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)
All those people that complained about the new features of SC2 (large selection groups, multiple building selection, automining, etc.) are elitist idiots. They fear that their point and click skill will be surpassed by pure strategic players. The game has to be intuitive and fun, why on earth shouldn't I be able to control all my buildings/units on one control group? It doesn't make any sense and people arguing against it completely miss the point of the game. Strategic choices should be rewarded way more than APM capabilities.
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.
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.
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).
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.
"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.
i think the idea of formations in a game like starcraft would be immensely stupid. i take my experience from total war games (never played WC3, you'd have to link a vid of their formation set up for me to judge) which is completely formation-based micro battles of pre-determined units, and i ask myself, would something like that improve SC BW/2 in the slightest? i'd say no, because it's a lot more skillful and interesting to watch someone manage to maneuver units properly when they would otherwise be an undisciplined, balled mess of units sprinkled here and there. mutalisk stacking and unstacking is one way of maneuvering properly and is not in any way this kind of automatic formation you endorse.
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.
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.
I don't think that every machanic which removes APM is bad. Obviously that one's been debated to no end, but the bottom line is that this is not a "real time game" and it is not a "strategy game". It's a "real time strategy game". All of these things must be part of it.
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.
Another one of your threads huh? Every time I see one of your posts I SIGH big time.
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.
I did not even know WC3 had formations. Never saw it used. Their use in SC2 would be for example to have zealots attack-move into siege tanks in a theoretically optimal pattern? Doesn't sound fun to me. The mutalisk+thor stuff is a bit stupid, too, but still feels more involved and fun to use.
@OP: "Cerebral gameplay"? There's not much cerebral about SC2 with the way the units all hard counter one another (relatively speaking).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 22:28 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.
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".
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 22:44 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 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 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.
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.
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.
Magic box, as far as it goes in SC2, has nothing to do with creating formations. That is done by auto spread of flying units, clumping of ground units and micro etc etc. You could make a case that yes having a button to press that forces your unit into a formation would be helpful. But as we have seen in the GSL with Foxer getting marines into a formation that lets them survive banelings is hard but possible. It is very micro intensive and is entirely one of the cores of SC2, that is micro will let you beat a hard counter. Why take that away when just being good lets you do the same thing? Autoformation does take away micro. Unless you find something to balance that it shouldn't be brought in, e.g. they made macro easier (MBS system) so they put in macro mechanics to make macro at least a little more difficult. You can argue how effective that was but they did put in a balance, which you have not suggested in terms of increasing micro if auto formations are in place. Auto formations would increase positioning but that is already extremely critical.
As far as "removing magic boxing" you are suggesting replacing it with a lock formation command. In SC2 magic boxing is almost equivalent to lock formation except that magic boxing is once again slightly harder to use. If you lock mutas into formation and click attack they would attack in that formation. If you magic box and do that they clump up. Once again it's something that takes micro and practice to use right but is not impossible and leads to a skill curve. A skill curve is not a bad thing (to some degree). So unless you can make a case why giving a lock formation button would lead to more dynamics somewhere else, rather than less, there is no reason to replace it.
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?
Then reprogram the game. I'm tired of these noobs magic boxing their way up the ladder. Ruins it for those of us trying to make pixel art with our units.
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.
The use of "magic box" to spread evenly and defeat Thors is a kind of formation.
On November 15 2010 23:53 Lunares wrote: Magic box, as far as it goes in SC2, has nothing to do with creating formations. That is done by auto spread of flying units, clumping of ground units and micro etc etc. You could make a case that yes having a button to press that forces your unit into a formation would be helpful. But as we have seen in the GSL with Foxer getting marines into a formation that lets them survive banelings is hard but possible. It is very micro intensive and is entirely one of the cores of SC2, that is micro will let you beat a hard counter. Why take that away when just being good lets you do the same thing? Autoformation does take away micro. Unless you find something to balance that it shouldn't be brought in, e.g. they made macro easier (MBS system) so they put in macro mechanics to make macro at least a little more difficult. You can argue how effective that was but they did put in a balance, which you have not suggested in terms of increasing micro if auto formations are in place. Auto formations would increase positioning but that is already extremely critical.
As far as "removing magic boxing" you are suggesting replacing it with a lock formation command. In SC2 magic boxing is almost equivalent to lock formation except that magic boxing is once again slightly harder to use. If you lock mutas into formation and click attack they would attack in that formation. If you magic box and do that they clump up. Once again it's something that takes micro and practice to use right but is not impossible and leads to a skill curve. A skill curve is not a bad thing (to some degree). So unless you can make a case why giving a lock formation button would lead to more dynamics somewhere else, rather than less, there is no reason to replace it.
