Campaign Heroes — your thoughts and hopes?

[SlickR]

I was just looking at this thread and wanted to address a subtopic more directly in this subforum. Most SC campaign players usually left heroes in some secluded section of their base in order to prevent them from getting killed and thus cause them lose the mission. What are some ways that this can be reversed? How would you make the campaign hero units so that they see more use?
__________________________________________________ ______________

Personally, I believe that the heroes need some basic things:
— more health
— more armor
— more firepower
— more abilities (passive and active)
— a unique appearance
The two heroes that were used the most in SC were Zeratul and Infested Kerrigan. This was because Zeratul had an immensely powerful attack (100!) and Kerrigan had a unique look and more abilities than any other unit in the game (personnel cloaking, ensnare, psionic storm, and consume). These examples should be followed in the future.

— a unique appearance - [COLOR="rgb(139, 0, 0)"]done[/COLOR]

you won't be seeing "heroes" in most of the missions.

From the 5 missions shown, there was no hero units active on the battlefield, and the only time you may be controlling a hero unit-zerathul it will probably be only 1 or 2 sort of mini-protoss missions.

[Kimera757]

There will be at least one Tychus Findlay mission (he appears in "the Thor mission"). I believe Blizzard confirmed there is a Jim Raynor hero unit (and apparently he looks exactly like he does in cinematics, only smaller).

Someone datamined this: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/view...opic_id=118286 (Spectre hero!)

It actually looks pretty lame (in terms of abilities).

[Triceron]

Is that an april fools? There's a whole bunch of grammer and spelling errors in the tooltips. On top of that, the abilities sound daft for singleplayer. Why would you ever need to drop a fake nuke?

[Maxa]

It's completely bizarre to me that you cite (3) as the most critical problem, given that that is the one aspect of SC1 heroes which, I think, most people would not criticize. (Nevermind that (3) applies just as much to WC3 as to SC1.) Surely we can make heroes stronger so as to be more viable in combat without completely babying them, or making them effectively immortal. Do you really think that keeping heroes alive isn't an objective that should be maintained?

The SC1 hero system failed vs the WC3 system for three reasons:

1. The hero did not fill a central, vital role in the army. At best, it was a beefed up regular unit who perhaps provided some useful support. As a result, players could get by without them.
2. The hero did not scale to the magnitude of the game. In WC3, as the campaign progressed and both armies got larger, the hero reached higher levels and was equipped with better gear; thus its hit points always made up a fair portion of the army's total hit points and remained fairly consistent in that regard. SC1 heroes on the other hand remained stagnant and were so, very powerful early on but very weak later in the game.
3. You fail the mission if the hero dies. It is very annoying when you're just about to complete the mission, you lose because your hero was accidentally shot down by some random Zergling.

Of these issues, Reason 3 is the one that needs solving the most. As long as there is no way losing a hero = losing the mission in any form, players will start bringing the hero along as it's that much more firepower at their disposal. Even if heroes had the Thor's old revive mechanic where they would be temporarily immobile but still killable, it would suffice as it's still a needless risk when fielding more expendable units would suffice.

[mr. peasant]

It's completely bizarre to me that you cite (3) as the most critical problem, given that that is the one aspect of SC1 heroes which, I think, most people would not criticize. (Nevermind that (3) applies just as much to WC3 as to SC1.) Surely we can make heroes stronger so as to be more viable in combat without completely babying them, or making them effectively immortal. Do you really think that keeping heroes alive isn't an objective that should be maintained?

Problem 3 doesn't apply to WC3. If your hero falls in combat, s/he can be revived at the altar. When a SC1 hero falls, s/he's dead and you lose. Seeing as how heroes in SC2 can't fill an unique, indispensable role in the army without creating gaps in multiplayer, the hero can always be replaced. Hence, a player would almost always prefer to wait a little longer in order to obtain the 3-4 more regular units that would replace said hero before launching an attack. It's a risk vs benefit thing.

