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.
This would ruin the game. Terrans would set siege tank traps on high ground and then wait for your army to walk into it far enough that you couldn't survive and then they'd go to your base and crap on whatever was left. It wouldn't really add anything for other units which you can just move to avoid attacking.
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.
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.
it is available to all units, therefore its fair. you could hold fire tanks, colossus, broodlords, units at xel naga towers, DTs... it would be good for all players, and better for great players. it would add another level of tactical decision making. if you have a habit of walking into tanklines, then you need to improve anyway. if you just want to play army vs army 1a, then play nexus wars.
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!
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Keep in mind that I proposed this during the beta, when a lot of people were pretty certain Zerg was the unstoppable force.
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?
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.
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.
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.
The problem is this is a huge buff to ranged units. Terran is almost all ranged and they are practically OP across the board so the game would have to be completely rebalanced. Definitely won't happen for SC2.
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.
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.
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!
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.
we would this make you micro more?!?!? if anything it would make you micro less now if you don't want your units to fire you just spam other commands that wont let the units fire if I have a hold fire button all I do is push that one button....
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?"
I don't see why not to add it, since it allows a player more control on how each of his units is suppose to behave(sc2 has cut off all the repetitive stuff sc required so much, having move/stop command spam required would be a bit retarded). That being said, I don't find it big deal either way...
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.
Fact 1: If you want any unit besides a siege tank to hold fire, you can just have them constantly moving. Only exception appears to be the Phoenix, which with its 4 range probably doesn't need it.
Fact 2: If you want a siege tank to hold fire, keep them unsieged. There are two risks. The first risk is that you have a 4-second delay in sieging. The second is they will fire unsieged within range 7. So if you want to wait for them to be even closer, you have to move your tanks around and risk an nonstrategic positioning when you siege.
On September 20 2010 14:45 smegged wrote: Hold fire changed the game for the better in SC. It is a micro intensive task that can change the course of the battle.
There was no hold fire command in SC
On September 20 2010 14:41 TheYango wrote:
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.
+1
we in BW had to spam the stop command, this required micro and high apm. a hold fire button has no possible benefits for Z
if sc1 just had a hold fire command, there would be no skill, difficulty, or ingenuity involved whatsoever in hold-position lurkers
I don't think there should be a hold fire command in SC2, but if massing "h" or "s" over and over again doesn't prevent your units from attacking, I think it should
Ghost's "Hold Fire" command affects nearby units, so Blizzard have considered this feature, and decided to allow it only to ghosts. I think that makes for more interesting game situations.
On September 20 2010 22:28 GGTeMpLaR wrote: if sc1 just had a hold fire command, there would be no skill, difficulty, or ingenuity involved whatsoever in hold-position lurkers
I don't think there should be a hold fire command in SC2, but if massing "h" or "s" over and over again doesn't prevent your units from attacking, I think it should
On September 20 2010 14:45 smegged wrote: Hold fire changed the game for the better in SC. It is a micro intensive task that can change the course of the battle.
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.
+1
we in BW had to spam the stop command, this required micro and high apm. a hold fire button has no possible benefits for Z
All you had to do in BW was to select your burrowed lurker with an overlord and press hold-position, or attack a building that's out of range. You didn't have to spam anything. (You know this might be possible with siege tanks already, i dunno)
I'm not actually sure whether this is a good idea or not, it really only had application with the lurker in BW, although it could be interesting with other long range damage units or invisible units. I don't really care that much, I just feel inclined to correct people talking out of their arse.
On September 20 2010 22:28 GGTeMpLaR wrote: if sc1 just had a hold fire command, there would be no skill, difficulty, or ingenuity involved whatsoever in hold-position lurkers
I don't think there should be a hold fire command in SC2, but if massing "h" or "s" over and over again doesn't prevent your units from attacking, I think it should
On September 20 2010 14:45 smegged wrote: Hold fire changed the game for the better in SC. It is a micro intensive task that can change the course of the battle.
There was no hold fire command in SC
On September 20 2010 14:41 TheYango wrote:
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.
+1
we in BW had to spam the stop command, this required micro and high apm. a hold fire button has no possible benefits for Z
All you had to do in BW was to select your burrowed lurker with an overlord and press hold-position, or attack a building that's out of range. You didn't have to spam anything. (You know this might be possible with siege tanks already, i dunno)
I'm not actually sure whether this is a good idea or not, it really only had application with the lurker in BW, although it could be interesting with other long range damage units or invisible units. I don't really care that much, I just feel inclined to correct people talking out of their arse.
