Explain why Heroes in SC2 would be bad...

[bryso]

Seriously, I thought WC3 made a huge leap in strategy games by introducing hero units. They added so much more depth to battles and added layers of strategy overall besides mass units and counter.

Of course we have the SC1 L337 ladder players aka babies whining about how adding hero units would make it warcaft 4. I seriously think these people just are afraid of the added micro of using a hero, which is why they typically failed at wc3 ladder and stuck with SC.

So can someone explain to me why they are not here? is it for the nostalgia of making a game that is just like the original?

[Lagorathia]

Seriously, I thought WC3 made a huge leap in strategy games by introducing hero units. They added so much more depth to battles and added layers of strategy overall besides mass units and counter.

Of course we have the SC1 L337 ladder players aka babies whining about how adding hero units would make it warcaft 4. I seriously think these people just are afraid of the added micro of using a hero, which is why they typically failed at wc3 ladder and stuck with SC.

So can someone explain to me why they are not here? is it for the nostalgia of making a game that is just like the original?


wtf?

[Terradrius]

Seriously, I thought WC3 made a huge leap in strategy games by introducing hero units. They added so much more depth to battles and added layers of strategy overall besides mass units and counter.

Of course we have the SC1 L337 ladder players aka babies whining about how adding hero units would make it warcaft 4. I seriously think these people just are afraid of the added micro of using a hero, which is why they typically failed at wc3 ladder and stuck with SC.

So can someone explain to me why they are not here? is it for the nostalgia of making a game that is just like the original?

Well, for one thing, the basic idea of heroes fits a lot better in a high fantasy setting than a sci-fi setting.

Secondly, SC gameplay is more about the large armies, not individuals. There's something to be said for change, but there's also something to be said for not changing what works just fine already.

Oh, and if you're actually trying to be taken seriously, not insulting people (especially with no provocation) is a decent way to start.

[Aphrodite]

I feel at least. That the PLAYER in this game is the "hero" as it was in WC3. For instance, all of the building micromanagment, MULES, Scanner Sweeps, Chrono Beacons, etc. Would have just been relegated to a "hero" unit. This is war, there is nobody special. One thing I would PERHAPS like to see, is have units with high kill-scores "rank" up, and perhaps become 1% stronger, or get some kind of bonus. I had a banshee with like, 77 kills in a game earlier today, that *%@%@ should have got a medal.

[Noose]

I thought heroes ruined WC3 normal games, they could easily make or break your army.

[Kralic]

Seriously, I thought WC3 made a huge leap in strategy games by introducing hero units. They added so much more depth to battles and added layers of strategy overall besides mass units and counter.

Of course we have the SC1 L337 ladder players aka babies whining about how adding hero units would make it warcaft 4. I seriously think these people just are afraid of the added micro of using a hero, which is why they typically failed at wc3 ladder and stuck with SC.

So can someone explain to me why they are not here? is it for the nostalgia of making a game that is just like the original?

Well for starters the HP values in SC are much lower than the HP values units had in WC3 so a hero that 1 shots most units would be kind of taking away from your added micro arguement. WC3 had easy micro since every unit had generous amounts of hp, they can change that in SC2, but it would require an overhaul in the game that might as well just make them make a new game and release it under a new name. If you want hero's just make a league that uses custom maps you made to include hero's and balance it perfectly.

[Soli]

There's a reason Starcraft is practically the national sport of South Korea while WC3 never had much of a pro scene. Heroes add a random element and encourage very linear gameplay - early risks beyond simple harassing are discouraged, and it all really only makes sense to begin with because of WC3's focus on fewer, longer lasting units and lots of single unit micro. SC is much more to the point, a lean and competitive deathmatch type RTS.

If you think WC3 is the greatest game evar, go play WC3. Nobody is stopping you. I guarantee there will be plenty of customs with heroes, probably some that just add them to an otherwise 'normal' SC2 melee match. At any rate, if you have any expectation that Blizzard would even think about totally starting from scratch re: gameplay and balance, which adding something that huge obviously would, a couple months before launch, then you're not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed.

