PDA

View Full Version : If SWGB 2 added heroes......


FroZticles
03-09-2004, 12:19 PM
What would you like to see...

Think about what kind of heroes would make a good hero for each civ 3 abilities max make as many as you want just dont go overboard ill make up one off the spot..

3 abilities max make as many as you want just dont go overboard and tell us what they counter against!!!!

Republic Special Op Commando

Abilities- Sniper, increases clone trooper fire power while in a group, Can train 4 clones to become snipers but they cant give the bonus and are weaker than there hero

Effective against troops and mostly enhances his fellow units.
Weak vs Jedi and other heroes.

Have fun!! :D

lukeiamyourdad
03-09-2004, 07:57 PM
I don't get what you mean by "Medium armor has a sniper pistol that shoots every 3 sec". What is that???

Imperial Officer:

Orbital Bombardment: Calls in an orbital strike on a certain area. May not hit every target in the area.

Range Aura(Give me a better name then this): As an officer, with his binoculars he can help his fellow trooper target enemies. Increases LOS and Range of ranged units.


This ain't like WC3 invincible heroes I believe.

Darth Windu
03-09-2004, 11:27 PM
I'd rather there were no heroes at all. Main reason being that they require micro-management, and that really isnt acceptable if we want large scale battles. They cant both be done well.

lukeiamyourdad
03-10-2004, 12:41 AM
What if we actually want medium scale battles?

Sithmaster_821
03-10-2004, 12:44 AM
Then Windu won't associate with you (its actually not that bad), although I don't want heros either (whats the point?)

lukeiamyourdad
03-10-2004, 12:50 AM
Heroes are now a very popular feature of a lot of RTS. It can't be all bad to add in our own. It's not like we're gonna have Vader slaughtering down everything on his path.

Admiral Vostok
03-10-2004, 01:40 AM
Actually that's a good point, Luke's Dad. While many people are against heroes, the fact remains that they are popular amongst RTS games nowadays.

I shall get right to the drawing board and design my heroes for my civ design...

FroZticles
03-10-2004, 08:34 AM
Well this thread wasn't put up to hear your opinons on whether you want heroes in the game or not it was so people could create there own. Windu not every battle will be large scale youll still have your rushes like it or not. And I'm still wondering why you post here cause in your world your the one thats right you have no tolerance for rejection and are to stubben to change things which aren't your ideas in the first place so move on and let us have some fun.

PS I might create a UBER!!!!! template if I get the time.

Darth Windu
03-10-2004, 09:36 AM
What does it matter to you if i post or not? I would personally prefer large-scale epic battles rather than the smaller battles with heroes like in 'War of the Ring'.

FroZticles
03-10-2004, 10:42 AM
Did I say they were gonna be like war of the rings no unlike yourself I don't steal ideas and call them my own!!!!

Darth Windu
03-11-2004, 12:44 AM
lol, calm down little one.

I didn't say that it would be like WotR, just that i would prefer standard epic battles as opposed to really small battles which include heroes.

lukeiamyourdad
03-11-2004, 01:44 AM
Medium Scale RTS do use heroes. Froz said that this place was not for voicing your opinion so please if you don't want heroes, just leave from this thread.

Darth Windu
03-11-2004, 04:06 AM
Precisely luke. My opinion just happens to be that heroes would be bad for a SWGB sequel. As this thread is on the topic of heroes in a SWGB sequel, it seems to be the best place to voice my opinion about this matter.

saberhagen
03-11-2004, 06:15 PM
Here are some heroes I'd like to see:

Walrus man: disrupts enemy troops by going around saying he doesn't like them and pushing them over. Countered by jedi.

Uncle Owen: Gives a huge bonus to all farms within a certain radius but won't let you attack the enemy cos it's too exciting.

Admiral Ozzel: A hero for the rebels. His clumsiness and stupidity allow them to detect surprise attacks. Dies very easily.

Rancor keeper: Controls wild animals. It's like luring but better...

The Rebo band: Their inappropriate musical interludes cause all enemies within a certain radius to die of embarassment.

R5-D4: Breaks down, creating a smoke screen which blinds enemies.

General Dodonna: Has a beard. Er, that's it...

lukeiamyourdad
03-11-2004, 07:43 PM
LOL! Nice one saberhagen!

Admiral Vostok
03-11-2004, 11:33 PM
Yes, most amusing Saber. :D

Windu, how can you not want heroes? They're just like RoN's Generals.
Sorry, had to be said.

Anyway I've done Hero rules for my design. They're called Commanders. I've also done the heroes for the Confederacy and Empire, the rest are coming soon.
Here's the links:
:atat:Commanders Overview (http://vostok.150m.com/UnitClasses.html#Commanders)
:atat:Confederacy Commanders (http://vostok.150m.com/ConfederacyOfIndependentSystems.html#Commanders)
:atat:Galactic Empire Commanders (http://vostok.150m.com/GalacticEmpire.html#Commanders)

FroZticles
03-12-2004, 05:59 AM
Nice one saber but I think the rancor keeper could be put into it there is a wild unit on dathomir like the jawas and tusken. They are called the nightsisters force sensitive women who treat rancors with greatest respect and use them in battle

FroZticles
03-12-2004, 06:03 AM
Bah Vostok lets think outside the box!!!!!

Darth Windu
03-12-2004, 07:12 AM
vostok - i also have Commanders in my SWGB2 idea which are like RoN's Generals, i just don't think they're particually useful.

Admiral Vostok
03-14-2004, 07:11 PM
You're right, Froz. After posting these guys, I reconsidered it. I'm not terribly happy with what I've got there, so please ignore it until I have something better. :)

I'm thinking now on moving towards only a single hero per civ. These characters would be pretty powerful, but you still need to back them up. They'd be a little bit like the characters in Generals, though the main difference is that the characters in Generals are meant to operate on their own while the heroes I'm thinking of work best with an army. Each hero would not necessarily be balanced with the heroes of other civs, and as such they would cost different amounts.

These are the heroes I'm thinking of:

Confederacy: Count Dooku
Galactic Empire: Darth Vader
Galactic Republic: Obi-Wan Kenobi (my reasoning on choosing Obi-Wan over Mace or Yoda is that I think we'll see a lot more how great a Jedi Obi-Wan is in Episode III, plus he's such an important character)
Gungan Grand Army: Jar Jar Binks (Jar Jar would be pretty cheap, and I think the only abilities he'll have is that somehow things just seem to work out - based mainly on the bits in the Grass Plains battle where he messes up but it ends up destroying heaps of droids anyway)
Rebel Alliance: Luke Skywalker
Royal Naboo: Padme Amidala
Trade Federation: Darth Maul

DarthMuffin
03-19-2004, 09:54 PM
There has been some debate when WC3 came out about keeping the hero system for SC2.

