Heroes for SC2? Yes or no?
- Thread starter DB
- Start date
thegrim_reaper
Member!
in sc? if your not using staredit the answer is yes 
in wc i have no idea... i say that they should make MORE hero's in sc2 but not like sc hero's they should be like the sc bw heros except in campaign.. you should be able to revive hero's in campaign.. cuz i HATE losing a really hard mission just cause one little guy dies it PISSES ME OFF
in wc i have no idea... i say that they should make MORE hero's in sc2 but not like sc hero's they should be like the sc bw heros except in campaign.. you should be able to revive hero's in campaign.. cuz i HATE losing a really hard mission just cause one little guy dies it PISSES ME OFF
Arkillo
The best of both worlds
They ruined Wc, they won't ruin SC
BH_Naft
Member!
sc had better be hero-free
hero meaning of course a wc3-style hero that you use in standard melee/tvb/ffa/ladder gameplay . . . of course keep the campaign heroes, you couldnt really even have a campaign without heroes.
wc3 is ghey.
hero meaning of course a wc3-style hero that you use in standard melee/tvb/ffa/ladder gameplay . . . of course keep the campaign heroes, you couldnt really even have a campaign without heroes.
wc3 is ghey.
Schuyler_Haussmann
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2004
- Messages
- 1
- Reaction score
- 0
a unit to hero progression would be nice, similar to the WBC series style, but the lack of heroes like w3 or wbc.
Pains Requiem
BattleForums Senior Member
They can keep heros, just have the hero's from the original sc, and make it so they can be upgraded and all but dont upg abilities. there needs to be a world editor similar to the WC3 version but i hope it doesnt allow TOO much freedom like the wc3 did. make it so u can build Wraiths that have cloak and you can upgrade them with yamato guns or a carrier that can use lockdown or a golitah that can caste EMP shockwave but dont allow too much freedom which is what i think created a lot of confusion on the wc3 side.
Arkillo
The best of both worlds
korn said:
So what, you just want to be able to make super units? :rolleyes
BTW; The WC3 editor is still lacking, as far as most people are concerned.
DrAgoKiS
Member
Me, I say no, cuz starcraft is .... duh, Starcraft, not warcraft and they should keep it like starcraft, and if ya want heroes in a game play ums lol which most ppl do in sc newayz i've been play'n sc since ver 1.5, up to the last couple months when i got kicked out, lol, and start'd work'n overnight.
but back on topic, i'd say no but if they got em w/e, if it lives up to alot of boast'n about it, it should be an awesome game, i just want to see if they have the hybrid race in it.
but back on topic, i'd say no but if they got em w/e, if it lives up to alot of boast'n about it, it should be an awesome game, i just want to see if they have the hybrid race in it.
dP
Member!
NO!!!! IT would screw up the whole gameplay shit!
Zornor
BattleForums Junior Member
I don't think I have to say anything. But I will. Heroes with powers so early in the game would easily screw up the game. The strategy (sic?) will be screwed up, and yes... it just wouldn't be Starcraft.
shamirduranisgod
Member
I can't give simple answer yes or no, but I had some thought about heroes, especially about exp.
Exp points is not something new for rts games, first RA game already implement exp point for units. I heard many fans of SC want SC2 had exp points too, but for units.
I agree with exp points, but there's problem with exp points for units. Its a bit hard for me to explain, so I explain with example
If there's exp point for units, so units that frag more and more units will gain more level, which perhaps more hp, stronger damage, etc. But if only individual unit gain exp, such as wraith's kill so wraith's exp, than a problem will occur if a player often use minor units such as marine, zergling, hydralisks, etc that can be killed easily.
Example : A player with a squad marine engaged in battle against some opponent with equal numbers, he won with few marine left with some levels since scored many kills. Then the battle goes on, his opponent which defeated at first battle summon a ultralisk (if his opponent use zerg and jump tech), no matter how good his micro, the experienced marine would easily killed. Thus the exp point that gained by winning a hard battle gone.
I think many, many good sc players are players that utilize almost all available units, from minor units to major one. If exp point implemented to single unit, than player would often choose major units than minor, because exp point would easily gone if held by minor units.
NOw, this is my idea, i dunno if this a good one, you tell me.
Hero can be implemented to sc2 like wc3, but unlike wc3 hero will had less individual strength, except for some advanced hero.
My idea work like this
There's hero for each unit as representative. I took example for Terran. There's heroes that represent barrack units, there's also heroes for factory and stardock units. There's about 2 or 3 heroes for each representative, like 2 for barracks, 3 for factory.
Heroes from barracks units are minor hero, is a hero that had hp no more twice than the other barracks units but gain special ability. So the first hero won't be a super unit that can create chaos single handedly.
Heroes also gained exp from units that representative of the heroes. If a barrack unit score the kill, like marine, then the hero of barrack unit gained exp. If a stardock unit score the kill, like wraith, then the hero of stardock unit gained exp.
Hero had their own supply limit, like wc3 the limit grow each time player gained new tech lvl, but doesn't consume regular unit supply.
By using hero, exp point won't be gone easily, since it is held by the hero. So, player that often use minor units would still gain advantage from the exp from the minor units.
Exp points is not something new for rts games, first RA game already implement exp point for units. I heard many fans of SC want SC2 had exp points too, but for units.
I agree with exp points, but there's problem with exp points for units. Its a bit hard for me to explain, so I explain with example
If there's exp point for units, so units that frag more and more units will gain more level, which perhaps more hp, stronger damage, etc. But if only individual unit gain exp, such as wraith's kill so wraith's exp, than a problem will occur if a player often use minor units such as marine, zergling, hydralisks, etc that can be killed easily.