[Thecount]

This is not Warcraft in space!

... It's much more sophisticated!

[Tehschoolbus]

Well, for one thing, the basic idea of heroes fits a lot better in a high fantasy setting than a sci-fi setting.

Secondly, SC gameplay is more about the large armies, not individuals. There's something to be said for change, but there's also something to be said for not changing what works just fine already.

Oh, and if you're actually trying to be taken seriously, not insulting people (especially with no provocation) is a decent way to start.

This, and... consider the amount of effort heroes require to maintain and how much they take away from the rest of your army. Sure, everyone knows how the hero alone is not the army, but in wc3 they become so essential that they take away from the strategy of the game in a sense. This sort of dilution is what primarily makes wc3 < sc1.

[Lagorathia]

i like how nobody has mentioned that this is just a different game. heroes made wc3 a completely different kind of game the sc. it's not necessarily an improvement, it's just a different style of gameplay.

[Orlandu]

i can argue for and against but i'm mainly against heroes in my SC2 ladder/melee soup. I like what they have going for yo mommaship and wish they had similar for zerg/terran. I know terran has BC/thor and zerg has ultras but the feeling isn't the same.. and toss has colossus.

you could stretch it to saying Queen is a hero for zerg, Mommaship Toss and ??? for Terran....

[Beta]

So many people feeding the OP troll...

[Tehschoolbus]

i like how nobody has mentioned that this is just a different game. heroes made wc3 a completely different kind of game the sc. it's not necessarily an improvement, it's just a different style of gameplay.

That's actually exactly what I said in the post right above yours.

[Lagorathia]

ya, i hit reply before you posted, and made mine unaware of yours. soweeez

[Tehschoolbus]

ya, i hit reply before you posted, and made mine unaware of yours. soweeez

> : {
I AM ANGERRR!

jk =]

[Shurimpu]

WC3 only incorporated Heroes because it was in 3D, which was newer at the time, so they couldn't support as many units on screen as the prior games. To make things deeper, they added heroes and levels, so the units you DID have made more of a difference.

This isn't me bull!!#@ting you, it's the actual logic behind their decision. SCII can support giant armies, so there's no need for heroes.

Also it doesn't mesh with SciFi as much as it does Fantasy. It makes sense for some orc hero to wield a different flaming sword of OP, but Jim Raynor or Tychus Findley or any other schmuck in a tank or marine suit will be as strong as the other. It can make sense with things like the Hyperion in Campaign, but heroes would ruin multiplayer.

[Shion]

I actually thought that the Hero units and relegation of economic strategy to the gutter were the worst things about WC3. So much so that I actually didn't buy the game after beta finished. It severely limited the overall skill to the game and management involved. I call it "micro-lite" because it has the surface appearance of taking a lot of micromanagement, when really it was no different than the blood-lust spam from WC2 in most ways. The Hero unit also was too much of the overall battle compared to normal troops.

PS: Having to level up on creeps while facing off against a human player is also stupid.

[bryso]

How can you say that? You obviously did not play enough. If one person gets an expo, its over. Period. There is also the added dynamic of upkeep, which makes players make choices about how many units to have at any given time. Economics made huge strides in WC3. Lastly, WC# and the expansion were totally different games. If you stopped playing in the beta of the original, than you missed out. Epic fail. What did you do with your time from 2002 - now? play C&C?

[Tehschoolbus]

Okay saying that they came up with heroes JUST BECAUSE they were able to support 3d is like... totally retarded. There are so many RPGs that are 2d that this point is just like instantly muted. However, I agree with (and read something similar to) what you said here

To make things deeper, they added heroes and levels, so the units you DID have made more of a difference.
I believe it has been said more than twice that blizzard really wanted to make you feel like in warcraft each unit was NOT expendable. In wc2 they were dealing with crappy computers so they pushed the limits to where they could, so in sc1 they were able to introduce larger armies with better hardware. So when they got to wc3 they kind of felt like they wanted to revisit the roots of warcraft 3 and what made it a strong game. Clearly you didn't have dozens of units that died a second into battle (like lings) so maybe buffing up all the units and having less of them would kill two birds with one stone - it would allow them to have less units that were more meaningful and could be used more strategically with different spells and other complexities, and it would allow them to get away with having terrible pathfinding that locks up under a lot of stress and dealing with pushing polygons to the screen. After all, the models have VERY few polygons as it is.

