![]() Personally, I think a Hero is "a leader" (well, you've mentioned it above), or "an actor" (yeah, they done cool things, such as abilities). Um, as for melee, i'd rather choose op.1, because this is a "sequel" of Warcraft, so at least we want to re-show the "traditions" of Warcraft (there must be one, if you play W2 and W3, you can find it. Have you ever play W3 campaigns? I think the champion thing is more like "Naisha" (single more powerful huntress) or "Captain" (single more powerful footman), they aren't heroes, but strong enough. Well, in my opinion the champion thing was good, that is served as "right-arm" of the leader (yeah, Hero the Leader) This way they won't be "OP", although I'm not so fond of the idea of a "mighty commander" having to run away from 2-3 "puny" footmen/grunts etc. Also, another way of balancing it reducing heroes' AoE spells' damage. It's just not as dynamic as warcraft 3 where you need to constantly prevent you enemy from gaining experience while at the same time leveling up yourself. I'm not really interested in making a big army and throwing it against another one. Also, I very much agree that macro is for starcraft 2. If an agility-based hero receives 2.2 agility in Warcraft 3, it should receive around 1.6 and lower here. Instead of making them weaker, make the bonuses they receive per level smaller, e.g. When most people think of a hero, they imagine he is level 10+ but at the start, they are much more vulnerable. If you think about it, in warcraft 3 it's not how strong are the heroes but how they are used. It'd continue to stack like that, because if the bonuses were so negligible that they didn't actually increase your strength past that of the same unit, they have very little purpose for being here.įrom what I've read I can't really see a huge difference between champions and New "weaker" heroes. The boosts would cause your three soldiers, when fighting three of their soldiers (if they had all killed 5 units, and the enemies hadn't), your soldiers would be guaranteed to win because of the slight bonuses - and than they'd be even further strengthened. ![]() Sure, it'd be negligible at first, but it'd begin to stack up. ![]() ![]() It's basically giving every unit the leveling system heroes get in WC3, and taking away the abilities that go with it. If they are just the units that have the highest kill score, it'd be a hassle to kill them because the moment one died, another would just become stronger for it.įor the second of your options, I just don't agree with it. I may have misunderstood.įor the champions, are they just units with slightly increased stats, or do you plan on having them have different abilities? In my opinion, it'd be better to have them be build by their self instead of being units that just appear when they have the highest kill score. Also the first option could require an upgrade, that would prevent early champion see. While the advantage to the player that survives still exists at early game you could make it so that the difference is negligible. but really high kill counts could make it so that they have more bonuses (health would come last after damage and accuracy bonuses) plus the advantage can be almost useless in a full battle unless its really high if you want, you could make it so that all gaining a kill count level gains you is a 2% accuracy boost, useless on its own. In the second of my options I do agree you would gain advantage if you survive but logically the units that survive are more experienced. and so while it forces a diverse army the death of a champion doesn't matter since another would be promoted to take it's place, and the champion doesn't have a leveling system so farming is not required. In the first of my options champions always exist if there is even one of those units on the field, you'd have to make it so that if two units have the same kill counts the unit that came first would get it.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |