|
On November 15 2010 22:25 telfire wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Sorry if I rubbed you the wrong way man, but I don't think you understand the point. Anyways, let's count here.
Spreading out air units *with* hotkey = 1 press/click
Spreading out air units currently = 0 presses/clicks
Not a major difference, just a matter of familiarity I guess
|
Your argument isn't going to get anywhere, StarCraft fans prefer the game to be more micro/macro intensive to require more skill. That's a good thing if you want a competitive scene seeing as you need the highest possible skill cap. Imagine if you had a stagger formation... Banelings would be practically useless against bio and FoxeR's ability to spread would never have been noted.
|
But your initial question was: "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?"
On November 15 2010 22:51 Kantutan wrote:
Your argument isn't going to get anywhere, StarCraft fans prefer the game to be more micro/macro intensive to require more skill. That's a good thing if you want a competitive scene seeing as you need the highest possible skill cap. Imagine if you had a stagger formation... Banelings would be practically useless against bio and FoxeR's ability to spread would never have been noted.
Unfortunately it's impossible to explain anything to this guy because he uses insanely flawed logic. This thread is pointless because of the OP.
|
On November 15 2010 22:51 Kantutan wrote:
Your argument isn't going to get anywhere, StarCraft fans prefer the game to be more micro/macro intensive to require more skill. That's a good thing if you want a competitive scene seeing as you need the highest possible skill cap. Imagine if you had a stagger formation... Banelings would be practically useless against bio and FoxeR's ability to spread would never have been noted.
That assumes that a good player wouldn't recognize his Marines are already spread and punish the hell out of him for doing that. At which point the Terran player could adjust those formations and the metagame is on.
On November 15 2010 22:52 Cade wrote:
But your initial question was: "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?"
And then I wrote stuff after that. Go read it.
On November 15 2010 22:52 Cade wrote:
Unfortunately it's impossible to explain anything to this guy because he uses insanely flawed logic. This thread is pointless because of the OP.
I don't even know who you are. What do you have against me? Really? This is good stuff.
|
On November 15 2010 22:44 MichaelJLowell wrote:
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.
Actually I was arguing that the magic box is an extremely elegant game mechanic that allows you to execute nearly any formation you want in a seamless fashion 
I think there are many reasons pre-built formations could never compare. They clutter up the UI, for one. For two, they don't offer anywhere near the same amount of flexibility as the magic box.
|
On November 15 2010 22:58 ltortoise wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2010 22:44 MichaelJLowell wrote:
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. Actually I was arguing that the magic box is an extremely elegant game mechanic that allows you to execute nearly any formation you want in a seamless fashion I think there are many reasons pre-built formations could never compare. They clutter up the UI, for one. For two, they don't offer anywhere near the same amount of flexibility as the magic box.
Would you be in favor of a "lock formation" toggle that accomplishes the same thing?
|
On November 15 2010 21:28 MichaelJLowell wrote:
magic box and formations[
If you want a formation you gotta do it manually and then magic box, so why no formation?
Essentially I think that's the reasoning behind the thread.
1. I do not oppose magic boxing, because formations are important.
2. I do not oppose "dumibing down the mechanics of the game" (if formations would do that anyway), because I simply consider stupid to decide to have worst mechanics that we could have only because "technical skill level" is something that distinguish "pro from noobs". SC (I and II) are strategy games, mechanics are essential in every kind of game, but the one winning at SC should be the best one at strategic play.
Infact, a game is enjoyable when there is a huge battle in the strategic aspect of the game, not when the players are only good at macroing or microing (altough micro makes you go "woah!").
3. Nevertheless, formations are risky to implement. Infact the first two I would think of are "spread" and "group tight". Which means that with just 1 click you can nullify splash damage from tanks, hellions, etc, which means that either the spalsh become bigger or it becomes pointless unless there is a big army passing trough a choke.
Same thing would happen to the lings, you can easyly choose a formation that will block them from slipping around your units when you are in a choke by telling them to spread (if you have enough of them in order to effectively block when you order them to old).
|
On November 15 2010 23:02 MichaelJLowell wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2010 22:58 ltortoise wrote:On November 15 2010 22:44 MichaelJLowell wrote:
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. Actually I was arguing that the magic box is an extremely elegant game mechanic that allows you to execute nearly any formation you want in a seamless fashion I think there are many reasons pre-built formations could never compare. They clutter up the UI, for one. For two, they don't offer anywhere near the same amount of flexibility as the magic box. Would you be in favor of a "lock formation" toggle that accomplishes the same thing?
