Simple question: How can people be opposed to formation commands but support a "magic box" that allows Mutalisks to space evenly and defeat Thors without an issue? (Author's Add-On: This thread is not about whether I think Starcraft II should have formation commands or not. I don't have any preference either way. This post is about the perception of formation commands. I don't see how you can support one mechanic and oppose the other.)
(Author's Add-On: This is the "magic box" technique I'm referring to (demonstrated at around 1:40) the application where Mutalisks hold formation and thus dodge the splash damage of Thors. I thought that even if it wasn't the proper term, it would be obvious by the context of what I wrote.)
I already know what you're thinking: "The 'magic box' fits within the context of the current Starcraft II game balance. An extension of that concept to create formations for all of the game's units would not." It's the same reason I couldn't sell this forum on a Hold Fire command, i.e. "Siege Tanks would rule the day and Terran would be broken" and so forth. But people aren't opposed to formations because of context. They're opposed to them because they would reduce the mechanical skill required to play the game.
Everybody here knows the sort of civil war that multiple-building selection started. That the mechanic was going to dumb down Starcraft II and ruin it for everybody. This all raging despite a universe (late 2007) where very few players had very little experience playing Starcraft II. And when it comes to formations, all you have to do is run a search on TeamLiquid. A lot of people were opposed to formations because either "it wasn't Starcraft-like" or "it would reduce the skill required to play the game". More specially, the point-and-click mechanical skill.
This was back when formations could have easily been fitted within the context of Starcraft II. And people opposed it back then as well. So as far as I can gather, an audience that has traditionally shunned more cerebral, single-click alternatives to multi-click gameplay simply decided that Mutalisk formations were okay because Zergs were getting their ass kicked at the time and there was a perception that they needed the boost.[
On November 15 2010 21:32 Technique wrote: Sc2 has nooblike autoformation with all units...
So i don't get your post at all.
There are no formations in SC2.... units just ball up. He's talking about like in WC3 where you can set units to line up in evenly spaced boxes, or just bunch up like in sc.
On November 15 2010 21:32 Technique wrote: Sc2 has nooblike autoformation with all units...
So i don't get your post at all.
This particular audience of Starcraft II players (and correct me if this is an unfair stereotype) has been opposed to dedicated formation commands but supports the "magic box" for little reason other than "it works in the context of the game". That doesn't make sense to me.
On November 15 2010 21:33 susySquark wrote:
There are no formations in SC2.... units just ball up. He's talking about like in WC3 where you can set units to line up in evenly spaced boxes, or just bunch up like in sc.
Don't get me wrong, I never used formations in Warcraft III and nobody playing the game at a competent level did. I have no preference for the implementation of formations any which way. If they're in Starcraft II or not, I can live with it either way.
Formation options have been standard in RTS's since.. first I can remember is AoE2: AoK.. but probably even before that, can't remember if formations were in the first AoE.
The reason people are opposed is because then it becomes a standard tool, where without it, troop positioning relays solely on the player battling with the AI's tendency to clump. Hence why such the big to do about the "magic box" it was the players getting one over on the game and this showing a higher level play. But still not everyone does it, or is even aware of it (not talking pro level here) but with a formation button this would have been available from day 1, and not something players would have learnt.
Magic box existed in SC1. They didn't add or take away anything. The only change is the rate and way in which "magic box" spacing occurs, which is quicker than in SC1, and they space themselves more evenly (partly, I guess, because clumps are bigger due to unlimited unit selection).
If magic box = formations, then SC/BW had formations.
The game is released so being "pro-mbs/automation/coolfeatures" or whatever has no relevance now. We are players of the game regardless of what it is or isn't.
On November 15 2010 21:40 Gingerninja wrote: Formation options have been standard in RTS's since.. first I can remember is AoE2: AoK.. but probably even before that, can't remember if formations were in the first AoE.
The reason people are opposed is because then it becomes a standard tool, where without it, troop positioning relays solely on the player battling with the AI's tendency to clump. Hence why such the big to do about the "magic box" it was the players getting one over on the game and this showing a higher level play. But still not everyone does it, or is even aware of it (not talking pro level here) but with a formation button this would have been available from day 1, and not something players would have learnt.
Well, do you think that if "magic box" was a formation built into the game, people would be in favor of it?
