The immortality of heroes??

[Naja]

On the Petroglyph fan forums, one of the Petro techs who is cool enough to chat with us implied that heroes are going to be respawnable after they are killed...much like Battle for Middle Earth, or Warcraft, or any other hero-based RTS.

 

What are you thoughts on the matter?

 

Personally, I think that it's a crap decision that is based on supplicating to an already spoon-fed gamer demographic, and that Petroglyph - if at this stage is still open to persuasion - should strongly reconsider this aspect.

 

I mean, it's one thing if heroes can be resurrected in a game like Battle for Middle Earth or Warcraft, both of which have that fantasy world theme to them. But with Star Wars, it would come off as very cheesy and contrived...as if the decision was made simply because -other- RTS's do it.

[GhOsT-Jedi]

I agree but I heard differently, anyways. I think heros should be like every other unit if it dies then they are done.

[Samurai DD]

Should stay dead. They died, they stay dead. Maybe they can resurrect, but not on the same battle.

[Jeff]

I think that ultimately they should be respawnable. You say it's unrealistic now, and it is, but you'll hate it when they're gone for good in the game. I know I would. I think that if they did not make them re-spawnable, players would be reluctant to use them at all.

[Juggernaut1985]

Thats the point of the game though, you don't conquer with your heroes, you use your forces to conquer. Heroes should just help the process along, not BE the process.

[Naja]

Maybe respawnable for multiplayer games. But certainly not for the campaign. It would ruin the feeling of a galaxy-wide struggle if the deaths of your greatest fighters could just be shrugged off.

[Thrawn]

I believe there should be different classes of "hero". For instance, main charaters that appear in the movies, a la Vader, Luke, and the like should be respawnable, but not in the same battle. This just goes along with the nature of heroes in that they can be defeated, but somehow manage to pull through to fight another day. Minor EU characters are by nature more expendible and if they are killed are gone for good.

[Naja]

But what about Obi-Wan? Palpatine? Bail Organa (died when the Death Star blew up Alderaan)? Darth Vader?

 

Episodes 2 and 5 were the only ones in which a major character did not die. Die. As in, expire. No more.

 

None of the movies would have had weight if those characters suddenly "came back." How could a game be any different?

[Darth Alec]

But we are talking about a game. It would be really sad if Vader died in the third battle, becuse then you wouldn't have him the next 2-5 hours.

[Naja]

I respectfully would have to disagree. If the player is faced with the possibility of his heroes dying, he will be more careful managing them; you wouldn't have to worry about losing Vader in a matter of hours if you were careful with him.

[FroZticles]

Well when heroes die on the battlefield I don't see it as them dying but just incapitated and then they are revived at the command center or whatever.

 

Gameplay>Realism

 

A game is just that a game it has no plot it has to strictly follow to keep the story going because it has to bend the rules to make the game playable and fair. It would be too frustrating ohhh I just spent 5000 credits on my Obi-Wan. Look my enemy just focused fired him with his entire army there goes the credits in a matter of 30 seconds.

[Logain]

they could just make it an option, you could choose either respawn or total kill,

[Dagobahn Eagle]

This is Star Wars, not South Park, and Darth Vader isn't Kenny. To put it that way.

 

Gameplay>Realism.

A game is just that, a game.

I hate those two stupid cliché tags.

1. Do you have a monopoly on determining what is good game-play? Don't think so. Good game-play to me is mortal heroes, good game-play to you is immortal heroes. Saying "I don't want this, because I, unlike you, want good game-play" just makes zero sense.

2. Is game-play always the opposite of realism? In this case, I feel it's Game-play=Realism. I hate people who go "realism sucks period". They totally miss the point - many realistic features make the game better, less complicated, and more fun.

 

It has to bend the rules to make the game playable and fair.

And how is it unfair to make heroes mortal? It's the same for all sides, right?

 

It would be too frustrating ohhh I just spent 5000 credits on my Obi-Wan. Look my enemy just focused fired him with his entire army there goes the credits in a matter of 30 seconds.

Yes, that'd be frustrating. And then you'd realize that maybe you should take better care of your heroes.

 

And seeing that heroes in this game will be over-powered monsters, that shouldn't be a problem.

 

You say it's unrealistic now (...)

Oh yes.

Not just unrealistic, but also silly. Not to mention that it detracts from immersion and makes the game focus more on heroes, which I feel is a bad thing (Battle for Middle Earth is a prime example on how too much focus on heroes can - in my opinion - detract from the enjoyment of a game).

 

Just wanted to expand on that one a little.

 

but you'll hate it when they're gone for good in the game.

Yup. So I take care of them.

And I'll love it when I kill the enemy hero. Think of it that way.

 

In Dominions II and Rome: Total War, my heroes are dead when they die. If I have a Jotun Hygja with an experience of 4, a special bonus, and increased spell levels, I'll be sure as Heck to take good care of her. She'll get a well-sized, strong body-guard, be careful not to waste her by sending her into suicide battles, and so on. If she dies, tough luck. Part of the game, like losing an important province.

 

Replenishable heroes is, in my opinion, one of the elements of the popular "take away the challenge from games"-trend. Another example is how some people feel that villagers shouldn't have to carry resources to drop-points (Age of Empires III).

 

It depends on the type of hero, really. Unique characters should not be replenishable. However, "sub-heroes", like Imperial Officers, et cetera, should of course be replaceable. You lose your officer, recruit a new one (although he won't have the experience of your old one).

