| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
XavierGr
Greece15 Posts
While it would be great to see formation options in SC2, I think that the current mechanics and balance of the game can't allow it. e.g. If marines could be scattered by a single click, then banelings are completely useless against them. As for the Mutalisk magic box: This mechanism is applied for all air units and the reasoning behind it, is not to make Thors less effective against them, but to spread out the units involved, to be visible and accountable. Just my 2 cents. | ||
|
ltortoise
633 Posts
On November 15 2010 22:02 MichaelJLowell wrote: 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. Pretty sure we are, unless you're simply talking about auto-spread. A lot of Starcraft newcomers don't really understand what the magic box truly is or how it works. I'll try to explain for you. For both air and ground units, there is a maximum size box (smaller for ground, larger for air) such that if you box a group of units with a box equal to or smaller than the magic box, and then use the move command OUTSIDE of your boxed area, the units will move to that location while staying in formation. This formation could be a concave, simply a spread, or anything you like. It can involve multiple different types of units as long as they are all ground or all air, etc. Different unit speeds can mess up your formation, but that's a separate issue. Rules: 1. If your box is larger than the magic box and you click the move command, your units will move to that point while converging, losing formation. 2. If you input a move command inside your magic box, your units will converge inside the box, losing formation. 3. If your ground units are magic boxed in a formation and ordered to move through a choke or some other terrain/building that blocks their formation, they will scrunch up past the obstacle, somewhat losing their formation. You would then have to manually re-position them before magic-boxing them again. There are MANY applications to the magic box, but most of them involve strategic spreading to avoid splash, or having a nice concave pointed in the direction you need. In BW, the magic box got a name for itself by allowing you to "clone spells," that is to say if you magic boxed a group of casters, you could blanket the field with spells pretty easily, wheras if you didn't this task would be much much more difficult. This feature of the magic box is no longer in SC2 or needed, since it's so easy to clone spells. Even in BW though, the magic box still had all the other uses mentioned here (namely unit spreading and moving in formation/concaves). | ||
|
Keula
Germany157 Posts
| ||
|
telfire
United States415 Posts
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. Well it wasn't designed that way. I don't really know what you're trying to prove. There are lots of RTS out there, all designed a different way, and a lot have formations. This is a StarCraft 2 forum. If you put formations into StarCraft 2, it would break the game. End of story. I know you tried to dismiss this in your OP, but the fact is there whether you acknowledge it or not. We're talking about SC2. You're talking about some abstract RTS that doesn't exist. Personally, I think all the ways RTS has been designed so far are total crap except SC(2). I don't think anyone in the world could tell you all the reasons why, or whether Magix Box/Formations have anything to do with it at all. But that's the way it is and most people agree (at least that SC is the best RTS if not that the others all suck). Sure a "Magic Box Formation" button would be a small form of micro. But it would be one-click micro. Right now it takes a lot more than that. With magic box you're fighting against the AI, with formations the AI is just doing exactly what you want it to at any given time, you don't actually get to control your own units in a way. I'm not saying you couldn't completely rebalance the game and have it work, I just don't see a need for it, and I see very few similarities between magic box and formations. Bottom line, no matter how the game works, playing it's going to be as hard as your opponent makes it. People don't really seem to get that. Difficulty of winning any given match comes directly from your opponent, not from game mechanics. | ||
|
Technique
Netherlands1542 Posts
On November 15 2010 22:10 MichaelJLowell wrote: So you would be opposed to the way that the magic box is applied to Mutalisk vs. Thor battles? I think magic box is fine. Tbh the micro in sc2 is so low compared to other rts games, that i very much welcome anything that's not simple 1a. And people who are against formations due to it taking away micro clearly haven't played sc2... since 1a lines up all your units automatically O_o. | ||
|
XavierGr
Greece15 Posts
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 Replace the word "hard" with "inconveniently limited". Although yes, in the end being limited can be quite hard. Having only 12 units in one control group, or having to click tons of times to train units is an absurd limitation of the game. | ||
|
Herculix
United States946 Posts