Just think of it for a sec : a marine hero (what the heck is that?!?!?)

Heroes are more for medieval/fantasy games. I just can't see a SW game with heroes.

Keep heroes for the campaigns : what happens if your Darth Vader dies in a skirmish? End of the game? What about Luke?Keep in mind that a great game's strength is in replay value, and in the case of an RTS, that means multiplayer or skirmish vs cpus. Therefore, most peeps will play these modes, and most of the battles would be the classic "build your base and then destroy your oppenents".

If you really want to have heroes, make them "normal Jedi/Sith". You could have more than one (but not an army), and THAT would make sense with what SW is.

FroZticles
03-20-2004, 11:12 AM
Thats why I'm not creating the movie heroes I'm making completely new ones.

General Nitro
03-20-2004, 01:35 PM
what's the point in making new ones?

FroZticles
03-20-2004, 11:35 PM
To be different I'm so sick of these people stuck in realism land they really need to adjust there radar a bit.

lukeiamyourdad
03-21-2004, 01:52 AM
Yeah we need other types of heroes then the common Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader. They get repetitive.

Admiral Vostok
03-21-2004, 08:38 PM
Heroes other than Vader and Skywalker? Who would you suggest?

DarthMuffin
03-21-2004, 09:49 PM
Originally posted by Admiral Vostok
Heroes other than Vader and Skywalker? Who would you suggest?

"Generic" Jedi and Sith would be just perfect!

There's no need to think a lot about it! If you want names, make it like WC3, where heroes have generic names

about realism : some people (like me) like when a game based on a movie is as close to the movie as possible. Yes, they have to adjust some stuff, but creating entire civs (wooks and gungans) out of nothing is ridiculous.

lukeiamyourdad
03-21-2004, 09:52 PM
Ditto. Like Darth and Froz mentionned, it could be simple officers, special units or Jedi/Sith.

Admiral Vostok
03-22-2004, 03:13 PM
Personally I'd rather have the heroes from the movies than "generic" heroes.

But maybe I don't fully understand your concept here. Do you mean it should work like in WC3 where you select the type of hero you want, in this case you choose either a Jedi/Sith, or an Officer, or a political leader, and they all have generic powers that each civ has the same. However their names are generated randomly depending on the civ, much like the computer player's names in RM games.

So for example if you're playing the Rebellion your Jedi hero might be Luke Skywalker, your Officer might be General Dodonna and your political leader might be Princess Leia. If you're playing the Trade Federation your Sith hero might be Darth Maul, your officer OOM-9 and your political leader Nute Gunray.

Is this what you mean? If not please explain.

lukeiamyourdad
03-22-2004, 07:59 PM
Let's take Froz's Special Op Commando.

It's not a movie hero, it has its own unique abilities and it's not generic since you can have only one(correct me Froz if I'm wrong).

Its name will always be Special Op Commando, a non-movie "hero". I guess it's not exactly a "hero" unit then, more like one with uncanny abilities.

FroZticles
03-22-2004, 11:41 PM
Actually I've taken that commando stripped it abilities and made him a normal unit. A made a different Republic one but yes if I stuck with him only one could be created.

Admiral Vostok
03-23-2004, 06:39 PM
What to people think about Generic heroes? I' warming to the idea, actually. This is what I mean:

Every civ can buy the same three types of heroes, that is a Jedi/Sith hero, an Officer hero and a Political hero. Their powers are the same for each civ.

This would make them easier to play with, as you don't have to figure out all their powers everytime you play a new civ. Perhaps if that is too boring, each hero gets a single unique power as well as a couple of other generic powers. Other than that they're equal in stats and cost.

The heroes I think would be as follows (J=Jedi/Sith, O=Officer, P=Politician)

Confederacy - J: Count Dooku, O: Super Battle Droid Officer, P: Poggle the Lesser
We'll apparently see a Super Battle Droid Officer as a significant character in the opening of Episode III
Galactic Empire - J: Darth Vader, O: General Veers, P: Grand Moff Tarkin
Galactic Republic - J: Obi-Wan Kenobi, O: Clone Officer, P: Bail Antilles(?)
Gungans - J: ?, O: General Jar Jar Binks, P: Boss Nass
Rebel Alliance - J: Luke Skywalker, O: General Han Solo, P: Princess Leia
Royal Naboo - J: Qui-Gon Jinn, O: Captain Panaka, P: Padme Amidala
Trade Federation - J: Darth Maul, O: OOM-9, P: Nute Gunray

DarthMuffin
03-23-2004, 10:21 PM
Originally posted by Admiral Vostok
What to people think about Generic heroes? I' warming to the idea, actually. This is what I mean:

Every civ can buy the same three types of heroes, that is a Jedi/Sith hero, an Officer hero and a Political hero. Their powers are the same for each civ.

This would make them easier to play with, as you don't have to figure out all their powers everytime you play a new civ. Perhaps if that is too boring, each hero gets a single unique power as well as a couple of other generic powers. Other than that they're equal in stats and cost.

The heroes I think would be as follows (J=Jedi/Sith, O=Officer, P=Politician)

Confederacy - J: Count Dooku, O: Super Battle Droid Officer, P: Poggle the Lesser
We'll apparently see a Super Battle Droid Officer as a significant character in the opening of Episode III
Galactic Empire - J: Darth Vader, O: General Veers, P: Grand Moff Tarkin
Galactic Republic - J: Obi-Wan Kenobi, O: Clone Officer, P: Bail Antilles(?)
Gungans - J: ?, O: General Jar Jar Binks, P: Boss Nass
Rebel Alliance - J: Luke Skywalker, O: General Han Solo, P: Princess Leia
Royal Naboo - J: Qui-Gon Jinn, O: Captain Panaka, P: Padme Amidala
Trade Federation - J: Darth Maul, O: OOM-9, P: Nute Gunray

Hey, I like your Jedi/officer/politician idea. In a sense, that's exactly like WC3 (warrior, dex-based and caster heroes).

What I mean by "generic" heroes is that the game gives every hero a random name. In skirmish and MP, there would be no movie SW characters; that good for peeps who want heroes AND for the purists). Let me explain how it works with WC3 :

In WC3, one of the Alliance's hero is the Paladin. In a skirmish or MP game, when you summon a pally, the game will give him a random name (10 or 12 names in total, enough for a different name is every player in the game gets a pally). For example, one of the name is "Buzan the Fearless". So my pally in the game could get that name, and the enemy's will get another. That way, each hero is "unique" in each game.