Not really, no. I don't see the benefit.
As of now, if I want a formation, I simply put my units in that formation, magic box, move.
With your added toggle, I'd have to put my units in that formation, PRESS THE LOCK FORMATION HOTKEY, then click move.
Why over-complicate things when there is an elegant solution already in place?
Also, I still don't really get this thread. Are we discussing SC2 or SC3? There is no way Blizzard is going to change the way formations work in SC2. This is here to stay. If you are trying think of a better solution for a future RTS, I'm not really sure this is the place to discuss it.
SC2 is what it is. We have ways to get nearly any formation we want and to move in formation. Fundamental game mechanics like the magic box aren't going anywhere. Have you considered trying to design your own RTS formation system? Why not blog it?
|
Basically, when many people saw foxers marine micro people where like ooooh, aaaah. You are at a very basic level suggesting implementing formations so that units will run around in a full auto split and form auto concaves with the click of a button.
Because if they didnt do this any suggested formations would be considered a relatively useless addition and if they did many elitist would quit the game, calling it the halo of rts.
magic box already does what you are suggesting, yet it sees very little use outside of mutalisk stacks.
|
The magic box isnt a formation, its just part of how the AI works. I dont know why you would want formation commands when the game works perfectly fine as it is... What purpose would having formation commands serve? Just control your units better? Sounds like a much better plan to me, especially for an esport.
|
I think a lot of the problems with this thread are due to the OP not being exactly sure what he's referring to.
Magic box, obviously, is the ability of units to remain how they were placed initially without bunching up if you move to a point far enough way. While this is blatently and undeniably a type of formation system, it isn't the 'dumbed down' one that most people are opposed to, and the inital organisation of, and stopping in such a way as to make units stay, in a particular formation is an important part of micro. Enjoying this type of formation system, but not a button-click-and-it-does-it-all-for-you system, is definitely not hypocritical.
However, I don't think this magic box is what the OP was referring to. Instead, he was referring to the (I think?) most common use of the magic box, which is mutas killing thors. The box part of this, where you have to stop over the thor etc. is probably fine. What I think the OP is objecting to (and what is commonly known as the magic box, even though it technically isn't) is the auto-spreading of air units, which is a classic example of an auto formation system. You don't even have to click a button. I'll concede you still have to do the stopping, but that's basically irrelevant.
People who enjoy air units automatically spreading, but don't want to have spread/clump formations for other units, are being hypocritical to some degree. You also can't argue that removing this would decrease the depth of micro - compare, I ask you, the micro skills needed to split marines to face banelings (their AoE counter) to the micro skills needed to split mutas to face thors (their AoE counter). You see the point? (Well hopefully, anyway  )
Personally, I think treating air units more like ground units - they bounce off each other and don't stack - and removing the auto spread would be the best, but it would make the ground difficult to see etc.
It's definitely a tricky one, but I don't think the amount of hate going on towards the OP is justified, and I think most of it comes from both 'sides' misunderstanding the other...
|
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
Yeah right, because fighting with the game to control it=skill.
BW elitists are such funny people. A game that comes out on 2010 should be as much user-friendly as possible, when BW was released the technology clearly did not allow it but now, the game needs to be user-friendly. Limited control groups, right, on 2010.
A monkey can also be trained to perform what you describe as mechanics, but he won't be able to create a strategy that will beat an human opponent.
So if the game is so easy, why don't you go join GSL and win it?
|
On November 15 2010 23:11 ltortoise wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2010 23:02 MichaelJLowell wrote:On November 15 2010 22:58 ltortoise wrote:On November 15 2010 22:44 MichaelJLowell wrote:
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. Actually I was arguing that the magic box is an extremely elegant game mechanic that allows you to execute nearly any formation you want in a seamless fashion I think there are many reasons pre-built formations could never compare. They clutter up the UI, for one. For two, they don't offer anywhere near the same amount of flexibility as the magic box. Would you be in favor of a "lock formation" toggle that accomplishes the same thing? Not really, no. I don't see the benefit. As of now, if I want a formation, I simply put my units in that formation, magic box, move. With your added toggle, I'd have to put my units in that formation, PRESS THE LOCK FORMATION HOTKEY, then click move. Why over-complicate things when there is an elegant solution already in place?