So yeah when we get to sc2, they want to have the feel of sc1 to differentiate the series. However, they know how important heroes are to the general public so they're allowing for them in the campaign (to an extent, with mechanics more like sc1) and in UMS with limitless possibilities.

[Dirkydu]

Heroes in WC3 took a franchise that was known for being a solid RTS and turned it into an RPG with strategic elements. That's why it pissed so many people off and that's why so many SC players are so adamantly against it.

Whoever won a game in WC3 had very little to do with unit counters or strategy and very much to do with how many APM a player could perform. SC2's appeal is in it's great mix of Micro and Macro strategy, not leveling up your mini Diablo character and, oh yeah, there are some other units in the game too.

[Warpspeedten]

One thing I miss about heroes was the Town Portals - they really ought to add in something along those lines to help with those annoying rushes.

I don't think that "heroes" would really work in Starcraft, but maybe they could add in something like unit experience, with the possibility of promoting units to Commander status after they get something like 5 kills, and Commanders get special abilities or are just powerful in general. That way they could add in some Creeps to the maps (which I think gave the Warcraft 3 some nice variety) for grinding as well. It would be more fun than just blowing up rocks, at any rate.

Actually, just came up with a better idea behind Commanders. At an experience gauge at the top of the interface; the gauge slowly fills as you kill units. Once you max out the gauge, a Commander spawns at your starting location, and the gauge resets. Said commander is a powerful unit that can help turn the tide of battle. Every time the gauge resets, it takes more kills to max it out, but the Commanders that spawn also rise in power.

....just an idea, at any rate.

[Jrange]

Yeah, screw heroes in SC2. You can have all the heroes you want in the Galaxy Editor.

[Primoris]

Heroes are why i never got that in to wc3 outside of dota. But hopefully theres hero functionality in place for a SC2 dota. :D

[Michael]

Protoss has a hero.

[Conscience]

if SC2 was going to have heroes i'd stay with WC3 since they're so closely related from a casual point of view.

[Epok]

Having played hardly any sc1 (Only on N64, lol), I at first found it very strange to be doing nothing during the beginning of the game. I agree completely that heroes added an entire new level of depth to the rts in warcraft 3. You had to go around creeping, while still harrassing, teching, and producing. My first few games of sc2 I was sitting there going "wtf am I supposed to be doing right now, sit in my base and build?"

However, I've come to appreciate it as a different type of game. I find starcraft to be much more macro based, compared to the micro intensive warcraft 3. In warcraft losing a single unit could be devastating, in starcraft it doesn't matter as much due to their being less restraints on resources and the food cap. In starcraft there is times where it seems more advantageous to A+click the fight and then switch back to your base to prepare the next wave.

Granted, I am only a silver league player and I'm sure my above assessment would be completely inaccurate from the perspective of better players.

[Lagorathia]

Protoss has a hero.

lol this.

and it's one of the things i really don't like.

[Epok]

Heroes in WC3 took a franchise that was known for being a solid RTS and turned it into an RPG with strategic elements. That's why it pissed so many people off and that's why so many SC players are so adamantly against it.

Whoever won a game in WC3 had very little to do with unit counters or strategy and very much to do with how many APM a player could perform. SC2's appeal is in it's great mix of Micro and Macro strategy, not leveling up your mini Diablo character and, oh yeah, there are some other units in the game too.

I disagree completely with your statement. WC3 was a strategy game with RPG elements.

I believe WC3 had even more to do with unit counters than SC1 or 2 does. I think that is why there is so many people complaining about the hard counters currently in SC2. With the release of TFT, WC3 at a basic level was essentially rock-paper-scissors. Your hero often didn't make or break the fight, but rather added in an additional level of variety to each encounter.