In the campaigns however, one of the Protagonist is a pally called Arthas. He's like a normal pally, but has a special name. "Arthas" never appears as a name in a MP game.

Here's how I see the system in a SW RTS game (example with rebels) :

They get a Jedi hero, a politician hero and an officer (to take your class idea)

In the campaign, Luke would be a "normal Jedi", but with Luke as a name. In the MP game, the Jedi you summon would be called by a random name (e.g. Dake Coral (my first KotOR generated name ^_^)).

Han would be a normal "officer" with Han Solo (or general solo) as a name. The MP version could be called something like "Lieutenant Coral".
et cetera

That's what I mean with "generic heroes". Purist would like it (we don't intefere with the movies outside the campaigns) and it's a really great system for hero based RTS (it's a LOT better than just having "General" as the name like in RoN).

Anyways, these are just my thoughts....

EDIT : of course we would have to make stuff more unique. Gungans (if they ever make it in the other game) should not have Jedi, as the wookies. Rebels and Imperials are more similar, but perhaps the rebels politician should be stringer than Imps, and Imps officers stronger than Rebels' (or something like that). Finally, every hero should have different skills (spells). Otherwise, the game will get boring really fast.

Man, I just like this idea. WC3 system plus SW stuff would keep me happy for quite a lot of time :D

lukeiamyourdad
03-23-2004, 10:57 PM
Nice idea actually. But then what would be the purpose of the political hero?

FroZticles
03-23-2004, 11:58 PM
I don't know but I'm still not overly excited about movie heroes being apart of the main RM. Campaigns they are great to set out the story but not so great in a normal game.

Admiral Vostok
03-24-2004, 07:22 PM
I see how it works, that sounds alright. However before Sith gets over here and goes into a fit because someone likes a WC3 idea, I think we need to learn from the mistakes WC3 heroes made.

In WC3, you can sometimes defeat an entire army with the hero. Battles come down to who can click their spells the fastest. This is not what we want. While in Star Wars it is true that the actions of a few effect the destiny of the entire galaxy, it doesn't translate to good gameplay. Heroes should be far less powerful than this, and mostly (except for the Jedi) cannot handle themselves on their own.

When I first read your idea, Darth, I didn't like the random name thing because the Purist in me said "these names aren't from the movies!" but then as you explained that it gets around interference with the movies I get your point. I'm still not entirely convinced because I would like to use movie heroes, but I guess they are better left for the campaigns. The other advantage is that when you hero dies, they don't get resurrected, you just get assigned a new random name. On the other hand, perhaps we really don't even need names?

My first question: if we had a Jedi hero, would we not have buildable Jedi at all? I'll assume for the rest of this post that you only get one Jedi.

So here's how I imagine the classes of hero working:

JEDI - Very powerful in combat, but has few if any "aura" abilities that benefit friendly units. As such the Jedi performs well on his own, and is excellent at infiltration missions and the like. Most of his powers are combat based, such as Push or Lightning.

OFFICER - Military officers are not very good in combat, but their main strength is giving benefits to surrounding friendly units. As such they are best brought to battle, but need to be defended. They might have powers that increase units' rate of fire, increase units' speed or sabotage enemy buildings. As something extra, Officers riding in a transport increase that transport's armour.

POLITICIAN - Politicians are rarely seen in the midst of battle, but are good at leading their civs and furthering their cause off the battlefield. As such the Politicians powers are more focussed on the base and on defense. For example they might increase building production, increase worker's speed, or even have a power similar to AoM's Ceasfire where both sides stop fighting while negotiations take place. As something extra like the Officer, Politicians garrissoned in buildings increase the building's armour.

FroZticles
03-24-2004, 11:29 PM
I say scrap the Jedi hero and make it a type of soldier.

Darth Windu
03-25-2004, 12:42 AM
I say scrap Jedi and Political heroes and just leave Commanders/Generals.

lukeiamyourdad
03-25-2004, 01:02 AM
I say you don,t know what you're talking about!(not you froz)

Darth Windu
03-25-2004, 04:37 AM
I could say the same for you luke.

Vostok - with your 'politcal hero' idea, it seems to look a lot like the 'Patriot' unit from the RoN exapsnion 'Thrones and Patriots'. Is that where you got it from?

FroZticles
03-25-2004, 05:15 AM
He is probably only calling it a political hero which makes sense.

Not all of us plagiarize Windu.....

DarthMuffin
03-25-2004, 09:43 PM
Just to get back to the random names....

I just think it sounds better for a hero to have a name. I didn't like the system in RoN, so I thought that we could just use WC3's system.

On the Jedi/soldier stuff.....

I say keep the Jedi. A normal soldier would be quite boring (IMO), as it would be quite like the officer. A jedi, on the other hand, has some potential as a "warrior hero". We saw at the end of Ep2 Windu and some other Jedi leading a squad of clones, so having a Jedi hero could fit with the movies.

And on WC3 mistakes...

Blizzard always said that WC3 was an RPS, not an RTS. Therefore, heroes do have a lot of importance. However, that doesn't mean it's just a clicking fest. WC3 is not about clicking the spell as fast as possible (most have cooldowns anyway), but about how to use the right spells and the right heroes in different situations. Of course this kind of stuff doesn't fit with SW or any other large-scale RTS, but fits WC3's universe very well. (that was kinda off-topic, but I need to defend WC3 in these dangerous places of the net :) ).

FroZticles
03-26-2004, 02:07 AM
A Jedi hero for each Civ if I'm not mistaken I never saw a Gungan or Wookiee Jedi. Plus we never saw Darth Maul leading a group of droids into battle.

Admiral Vostok
03-26-2004, 04:18 PM
Windu - I was completely unaware that an RoN expansion even existed. In what ways is my Politician similar?

Froz - I also think making a type of Soldier hero is a bit boring, and not really true to the movies. Jedi heroes work much better. In the case of Gungans and Wookiees, perhaps they're the only civs who don't get a Jedi hero? Or perhaps they get a different hero, like two Officer heroes instead of just one. Or perhaps in place of a Jedi, they get a Warrior hero, that isn't quite as good as a Jedi but is a lot cheaper. But this all depends on my question: does every civ have normal Jedi as they do now in addition to this Jedi hero, or would the Jedi hero be the only Jedi for a civ?

Also your comment about Darth Maul leading battles - I completely agree. That's why my Jedi hero does not grant benefits to those units around them, and are better used on their own. The Officer hero is the unit that leads battles.

