say he is you. Your physical manifestation in the game. The more games you win and the more guys you command the stronger your personal unit. He will grow and be with you in every one of those special type of games you play.



NO. JUST PLAIN NO. got it? the answer is NO

[Shinigami]

Just a leader unit, and if that leader unit dies then you yourself die. He's your personal incarnation, as to say he is you. Your physical manifestation in the game. The more games you win and the more guys you command the stronger your personal unit. He will grow and be with you in every one of those special type of games you play.
Until he's so powerful that the moment you enter a game with a player who just gained a Battle.net account and slaughter him instantaneously. Anything relating to experience in any way is a bad idea, and made worse so when it canbe carried across games.

[BSTRhino]

I'm glad you're all expressing yourself, but please, if you're going to say no then please tell us why or else you're just taking up space in the thread, right Shinigami?

[Valjean]

dont mean u shouldnt have General like units that put out auras that require 20+ food.
that sounds kinda like a weaker version of a hero. Unless these things are weakish, don't rise in level, and can be mass produced, okay then. =P

[RelinaIonna]

and the more guys you command the stronger your personal unitIts just like an optional feature for melee style games. And if you both start out with even forces, then your leaders would be even. Your leader would just learn new abilities through winning more games, but your stats are in relation to your personal force. With out enough manna the stronger spells couldn't be cast. Build up your tech tree to advance your leader. Plus you would want to customize your leaders. People who mass their zerglings would probably like a support leader who's main focus is longevity, so the lings live longer than unsupported ones. This is just an alternative to heroes is my main point.

[Coolness53]

Well I never really liked Heros in Warcraft III to much. I dont think they are going to put heros in SC. The reason is because you have way more units. Heros in SC would get slaughtered by 200 units. Now Warcraft 3 you can only build up to 90. Big difference. Another reason I didnt like it is because people just go out and about to level there hero. It seemed like a Diablo2 mixed in with WC. It really was lame in my opinon. I pretty sure there wont be a hero units in SCII. O one more thing how many air units do they have in WC. Now if they make heros they will bum rush to the hero and kill it. 75 Muta can do the trick :).

[Van.Hellsing]

I say HELL NO to being able to train/make heros like it war3.That was so lame.But I think there should be heros in the game for campaign AND to be used them in UMS maps to start off or spawn to give more varaity.but if the question is in melee i think that is pointless.But i do think they should have some special units that can give auras and stuff.

[Infernus]

Only on UMS maps.

When i got Warcraft 3 I didn;t even know what a heroe was, when playing online. I like focusin g on my army then just one hero.

[PhoenixNo13]

Starcraft Units can't be Hero. Because many units die in battle and normal units can't live long enought to be come Hero.

[Ulric]

As I have said in another thread about hero ideas, I think that heroes would mess up starcraft. They worked well in warcraft but i dont think they would work in this. So what my idea was not to have a hero but to have a button or a researchable skill that can make one unit a general, but for only certain types of units. The general gets a set of new researchable skills such as increased hit points, increased attack speed, increased armour etc. But so not to make it impossible to kill you must gather xp points in order to get the next type of upgrade. But the rate that the general can learn xp should be slow so as not to make it impossible to kill, but to make it stronger then a regular unit. And to make it more cool when he goes to the next level he should have a rank. E.g starts off as a lance corporal and then goes up to a corporal. (keep in mind that they are australian army ranks). I think this would make online play a little more interesting and fun :)

[PhoenixNo13]

That the best for Tank, Battle cruise or Carrier...but with low HP units like Marines or Zergling, that thing is bad, i thing so.

[marjano]

Very good thread on heros. I like all what have been written.

I think that Warcraft's idea is of maing things top down, so you gather gold! you get the hero first! if the hero dies the heros resurrects! Everything the (cumbersome) creeps, the (cumbersome) objects, the (cumbersome) upkeep, the (cumbersome) small number of units is though for the heros!
But, Starcraft could be bottom up. All units wining experience. And with some units being able to become commanders, or kings or queens (becoming "heros").
But, if you got some heros at the start of the game, what has written RelinaIonna is good enough for Starcraft "If the hero dies, your forces have lost their leader and you lose the game."

mariano

[TheWeebl]

How about if we had some hero system like in C&C? Like if a marine would get 100 kills his base armor would raise by one and attack by 2 and upgrades would count for 1 more. Get another 100 and it happens again. Once he gets to 255 kills, last level, he's at his strongest. That way, its not very unbalanced, corny, story oriented, tide shifting, and its all about microing to keep a couple dozen units alive to become progressively stronger until they can be sent in with others.

[singo]

name ANYONE who has got 100 kills with a single marine

[Fenix-MSG]

It just doesnt make any sense. It is such a fierce war that most of the soldiers wouldnt live long enough to make it to a 'hero' type status anyway. Then warcraft is based in a different time. They can be better with a sword or an axe or with magic. With a gun you can just be more accurate, well SC doesnt let any unit miss an attack. Maybe a supped up gun by a little, but the difference it has in WarCraft, your just crazy!! :argue:

[Sikawtic]

Heroes in SC... i think the only way it would be possible is too... naaa i hate the idea...

[PhoenixNo13]

Heroes in SC... i think the only way it would be possible is too... naaa i hate the idea...:mad:
YES, me too. What happen if many units called "HERO" walk around all day?
HERO = NORMAL ????????

[warmasterofoblivian]

Should they use heros as they use them in WCIII? I think they shouldn't but i want to hear your side of the story to see what you think. The reasons why I think they shouldn't are. Makes the game involve around the hero to make sure it is a high level. (Just like WCIII). Well tell me if you want it or not.

hello no heroes = sc1 sc2=heroes you crazy man you have to put it in multiplayer you idiot

name ANYONE who has got 100 kills with a single marine


i did once against the computer but i cheated power overwhelming took a long time though

Should they use heros as they use them in WCIII? I think they shouldn't but i want to hear your side of the story to see what you think. The reasons why I think they shouldn't are. Makes the game involve around the hero to make sure it is a high level. (Just like WCIII). Well tell me if you want it or not.
if you think heroes are stupid then put generals in it only the zerg got one it's called a overlord terran and protoss need one zerg cheats ai cheats damn ai