With regards to the stats, it's quite nearly impossible since if you make him tough enough to survive in battles of 50+ units, he'd completely be overpowered during the earlier missions as well as smaller scale missions (e.g. Installation maps). As for keeping 'the hero must survive' as an objective, I would be against it as it likely comes at the expense of a willingness to risk said unit in battle (for fear of failing the mission and having to repeat it). Especially since players have a wide variety of options at their disposal. For instance, a pack of mercenaries would likely be more powerful than a single hero and much less risky to use.

[Maxa]

That's not true for all missions, but I take your point. It isn't clear to me, though, just what sort of solution you think is possible. For one thing, I suspect that no analogue of WC3 altars would work well in SC2; the idea of resurrecting Jim Raynor in the course of a mission is simply too weird. As you point out in your second paragraph, it would be difficult to make an SC2 hero which is both durable and useful without being simultaneously overpowered. But that follows naturally from the fact that Starcraft, unlike Warcraft, is a more macro-oriented game which involves much larger armies. No amount of adjustments will be able to give heroes the role in Starcraft that they have in Warcraft--in this respect, they're just different games. So what exactly are you suggesting?

Problem 3 doesn't apply to WC3. If your hero falls in combat, s/he can be revived at the altar. When a SC1 hero falls, s/he's dead and you lose. Seeing as how heroes in SC2 can't fill an unique, indispensable role in the army without creating gaps in multiplayer, the hero can always be replaced. Hence, a player would almost always prefer to wait a little longer in order to obtain the 3-4 more regular units that would replace said hero before launching an attack. It's a risk vs benefit thing.

With regards to the stats, it's quite nearly impossible since if you make him tough enough to survive in battles of 50+ units, he'd completely be overpowered during the earlier missions as well as smaller scale missions (e.g. Installation maps). As for keeping 'the hero must survive' as an objective, I would be against it as it likely comes at the expense of a willingness to risk said unit in battle (for fear of failing the mission and having to repeat it). Especially since players have a wide variety of options at their disposal. For instance, a pack of mercenaries would likely be more powerful than a single hero and much less risky to use.

[Kimera757]

Is that an april fools? There's a whole bunch of grammer and spelling errors in the tooltips. On top of that, the abilities sound daft for singleplayer. Why would you ever need to drop a fake nuke?

Good point. Glad I didn't report that anywhere else!

[Raisk]

I'd like the Tychus Findlay hero to have a melée power fist which one shots Zerglings. I hated SC1 hero units and was one of those players that never let them out of my base. I sincerely hope SC2 hero units will have some sort of respawn mechanic to encourage their use. I wonder if the heroes will level up in single player, by the sounds of it at least Kerrigan will.

[mr. peasant]

That's not true for all missions, but I take your point. It isn't clear to me, though, just what sort of solution you think is possible. For one thing, I suspect that no analogue of WC3 altars would work well in SC2; the idea of resurrecting Jim Raynor in the course of a mission is simply too weird. As you point out in your second paragraph, it would be difficult to make an SC2 hero which is both durable and useful without being simultaneously overpowered. But that follows naturally from the fact that Starcraft, unlike Warcraft, is a more macro-oriented game which involves much larger armies. No amount of adjustments will be able to give heroes the role in Starcraft that they have in Warcraft--in this respect, they're just different games. So what exactly are you suggesting?

If it were up to me, I would give the heroes a fast regeneration (perhaps half that of the Roach's when burrowed?). This would improve their survivability and allow them to continuously serve at the frontlines with minimal downtime. And when their hit points reach zero, they don't die but are merely incapacitated. They wouldn't be able to move or attack but will continue to heal. However, if there continue to be enemy forces in sufficient numbers, their attacks would outpace the heroes' healing and would consequently keep their hit points at zero indefinitely.

In effect, the heroes would be 'pinned down' by enemy fire. The player would then be able to retrieve them by sending out a rescue party. Once freed, the heroes would quickly heal up and the rescue party can continue forward as the new attack force.