DarthMuffin
03-26-2004, 08:28 PM
I only used Mace&Clones as an example to show that a Jedi hero would just fight with the units and stay with the "army" all the time. Like most of you, I don't think they should add any kind of bonuses (like you said, that's for the officer).

For the Soldier hero....

Like I said in my first post (p.1), I am against the idea of giving Jedi to civs who don't have any connection with Jedi. That is, I would only give Jedi to Republic, Empire, Rebels and perhaps the confeds (dooku!).

I just got a new idea though...

What if we actually scrap the Jedi hero, and replace it with the warrior hero (I seem to contradict myself, but read on).
Each civ would get their warrior hero. However, the civs that have some "connections" with Jedi (see above) would have a Jedi as their warrior hero. This would also help to create unique heroes (it's a must, btw), since there would only be like 3-4 Jedi/Sith to design.

Anyway, that's just a new idea to discuss on.

FroZticles
03-26-2004, 11:09 PM
When I said solider I ment anything besides a Jedi that can hold himself in battle. I didn't mean a basic trooper above the rank of the others. I'm still not so sure about Jedi heroes.

Admiral Vostok
03-27-2004, 01:07 AM
I think buildable Jedi heroes can only work if there are no regular Jedi available. If you can build many Jedi anyway, a Jedi hero isn't that great. But if you can't build regular Jedi, a Jedi hero is that much better.

Lord_Angelus
03-28-2004, 01:01 AM
How about making the Jedi hero a Jedi Master, that way you can still have generic Jedi Knights but they would be weaker than the master.

Also, if you did use movie based heroes, one way to balance them out could be something like this:

Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader (examples) they would be more powerful than the other heroes but if they come close to each other on tha map, the players lose control of them as they have a duel. Any bonus effects they had on other units would also be lost, they would be too busy with their confrontation to continue leading their troops.

I'm not sure how those battles would be resolved, maybe the loser escapes badly wounded and needs to be taken back to base to be healed (Luke after Bespin).

Lord Angelus

lukeiamyourdad
03-28-2004, 02:16 AM
Yeah Master Heroes and Knight generic. Not a bad idea.

The duel thing seems fun but what happens when say Han meets Vader? How many chances does he stands against him?

And welcome(maybe welcome back) to our little gang. Your name seems familiar...

Lord_Angelus
03-28-2004, 02:33 AM
Thanks for the welcome back, I have posted a few times in the past.

Anyway, I was thinking that it would only apply to the most powerful heroes but now that I think about it more, each hero could have a nemesis, when they meet the effect I posted above happens.

Luke and Vader
Han and Boba Fett
Leia and Tarken
Obi-Wan and Maul
Anakin and Dooku

etc

Another option could be Movie heroes or Generic, it would be selected before the game begins.

Lord Angelus

lukeiamyourdad
03-28-2004, 02:02 PM
Maybe we shouldn't give the option of both generic and movie heroes. There really won't be much of a point since most of the people will choose the movie heroes anyway. They'll want them in-game.

We, on the other hand, don't really want movie heroes since it hampers realism. Maybe I should post a poll about it.

Lord_Angelus
03-28-2004, 04:54 PM
Thats true, hmm how about when you create the hero you could chose for it to be a movie character or a generic character.

If the characters are developed like WC3, it could be something like this:

Movie characters would have a much more limited range of skills to develop (Darth Vader wouldn't have much in the way of diplomacy based abilities for example). They also have the weakness of their nemesis.

Or the player could build a Generic hero which would have a random name generated (and players could rename them if they wanted, just double click on the name and type in the new one).

The player would then have to develop that hero by selecting skills to level up as the hero gains experience.

There would be several different skill trees, Force Powers, Political Abilities, Combat Abilities, Covert Abilities etc. The player would be only be able to max out one of these trees and maybe have a few extra abilities, or they could spread out the skills evenly.

The appearence of the hero would change depending on the choices made, if the player goes heavily into force powers, the hero would eventually change to a Jedi Master. If they went into politics the hero would eventually wear some elaborate clothes as we see in the prequels.

Worf

FroZticles
03-29-2004, 01:19 AM
See we are going backwards I don't want movie heroes in the regular rm in campaigns I'm all for it. I don't want the heroes to be anything like WC3. We want a RTS not a RPS

Admiral Vostok
03-29-2004, 04:24 AM
I agree. I think what you've described, Angelus, is far too complicated for an RTS.

Now I find the idea of realism when it relates to the presence of the movie characters a bit perplexing. As a purist I am divided between two schools of thought:

1) It would be good if movie characters were included, because it relates the game more to the movies which is excellent. From this point of view having generic-named heroes distances the game from the movies and makes it "less-pure".

2) Including the movie characters "re-writes" the story of the movies, because if Luke Skywalker dies, well obviously that's not what went on in the movie. It doesn't matter if generic characters die because they aren't in the movies. So in this way including the movie characters makes it less pure.

I have been tossing up between the two schools of thought. Neither is better than the other from a Purism point of view, I think. So I think I'll turn to Gameplay rather than Realism, because lets face it, it is much more fun to play with the movie characters. This will also be more attractive to non-Star Wars fans.

So I want Movie characters, not generic characters.

Lord_Angelus
03-29-2004, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by Admiral Vostok
I agree. I think what you've described, Angelus, is far too complicated for an RTS.


Fair enough.

I think movie characters would probably be a more popular choice for most gamers and fans. Ok, so some of them will die but Rebellion used movie characters and they could (and did) die.

Worf

lukeiamyourdad
03-29-2004, 04:22 PM
Fair enough. Movie heroes it is.

Lord_Angelus
03-29-2004, 05:43 PM
How about the nemesis idea?

I'm still trying to think of how to balance out the heros who wouldnt be connected, lets say a Trade Federation player vs a Rebel player would mean Maul vs Luke.

Hmm, something that just came to me, there could be a building somewhere on the map (Cantina?) where you can hire a bounty hunter (Boba/Jango Fett perhaps?) to hunt down an enemy hero.

You wouldn't be able to control the bounty hunter and it would be expensive. Maybe the price you pay could affect which bounty hunter you get.

1000 Nova - Dengar
2000 Nova - Bossk
4000 Nova - IG-88
8000 Nova - Boba Fett

The bounty hunters could only be hired by one player at a time (so there wouldn't be 2+ Boba Fetts running around)

Worf

Admiral Vostok
03-29-2004, 09:35 PM
Not a bad idea with the bounty hunters. Similar to some of the other ideas floating around here.