On November 15 2010 21:42 ltortoise wrote: I don't understand your post.
Are you saying you want the magic box removed from the game? If so, that would drastically reduce the depth of micro for all races.
Or are you saying you want there to be pre-made formations you can click and have your units take them up? If so, this will never happen.
I'm not saying either of those. I'm saying that supporting the "magic box" and opposing formations is hypocritical.
On November 15 2010 21:43 Lonyo wrote: Magic box existed in SC1. They didn't add or take away anything. The only change is the rate and way in which "magic box" spacing occurs, which is quicker than in SC1, and they space themselves more evenly (partly, I guess, because clumps are bigger due to unlimited unit selection).
If magic box = formations, then SC/BW had formations.
That's generally how I feel about it. People would just learn to play with formations and expand the micromanagement techniques from those base formations.
On November 15 2010 21:47 RoieTRS wrote: The game is released so being "pro-mbs/automation/coolfeatures" or whatever has no relevance now. We are players of the game regardless of what it is or isn't.
Are you guys even going to read what I wrote or did you already make up your opinion on this?
On November 15 2010 21:42 ltortoise wrote: I don't understand your post.
Are you saying you want the magic box removed from the game? If so, that would drastically reduce the depth of micro for all races.
Or are you saying you want there to be pre-made formations you can click and have your units take them up? If so, this will never happen.
I'm not saying either of those. I'm saying that supporting the "magic box" and opposing formations is hypocritical.
Well I completely disagree.
The magic box is a manually controlled tool to allow any formation you can think of to happen. Having pre-made formations would clutter up the UI and would ultimately be useless compared to the magic box anyway.
On November 15 2010 21:28 MichaelJLowell wrote: Simple question: How can people be opposed to formation commands but support a "magic box" that allows Mutalisks to space evenly and defeat Thors without an issue?
I already know what you're thinking: "It fits within the context of the current Starcraft II game balance. An extension of that concept to create formations for all of the game's units would not." It's the same reason I couldn't sell this forum on a Hold Fire command, i.e. "Siege Tanks would rule the day and Terran would be broken" and so forth. But people aren't opposed to formations because of context. They're opposed to them because they would reduce the mechanical skill required to play the game.
Everybody here knows the sort of civil war that multiple-building selection started. That the mechanic was going to dumb down Starcraft II and ruin it for everybody. This all raging despite a universe (late 2007) where very few players had very little experience playing Starcraft II. And when it comes to formations, all you have to do is run a search on TeamLiquid. A lot of people were opposed to formations because either "it wasn't Starcraft-like" or "it would reduce the skill required to play the game". More specially, the point-and-click mechanical skill.
This was back when formations could have easily been fitted within the context of Starcraft II. And people opposed it back then as well. So as far as I can gather, an audience that has traditionally shunned more cerebral, single-click alternatives to multi-click gameplay simply decided that Mutalisk formations were okay because Zergs were getting their ass kicked at the time and there was a perception that they needed the boost.
"That the mechanic was going to dumb down Starcraft II..."
The mechanics ACTUALLY DID dumb down Starcraft 2. Why else would it be popular among white people if it wasn't dumbed down. If the game was as hard as BW, it wouldn't be popular as it is now in the foreign countries. Remember the time when SC2 didn't come out and the most popular games were BW and WC3? Well those games' popularity was barely half of what SC2's popularity is today
The answer to this question is simple. It doesn't matter whether or not you or other people believe it is hypocritical for people to be for the magic box and against formations, it simply matters which is better for overall gameplay.
Now if you have an argument that having the magic box or the lack of formations is detrimental to gameplay, I am willing to listen.
Magic box isn't a formation, or similar to it at all. It's actually the polar opposite, as I see it. There ARE no formations, so we have to use the game mechanics to keep them spread apart even though the AI likes to clump them.
The whole point of formations is the AI won't clump them, period it will keep them the way you wanted no matter what. With Magic box that's not even remotely the case, you have to be very, very careful to keep them from clumping.
Magic box isn't anything other than a method of micro. No different than a Zergling surround, or spacing units out before attacking into siege tanks.
On November 15 2010 21:52 ltortoise wrote: Well I completely disagree.