from my perspective, suggesting auto-formations is to suggest that you'd like to be able to control large armies the way a pro can do it with pure micro-management, but with less clicks. to me, that's another way of saying you'd like the game to be made a lot simpler than it is. | ||
|
gogogadgetflow
United States2583 Posts
On November 15 2010 22:16 Keula wrote: No high level Warcraft 3 player used formations, so why would you in sc2? It limits your micro You're missing his point, which is that favoring the ability to magic box while not favoring formations doesn't make sense. He's pretty much right. I'm an AOE2 player not WC3 but I don't think thors and mutas were in that game. If they were, I'm guessing WC3 players would have used the "spread out" formation or whatever. | ||
|
telfire
United States415 Posts
| ||
|
telfire
United States415 Posts
You're missing his point, which is that favoring the ability to magic box while not favoring formations doesn't make sense. He's pretty much right. I'm an AOE2 player not WC3 but I don't think thors and mutas were in that game. If they were, I'm guessing WC3 players would have used the "spread out" formation or whatever. He's not right at all and I've already explained why. Don't call people hypocrites when you don't even understand the point of what they're saying. Formations are the polar opposite of Magic Box. Formations are automatic, Magic Box is manual. That is the difference, and the reason why people are willing to support one but not the other. And it is completely legitimate. Why is that hard to get? I don't see how you can possibly say they are the same thing, when one is a single touch of a mouse button or keyboard key, and another one is an intense maneuver involving a lost of precise clicking, during which making any kind of misclick could easily cost you the game. | ||
|
Cade
Canada1420 Posts
The reason formations are not endorsed to be implemented, but the "Magic Box" is generally accepted is that, the entire game would have to be rebalanced if formations were added, where as the "Magic Box" is a micro technique that allows one specific scenario to be dealt with. This means that there is very little balance necessary, and any balance concerns can be addressed because it is a single situation. If they had formations for every unit, the entire game would require rebalancing, and Blizzard would have to start from the ground up to work to make every unit balanced properly. I really don't see how you can compare the two the way you do, I'd love to get into your mind because something is obviously very very screwed up. | ||
|
Technique
Netherlands1542 Posts
Judging from cade his post. | ||
|
Ropid
Germany3557 Posts
| ||
|
PH
United States6173 Posts
And MBS has, in fact, killed SC2, as has automine. You're posting under the assumption that SC2 is hard to play (mechanically) and, more shockingly, that it in some way is superior to its predecessor. Both are very wrong. | ||
|
Cade
Canada1420 Posts
On November 15 2010 22:28 Technique wrote: What the hell.. people don't even realise this game has autoformations do they? Judging from cade his post. Please learn to speak and understand english a little bit better and maybe you will be able to understand the meaning behind my post. Obviously I understand the basic fundamentals of the games design. But that has nothing to do with the type of formations that I and the OP are talking about. | ||
|
Fa1nT
United States3423 Posts
| ||
|
Technique
Netherlands1542 Posts
On November 15 2010 22:33 Cade wrote: Please learn to speak and understand english a little bit better and maybe you will be able to understand the meaning behind my post. Obviously I understand the basic fundamentals of the games design. But that has nothing to do with the type of formations that I and the OP are talking about. Take away autoformation and give it a simple line formation command. This won't change balance at all and will punish 1a players. Ps don't be so arrogant with the learn english comment. | ||
|
telfire
United States415 Posts
On November 15 2010 22:33 PH wrote: @OP: "Cerebral gameplay"? There's not much cerebral about SC2 with the way the units all hard counter one another. And MBS has, in fact, killed SC2, as has automine. You're posting under the assumption that SC2 is hard to play (mechanically) and, more shockingly, that it in some way is superior to its predecessor. Both are very wrong. You don't seem to actually know what you're talking about. There are no hard counters in this game besides air units that can attack ground verses ground units that can't attack air (or visa versa). Other than that, the counters are all EXTREMELY soft, compared to StarCraft: Brood War especially, but also compared to almost every other RTS out there. Additionally, SC2 is in many ways superior to Brood War. That is undeniable. There are many, many great new features that simply weren't there before. The game is newer, and undoubtedly there are many things about Brood War that are better than SC2 as well. But the games are very similar. And a LOT more people play SC2 than did BW (including a massive amount of people who "liked" BW