As for the nemesisisisies idea, it's not a bad concept but it could get a bit weird. What if you've got two players playing as Rebels? Would Luke fight Luke? Or if you've got two Rebel players and two Imperial players, then you have two Lukes and two Vaders and something weird might happen.

FroZticles
03-30-2004, 12:14 PM
I'm not settling with movie heroes in normal rm it may be fun but its definately not what most gamers would want. And from a gamers stand point its if you play online I would rather some made up hero in a civs arsenal then a movie hero.

Movie heroes are campaigns and scenarios. Normal are with random maps.

WC3 had half the idea they did not mix there hero units from the campaign into a races normal army. But it still had the same skin and powers just a different name so they were half way there but not the full distance.

Lord_Angelus
03-30-2004, 07:14 PM
I dont see people accepting a character that looks like Darth Vader but uses the name Darth Random.

Worf

lukeiamyourdad
03-30-2004, 09:36 PM
From a marketing standpoint it's logical to use movie heroes.

On the box what do you think would attract a Star wars fan:

-Unleash your randomly generated heroes against your foes?

Or

-Unleash heroes such as Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader on your foes?

FroZticles
03-31-2004, 02:28 AM
I didn't say randomly generated heroes......

I guess Ill have to finish my template before any of you understand.....

Admiral Vostok
03-31-2004, 03:52 AM
The difference is that ALL of the characters in Warcraft III were made either specifically for the game, or were made specifically for it's predecessors so they must appear in the sequel. With Star Wars, the characters already exist, the game is just using them.

No-one would have cared if the back of the WC3 box said "play as Prince Arthas!" but people would care if the back of the SWGB2 box said "play as Darth Vader!"

And I don't see how playing on the zone gives you any better judgement on what the name of a character should be. It might give you insight into how people play, but not what the name of a character should be. That's just taking things too far, Froz.

Darth Windu
03-31-2004, 07:50 AM
Ever considered minor movie characters? (eg Eeth Koth, General Dodonna, Queen Jamilla etc)

DarthMuffin
03-31-2004, 09:15 PM
Just to get back for a sec to movie heroes :

Are you guys sure that having movie heroes in RM games is "more-pure"?

For me, games and movies should not interfere (i.e.: Luke shouldn't be in a RM because he's not in a RM in the movies).

That's just my point of vue... I would keep movie heroes for campaigns.

lukeiamyourdad
03-31-2004, 10:18 PM
We have to think that not only Star Wars purist will play the game. Many others will and having movie heores in RM will have more appeal to these people(who, if I dare say, composes the majority of buyers).

FroZticles
04-01-2004, 01:57 AM
Well sorry to say but I don't post ideas to keep you people happy........

Admiral Vostok
04-01-2004, 10:47 PM
Froz - That's for sure.

Windu - The problem is people would much rather play as major characters than minor characters. Minor movie characters would be fine for campaigns but I wouldn't think they'd make good buildable heroes. Read on for clarification...

Darth54 - Yes, movie characters in RM are more pure because of the following reasoning: the campaigns tell a story that either goes along with the movies or expands on them. RM games have no bearing on the movies because they're essentially fantasy battles - if you can have the Rebellion fighting the Republic then no-one should be under the impression the game is consistent with the movies.

Quite often campaigns will feature parts from the movies but alter them to make a better game. Because of the alterations, the games become less pure, so the presence of movie characters can really effect purity. In RM movie characters can be fine because you're not playing as part of the movies, you're just playing a "what if?" battle.

So I think buildable heroes should not be available in the campaigns, instead you start with a few heroes important to the story, which may or may not be movie characters depending on the plot of the campaigns. In RM you get to build movie characters, because RM is the most played part of a game and movie characters will be popular.

A way to think about it is the way Jedi were used in the Rebel and Imperial Campaigns of SWGB1. In both of these campaigns, you could not build a Jedi Temple, because that would be horrifically impure... in fact now I think about it you couldn't build Jedi Temples in any of the SWGB Campaigns, only in the Clone Campaigns. Yet Jedi and Sith Temples are buildable in RM, because RM is just for fun, and isn't trying to be consistent with the movies.

I hope everyone could understand what I was on about. Basically what I'm saying is this: I'm Lord of the Purists, so if it's okay by me I don't think other purists will mind. I'm fine with playing Echuu Shen Jon in the campaigns but I'd rather not build him in an RM...

DarthMuffin
04-02-2004, 09:18 PM
Originally posted by Admiral Vostok

if you can have the Rebellion fighting the Republic then no-one should be under the impression the game is consistent with the movies.


Alright, you've made your point. I'll shut up now :D

FroZticles
04-02-2004, 11:41 PM
Vostok you said you wanted movie characters now you don't........

Lord_Angelus
04-03-2004, 09:00 PM
I agree, it is possible that the movie characters might recreate historical battles using holographic technology in their spare time (between movies, books, games etc), or maybe they are training simulators where they are helping the new recruits train for combat.

Lord Angelus

Admiral Vostok
04-04-2004, 01:02 AM
Froz: No I still want movie characters, but only in RM. In the campaigns, I think there should be no buildable heroes, but you start each scenario with the relevant heroes for the storyline of the campaign. These heroes in the campaigns could be either movie characters or made up ones or both.

FroZticles
04-04-2004, 12:04 PM
Again Vostok you throw words into my mouth, what I ment was that you start off or gain heroes through the campaign but not building them. In RM its different you hire a non movie hero but it is buildable.

Admiral Vostok
04-05-2004, 05:13 AM
Froz, I was just referring to the fact that you suggested I didn't want movie hereos, when in fact I do. What do you mean I throw words in your mouth? I'm confused...

FroZticles
04-05-2004, 10:07 AM
So you want movie heroes in RM and campaigns......

For a purist thats very un pure.

Admiral Vostok
04-05-2004, 05:50 PM
How so? I explained above my Purist thoughts on including characters. Please explain.

FroZticles
04-07-2004, 02:35 AM
And I don't see how playing on the zone gives you any better judgement on what the name of a character should be. It might give you insight into how people play, but not what the name of a character should be. That's just taking things too far, Froz.

WTF is that ment to mean?

I didn't even imply that cause I play on the zone that you won't understand its just to hard to explain. My template has nothing to do with SWGB 1 and it has no heroes so what are you on about?

Well you are not the purist you make yourself out to be. You want movie characters in RM but if Luke SKywalker dies 1000 times he still leads the rebellion to victory.........

The heroes from the movies get old they are great for scenario players but not rmers. I'd rather generic heroes or no heroes at all. You can make up a history for a character and fit them into a story line quite easily. With Sev'Rance Tann she is ment to be Count Dooku's apprentice and she is from EU so if they can bring a EU character into it why can't they mak up there own and add them in.