Personally, I think every command should be as easy to use as the controls will allow, with some exceptions (namely those in fighting games, and even those input methods were designed with the context of the special ability in mind). Manipulating the units from that point onward should be the skill. If I was designing the game, I'd find a way to streamline the magic box in a way that any player can manipulate it. It would just be up to them to get the results they want. But that's just me, and that's a topic for another thread.
pre-coded formation information for units is almost impossible due to the various different unit combinations. A marine marauder ball works fine and is likely the best formation for that group of units. However, imagine if everywhere i clicked i could set my zerglings in a line which could easily spread around and surround any stray group of units. I'd end up pretty much winning half my games with a speedling rush. Really it can't happen because of unit combinations and also balance. At least in my opinion.
You keep changing your argument, and your definitions. I'm going to simplify this to the most simple I can possibly simplify it to, and then I'm going to leave the thread to play StarCraft and probably not come back.
My understanding of the original argument points: 1. You are talking about a feature, here referred to as "Formations" that would allow you to click a button and your units would hold that "formation" or position relative to each other, regardless of movement. 2. You are further stating that the "Magic Box" micro technique is the exact same thing, and therefore supporting one but opposing the other is hypocritical. 3. You are insisting that despite this being a StarCraft 2 forum, it somehow makes sense to talk about making a fundamental design change decision that would absolutely have to be made at the beginning of a game's development process to have any chance of working.
You are absolutely wrong because: 1. What "Magic Box" actually is, is manual control of your units. This is a unit-specific and fundamentally different method of micro than any way I could imagine a "formation" system working. 2. You agree with point one, or did at one point in your flow of (non)logic. I know this because if magic box was synonymous with your idea for a formation system, there would be no purpose for this thread as magic box is obviously already in the game. 3. Magic Box and Formations are different because: one involves a lot more micro, and different things are possible with each of them. One is automatic, and one is manual. As an example, with a formation system marines would absolutely never be susceptible to Banelings, and that would completely fuck the meta game of ZvT, even though the exact same thing is technically possible now. 4. This game is StarCraft 2. Saying that Heroes won't work in WarCraft II is a legitimate fact. And I am not saying that formations can't work in StarCraft 3. I am saying they can't work in StarCraft 2, which is the RTS that these forums are for and that I originally assumed you wanted to talk about. However you're starting to make it clear that this discussion has absolutely nothing to do with StarCraft 2, since every time anyone mentions anything StarCraft 2-specific you say the same damn thing over and over again, that you already addressed context. Well I already addressed why addressing context doesn't simply eliminate it. You have to consider it, end of story. Unless you're talking about StarCraft 3, in which case I believe you're about 15 years too early.
To summarize my position, every game has gameplay mechanics. That is all the game truly is, is mechanics. Micromanagement involves using those mechanics to control your units. The mechanic of having a single button spread your units out, and keep them spread out for you, is very, VERY different from the mechanic of having to manually keep them spread out despite their natural tendency to clump very close together. I am not arguing which is better, but that the two are entirely, fundamentally, unequivicolly different, and if you still cannot see that then I apologize, but you are wrong.
Magic Box: Technique that allows units to stay in formations as long as chokes or other units don't get in the way.
Formation commands: Commands that spread your units for you into perfect formations.
Your question: "How can someone argue against one, but not the other"
MY answer: They are two different/separate things.
Now if you're arguing against air units automatically spreading out(which definitely isn't in your OP), would you rather the contrary: Where air units will always stack, and are impossible to count, and hard to notice? Not to mention that it doesn't make sense physically for two objects to occupy the same space...
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?
Then reprogram the game. I'm tired of these noobs magic boxing their way up the ladder. Ruins it for those of us trying to make pixel art with our units.
On November 16 2010 00:10 telfire wrote: You keep changing your argument, and your definitions. I'm going to simplify this to the most simple I can possibly simplify it to, and then I'm going to leave the thread to play StarCraft and probably not come back.
...
To summarize my position, every game has gameplay mechanics. That is all the game truly is, is mechanics. Micromanagement involves using those mechanics to control your units. The mechanic of having a single button spread your units out, and keep them spread out for you, is very, VERY different from the mechanic of having to manually keep them spread out despite their natural tendency to clump very close together. I am not arguing which is better, but that the two are entirely, fundamentally, unequivicolly different, and if you still cannot see that then I apologize, but you are wrong.
Well, we're not getting anywhere on this. I'm just telling you: "It wouldn't work in the current Starcraft II" is a talking point. The brief body of reference on this very message board suggests people opposed it because it wasn't Starcraft-like at a time in the production cycle where formations very-much could have been integrated into the game. If we don't agree on that, then I don't know what to tell you.
On November 16 2010 00:11 Uncultured wrote: Allow me to explain this simply:
Magic Box: Technique that allows units to stay in formations as long as chokes or other units don't get in the way.
Formation commands: Commands that spread your units for you into perfect formations.
Your question: "How can someone argue against one, but not the other"
MY answer: They are two different/separate things.