Do I think heroes should be in SC? No.

[Beta]

Protoss has a hero.

Yo Mommaship is not a hero. It is an arbiter.

Reasons:
- Does not gain exp.
- Does not level up
- Does not gain new abilities other than what it starts with.
- Abilities do not grow in power from the time you build it.
- You can't choose the available abilities it gets.
- The arbiter has ALL of Yo Mommaship's capabilities, minus the cost, survivability, dps, and the requirement to only own one.

[Nightmare]

Since the OP is obviously trolling and so many people don't seem to realize it, I'm just going to say that "Heroes suck balls and make the game boring" and leave it at that.

[Divine]

tree gathering (not NE), heroes with OVERPOWERED skills that are like psi storm right off the bat at the beginning of the game, collecting items, collecting those runes that increase your stats for heroes, killing NPC units for levelz (why don't I just play a computer), comparatively slow pacing with every effort to try and save every one of the units (watch pro games), not that SC doesn't have that but not to this extent.. , teleport, potions, upkeep (RAGE MORE HERE), using resource to purchase items for heroe

These are the things I don't want when I make my army and attack in RTS.. I would like my war games to be fun and be more ilke...what's the word here... a WAR GAME with fast pace and massive armies.. managing the massive army is more fun than managing smaller armies with one (or three) really strong unit (s). I want to be rewarded for taking the risk to burn through my/enemy's army to get to their base.. while continuously producing units for reinforcements..

[Kraytex]

If you want heroes then play WC3.

Multiplayer games in WC3 are centered around the hero, killing creeps with that hero, harassing workers with that hero, massing an army and attacking along side that hero. It vastly changes the game away from what Starcraft is and what made it good.

Starcraft isn't centered around heroes, but around the units, this is what makes it a great RTS.

[Inoob]

I actually thought that the Hero units and relegation of economic strategy to the gutter were the worst things about WC3. So much so that I actually didn't buy the game after beta finished. It severely limited the overall skill to the game and management involved. I call it "micro-lite" because it has the surface appearance of taking a lot of micromanagement, when really it was no different than the blood-lust spam from WC2 in most ways. The Hero unit also was too much of the overall battle compared to normal troops.

PS: Having to level up on creeps while facing off against a human player is also stupid.

so what you are saying is that you didnt actually play war3 beyond beta.. and you think you know the game?

the game changed 100% since. there are heroes in it still, but they die easy now. its no longer the overpowered crap that happened in ROC.


anyway what people are missing is that you can totally add stuff like heroes into sc2 and still retain the starcraft feel. army squads usually have a team leader/ head, and nobody says that you couldnt fit that sort of thing into sc2. a regular marine with a few extra hp that might give off an aura to units near by.

people might scream and the aura might give off an advantage.. well.. so what.. the enemy would have their own skills to add as well to balance things out.

i already made a ton of suggestions about the possibility of creating these types of units by playing well. (ie, micro well, keep units alive and once they get enough kills.. one unit would turn into a slightly better version of that unit. limiting to one of those units at a time would discourage spamming of more powerful units. etc.

it wouldnt by any stretch ruin the game. it would just add another layer to the gameplay.

but since i mention heroes.. people will automatically assume i mean that id like them to be exactly like in war3, because they lack any sort of outside the box thinking from what they are provided with.

anyhow. do we need heroes in sc2? not really, but could something be done for us to be more protective of our units, and through good gameplay get a bonus? and give us some character to our armies/ battles?! absolutely. right now its all about these faceless armies that have no flavor.

[Protoman]

Kerrigan is my hero...she is like a space milf.

I know she is a evil betty bug lady in all but I wouldn't kick her out of my shower...I mean if I wasn't so sure she would eat my head afterwords.

[Redscare]

it doesn't mesh with SciFi as much as it does Fantasy. It makes sense for some orc hero to wield a different flaming sword of OP, but Jim Raynor or Tychus Findley or any other schmuck in a tank or marine suit will be as strong as the other.

this

[Joneleth]

Looks like OP failed at SC and stuck with WC3.