Admiral Vostok
04-07-2004, 03:56 AM
And from a gamers stand point its if you play online I would rather some made up hero in a civs arsenal then a movie hero.Sorry, I interpreted this remark as saying "The point of view that matters is gamers who play online. I play online and I would rather some made up hero in a civ's arsenal than a movie hero." If I interpreted incorrectly, I apologise.

As for Purism, you're looking at it the wrong way. In RM, the Rebellion can fight against the Republic, which doesn't follow the movies at all, so it is quite acceptable for Luke to die 1000 times as you put it. RM is like what-if battles, just for fun. But as a Purist I'd much rather use characters from the movies than non-movie characters, because the movies are supreme and nothing can compare to them. While most people are not Purists, I'd wager most people would rather use movie characters than characters they've never heard of as well.

FroZticles
04-07-2004, 05:05 AM
I don't mind them in terminate the commander but in an RM it seems weird to be building a Luke Skywalker or a Yoda.....

Admiral Vostok
04-07-2004, 11:32 PM
Well it's far better than having a no-name character no one cares about like Echuu Shen Jon or Ziff Kalasco.

Yes I did make up Ziff Kalasco. He's my generically-named hero.

lukeiamyourdad
04-08-2004, 02:19 AM
Remember that not everyone is a huge RTS player. Moderates and newbies will prefer movie heroes, characters they already know to randomly generated ones.

FroZticles
04-08-2004, 02:23 AM
Well if there not a RTS fan why buy the game? They can still have there movie heroes in the scenario toy box and in the campaigns but the RM should be the one boundary they cannot cross.

FroZticles
04-08-2004, 02:25 AM
Vostok- You don't base a hero on his name its what he does in game and the story the creators put behind him that really matters.

lukeiamyourdad
04-08-2004, 02:26 AM
Actually that's a very narrow-minded comment. I can safely say that at least half of the people who will buy the game will be RTS moderates or newbies. They'll move to RM later but if they don't see anything that they like in it, they won't.

FroZticles
04-08-2004, 02:44 AM
Sorry I misread and thought you ment people who don't like RTS...

SWGB didn't have heroes in RM and plenty of people played. People jump straight on the scenario band wagon cause they are the easiest games to play. With RM it takes months to get up to scratch and even longer to catch up to the high inters.

So what your saying is noone will play RM cause theres no movie heroes? Well I'm sorry but your way off the mark. I fhtye don't like RM they don't they just continue with scenarios and keep blinding themselves with the same comments I hear all the time is RM sucks.

lukeiamyourdad
04-08-2004, 03:49 AM
No. I'm saying that RM will be more appealing to the regulars if they had movie heroes.

FroZticles
04-08-2004, 03:31 PM
I'm a regular and that wold not impress me at all. People have different thoughts you can't possibly know what they want.

saberhagen
04-08-2004, 06:15 PM
Ziff Kalasco sounds cool. Which side is he on? Does he have a droopy moustache? Tell me more. I want to know all about him. Now.

lukeiamyourdad
04-08-2004, 08:32 PM
Argh Froz....

If I was a RTS and a low Star Wars fan, I would more attracted if I got the chance to play witht he characters I know.

Admiral Vostok
04-08-2004, 11:52 PM
Think of it this way: nearly every single piece of EU ever made has at least one character in from the movies, or failing that a relative of a character from the movies.

The movies are what matters. This is my belief as a Purist, and I'm sure most will agree that the movies are far more popular than the EU is.

If you have generic characters like Ziff Kalasco (who does have a droopy moustache) that are not in the movies, they can never hope to compete with the popularity of a movie character like Luke Skywalker.

Yes, SWGB1 didn't have movie characters in their RM, but they didn't have generic heroes either. If a Star Wars RTS includes heroes, why would the makers choose to have generic characters when such great and immediately recognisable characters already exist in the movies? I'm quite confident that if SWGB1 did have buildable heroes, they would have been movie characters.

In fact I've come to the conclusion that to not include movie characters is far less pure than including them. The whole idea of Purism is that things need to be as much like the movies as possible, and if they substitute movie heroes for non-movie heroes, how can this be so? Perhaps we should not include movie civs and just have generic civs if we don't want to interfere with the movies?

Froz, if you really are a gamer first and formost I don't see how the name of your character should make a difference. He'll still be exactly the same gameplay wise, so what does it matter if his name is Luke Skywalker or Ziff Kalasco?

FroZticles
04-09-2004, 07:22 AM
luke-A low Star Wars fan wouldn't know his Vaders from his Padmes.


vostok-The makers know if they added movie heroes into RM it would suck the realism out of it. Looking really stupid. You can't bring your less pure stuff over to RM. The campaigns fill the generic heroes journey and history. When playing SWGB I had no idea who Sev'Rance was but everyone accepted her.

After this debate I've ejected heroes altogether accept from the campaigns and scenarios. Have your movie heroes for all I care our not the ones who play RM anyways.

lukeiamyourdad
04-09-2004, 03:22 PM
First off, we do play RM.

Second, give me a single low Star Wars fan who doesn't know who the hell is Darth Vader.



I'm gonna take War of The Ring as an example here. I know it may not be the best RTS out there but here goes.
In general RM, they used the books' heroes instead of unknown ones. People couldn't be happier. No on actually complaints about realism.

Admiral Vostok
04-09-2004, 04:23 PM
How exactly are movie characters less pure? They are from the movies, therefore they are pure.

I was completely unaware you were a purist at all, Froz. Now you're challenging me as to what is and is not pure?

And Luke's Dad, while War of the Ring was a load of rubbish, I think we should look to the upcoming Battle for Middle Earth as a better example. Because it is based on the Lord of the Rings movies, this makes it quite similar to a future Star Wars RTS (both based on movies). Battle for Middle Earth will have powerful heroes from the movies (and technically they're from the books too) that you can build and send into battle. Now you can't tell me you'd rather play as a generic Wizard hero instead of as Gandalf. The same goes for Star Wars. Why play as a generic Jedi when you can play as Luke Skywalker?

I'd like to think EA has done a bit of research into what gamers want, so if LOTR movie characters are good enough for their LOTR RTS heroes, Star Wars movie characters should be good enough for Star Wars RTS heroes.

FroZticles
04-09-2004, 04:35 PM
I'm not a purist, I just was trying to show your not much of one yourself. With movie heroes in RM yes very pure.