You don't think there's a way this could be designed to make it routine? It would be sitting on a message board in the eve of Warcraft II's release and arguing an attack-move command would be ridiculous because "it's simply more elegant to click the unit(s) that you want to die".
On November 15 2010 23:16 R0YAL wrote:
The magic box isnt a formation, its just part of how the AI works. I dont know why you would want formation commands when the game works perfectly fine as it is... What purpose would having formation commands serve? Just control your units better? Sounds like a much better plan to me, especially for an esport.
Then they should get rid of the "magic box" entirely. People should just learn how to control their units better.
On November 15 2010 23:20 ale_jrb wrote:
It's definitely a tricky one, but I don't think the amount of hate going on towards the OP is justified, and I think most of it comes from both 'sides' misunderstanding the other...
I added a video to the OP. I hope that clarifies things.
|
If you want to change the game a lot of things have to be considered. You are asking about STARCRAFT 2!!!! This is a StarCraft 2 forum. NOT a generic RTS forum. So YES!!! We're going to reply to your comments with regard to SC2! You can say "ignore the context" all you want, but as long as we're talking about SC2 and not some generic brand new RTS, then we HAVE to consider them. It would completely and utterly break EVERYTHING about the way this game was designed, there is NO good reason to make the change at this point, it is far far FAR too late for that sort of design decision.
Do I think you could make an RTS that was fun and featured formations? Possibly. I haven't seen one yet, but I'm not denying the possibility. But do I think there is any feasible, possible way for it to work in StarCraft 2? Absolutely not. If you redesigned the game to a point where it was no longer StarCraft 2, possibly, but it wouldn't be a discussion about StarCraft 2 any more as I've tried very hard to explain.
Just like when multiple-building selection and the unlimited unit cap were going to break Starcraft II.
Wrong. Those things were never going to "break" SC2. They were designed as a part of its fundamental game play from the very beginning. Changing a game after it has been designed can break it, designing it a certain way from the beginning cannot.
Also, you're talking to the wrong person with this argument. A lot of people argued that they would be detrimental, but I was NEVER one of them. Human mind has a tendency to hear multiple conflicting arguments from multiple sources, and then just assume that they come from the same source. Well they don't.
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.
No I have not, and that has nothing to do with anything I said... Whether or not you can disable formations does not change what it is. It is fundamentally the polar opposite/extremely different from the magic box technique. That is all I am trying to explain. Obviously if you couldn't disable it, it would be a terrible game that would not merit anyone's time. I never said anything about that though...or even remotely hinted at it. You have something seriously wrong with your sense of logic.
Sorry if I rubbed you the wrong way man, but I don't think you understand the point. Anyways, let's count here.
Spreading out air units *with* hotkey = 1 press/click
Spreading out air units currently = 0 presses/clicks
Not a major difference, just a matter of familiarity I guess
No I understand it just fine. The OP and you are trying to falsely state that Magic Box and Formations are in some way similar. They absolutely are not and I have pointed out multiple times why that is. If you can't understand the differences between the two, that is a flaw in your thinking, not mine.
As far as saying it's 0 presses/clicks to spread out currently.. I'm not even sure how to respond to that. It is absolutely positively false. If you want to stay spread out during combat, you MUST continuously click in the right way and use hold position at the right time, or else your units WILL converge on one another to attack a certain target.
|
On November 15 2010 23:21 Bleak wrote:Show nested quote +
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
Yeah right, because fighting with the game to control it=skill.
It sure as hell does. And I'm not saying this as a BW elitist or anything, I prefer playing SC2 (although I enjoy BW progaming more), and I'm not saying that it made BW into a better game (though perhaps a better competitive one, for now anyway) but BW is undoubtedly takes more skill to play on a decent level than SC2, and one of the reasons for that is that you constantly have to fight with the limitations of the game (loldragoonAI)
|
At least 1 reason why someone can support magic box over auto-formation:
1) It's more rewarding to pull off a magic box, or 2 or 3 of them at the same time in a battle and to win as a result. That sense of accomplishment doesn't exist if auto-formation, as you describe it, were part of the game.
You were just looking for any reason why someone would support magic box > auto-formation right? Well this one's good enough for me.
|
No I understand it just fine. The OP and you are trying to falsely state that Magic Box and Formations are in some way similar. They absolutely are not and I have pointed out multiple times why that is.