[Rowdy]

Seriously, I thought WC3 made a huge leap in strategy games by introducing hero units. They added so much more depth to battles and added layers of strategy overall besides mass units and counter.

Of course we have the SC1 L337 ladder players aka babies whining about how adding hero units would make it warcaft 4. I seriously think these people just are afraid of the added micro of using a hero, which is why they typically failed at wc3 ladder and stuck with SC.

So can someone explain to me why they are not here? is it for the nostalgia of making a game that is just like the original?

Warcraft III players who despise Starcraft don't seem to understand that Starcraft's micro has always been infinitely deep, deeper than any player's ability to play perfectly. Starcraft may have more macro than Warcraft III, but that doesn't mean it has less micro. Unit control in Starcraft is critical. Speed and creativity in combat are heavily rewarded, and one brilliantly micromanaged battle will often decide the game. It's agitating to hear critics flippantly ignore the impressive subtleties of Starcraft's many micro scenarios, and it's usually an indicator that they've never played the game at an appreciable skill level. You cannot suck at micro and be good at Starcraft. You cannot just throw more units at the problem. Only by proportion of total actions is Warcraft III more about micro than Starcraft.

The absence of heroes in Starcraft II has nothing to do with micro. It has to do with everything else in the game. Warcraft III is about fighting the one battle with the same enduring units and a focus on heroes as irrevocable strategic choices, and that's good and interesting and fine. But that's not what Starcraft is about. Starcraft is about fighting everywhere, all at once, literally and figuratively. It's about exploiting sudden weaknesses, both on the map and in battle. It's about reconnaissance. It's about production, terrain usage, harassment, position, resource control.

Heroes defeat or diminish all of these features. There are only so many weaknesses to exploit when the greatest resource in the game, a hero, lies within the bulk of the enemy's forces. There's only so much scouting to be done when hero choice so thoroughly, clearly, and irreversibly defines a strategy. There's only so much effect production can have when it's relegated to a supporting action rather than a defining one. Terrain loses significance when its ability to enhance or restrict a force is overshadowed by the strength of a hero unit. Harassment, position on the map, resource control all lose significance when the primary objective of the game is to directly overcome the enemy hero.

Furthermore, Starcraft's strategy is based on a balance between tech, economy, and fighting unit production. Which paths you take in your build determine when and how you can be aggressive. When the most effective path to superiority is to level up a hero as soon as possible, temporarily passive strategic options lose viability. This would kill, at a rough estimate, more than half the strategic options in the Starcraft series.

People who don't want heroes in this game are not crybabies, nor are they bad at micro. They simply recognize the subject and goals of Starcraft II as different from those of Warcraft III.

[Gemini]

The one issue with adding in heroes is that it increases balancing issues. Just look at the blademaster.

Units die very quickly in Sc and sc2. Any kind of veterancy or leveling up, would really be tough to keep active, and also adds its own balancing issues.

Adding in heroes and creeps takes away from the aggressive harassment, quick battles, and counter attacks that define sc combat.

Unless you happen to be using a bm.

[Nightmare]

anyway what people are missing is that you can totally add stuff like heroes into sc2 and still retain the starcraft feel.

No, you really can't. Starcraft is about armies and multiple tactics; it was far more TACTICAL than Warcraft III will ever be. Heroes, ie: early game super units, give the game an RPG feel, not an RTS feel.

Compare WCIII:

Oh great I have an Archmage. Well, I'm going to get this spell, and I'm going to kill some monsters to level up and then I'll go kill the other player.

to WoW:

Oh great I am a Mage. Well, I'm going to get this spell, and I'm going to kill some monsters to level up, and then I'll go kill other players/bosses.

[Joey]

Seriously, I thought WC3 made a huge leap in strategy games by introducing hero units. They added so much more depth to battles and added layers of strategy overall besides mass units and counter.

Of course we have the SC1 L337 ladder players aka babies whining about how adding hero units would make it warcaft 4. I seriously think these people just are afraid of the added micro of using a hero, which is why they typically failed at wc3 ladder and stuck with SC.