Admiral Vostok
04-09-2004, 04:39 PM
You seem to have a basic misunderstanding of what exactly Purism is. It is not the desire to be entirely separate from the movies so as to not contradict them, it is quite the opposite. It is the need to make things as much like the movies as possible.

To this end, since movie characters are in the movies and we want the game to be as much like the movies as possible, movie characters should also be in the game.

FroZticles
04-09-2004, 04:47 PM
No if you had it your way the whole game would be the movies all over again.

lukeiamyourdad
04-09-2004, 07:17 PM
Actually, no. I know Vostok. He cares for gameplay more then realism no matter what it looks like.

DarthMuffin
04-10-2004, 12:32 AM
Originally posted by Admiral Vostok
You seem to have a basic misunderstanding of what exactly Purism is. It is not the desire to be entirely separate from the movies so as to not contradict them, it is quite the opposite. It is the need to make things as much like the movies as possible.

To this end, since movie characters are in the movies and we want the game to be as much like the movies as possible, movie characters should also be in the game.

I do not agree with your theory. For the "Lord of the purists" you don't sound very purist to me :)

I'd say make things as much like the movies, but don't contradict them at the same time. I.e. no wookie civ cuz we only see 4 wooks in the SW movies, but having luke in a skirmish contradicts the movies. Just my view. (I still can't accept to see Luke in a RM, but it doesn't matter since LA will probably never look at what we wrote here).

Ok, I'll try to shut up again :o

lukeiamyourdad
04-10-2004, 01:59 AM
The thing is having the Confederacy fighting the Rebels is contradicting the movies, having the Republic fight the Empire even more. Therefore we can overlook minor things.

FroZticles
04-10-2004, 02:13 AM
Luke you don't understand that realism is left at the door in RM battles are ment to be huge and strategic. The only realism in there is the military units. This movie hero stuff isn't minor you have them in campaigns and scenarios what more do you want?



RM IS NOT THE STORY!!!.......thats the campaigns job.

lukeiamyourdad
04-10-2004, 02:21 AM
Actually, it's even more minor.






I can't believe we're arguing if heroes should be named Ziff Zalasco or Luke Skywalker...

FroZticles
04-10-2004, 02:29 AM
I'm not debating the names I'm annoyed that you don't see it will make a invasive presence in RM. Luke becoming a evader hmmm thought I'd never see the day.

Admiral Vostok
04-10-2004, 03:43 AM
Luke's Dad: It's Ziff Kalasco, not Zalasco! Or is Zalasco your generic-named hero?

Froz: Exactly, RM is not the story. So what's the problem with having movie characters in it?

Darth: How does having Luke in a skirmish contradict the movies? I seem to remember in the Battle of Hoth after his snowspeeder went down, he was right in the skirmish, taking out an AT-AT and everything.



Everyone: Is the major problem with having movie characters in the game the fact they can die? If so I have a concept that gets around that without making them uber-characters like WarCraft III:

When a hero gets to 1HP (just about to die) they become invulnerable and cannot be targetted by enemy units anymore. They can no longer attack or use any special abilities, and their line of sight is reduced to one (so they can't see anything). They move at a very reduced rate because they are near death. You have to get the hero back to your Command Center where they can be dunked into a vat of bacta and restored to full health.

This is very realistic because if you think about it, this is exactly what happened to Luke (kind of) when Vader cut off his hand and he fell down the pit: he was effectively dead. But he was rescued and brought back to full health for more adventures. The same with Han when he was frozen, and with Obi-Wan when he was taken by the Geonosians, and with Anakin when Dooku cut his arm off. In fact if you think about it, rescuing incapacitated heroes is a big part of Star Wars.

Thoughts?

FroZticles
04-10-2004, 10:31 AM
I read up to where you could "fix" the movie heroes damn that is just crazy enough not to work....


It makes things a whole lot worse losing a hand or arm is one thing but when you are half a second from dying and then you cant lose health is insane. Your lord of the purists no more you have disgraced them I now give Darth Windu your crown thats how unrealisic that idea is.

With movie heroes in RM it introduces stroy into RM which is irrelevant. You can't use Luke battling AT-AT on hoth as a back up you said so yourself it isn't a story so take your scenario toy box with your movie heroes with you.

Lord_Angelus
04-10-2004, 02:48 PM
I like the idea of heroes being incapacitated. This could be expanded a little, players could have a prison building which allows them to capture enemy heroes (probably with a special and expensive unit, maybe the bounty hunters that I described earlier).

Lord Angelus

lukeiamyourdad
04-10-2004, 07:07 PM
Sorry Vostok but that really is a lousy idea. It would piss off the enemy so greatly. Besides, it makes no sense at all. He's near dead and no one can kill him...wth?

I'm reconsidering the whole idea of heroes themselves...perhaps they shouldn't have such a place. AoM did fine without them(Greek heroes are not errr...heroes...).


Anyway, for the sake of the debate, I'll take SWBF as yet another example. In Star Wars Battlefront, you'll be able to cal upon the help of a jedi/sith hero after you accomplish something(that I don't know).
Now Luke and Vader have already been confirmed to be in-game NPCs so if they can throw in movie characters in the midst of a battle, I guess SWGBII can too.

DarthMuffin
04-10-2004, 07:47 PM
Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad
Actually, it's even more minor.






I can't believe we're arguing if heroes should be named Ziff Zalasco or Luke Skywalker...

That means that we've got nothing to discuss on, and that we desperatly (sp?) need a new RTS...

@ Vostok : bad idea. Doesn't make any sense to me.

... and WC3's heroes are not suber-extra-uber invincible. They only become super strong (not uber) if the game lasts too long... and that means you don't know how to play if it lasts too long.

FroZticles
04-11-2004, 12:24 AM
luke- we still are not sure how they will put them in game it could just be in the single player mode in a mission. I doubt they will make them available online because youll have 5 vaders running around.

Admiral Vostok
04-11-2004, 09:21 PM
Aww, no-one likes my idea. :( I thought it reflected the movies quite well. The idea is not that they become invincible near death, it is that the enemy supposedly thinks they're dead, so stops targetting them, when they actually aren't dead at all, and they sneak away to fight another day. But if everyone really hates it I'll do away with it.

What if I alter my idea by going on what Angelus suggested? That is, when they get down to zero health they are not killed but are instead captured by the enemy. You can no longer control them, and to get them back you'll have to mount a rescue mission. Perhaps there could be additional effects, such as while the enemy has your heroes prisoner, you lose an amount of your resources every so often. It could also be modified into a game mode, kind of like where you win if you have all the holocrons, instead winning if you can hold onto all the enemy's heroes for a period of time.

