Edit Note: I am not proposing "Let's add a Hold Fire Command and make Terran really broken." I'm suggesting that with the proper balance tweaks and the right additions in future expansions, a Hold Fire command could be a very interesting addition to Starcraft II.
---
I actually had a tough time generating support on the Battle.net forums for the feature and I really can't see any reason other than "The game is not balanced for Hold Fire." I wrote the following during the beta and I'd be curious to see how you guys feel about it.
---
Scary enough, Blizzard strategy games have earned a perception that they reward mouse speed and nothing else. The entire post-announcement development cycle of Starcraft II has been a stab at changing this, transforming mechanical game abilities (fighting the twelve-unit selection cap and single-building selection) into various decision-making skills. Hand-eye coordination will maintain its value, but it’s clear this game is supposed to be a cerebral cage fight. So why deny gamers access to a significant micromanagement and strategy option that has been validated by Command and Conquer, Supreme Commander, and nearly every military conflict in the history of this planet?
Starcraft lacked a true Hold Fire command, and holding fire even proved dangerous there; clever use of the Hold Position command could turn a minefield of Lurkers into a crime scene. Hell, Blizzard has already granted a dedicated Hold Fire button to any unit in Starcraft II that can cloak. Presumably to, you know, allow players to set traps and conceal their position.
The benefits for Siege Tanks are obvious enough, but it would extend to any ranged unit with a high damage rate or high mobility. And when you’ve built your competitive map pool on “valley leading towards a ramp that leads into a base on higher terrain”, there’s no need to explain the benefits of making things a little too quiet.
And hasn’t Blizzard made every implication they want this game built for a television audience? An American audience infatuated with sports that can hinge on a single play? When Youtube’s most popular competitive gaming videos are limited to that lucky knife kill in Modern Warfare 2, dare to say how much publicity you can reap from “the ten seconds that turned the world’s largest Starcraft tournament”?
There is absolutely no reason to go without a Hold Fire command when Starcraft II’s development and Blizzard’s ambitions indicate the game would benefit from it. Hold Fire embraces the perception of mind-over-micromanagement, and the gameplay mechanic would be a benefit to both of those skills.
Personally I wouldn't like to see this implemented, it works fine for Ghosts sure but that is because they are meant for ambushing and subtlety. Siege tanks are made for fucking over your ground army, not to be sneaky in my opinion, if you micro is sufficient you can just issue move commands to not attack. I really just don't see a point to hold fire commands it would make really one sided games is 10 siege tanks held fire on a high ground, since Toss and Zerg don't have a surefire way of scouting they can be decimated way to easily. Well there is my 2 cents.
Stop trying to make SC2 into a game that you want it to be.
SC2 is SC2. It doesn't have to fit this mind-over-micromanagement box that you want it to have.
Not saying that Hold Fire is a bad idea but it gets really annoying when people are suggesting myriad ideas that THEY think will make the game "better", when it'll only suit them better to their playing style or to what they want to play.
In WC3 the hold fire command had a big role and was very important in the game-play. SC2 is different in that way and is in no need of such a command since the game-play is very different in its much more macro-orientated style. I just think such a command has no place in this game
EDIT: Misunderstood OP, ignore this post. WC3 does NOT have a hold fire command as explained in the OP but can be applied by experienced players, which is what I initially meant. Still think SC2 is in no need of such a command though.
Keep in mind that I proposed this during the beta, when a lot of people were pretty certain Zerg was the unstoppable force. It clearly couldn't be balanced around the way Siege Tanks are currently designed. Not looking to give Terran a boost.
On September 20 2010 14:26 johnlee wrote: Stop trying to make SC2 into a game that you want it to be.
SC2 is SC2. It doesn't have to fit this mind-over-micromanagement box that you want it to have.
Not saying that Hold Fire is a bad idea but it gets really annoying when people are suggesting myriad ideas that THEY think will make the game "better", when it'll only suit them better to their playing style or to what they want to play.
Really? Adding a multitasking and micro-intensive element into Starcraft II constitutes me wanting to suit my play style?