So can someone explain to me why they are not here? is it for the nostalgia of making a game that is just like the original?

This game is already micro heavy. learn to use ghosts.

[Ravn]

Some perspective:

WC2 and SC1 both had heroes in single player. WC3 has hero gameplay because look at how those old heroes were always used: you kept them safely tucked away at home because they were instant U.L.O.S.E.buttons upon death.

There won't be heroes in SC because Blizzard needs to keep the two franchises as distinct from one another as they can. That's it. Don't try to make their omission in SC2 into an indictment that WC3 was a failure, because you simply can't win that argument.

[Raxus]

The original design of warcraft 3 wasn't supposed to have buildings at all. It was entirely based around your hero unit and conquering neutral creeps or outposts to upgrade/ add units. When they realized that was a terrible idea they put the buildings back in but kept the hero units. Was an interesting blend but I personally felt there was too much emphasis on micro managing your hero and his abilities. I'm personally glad blizzard didn't try to reinvent the wheel on SC2. Game feels and plays just like it should.

[Nephrahim]

I wish this idea would just DIE already.

When War 4 comes out, it will have Hero units, and that's great. War III is still one of my favorite games of all time.

That said, it's nice that this game does not have it. It's great that they differentiate the series a bit (As opposed to the old Alpha build of "Orcs in space.")

[Stratosspear]

Seriously, I thought WC3 made a huge leap in strategy games by introducing hero units. They added so much more depth to battles and added layers of strategy overall besides mass units and counter.

Of course we have the SC1 L337 ladder players aka babies whining about how adding hero units would make it warcaft 4. I seriously think these people just are afraid of the added micro of using a hero, which is why they typically failed at wc3 ladder and stuck with SC.

So can someone explain to me why they are not here? is it for the nostalgia of making a game that is just like the original?

Actually, it can be argued that Heroes made the strategy aspect of WC3 very shallow.

And it's because 1) they want SC and WC to be different, and 2) they ARE different. Heroes simply don't fit into the strategic style of Starcraft.

(As opposed to the old Alpha build of "Orcs in space.")

Hey, to be fair, it works for Warhammer. :)

[Tehschoolbus]

Actually, it can be argued that Heroes made the strategy aspect of WC3 very shallow.

And it's because 1) they want SC and WC to be different, and 2) they ARE different. Heroes simply don't fit into the strategic style of Starcraft.



Hey, to be fair, it works for Warhammer. :)
No, those are orks! DUuuuuuuuhhhhhhh

=]

[Messana]

FOR THE LAST TIME. THIS IS NOT WARCRAFT3. STARCRAFT IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT GAME. GO PLAY WARCRAFT 3 OR HOPE FOR WARCRAFT 4 IF YOU LIKE HEROES, KEEP THEM THE #@$@ OUT OF OUR GAME THOUGH.

[Nephrahim]

ORKS ORKS ORKS ORKS!

[Shinosai]

Gotta say the entire reason I stopped playing sc2 was heroes. Want to know why heroes ruined sc2 for me? Here's a list:

1) XP gains for winning a fight made games more often than not one sided. The person that won early skirmishes got more xp, had higher level heroes, and thus usually a huge advantage. Heroes themselves at high levels could take on entire armies (level 6 dh, dk/lich coil nova kiting, chainwave). Want more proof? If a hero dies tell me how often the player doesn't retreat. They always do, because without a hero they're done. The hero was far more important than whatever sort of units you were making.

2) Scrolls of town portal. While an interesting concept, it made tactics useless. Hit the enemy from the backdoor when he leaves his base? Scroll of tp! Catch the enemy from behind at a time he doesn't want to fight? Scroll of town portal! In any sort of bad situation where you might not win the battle? Use a scroll of town portal!

3) Heroes made split attacks completely worthless, because you'd always want your entire army together with your heroes. While in sc/sc2 a split attack can be incredibly advantageous and have your enemy scrambling to decide which army to fight, in war3 it's less desirable because without your heroes you can't make an effective attack. The only sort of split attacks war3 had were wyvern/garg harass, but even then they were limited to harass, when the battle was fought they'd all be together.