Is that better?


Froz: Jedi Outcast allowed you to use whatever characters you wanted in online multiplayer mode, including Luke Skywalker. So you could have eight Luke Skywalkers all battling each other. If I'm not mistaken, Jedi Outcast has been the most popular Star Wars game to date...

My point is there is no possible way multiplayer games don't follow the movies, but they do try to capture the feel of the movies. That's what I'm trying to do. The game isn't reliving the movies, it's just for fun, which is surprisingly what a game is meant to be.

And perhaps you should learn the definition of Purist before you give yourself the right to de-throne me...

Darth Windu
04-12-2004, 01:25 AM
Well, i'm just going to go ahead and say that Heroes shouldnt be in multi-player games. They dont fit, and really this game is supposed to be about large battles between huge powers, not a few people.

PS: froz - vostok is actually being purist because he is chosing film characters over non-film characters. Oh yes and Vostok, i hate your idea too :)

lukeiamyourdad
04-12-2004, 01:45 AM
Capturing heroes seems quite interesting for a game mode.
It sounds like some sort of regicide or kill the commander which was always a very interesting game type.

I've always felt that those games required more thinking then others.

FroZticles
04-12-2004, 05:14 AM
Windu- I don't want heroes in RM at all..... Vostok is still not a purist with his unkillable hero idea and he stills wants 8 Lukes in one game....

Vostok-Jedi outcast is not a RTS and it is dead now since the release of JKA. Which you create your own characters and is more popular than Jedi OUtcast ever was.

Your rescue mission idea is bad there are no missions in RM unless you count killing all your enemies a mission. It could work in a game mode but I don't see the appeal.

It is a RTS you try turning it into a RPS now a first person shooter very interesting....

lukeiamyourdad
04-12-2004, 02:33 PM
Froz, try playing Savage. It's an RTS/FPS.

You'd be amazed.


JKA doesn't have the popularity JKO had in its prime. JKA was blah...bad storyline, bad online community...blah...I guess JKO wasn't much better but still...

DarthMuffin
04-12-2004, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad
Froz, try playing Savage. It's an RTS/FPS.

You'd be amazed.


JKA doesn't have the popularity JKO had in its prime. JKA was blah...bad storyline, bad online community...blah...I guess JKO wasn't much better but still...

Actually, JO was (and is still) a superb game. However, most players are attracted by the damn staves and dual sabers. (it was a really bad idea to add them, IMO)

About capture & rescue : I don't think it's a good idea. If you want this, go play Rebellion (or start a petition so that they make a rebellion 2 :) ).

And don't forget that the game should not be centered around heroes. They're just additional stuff to make the game more enjoyable (unless you want it to be more like WC3, but that wouldn't fit with SW).

lukeiamyourdad
04-12-2004, 10:01 PM
JO is a good game, better then JA is but its online community wasn't much better.

Capture & Rescue: It shouldn't be very different from Kill the Commander so...

Admiral Vostok
04-13-2004, 02:19 PM
Froz: Actually in RM at the moment you can win by collecting all holocrons, and this is what capturing all enemy heroes would be like.

I think heroes are an important enough part of Star Wars to be included, but you are right Darth in that the game shouldn't revolve around them.

I'm just finishing up my revised design of SWGB2, and I want to include heroes. So what is the best way for them to exist?
1) My unkillable heroes idea is right out, no-one likes it.
2) My capturable and rescuable heroes has people divided.
3) What if they can be killed? Either you can only ever build one, or...
4) Build a new one every time they die... very unrealistic but seems to be the way most games include them (Generals, Age of Mythology, WarCraft III...)

So how should they operate? And don't just say no heroes at all, I want them so I'm trying to determine a good way to include them.

FroZticles
04-13-2004, 03:50 PM
vostok- I don't play it on standard only conquest you can also win by monument that that stuff is all noobie.

When heroes die I guess cloning them back is the only way.

Admiral Vostok
04-13-2004, 05:03 PM
I never said you play it on standard. I don't play on standard either. But the fact remains it exists, and is named "standard".

So you're okay with rebuilding them (option 4)? I guess maybe I should start a poll... nah.

FroZticles
04-14-2004, 03:50 AM
No I'm not okay with it, I don't want heroes at all, but its the only one that makes sense. Building and hero and they die and never come back noone would build a hero unless they were stronger than WC3 and had HUGE!!! damage giving abilities.

Darth Windu
04-14-2004, 05:49 AM
I'm going to again agree with FroZ on this point, NO HEROES IN MULTI-PLAYER!

They are excellent for single-player, but the whole point of the game is the control of large forces, not single people.

FroZticles
04-14-2004, 11:54 AM
Wow we agree on something for a change I'm scared

DarthMuffin
04-14-2004, 12:11 PM
I would almost agree with them. I really hate the idea of having movie heroes in RM, but anyways...

Should I have to choose, I'd say n.4 --> revive/clone them, whatever you like.

Lord_Angelus
04-14-2004, 01:18 PM
Personally I like the idea of heroes and I guess cloning is the only way to do it.

Seeing as people are divided on the subject, how about having a check box when your setting up the game to enable/disable heroes?

Lord Angelus

Admiral Vostok
04-14-2004, 01:20 PM
Windu, I know you don't want them. If you re-read my post you'll note I said this:And don't just say no heroes at all, I want them so I'm trying to determine a good way to include them.So what I'm saying is, if you had to include them, how would you do it? So far that's two votes for reviving them (while the same as cloning, I'm not going to call it cloning, and I do have my reasons but they are too long winded to put here).

It is important to note that the way my heroes work is not the same as WarCraft III. Jedi/Sith Heroes are powerful, but that's to be expected as they work similar to as the existing Jedi/Sith Masters, except you can only have one of them instead of a whole heap. But my Military and Political Heroes for the most part only have powers that advantage surrounding units, not themselves. As such the emphasis is on the rest of the army, not on the hero by themselves. This should please you Windu, because the emphasis will be on large forces. By themselves the Military and Political Heroes are useless, but as a part of a large force you will get results.

lukeiamyourdad
04-14-2004, 11:52 PM
Wow huge switch. Most of the pro-hero are now anti-hero.

What a turn of events:eek:

DarthMuffin
04-15-2004, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad
Wow huge switch. Most of the pro-hero are now anti-hero.

What a turn of events:eek:

I don't want movie heroes in RM!!!

But I'm still pro-hero in general (I'm WC3 to the core, what did you expect from me?)

joesdomain
04-23-2004, 06:26 AM
I like the idea of adding Star wars heroes to a GB2 game.