 

They could just make it an option, you could choose either respawn or total kill

[Raises hand]

Why do people say "just add it an option" when it's obviously near-impossible for developers to do that [sarcasm ends]

 

Yes, I'm all for realism and difficulty options. Have you played Silent Hunter III? For single-player missions, there are probably 20 different realism options, from external view and infinite torpedoes, to realistic sinking time, assistance in aiming from your weapon officer, and infinite oxygen. Increasing realism is rewarded by the game as you get more renown (which is used for upgrades, advanced torpedoes, and new crew members) when realism is high. So once you're past the practice stage, you'll be sure to turn realism up as it gives you a huge renown bonus (at 0% realism you get 200-something renown for a completed patrol, while at 100% realism you get 700 renown).

 

For multi-player games, there are only four settings for realism - easy, medium, hard, and realistic.

 

It works really, really well and something similar should be implemented in EaW.

[Nevets1112]

Well when heroes die on the battlefield I don't see it as them dying but just incapitated and then they are revived at the command center or whatever.

 

Gameplay>Realism

 

In this case gameplay could be ruined by nonrealism.

[-=Nuke=-]

It could be like this:

 

- Hero spawned 1st time

- got like 1000 hp

- if HP reaches zero hero leaves battlefield again, not dead, not injured. Maybe just needed somewhere else. like "Darth Vader left the battlefield"

[GhOsT-Jedi]

If, the hero can die then like some said would make you realise that this is a rtS game notice the S. If you want a arcade game where heros dont die go play battlefront. Us huge star wars fans have been waiting for a game like this for a long time and if the heros spawn then wheres the stratigic move in that? All you have to do is have your hero charge the enemy lines and think your save now if you have it where they can die then you would be more responsible and more mature to think, wait a minute he can die. Better move him to back of the lines for moral perpose.

[Logain]

[Raises hand]

Why do people say "just add it an option" when it's obviously near-impossible for developers to do that [sarcasm ends]

 

Yes, I'm all for realism and difficulty options. Have you played Silent Hunter III? For single-player missions, there are probably 20 different realism options, from external view and infinite torpedoes, to realistic sinking time, assistance in aiming from your weapon officer, and infinite oxygen. Increasing realism is rewarded by the game as you get more renown (which is used for upgrades, advanced torpedoes, and new crew members) when realism is high. So once you're past the practice stage, you'll be sure to turn realism up as it gives you a huge renown bonus (at 0% realism you get 200-something renown for a completed patrol, while at 100% realism you get 700 renown).

 

For multi-player games, there are only four settings for realism - easy, medium, hard, and realistic.

 

It works really, really well and something similar should be implemented in EaW.

 

its actually quite simple, they code the game to have the heros respawning, they then code in a switch, respawn = off or respawn = on,

 

personally i'm gonna use heros as little as often, and if they get KO'd once, they then get to enjoy a nice backwater planet that wont be in battle any time soon

[nightmarenny]

But we are talking about a game. It would be really sad if Vader died in the third battle, becuse then you wouldn't have him the next 2-5 hours.

Their are like ten heros each side. Big deal.

[Jan Gaarni]

If you lost a character in Rebellion, he/she stayed dead.

 

I see nothing wrong with this, as you are bound to be more carefull what you do with them and where you bring them.

[Jeff]

I see nothing wrong with this, as you are bound to be more carefull what you do with them and where you bring them.

THe problem I would have would be being too careful with them. And I can't be the only one like that. Yes, I know that mortal heroes would be more realistic, but I think that it makes the game more enjoyable if you don't have to overprotect your heroes.

 

I know you must be careful with them, but I think a big enough consequence for a hero dying is waiting for them to re-spawn wherever you get your heroes. I know in Warcraft III if you lost a hero in a large battle that turned the tide tremendously, and if you had a hero on your side that also would make a big difference in the battle. But maybe EaW won't focus on the heroes as much, I don't know.

[Darth Alec]

Still, it's not very fun to use heroes for morale.

You will want Vader in front, mowing down rebels. And what will happen when all the n00bs join and say, "Why cant I use Vader, he only gets PWNeD". Do you want that? Didnt think so.

[Thrawn]

It's been a while since I've played Rebellion/Supremacy, but I never saw Vader or the Emperor killed off. Ever.

 

We have to keep in mind the game allows you to change Star Wars history. Presumably, for the Alliance, this means Obi-wan doesn't have to die if you're playing as that side. If you're playing for the Empire, then chances are you'll have the opportunity or even objective of bumping him off with Vader during your invasion of Tattooine.

[vader815]

it would be best to have it as an option if heros can be respawned so that one can choose how real they want the game

[Jeff]

We have to keep in mind the game allows you to change Star Wars history. Presumably, for the Alliance, this means Obi-wan doesn't have to die if you're playing as that side. If you're playing for the Empire, then chances are you'll have the opportunity or even objective of bumping him off with Vader during your invasion of Tattooine.

Yeah, you got me there. That is a very good point, and it might sway my opinon. I guess I never thought about that.

[StealthWar42]

I know you must be careful with them, but I think a big enough consequence for a hero dying is waiting for them to re-spawn wherever you get your heroes. I know in Warcraft III if you lost a hero in a large battle that turned the tide tremendously, and if you had a hero on your side that also would make a big difference in the battle. But maybe EaW won't focus on the heroes as much, I don't know.

 

If the game is going for a strategic war effect, the game likely won't center around one or two juggernaughts capable of "turning the tide." When I play games like Warkcraft III, I personally find that I rely too much on my heroes and end up throwing them at the enemy without much thought or preparation behind it and they still whipe out half the enemy army. If they were expendable, I probably would have thought about how I used the heroes as opposed to just sending them in head-on and seeing how much destruction they can cause.

 

And I don't know about anybody else, but I don't want a game where one unit like Luke could charge a squad of AT-AT's and remain unscathed. I would find it frustrating if I directed all my firepower to one hero and still didn't destroy it. If they're going to be that powerful and that hard to kill, they better not be respawnable.