[Solodolo]

Heroes were a great idea for Warcraft 3 for the ladder games and then for custom games. But heroes WILL be available as an option for custom map makers in Starcraft 2, also Starcraft is about lots of units with battles that have tides that can turn very easily and units that generally don't have nearly as much health as they did in warcraft 3. Also adding heroes means they would need to add neutral creeps and not as much time would be able to be spent managing the base construction.

[Nephrahim]

You could have more then one hero, you know...

Split attacks were no less useful in War3 then SC. Especially if your goal is to make your enemy use up his scroll.

[Rizaun]

Gotta say the entire reason I stopped playing sc2 was heroes. Want to know why heroes ruined sc2 for me?

But SC2 doesn't have heroes D: nor has been released!

[Shinosai]

You could have more then one hero, you know...

Split attacks were no less useful in War3 then SC. Especially if your goal is to make your enemy use up his scroll.

That's harassment, not an actual split attack. You don't have any goal other than to annoy your enemy, you won't actually kill them. When your armies fight each other, they will all be together.

[Fenrirlupus]

because starcraft is meant to be a huge army vs. a huge army, not 1 level 10 hero vs. a huge army and a level 9 hero. seriously. when you max out your hero in warcraft, you win, period. (unless you suck.)

[Thebaron]

I seriously think these people just are afraid of the added micro of using a hero, which is why they typically failed at wc3 ladder and stuck with SC.

http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/4797/hahaohwow.jpg

[Solodolo]

http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/4797/hahaohwow.jpg

If you're not horrible then sc2 has much more micro than wc3

[Nezdragon]

I liked WC3...

But I do think SC2 is fine without heroes. Different game, different mechanics...

[Jwray]

Seriously, I thought WC3 made a huge leap in strategy games by introducing hero units. They added so much more depth to battles and added layers of strategy overall besides mass units and counter.

Of course we have the SC1 L337 ladder players aka babies whining about how adding hero units would make it warcaft 4. I seriously think these people just are afraid of the added micro of using a hero, which is why they typically failed at wc3 ladder and stuck with SC.

So can someone explain to me why they are not here? is it for the nostalgia of making a game that is just like the original?

Because if the game involves grinding XP for your heroes, it's not an RTS, it's a wannabe RPG.

[Jwray]

I'm sick and tired of every single game manufacturer on the planet trying to make their games more addictive by stealing the worst features of MMORPGs like grinding for XP. This is why, for instance, AOE2 was way better than AOE3, and CIV2 was way better than CIV3-4, and Red Alert 2 was better than WC3, and Team Fortress 2 was better before they started adding achievements and loot.

[Teamchuckles]

I hope you all are joking right now. WC3 is better than SC2 in its beta state. From most of your posts, it looks like most of you went 30% win ratio and just quit playing because you couldn't adapt. Aka: You're all terrible at RTS games.

[Inoob]

I feel at least. That the PLAYER in this game is the "hero" as it was in WC3. For instance, all of the building micromanagment, MULES, Scanner Sweeps, Chrono Beacons, etc. Would have just been relegated to a "hero" unit. This is war, there is nobody special. One thing I would PERHAPS like to see, is have units with high kill-scores "rank" up, and perhaps become 1% stronger, or get some kind of bonus. I had a banshee with like, 77 kills in a game earlier today, that *%@%@ should have got a medal.

thing is, in war, you have ranks between units. put a war veteran against a newly trained unit and i doubt that the newly trained unit will come out on top.

thats kind of why i dont see why there couldnt be a much more subtle hero system in this game. if it was treated differently than warcraft it could totally work, even in a sport type of system.

if units were still balanced perfectly, and could be countered like any other unit could, then it could work just fine.

