EPTThink we're ever getting a Hold Fire command? - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
phuzi0n
United States308 Posts
| ||
|
MichaelJLowell
United States610 Posts
On September 20 2010 14:46 Swede wrote: It wouldn't be micro intensive at all. Unless you think two actions is micro intensive. Considering how absolutely important timing is in Starcraft, yes, it would be 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. And aren't you proposing it again now...? :S So if the game was balanced in favor of Zerg and Protoss and Terran really needed an extra lift, you would support it? | ||
|
bulge
161 Posts
| ||
|
Kinch
United States258 Posts
| ||
|
kickinhead
Switzerland2069 Posts
On September 20 2010 14:26 johnlee wrote: Stop trying to make SC2 into a game that you want it to be. Now that's anti-progressivism at it's finest... What are you scared of? SC2 needs to change to fullfill it's true potential and if a few new Units come out, stuff like that needs to be implemented! Imagine a Lurker without the hold-position-bug in SCBW - so much strategic play wouldn't have been possible without that! | ||
|
zerglingsfolife
United States1694 Posts
| ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
 | ||
|
cocosoft
Sweden1068 Posts
| ||
|
Swede
New Zealand853 Posts
On September 20 2010 14:50 MichaelJLowell wrote: Considering how absolutely important timing is in Starcraft, yes, it would be micro-intensive. So if the game was balanced in favor of Zerg and Protoss and Terran really needed an extra lift, you would support it? Timing has nothing to do with how micro-intense something is. Changing from hold fire to fire is still 1 action regardless of when you do it. Yes, there is some degree of skill involved, but it isn't micro skill. That aside, something being micro intensive is not necessarily an argument for its implementation (e.g. the 7% trick is micro intensive but there is significant opposition to having it in the game, and justifiably so). I wouldn't support it regardless of balance. Adding a control to every unit when only one or two units can use it effectively is inelegant. Sure, it could be added only to the units that will be able to utilise it well, but rebalancing the game to incorporate this would be too difficult (how would you make tanks good normally, but not overpowered when utilising hold fire?). I also suspect the emphasis placed on scouting vs Terran would be too great (esp. for Zerg). Also, Terran are already good enough at turtling. Making them even better at it would damage strategic diversity I think (especially below Diamond level where turtling seems run rampant). Basically, I think it is unnecessary and wouldn't add enough (if anything) to the game to justify implementation, especially at this stage of the game's release. Maybe in a future Blizzard RTS/SC2 expansion they could give it a go during beta, but now is certainly not the time for it. Side note: for every unit besides siege tanks, can't you just do this anyway? Just move your units until you're ready to attack. You can issue a move command directly under a unit and it still prevents attacking if you spam it. | ||
|
smegged
Australia213 Posts
On September 20 2010 16:27 Swede wrote: Timing has nothing to do with how micro-intense something is. Changing from hold fire to fire is still 1 action regardless of when you do it. Yes, there is some degree of skill involved, but it isn't micro skill. That aside, something being micro intensive is not necessarily an argument for its implementation (e.g. the 7% trick is micro intensive but there is significant opposition to having it in the game, and justifiably so). I wouldn't support it regardless of balance. Adding a control to every unit when only one or two units can use it effectively is inelegant. Sure, it could be added only to the units that will be able to utilise it well, but rebalancing the game to incorporate this would be too difficult (how would you make tanks good normally, but not overpowered when utilising hold fire?). I also suspect the emphasis placed on scouting vs Terran would be too great (esp. for Zerg). Also, Terran are already good enough at turtling. Making them even better at it would damage strategic diversity I think (especially below Diamond level where turtling seems run rampant). Basically, I think it is unnecessary and wouldn't add enough (if anything) to the game to justify implementation, especially at this stage of the game's release. Maybe in a future Blizzard RTS/SC2 expansion they could give it a go during beta, but now is certainly not the time for it. It has already been implemented, it is just not available on every unit. | ||
|
Swede
New Zealand853 Posts
It has already been implemented, it is just not available on every unit. Ghosts are all I can think of? | ||
|
MichaelJLowell
United States610 Posts
On September 20 2010 16:20 sluggaslamoo wrote: OP can I suggest inserting vods of sAviOr owning it up with hold lurker Done. <3 On September 20 2010 16:27 Swede wrote: Timing has nothing to do with how micro-intense something is. Changing from hold fire to fire is still 1 action regardless of when you do it. Yes, there is some degree of skill involved, but it isn't micro skill. That aside, something being micro intensive is not necessarily an argument for its implementation (e.g. the 7% trick is micro intensive but there is significant opposition to having it in the game, and justifiably so). It's micro. Properly using your units is micro. Choosing the best time to lay loose with your surprise salvo is very good micro. I wouldn't support it regardless of balance. Adding a control to every unit when only one or two units can use it effectively is inelegant. Sure, it could be added only to the units that will be able to utilise it well, but rebalancing the game to incorporate this would be too difficult (how would you make tanks good normally, but not overpowered when utilising hold fire?). I also suspect the emphasis placed