Yes what an endearing personality trait, i hope you feel better now after correcting those of us who are misinformed and are obviously a lower life form than your exalted self.
personally i've never done the h position + overlord trick, and have had to spam the stop button, but then i dont see the benefits of you're method anyway (in a game situation)
On September 20 2010 22:28 GGTeMpLaR wrote: if sc1 just had a hold fire command, there would be no skill, difficulty, or ingenuity involved whatsoever in hold-position lurkers
I don't think there should be a hold fire command in SC2, but if massing "h" or "s" over and over again doesn't prevent your units from attacking, I think it should
just my two cents
Are you also the type of person who complained about the removal of the 12 unit selection cap because it removed the 'skill', 'difficulty', and 'ingenuity' in positioning. Maybe we should get rid of rally points too, because that makes things too simple. It removes a lot of the skill required in staying on top of your macro. We should get rid of queuing too, of course. And probably hotkeys as well (you should know where all your units are and be able to move to them quickly without this crutsh). This is all ludicrous, of course.
How can you possible say with a straight face that a hold-fire command would remove all the skill, difficulty, and ingenuity in using hold-lurkers? I guess the only cool thing about hold-lurkers is that it involves mashing? It couldn't possibly be the tactical thought that goes into positioning them and baiting the terran into the field, right? Or is your position that hold-fire removes the tactical aspect of hold-lurkers?
That said, hold-fire should not be added to the game in its current state. It predominately benefits a race and unit that do not need it. Maybe the game could be balanced with hold-fire, but it would require a dramatic rebalancing of the maps and units.
In earlier versions they had hold fire in SC2. They must have had their reasons to take it out again. I know I was mad when I had my marines on hold behind a wall and they just watched how the zerglings were gnawing at my wall.
if you set a unit on patrol does it attack? i was just thinking that you can have a unit patrol an inch away from where it currently is and it will just bounce back and forth not shooting anything. Wouldnt work for siege tanks, but thats a good thing
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.
I'm sure the point of posting this thread was to see how the TeamLiquid community would react. Just because someone is presenting an idea like this doesn't mean attack the thread poster, it means attack the post, or else nobody would get anywhere in a debate.
IMO Why wouldn't we need this feature?
Sure it's an addition to micromanagement but it allows for some plays to remain flawless in the sense of being mysterious.
for example: Have a pack of Hydras at the tip of someones base and the enemy doesn't realize it, but then a group of unguided Immortals slip by; in range of your Hydras.
Without Hold Fire: Your Hydras attack and break the rally guided Immortals attention on them, and your Hydras die.
With Hold Fire: The Hydras remain silent and the enemy has not seen the hidden force. Now you are aware of the fact that he has just begun a production cycle and his units are away from base, giving you freedom to ravage his peons or decimate his tech.
That's just one example and there are too many to name, you wouldn't be forced to use it but it would benefit you to. I think you would adapt (just like newcomers do, before they learn hotkeys and groups)
you keep saying none of this would work with the way the game is balanced right now. So you are suggesting they rebalance the whole game based a a button that makes the game more beginner friendly because tbh pros dont need this.
On September 20 2010 22:28 GGTeMpLaR wrote: if sc1 just had a hold fire command, there would be no skill, difficulty, or ingenuity involved whatsoever in hold-position lurkers
I don't think there should be a hold fire command in SC2, but if massing "h" or "s" over and over again doesn't prevent your units from attacking, I think it should
just my two cents
On September 20 2010 22:24 Rozza wrote:
On September 20 2010 14:45 smegged wrote: Hold fire changed the game for the better in SC. It is a micro intensive task that can change the course of the battle.
There was no hold fire command in SC
On September 20 2010 14:41 TheYango wrote:
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.
+1
we in BW had to spam the stop command, this required micro and high apm. a hold fire button has no possible benefits for Z
All you had to do in BW was to select your burrowed lurker with an overlord and press hold-position, or attack a building that's out of range. You didn't have to spam anything. (You know this might be possible with siege tanks already, i dunno)
I'm not actually sure whether this is a good idea or not, it really only had application with the lurker in BW, although it could be interesting with other long range damage units or invisible units. I don't really care that much, I just feel inclined to correct people talking out of their arse.
Yes what an endearing personality trait, i hope you feel better now after correcting those of us who are misinformed and are obviously a lower life form than your exalted self.
personally i've never done the h position + overlord trick, and have had to spam the stop button, but then i dont see the benefits of you're method anyway (in a game situation)
Thank you for your input
The benefit is that you can actually macro or do something else, instead of just sitting there spamming stop while your minerals rocket through the roof. Its an ability that added non-apm intensive unit control in BW that isn't in SC2.
I dont know about you, but whenever i've found myself in a situation where i had to hold fire, the enemy is just walking into lurker range, call it good minimap awareness or w.e, it takes around 3-4 seconds for them to reach the middle of the lurkerfield, and then i press ''4'' twice and im back to my hatchery, how many minerals do i accumulate in 3-4 seconds? i dunno, 200-400?
Never been is a position where i wasn't aware that the enemy was walking into my lurker-field.
Although theorectically you are correct, it is apm intesive, and it does prevent macro
EPT
![[image loading]](http://imm.io/media/1m/1mOx.jpg)
affects nearby units, so Blizzard have considered this feature, and decided to allow it only to ghosts. I think that makes for more interesting game situations.