for example, if heroes/ generals/ special units wouldn't be available until atleast tier 2, then you wouldnt see any hero rushing. the hero/special rank units purpose would be changed to a support unit, or a unit with a special set of skills available to the player.. also, if heros wouldnt get experience, you wouldnt need to creep. but... if through killing a ton of enemy units a unit could unlock skills instead of just through plain research then it would be a special unit that grows as a result of skillfull use instead of through a player simply pressing a button and getting a new skill..

what would be cool is that there would be two different types of upgrades. one type would be the research/ technological upgrades. the second would be skill upgrades that are only unlocked through good gameplay.

however. since most players spam units in this game, and let them die without giving it a second thought, and forget about micro during a fight, this would be almost entirely useless. however, if counters would be softened up a bit for tier 1 and 1.5 units then this could actually work quite well.

[Bundles]

As a C+ iccup player in BW, a pro solo player in wc3 that did leagues, and current rank 1 2v2 / rank 25 1v1 platinum player in sc2 I am not biased.

Sc is definitely harder than wc3, there is no doubt at all, but wc3 involves more strategy and has tons more depth than sc1/sc2 will ever have, due to the heroes.

Most of you sc players hating on wc3 are nothing but idiots, comparing ROC to current TFT status is like comparing vanilla sc to broodwar. ROC and TFT are 2 completely different games.

And what people call micro in sc2 is absolutely pathetic. There is no way to micro to full potential in sc2 due to the speed of the battles. Clicking a group of ghosts to cast spells during battle and a little dancing here and there for position is about it right now. The micro in wc3 was much MUCH more complicated than sc ever was and sc2 ever will be. If you can't comprehend why or disagree then you need to stop being so naive and biased.

sc1 was a pure macro game with little micro involved.
wc3 was a pure micro game with little macro involved.
sc2 is a game that tries to balance both but still leans toward macro.

[Subutai]

Wc3 is a slower pace game because the units are more durable, the attack are slower and more melee oriented.

Wc3 requires more strategizing because of the low food count and income penalty as your army gets large.

The ground units in Wc3 have less mobility (hence the need for town portal), choke hold are still effective because Wc3 units don't hop over ledges and goblin zeppelin can only be bought in neutral units so something like a reaver drop is impossible. (unless it's an Archmage teleport drop)

Please note that Wc3 have been out for years. You can't compare the gameplay of a game that's still in beta verses one that hits retail and gone through patches after patches.

The only thing I don't like about Wc3 is quick expansion turtle tower hoarding.



Sc2 gives the players adrenaline rush; everything is fast paced. Your army can be wiped out within seconds and that usually means GG. That could be working as intended thou.

Even though the cap for food is 200, players currently barely reach 150 food. That means that you can built a pretty deadly army for about 150 supplies count. It could mean that mid to late game units are built too slowly. It could also mean that players are too used to the 100 food limit in Wc3. I tend to lean against the former.

Micro still works in sc2. It just requires a lot more concentration and quick reaction. The third resource of RTS is the concentration of players. However because of how quick paced sc2 seems to be only the pros with a quick reaction time and concentration can micro effectively.

There's hardly anything you can build on defense that can help a player defense adequately. Smart players don't run troops toward a well defended choke hold. In addition to drop ships, warp, and N-worms, some units are able to leap ledges. It does two things to gameplayer 1) It constantly put players on the edge, knowing that their base is never, ever, safe. 2) The only thing that keeps you safe is to have a large, and a hard counter to your enemy's army. Once you've beaten his army it's usually gg.

The way I see it Sc2 is the bastard child between Wc3 and Sc1. It took lessons from Wc3 and Sc1 and blizzard create their ideal game: very skill orientated with a steep learning curve, quick paced so players won't get bored, hard counters so massing one kind of unit doesn't always work, It allows a variety of strategies (okay not so much, but I usually lol when T goes MMM on me. Multiple Siege tanks splattered them hard especially on high ground.



To the original question. Heroes have no place in Sc2 if it's anything similar to Wc3 heroes.

[Magpie]

Epic trolling.

[Nezdragon]

Wc3 is a slower paste game because...


Forgive me, I was weak.

http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/4204/warcraft3pastemotivator.jpg