Idea: commanders who practically transform based on which option was picked in the early game.
Inspiration: On two major occasions in Wings of Liberty, Raynor had to pick who to side with and it changed what mission to play and what was gained. How about factor that dichotomy into their design?
Commander 1: Ariel Hanson, Leader of Haven
-The leader of the Haven refugees/colonists, Hanson, at base, leads a militia of basic troopers, Marines, and more with modified transport support (i.e. weaponized Hercules akin to the Zeuslander, and APCs).
The militia can gain advanced weaponry, like cryosprayers, medical support, and better vehicles (Zeuslander maybe?)…
Or…an “accident” would turn her forces into specialized infested with greater damage and hunting instincts, leaping infected, upgradeable infested troopers, creep sprayers, maybe even the species from/related to those of L2D.
Commander 2: Gabriel Tosh, Spectre
With Tosh, he’ll lead a pirate crew with Reapers and Spectres, maybe pirate grunts. too. And he has connections to improve his forces in one of two ways… #1 he accesses the black market to access black op tier tech that improve his forces’ effectiveness. Better gear for the grunts? Sure! Demo charges for Reapers and Spectres? This should be fun. Black market medicine? Why not? #2 is he buffs his units with Terrazine, giving them explosive potential. Psionic lashes all around. Psishields galore. Maybe make the grunts into psionic bombs!
Terrazine is a heck of a drug.
I think this is a pretty novel idea, but I had always liked to imagine such for a Graven Hill commander concept, who would be based on the much-loved Mercenaries maps from BW, where you could pick from several options from various races who specialized in certain units.
Hill is a Terran commander himself, but at the start, you select one of a few mercenary choices from any of the three races, thus locking in and giving you that faction, said Merc itself as a hero unit, and whatever units it specializes in.
Granted, there would have to be more to it than that, but I think it is a great starting point for a unique idea. I always loved those Mercenaries maps, which could be played coop themselves on specific versions, and gave hours and hours of fun.
Ah yes, with all her missions being about fighting infested and keeping her colonists alive at all costs, she should infest her own units. Makes perfect sense. /s
If anything, it should be a zerg commander with special evolutions to pick. I wouldn’t mind having unit or upgrade choices like offensive vs defensive, consistent damage vs burst damage, strong early game vs strong lategame, etc.
I feel like the Zeratul’ “pick your top bar abilities” could be done a bit better. Each one being more situational.
Zeratul seems to do this via his “pick a power topbar”, and one could argue that a lot of the masteries - especially the ones where one track = hero, second track = army - are a “pregame” variant of this…
Take Karax, you can boost his Spear of Adun and structures via mastery for a cannon/defense build, or his army strength/costs for an “offensive unit” build…
Zeratul does have 2 “fundamentally different” playstyles - army focused or cannon focused.
One tends to build only “support units” for a cannon build, while one tends to build cannons as a “mineral dump” for an army build. However, the choice between rapid projection and rapid blink is made based on whether the Army is what’s doing the damage (rapid blink allows more frequent use of the DT’s 50 damage per “blink ray” and enhances Stalker survivability) while rapid projection is necessary to keep the fields of cannons projected near-constantly.
As such, flimsy or not, the argument that Zeratul’s topbar is “different” based on what your comp/plans are is valid, and it is a choice that can (though often isn’t) made in-mission based on conditions presented to the player.
Except what I’m thinking of that what option that is picked changes what options and how the commander is played radically. It’s not “pick x units” but rather “pick which general set to use”.
Like would like to play Hanson with a “Terran set” or “Zerg set”.
Yeah, but that is just pure Terran with colonist “grenadiers” and APCs, right? I think giving a Zerg-based option for her would make her more interesting.
Well, we never found out why the Zerg struck at Agria, and Tosh was rather suggestive in his input. So would it truly be unreasonable?
I was thinking of Hanson having a “become a Zerg” option, mixing specialist strains (maybe Corpsers and Noxious?) I’ve always wanted to see a sort of “Bio-warfare type” of Zerg commander, so…
Not really; it’s more of a giant toolbox of “get things to fill the needed niches” (ex. need a frontline? Get Zealot group. Need airpower and objective destruction? Call in the Void Rays. Want casters and havoc? Go with the Dark Archons).
I’m thinking of something more akin to Varian Wrynn from Heroes of the Storm; pick an option early with their own unique strengths. Example, Tosh: go with advanced tech to make your units generally better, or go with psionic power and piledrive through with exotic abilities (at the your units’ detriment)
And in Karax’s case, that is strictly Mastery points. This is at the start for the commander, if not Level 2. I’d think of it as similar to Han and Horner, but with you picking one of the extremes rather than balancing both.
Not what he meant. With Zeratul, you have access to either comp at any time; in other words, you can do a mixture of both at any point in the game. What my idea is (and Oxstar understands) is you pick an option early and your locked out of the other. You pick ONE tech tree and stick with it. This is like Zeratul being forced to pick either Army focus or Cannon focus, but can not switch over to the other at any point.
For example, say Hanson has a “Armed colonist” option with a mighty Zeus/Hercules transport/gunship, APCs, technicals, and cryotech, whereas the “become infested” option with Noxious Ultralisks, “creep-infused” munitions, and the special infested from Dead of Night. You can’t have both sets.
I like the idea of a commander that forces you to choose but I believe it should be based on less significant decisions (such as the Ariel Hanson commander concept on YouTube). If a commander branches out so much, such as the Hanson example above, I’d rather they be made into two separate commanders. One commander could be the colonists and one could be the special infested.
Taking an army that has a large number of unit types, like say Stetmann / Dehaka, then “cutting it in half” results in an army unit selection screen that resembles Swann or Alarak - and both their armies are comprised primarily of “generalists” with different support options.
However, a “traditional” commander would be forced to share the masteries, topbar power selection, and innate commander bonuses with both tech trees. At this point, what is really going to drive the “radical differences in playstyle” between the tech choices?
Otherwise, especially if you start to tweak topbars to be “appropriate” to the tech tree chosen and have a massive unit list that ultimately results in two “fleshed out armies post-choice” - you’re basically taking and fusing two commanders into one and “slipping” the choice of commander from pre-game to in-game.
At which point, wouldn’t it be more effective (and money making) to release the “fusion” as two separate commanders?
And if you’re going to be “risky” with the choice - where it’s possible to “inadvertently” lock the player out of the tech tree that was designed to defeat certain comps - how would you “recover” from making the wrong choice when facing the comp that kills your chosen comp?