on scouting vs Terran would be too great (esp. for Zerg). Also, Terran are already good enough at turtling. Making them even better at it would damage strategic diversity I think (especially below Diamond level where turtling seems run rampant). Basically, I think it is unnecessary and wouldn't add enough (if anything) to the game to justify implementation, especially at this stage of the game's release. Maybe in a future Blizzard RTS/SC2 expansion they could give it a go during beta, but now is certainly not the time for it. Side note: for every unit besides siege tanks, can't you just do this anyway? Just move your units until you're ready to attack. You can issue a move command directly under a unit and it still prevents attacking if you spam it. Only one or two units? Any mobile unit gets a significant advantage in what they can do while scouting. I can plant Reapers on cliffs without having to worry about them giving their position away (and simultaneously keep vision of whatever it is I want to see). There's plenty of practical reasons for why this should have been implemented. | ||
|
Tomred87
United States46 Posts
Now that's anti-progressivism at it's finest... What are you scared of? SC2 needs to change to fullfill it's true potential and if a few new Units come out, stuff like that needs to be implemented! Imagine a Lurker without the hold-position-bug in SCBW - so much strategic play wouldn't have been possible without that! He's not necessarily being anti-progressive. Maybe he just thinks the game is better off without the change proposed by the OP. There is no guarantee that the addition of a hold fire key would make the game better (or worse). Now having said that, I think it would just make the game chaotic. Although this might make things more fun in high level play, a game that is already dependent on trick all in strats and using the darkness to hit units that can't see you, things would become nightmarish for the lower level players, who also make up the majority. Yes, although it is something that would be accessible to both players of equal skill level, to low level players (and sometimes even high level players), one hold attack command would often mean the difference between winning and losing that match. So what I'm trying to say is, I think the hold attack key is a bad idea because it will make games end on a single move more often for low level players. In a game where a single move already often decides the winner and loser, such an addition would only lower the amount of fun to be had by lower level players. | ||
|
Grond
599 Posts
| ||
|
Swede
New Zealand853 Posts
On September 20 2010 16:43 MichaelJLowell wrote: Done. <3 It's micro. Properly using your units is micro. Choosing the best time to lay loose with your surprise salvo is very good micro. Only one or two units? Any mobile unit gets a significant advantage in what they can do while scouting. I can plant Reapers on cliffs without having to worry about them giving their position away (and simultaneously keep vision of whatever it is I want to see). There's plenty of practical reasons for why this should have been implemented. I agree that it's micro. But it's not micro intensive. Your example doesn't work because if a player can't see onto the cliff they can't attack you anyway. You can just put your reaper on hold position and it does almost the same thing. Alternatively move your reaper on a singular spot while units go past so that it doesn't attack. Implementing a whole new command just to make situational tricks like that work is ridiculous. Any mobile unit? How would this benefit a zergling, then? A roach? A muta? Short ranged units get almost no benefit from this, especially because line of sight is pretty similar between most units. In other words, you can't see a unit without it seeing you (there are some exceptions obviously), in which case you want to be either A) attacking or B) retreating, assuming your opponent pays attention to the minimap. The only situations where it's useful are when making use of the high ground mechanic or making use of a units range. But it's pretty obvious that each race does not have equal enough access to units which can make use of those mechanics for it to be balanced. Zerg only has hydralisks really. But like I said, if they were to try it out then they should wait till a beta. I suspect it would not be worth adding for the amount of testing required and the pretty tiny gain in depth of gameplay. | ||
|
Deeeno
Australia52 Posts
| ||
|
TanX
Denmark92 Posts
They should just make it so if you hold down 's' (stop command) it will cease fire until you let go. It would be rarely be used but it will surely add another of those 'wow' elements when observing games. I approve of this message o/ | ||
|
Zerum
Sweden348 Posts
| ||
|
Craton
United States17250 Posts
On September 20 2010 21:31 TanX wrote: The negative reactions from some of you guys are mind-blowing, especially the 'THIS IS SC2 STOP TRYING TO MAKE IT ANOTHER GAME!' reply which was just stupid, hey guys lets stop giving constructive criticism to further improve the game that we all share and love! This isn't constructive criticism. This is "I want X, therefore Blizzard should do X." Constructive criticism is something like "I feel long-ranged units are unjustly punished by warning the enemy prematurely and this is why and here is a replay to support that. What does everyone else think?" The difference is black and white. | ||
|
Zarahtra
Iceland4053 Posts
Mind you though, scouting would change a lot, you wouldn't automatically assume an expo is undefended even if your worker can run into it and scout it all. Fx. zerg/toss running up the ramp of terran's base(scouting) would _possibly_ get a lot less info on the terran's unit combo. Edit: My point being, if it had some sick way for x race to use this, blizz would balance around it, else it'd just be a nice feature which gives the player more control over his army. | ||
| ||