I actually mostly agree with you, but you know this is totally wrong, right? Of course it's a formation system - moving units will maintain how they're spread out (provided you click far enough way, that's true).
You can't click a button to get them to arrange themselves, but they still stay in whatever formation you put them in (with limits, that's true). What do you think that is lol?
|
On November 15 2010 23:31 telfire wrote:If you want to change the game a lot of things have to be considered. You are asking about STARCRAFT 2!!!! This is a StarCraft 2 forum. NOT a generic RTS forum. So YES!!! We're going to reply to your comments with regard to SC2! You can say "ignore the context" all you want, but as long as we're talking about SC2 and not some generic brand new RTS, then we HAVE to consider them. It would completely and utterly break EVERYTHING about the way this game was designed, there is NO good reason to make the change at this point, it is far far FAR too late for that sort of design decision.
Do I think you could make an RTS that was fun and featured formations? Possibly. I haven't seen one yet, but I'm not denying the possibility. But do I think there is any feasible, possible way for it to work in StarCraft 2? Absolutely not. If you redesigned the game to a point where it was no longer StarCraft 2, possibly, but it wouldn't be a discussion about StarCraft 2 any more as I've tried very hard to explain.
And once again: "Formations would not work in Starcraft II because the game currently isn't designed for them" is not the answer because you just acknowledged "I can't see how formations could work in Starcraft period". Which would be like a Warcraft II player stating that hero units and role-playing elements simply couldn't exist in a Warcraft game.
On November 15 2010 23:31 telfire wrote:
Wrong. Those things were never going to "break" SC2. They were designed as a part of its fundamental game play from the very beginning. Changing a game after it has been designed can break it, designing it a certain way from the beginning cannot.
Also, you're talking to the wrong person with this argument. A lot of people argued that they would be detrimental, but I was NEVER one of them. Human mind has a tendency to hear multiple conflicting arguments from multiple sources, and then just assume that they come from the same source. Well they don't.
Man, you should have been reading this forum around 2007. You would have been shocked by the vitriol for those mechanics and how they were going to ruin everything. Hell, a lot of posts in this thread would support that argument.
On November 15 2010 23:31 telfire wrote:
No I have not, and that has nothing to do with anything I said... Whether or not you can disable formations does not change what it is. It is fundamentally the polar opposite/extremely different from the magic box technique. That is all I am trying to explain. Obviously if you couldn't disable it, it would be a terrible game that would not merit anyone's time. I never said anything about that though...or even remotely hinted at it.
Then why are you opposed to an optional function that you don't have to touch in any capacity? A function that serves the same fundamental purpose of the magic box? You can argue it all you want. The magic box is a type of formation.
On November 15 2010 23:31 telfire wrote:
You have something seriously wrong with your sense of logic.
I understand completely.
|
On November 15 2010 23:29 MichaelJLowell wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2010 23:16 R0YAL wrote:
The magic box isnt a formation, its just part of how the AI works. I dont know why you would want formation commands when the game works perfectly fine as it is... What purpose would having formation commands serve? Just control your units better? Sounds like a much better plan to me, especially for an esport. Then they should get rid of the "magic box" entirely. People should just learn how to control their units better.
Your not listening so I guess I will explain.. The "Magic Box" is part of the AI like I previously said. The term "Magic Box" is just what the community named it. The "Magic Box" is not a feature. Still Confused?
|
I'm saying that supporting the "magic box" and opposing formations is hypocritical.
Thanks for calling almost everyone in the community hipocrites. Good luck with your argument. You'd do well to remember this simple fact; magic box has exactly nothing to do with formation move at all.
Edit: Sigh. Okay, while you are terribly wrong other people are wrong too. Of course this game can include formation move, actually blizzard can implement it and it would make almost no difference. We saw it in wc3, no pro's used it and it would be the same here. People make reasons like it will clutter the UI. Really...? They can just do it like sc1, where if you selected and moved a group of units they stayed relative to each other when moving. People don't even realize that opened up for pros to make cool micro moves. They just shout with saliva flying around that it's bad and won't work and, guess what, sc1 had formations. Guess what, it worked. Still, the magic box is something entirely different and you call people stuff it makes them mad it's not wierd that everyone opposes your entire post except for just the extremely flawed logic leading to an offensive namecalling that you for some reason excreeted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