In the context of Mutalisks vs. Thors, the magic box lets Mutalisks spread into a perfect formation and down their counter unit with no issue. The entire argument against formation commands is the premise that there would be no counter to these formations and that micromanagement on the part of both players wouldn't extend from that point onward. That's not true. Spread Mutalisks are countered by Marines, at which point both players have to adequately micromanage their units to get the desired results. Using the magic box to create a spread formation did not destroy the game.
Not to mention that it doesn't make sense physically for two objects to occupy the same space...
Didn't stop Starcraft players from adopting Muta-stacking as the bread-and-butter of Brood War's Terran vs. Zerg matchup.
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?
Then reprogram the game. I'm tired of these noobs magic boxing their way up the ladder. Ruins it for those of us trying to make pixel art with our units.
I can't understand why SC2 doesn't have them either. Having to spread units out manually how it is now makes no sense to me. A basic spreading, square formation, and diving in two groups like on the pic below would be enough. If you wanted something better aggainst splash, then you'd do it yourself. In age of empires everyone had to use the formation that spread out units with archers aggainst catapults or they be one shotted, but it by no means removed all the micro out of the equation. Just removed "monkey can do" spreading out of the equation, just like many things that were requiring stupid amounts of micro in SC and were made automatic.
However, the magic box is a pretty unique and overly celebrated exception in this game and I welcome the lack of more commands that would replace the players micro.
A similiar technique for marines, to let the spread a bit, is using patrol before moving on. Of course they tend to clump up again.
On the further discussion: yes, I also wished sometimes there would be a formation command to spread a bit my marines if they get attacked by banes. Nevertheless, there isnt one. And would we have this orgasmic screams of celebration from Artosis while watching FoxeRs marine micro, if there were such automating commands?
Half of this thread missed the point. SC players only care about the end result, not about philosophy behind decisions. In practice, magic boxes only simplify air unit micro such as mutalisks, since the boxes are much smaller for the ground units. Yea zerg requires no micro, but that doesn't mean that the other two races should lose all of the micro too. Marine micro vs banelings is pretty much the deciding factor in TvZ. It'd be RUINED with formations and terran would actually become what protoss and zerg players called it since beta. Terran 1a. If protoss could autospread his templar, then the game would be far less exciting. As it is now, one EMP or one FG is pretty much a mini nuke that blows up through a poor protoss player's monitor.
tl;dr: This game doesn't have enough micro at all and adding formations would decrease it even more.
On November 16 2010 00:36 TheDrill wrote:Yea zerg requires no micro
Are you KIDDING ME? People don't even seem to get how Magic box works at all. It is extremely intense micro!! It requires a LOT of actions and doing it while macroing is quite a task. Not to mention the cost of failure, which is losing as much as a 200/200 army within a space of 2 seconds or even literally instantly.
On November 16 2010 00:36 TheDrill wrote:Yea zerg requires no micro
Are you KIDDING ME? People don't even seem to get how Magic box works at all. It is extremely intense micro!! It requires a LOT of actions and doing it while macroing is quite a task. Not to mention the cost of failure, which is losing as much as a 200/200 army within a space of 2 seconds or even literally instantly.
Wow. Just wow.
Explain yourself please. Isn't magic box just waiting for mutas to spread out then clicking outside the box and not target firing so they don't bunch up? What are the LOT of actions u talk about. And also:
If your keeping up with your injections, remacroing is pretty easy for zerg. Just 4sttthhhrrr and rally.
But I admit, zerg pays the price of having v fragile units. Speedlings and mutas evaporate if poorly controlled.
In the context of Mutalisks vs. Thors, the magic box lets Mutalisks spread into a perfect formation and down their counter unit with no issue. The entire argument against formation commands is the premise that there would be no counter to these formations and that micromanagement on the part of both players wouldn't extend from that point onward. That's not true. Spread Mutalisks are countered by Marines, at which point both players have to adequately micromanage their units to get the desired results. Using the magic box to create a spread formation did not destroy the game.
Magic box doesn't let mutas spread out into perfect formation. Air units auto-spreading is a function of air units. Nothing else. Only air units do this, whereas Magic Boxing applies to ground and air units
You're arguing that Air units auto spread is akin to ground units having a button that auto spreads them. But spreading units out over and area(what patrolling actually already does, pro-tip), and putting them into advantageous formations is two very different things.(You want to spread marines vs banes, but want them in a tight pack vs zerglings, for example)
IF you're trying to argue both of these points, then you're clearly just trolling and trying to flipflop your arguments as you please.
On November 16 2010 00:36 TheDrill wrote:Yea zerg requires no micro
Are you KIDDING ME? People don't even seem to get how Magic box works at all. It is extremely intense micro!! It requires a LOT of actions and doing it while macroing is quite a task. Not to mention the cost of failure, which is losing as much as a 200/200 army within a space of 2 seconds or even literally instantly.