The magic box is a manually controlled tool to allow any formation you can think of to happen. Having pre-made formations would clutter up the UI and would ultimately be useless compared to the magic box anyway.
Are we talking about the same application of the "magic box" here? I'm referring to its use for allowing groups of Mutalisks to defeat Thors, which allows them to stay in a spread formation.
On November 15 2010 21:54 ace246 wrote:
"That the mechanic was going to dumb down Starcraft II..."
The mechanics ACTUALLY DID dumb down Starcraft 2. Why else would it be popular among white people if it wasn't dumbed down. If the game was as hard as BW, it wouldn't be popular as it is now in the foreign countries. Remember the time when SC2 didn't come out and the most popular games were BW and WC3? Well those games' popularity was barely half of what SC2's popularity is today
Yes. Starcraft II is popular with white audiences because they allowed you to select 255 units instead of 12 and allowed you to select more than one building at a time. I agree.
On November 15 2010 21:32 Technique wrote: Sc2 has nooblike autoformation with all units...
So i don't get your post at all.
This particular audience of Starcraft II players (and correct me if this is an unfair stereotype) has been opposed to dedicated formation commands but supports the "magic box" for little reason other than "it works in the context of the game". That doesn't make sense to me.
No actually i am against all the stuff that gets done automatically for you... like your units lining up automatically, smartcast and no overkill etc.
This game has a distorted balance between macro and micro.
How can people be opposed to formation commands but support a "magic box" that allows Mutalisks to space evenly and defeat Thors without an issue?
Simple. Magic boxing works on every unit, why would formations be better? More options with regards to formation does not equal a better game.
My point. You favor magic boxes because "it works". Nothing says formations couldn't work other than "I don't think it would work."
On November 15 2010 22:00 ejac wrote: The answer to this question is simple. It doesn't matter whether or not you or other people believe it is hypocritical for people to be for the magic box and against formations, it simply matters which is better for overall gameplay.
Now if you have an argument that having the magic box or the lack of formations is detrimental to gameplay, I am willing to listen.
I already acknowledged the issue of context. I get what you're saying. That "magic boxes have been proven to work and formations haven't". That doesn't explain why people have been opposed to formations in every capacity even as Starcraft II was still in the production phase.
On November 15 2010 22:01 telfire wrote: Magic box isn't a formation, or similar to it at all. It's actually the polar opposite, as I see it. There ARE no formations, so we have to use the game mechanics to keep them spread apart even though the AI likes to clump them.
The whole point of formations is the AI won't clump them, period it will keep them the way you wanted no matter what. With Magic box that's not even remotely the case, you have to be very, very careful to keep them from clumping.
Magic box isn't anything other than a method of micro. No different than a Zergling surround, or spacing units out before attacking into siege tanks.
Starcraft II could have been designed in a way that allows players to dynamically apply formations over the course of a fight. I don't see how using the proper formation wouldn't be a form of micromanagement.
On November 15 2010 21:32 Technique wrote: Sc2 has nooblike autoformation with all units...
So i don't get your post at all.
This particular audience of Starcraft II players (and correct me if this is an unfair stereotype) has been opposed to dedicated formation commands but supports the "magic box" for little reason other than "it works in the context of the game". That doesn't make sense to me.
No actually i am against all the stuff that gets done automatically for you... like your units lining up automatically, smartcast and no overkill etc.
This game has a distorted balance between macro and micro.
So you would be opposed to the way that the magic box is applied to Mutalisk vs. Thor battles?
To be honest, if this was SCBW then I would be opposed to it, but the way units clump in SC2, I would welcome it.
AOE is probably the best thing to spectate in RTS games. In Broodwar, plague, tanks annihilating goons, lurkers tearing through marines, mines, mines and mines, reavers etc. All these things made the game very entertaining as a sport should be.
With the way units clump up in SC2, Blizz pretty much has to nerf AOE units...which is boring.
I really wish units would space out like they used to.
I never understood why you can't do formations in bw/sc2 and I think that if there aren't formations, then when you send a selection of units to a certain point they should each try get to that point individually... to have them keep the arrangement they are in while en route (which incidentally enables magic-boxing of muta, etc) is retarded, makes no sense, and constitutes nothing but an exploitable dumbing down of the game (yes just because it existed in bw doesn't mean its not dumber than not having it)
EPT