On September 20 2010 14:30 LittleeD wrote: In WC3 the hold fire command had a big role and was very important in the game-play. SC2 is different in that way and is in no need of such a command since the game-play is very different in its much more macro-orientated style. I just think such a command has no place in this game
Excuse me? What hold fire command in war3? and why wouldn't this command have a place in this game? What delicate balance would that tip?
Before I will support something like this you need to actually explain how it will benefit the game instead of just claiming that it will. I see no benefit to having this command added to more units.
On September 20 2010 14:30 LittleeD wrote: In WC3 the hold fire command had a big role and was very important in the game-play. SC2 is different in that way and is in no need of such a command since the game-play is very different in its much more macro-orientated style. I just think such a command has no place in this game
there was a hold fire command? i dont remember that xcept for maybe hide by night elfs.
Why are people pushing this strategy over reflex thing still? if it was determined by strategy then whoever had the inferior build would lose... You could know if the game was over before anyone ever fought each other. Each game would be like Game 2 of IdrA vs LotzePrime which is no fun to watch. Also micro/macro are controlled by muscle memory controlled by the cerebellum which does not interfere with your ability to reason. I could very well be washing the dishes and it wont be affecting the way i think about anything. Mind games have their place, and thats more in the realm of tactics and the metagame.
On September 20 2010 14:32 MichaelJLowell wrote: Really? Adding a multitasking and micro-intensive element into Starcraft II constitutes me wanting to suit my play style?
I think the idea is that spamming the Stop command (which is the only practical way to effectively Hold Fire right now) is more multitask/micro-intensive than making a button-push do it for you.
And for the record, Hold Lurkers was a huge part of the spectator experience in SC1. Obviously this wouldn't be quite the same, but it would allow for analogous situations in certain contexts.
On September 20 2010 14:35 Mastermind wrote: Before I will support something like this you need to actually explain how it will benefit the game instead of just claiming that it will. I see no benefit to having this command added to more units.
Most importantly, it would allow for surprise attacks. Consider the ramifications for an expansion: A Terran player could stack four Siege Tanks on the higher ground leading towards the expansion. With the current rule set, a scouting worker would immediately take artillery to the groin. Fifty minerals gone, something's going on over by that Tank, possibly an expansion. With the Hold Fire command, a scouting worker could enter and leave the base, creating the presumption of an undefended expo. And when the enemy comes to take care of business, the Terran player can take advantage of the enemy's carelessness and let him have it.
This can also be applied to smaller-caliber units. For instance, you could house units in a Bunker and tell them not to attack. You could drop units on a cliff without fear of giving away their position before laying down fire. Or, you could simply place a scouting unit on higher ground without having to worry about it giving away its position. The possibilities to punish recklessly aggressive players is quite sound.
Obviously, none of this would work around the way the game is currently balanced. But I'm shocked the game wasn't designed for it. It's just another layer of "guess what I'm doing?" that could have been tacked on to the Starcraft model.
Hold fire changed the game for the better in SC. It is a micro intensive task that can change the course of the battle. Not only that, it does not favour any particular unit needlessly. It would help with Mothership play to boot (not that I think we'd see them in competitive play though).
I for one support the idea. I think it would make the game more entertaining to watch and play.
Adding a multitasking and micro-intensive element into Starcraft II
It wouldn't be micro intensive at all. Unless you think two actions is micro intensive.
Either way, no. The only race it benefits really is Terran, and siege tanks are already far more powerful than they used to be so there's no reason to be giving them more advantages.
Keep in mind that I proposed this during the beta, when a lot of people were pretty certain Zerg was the unstoppable force.
Dark Templar. Can sneak kills and then stop as they look for where you are. Motherships, as some have said. Sneaking a ton of units into someones base (via blink or otherwise) before they notice you're getting there.
Actually, it IS possible that the game isn't balanced around this, though.
Can wait til you have your army positioned and ready before you engage and warn them (assuming theyre bad/macroing hard and dont notice you).
I'm not really sure of all the situations it could be used, but the more control we get the better the game gets.
EPT