but never got into it because of the ridiculous mechanical requirements). You and others are grossly overestimating how much the mechanics changes impact the game. You are entitled to your opinion about video games and are free to play any game you like, but you are in the minority and stating your opinion as fact is stubborn and stupid. You are acting like my great grandpa... "in my day we had to walk uphill both ways". It really doesn't matter now. Yours is an anti-change attitude and actually has nothing to do with the mechanics or the things we are talking about, and just everything to do with the way you view the world. You don't like things to be any different, just like a lot of people I know who suffer from the same disease. I hope you get over it someday. | ||
|
Ropid
Germany3557 Posts
On November 15 2010 22:28 Technique wrote: What the hell.. people don't even realise this game has autoformations do they? Judging from cade his post. I think the OP thought of formation stuff like in other RTS games. A handful of buttons somewhere on the UI to let your units space out, or in neat lines like soldiers at a parade, or something like your protoss ball in a square with zealots in the front lines, followed by sentries and stalkers and collossi in the back. Then when you give a movement command to your ball, it first starts rotating to the right direction, then starts moving in formation. Something like that.  | ||
|
MichaelJLowell
United States610 Posts
On November 15 2010 22:14 ltortoise wrote: Pretty sure we are, unless you're simply talking about auto-spread. A lot of Starcraft newcomers don't really understand what the magic box truly is or how it works. I'll try to explain for you. ... There are MANY applications to the magic box, but most of them involve strategic spreading to avoid splash, or having a nice concave pointed in the direction you need. In BW, the magic box got a name for itself by allowing you to "clone spells," that is to say if you magic boxed a group of casters, you could blanket the field with spells pretty easily, wheras if you didn't this task would be much much more difficult. This feature of the magic box is no longer in SC2 or needed, since it's so easy to clone spells. Even in BW though, the magic box still had all the other uses mentioned here (namely unit spreading and moving in formation/concaves). Stop me if I'm reading into your post, but basically, you're arguing that the "magic box" is a complicated maneuver that requires an understanding of the game mechanics in order to execute properly. There's no reason formations couldn't take up the same real-estate. On November 15 2010 22:20 telfire wrote: Well it wasn't designed that way. I don't really know what you're trying to prove. There are lots of RTS out there, all designed a different way, and a lot have formations. This is a StarCraft 2 forum. If you put formations into StarCraft 2, it would break the game. End of story. I know you tried to dismiss this in your OP, but the fact is there whether you acknowledge it or not. We're talking about SC2. Just like when multiple-building selection and the unlimited unit cap were going to break Starcraft II. On November 15 2010 22:25 telfire wrote: He's not right at all and I've already explained why. Don't call people hypocrites when you don't even understand the point of what they're saying. Formations are the polar opposite of Magic Box. Formations are automatic, Magic Box is manual. That is the difference, and the reason why people are willing to support one but not the other. And it is completely legitimate. Why is that hard to get? I don't see how you can possibly say they are the same thing, when one is a single touch of a mouse button or keyboard key, and another one is an intense maneuver involving a lost of precise clicking, during which making any kind of misclick could easily cost you the game. Have you been making your entire argument on the premise that formations can't be disabled? Warcraft III players would have lost their minds if you weren't allowed to disable formations. On November 15 2010 22:33 Cade wrote: Please learn to speak and understand english a little bit better and maybe you will be able to understand the meaning behind my post. Obviously I understand the basic fundamentals of the games design. But that has nothing to do with the type of formations that I and the OP are talking about. You clearly don't understand the fundamentals of reading posts, since my OP said "the game could have been designed in a way where formations would fit within the context of the game" and you replied with "formations would not work because they cannot fit within the context of the current game design". | ||
| ||
The PiG Daily
Best Games of SC
Reynor vs Zoun
SHIN vs ByuN
herO vs sOs
Maru vs SHIN
Clem vs Bunny
PiGStarcraft469
[ Submit Event ] |
|
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
RSL Revival
Maru vs MaxPax
BSL
RSL Revival
Cure vs Rogue
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
BSL
Afreeca Starleague
Wardi Open
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Kung Fu Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