Example : A player with a squad marine engaged in battle against some opponent with equal numbers, he won with few marine left with some levels since scored many kills. Then the battle goes on, his opponent which defeated at first battle summon a ultralisk (if his opponent use zerg and jump tech), no matter how good his micro, the experienced marine would easily killed. Thus the exp point that gained by winning a hard battle gone.
I think many, many good sc players are players that utilize almost all available units, from minor units to major one. If exp point implemented to single unit, than player would often choose major units than minor, because exp point would easily gone if held by minor units.
NOw, this is my idea, i dunno if this a good one, you tell me.
Hero can be implemented to sc2 like wc3, but unlike wc3 hero will had less individual strength, except for some advanced hero.
My idea work like this
There's hero for each unit as representative. I took example for Terran. There's heroes that represent barrack units, there's also heroes for factory and stardock units. There's about 2 or 3 heroes for each representative, like 2 for barracks, 3 for factory.
Heroes from barracks units are minor hero, is a hero that had hp no more twice than the other barracks units but gain special ability. So the first hero won't be a super unit that can create chaos single handedly.
Heroes also gained exp from units that representative of the heroes. If a barrack unit score the kill, like marine, then the hero of barrack unit gained exp. If a stardock unit score the kill, like wraith, then the hero of stardock unit gained exp.
Hero had their own supply limit, like wc3 the limit grow each time player gained new tech lvl, but doesn't consume regular unit supply.
By using hero, exp point won't be gone easily, since it is held by the hero. So, player that often use minor units would still gain advantage from the exp from the minor units.
Eclipse_Hope
BattleForums Junior Member
heros=no
for campaign missions its kool
but for melee and wut not hell no its would toltoally ruin my sc and i would cry for days!!!
NO DAMNIT NO!
btw w3 graphics sucked!alot!do we agree? they were awful boo on blizz!
at least sc looked real!
btw ur idea is dum =)
for campaign missions its kool
but for melee and wut not hell no its would toltoally ruin my sc and i would cry for days!!!
NO DAMNIT NO!
btw w3 graphics sucked!alot!do we agree? they were awful boo on blizz!
at least sc looked real!
btw ur idea is dum =)
wc2wc2
Member!
SC2 Hero’s = Yes
SC2 Hero’s {wc3 style of hero’s}= NO
Getting a little off subject.
I am a hardcore wc2 player (Hence my nick name). I started playing wc2 back in 96 when it first cam out. When I first heard about wc3 being made I checked the blizzard web page at least once a week looking at updates on their progress until the release of the game. I bought a pre-released version of wc3 and when I FINALLY got my copy and played it, I was really disappointed. I REALLY hate the hero’s and upkeep. Even though wc3 has better graphics then sc, the game play lacks compared to SC and I think that it is because of hero’s, upkeep, and limited number or units (farm count) allowed in the game. Sorry if I don’t directly say why I hate the Hero type in wc3, it is just something I never liked in the first place.
Don’t get me wrong, hero’s are important and are needed in the game play of a good RPG, but not the hero types made in wc3.
And quoting MrBret
(Not “completely†quoting MrBret’s comment)
“people saying heros in WC3 sucked, thus, the whole game sucks.â€
I agree 1000%
wc3 players
Dont get all pissed off that I posted this. This is my opinion.
SC2 Hero’s {wc3 style of hero’s}= NO
Getting a little off subject.
I am a hardcore wc2 player (Hence my nick name). I started playing wc2 back in 96 when it first cam out. When I first heard about wc3 being made I checked the blizzard web page at least once a week looking at updates on their progress until the release of the game. I bought a pre-released version of wc3 and when I FINALLY got my copy and played it, I was really disappointed. I REALLY hate the hero’s and upkeep. Even though wc3 has better graphics then sc, the game play lacks compared to SC and I think that it is because of hero’s, upkeep, and limited number or units (farm count) allowed in the game. Sorry if I don’t directly say why I hate the Hero type in wc3, it is just something I never liked in the first place.
Don’t get me wrong, hero’s are important and are needed in the game play of a good RPG, but not the hero types made in wc3.
And quoting MrBret
(Not “completely†quoting MrBret’s comment)
“people saying heros in WC3 sucked, thus, the whole game sucks.â€
I agree 1000%
HELL F*CKING YEAHTHORONDIL said:
wc3 players
Dont get all pissed off that I posted this. This is my opinion.
master_hell
Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2005
- Messages
- 10
- Reaction score
- 0
no heros
it would ruin the game if u lose ur hero u lose the game
:shoot :yum
:grunt
it would ruin the game if u lose ur hero u lose the game
:shoot :yum
:grunt
-Azrael666-
BattleForums Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2005
- Messages
- 2,986
- Reaction score
- 3
If they made heroes for regular melee games, I would be so unbelievably pissed. It would definitely ruin the entire balance of the game, and most people would take more time trying to mass-kill someone else's hero than they would killing the other person. If they want to add something new, make it new races.
Icedragon
BattleForums Addict
Yes heros in starcraft 2
why?
cause it would force microing skills insted of the guy with more Carriers wins lol
but reallly heros were cool. they added so much depth to the game play plus made so many maps actully makable
why?
cause it would force microing skills insted of the guy with more Carriers wins lol
but reallly heros were cool. they added so much depth to the game play plus made so many maps actully makable
ChrisH36
Guy with Most Posts on Quiet Board.
Now I would say yes to heroes, but make them so that the units can kill them.
Otherwise, then 1 hero could wipe out 100 men with just one grenade. And we don't want that (unless it was Inuyasha)
Otherwise, then 1 hero could wipe out 100 men with just one grenade. And we don't want that (unless it was Inuyasha
)
ArtOfProtoss
Member!
Heck no. That would really change the game. Mass unit control is Starcraft and this would change that dynamic of the game.