Wow. Just wow.
Explain yourself please. Isn't magic box just waiting for mutas to spread out then clicking outside the box and not target firing so they don't bunch up? What are the LOT of actions u talk about. And also:
If your keeping up with your injections, remacroing is pretty easy for zerg. Just 4sttthhhrrr and rally.
But I admit, zerg pays the price of having v fragile units. Speedlings and mutas evaporate if poorly controlled.
Read the thread please. I already posted a DETAILED explanation of what the magic box is and how it works.
It's getting slightly annoying that people keep responding with silly posts like this without even bothering to read the thread.
On November 16 2010 00:36 TheDrill wrote:Yea zerg requires no micro
Are you KIDDING ME? People don't even seem to get how Magic box works at all. It is extremely intense micro!! It requires a LOT of actions and doing it while macroing is quite a task. Not to mention the cost of failure, which is losing as much as a 200/200 army within a space of 2 seconds or even literally instantly.
Wow. Just wow.
Explain yourself please. Isn't magic box just waiting for mutas to spread out then clicking outside the box and not target firing so they don't bunch up? What are the LOT of actions u talk about. And also:
If your keeping up with your injections, remacroing is pretty easy for zerg. Just 4sttthhhrrr and rally.
But I admit, zerg pays the price of having v fragile units. Speedlings and mutas evaporate if poorly controlled.
No, that's not what magic box is at all. If you want to call the "right click, wait" that causes them to spread out "magic box", so be it, but in that case magic box is completely meaningless and pointless and there's no reason to give it a name or any thought at all.
The only way it's worth a damn is if you engage the enemy with it, and engaging the enemy while maintaining the magic box is not easy at all (unless of course you are ahead in units) as the mutas will continually try to collapse on themselves. You can't just let them spread out and then a move. They will clump back together at the first enemy they encounter. If you click too close, they will clump before even encountering an enemy. You have to use a combination of clicking way across the map, using hold position, and knowing the exact moment to retreat, or magic box won't help you at all.
If you want to simplify it you could say that technically, magic box takes one click, a small period of time, another click, and then a hold position. In theory that's the whole technique. In practice you'll need to do much more.
it's different because if you could just issue commands to a group of units, and they would stay in that formation, it would completely remove micro from the game. the thing about magic box is that while it is, in a very basic way, a formation, it has to be very carefully microed.
i mean, what if all foxer had to do to split his marines was hit a button? that play wouldn't be SO HIGH LEVEL at all. but because formations have to be carefully controlled, it raises the skill ceiling.
I wouldn't worry too much about the magic box haters. Blizzard is never going to add formations or change the stacking physics., so all there arguing is just going down the drown.
"I'm sick of these noobs magic-boxing their way up the ladder."
I laughed so hard at this. Since when has manually keeping your units spread been a gimmick/noob strat? and what are they magic boxing? If you're complaining about mutalisks, its only good vs thors. with marine support its somewhat pointless.
the magic-box is not a button, it's taking advantage of the control-group stacking physics, its like in ssbm when people figured you can l-cancel and wavedash. are they intended functions? certainly not, but it added a whole new dynamic to the game without changing it.
As far as the formations argument goes, it's irrelevant because it will never be in sc2. Besides, magic box is quite situational. It's only used occasionally. With the way the maps and units function there really is no need for a formation button anyway.
I like how sc2 unit control is so far. I played AoE and AoE2 AoK and those unit formations were decent. Then i played scbw for a while then played AoE2. I really thought the unit formations were holding back on the micro capable of saving units and what not.
I don't even get why you call it magic box anyway. It's a term from Broodwar where it made sense. Now it's just not make your mutas clump up. Every airunit takes space and if you don't give commands they will spread out evenly. Now you just control your air units so that they don't clump up. If you directly attack a unit all your units will stop once in range, thus clumping up. So you fly up until every unit is in range to attack and THEN attack, leaving every unit where it is. I really don't understand why people call that magic box... THIS is a magic box
So what you do with mutas versus Thors has nothing to do with formations... When you order units to move it's just natural (for air units especially) that they stay roughly in place to each other as long as they have same speed and acceleration etc.
I can. We've already got MBS, UUS, etc. so players can focus more on micro. Here's the catch. Control your freaking units. This gives players more reason to group their units differently other than grouping them to one hotkey or using the Alt key to select different units. Formations would make SC2 more user-friendly, but enough is enough.
Abusing the AI to create an advantage requires some extra mechanical skill. Using a formation button to do the same thing takes as much as A-move. That's why there would be opposition to it in Starcraft, and that way it applies to the "context of game balance" although that phrase made absolutely no sense to me mainly because this said context is not defined anywhere, and I can't assume what it is. We could also include a button to allow concave formations, but that's not preferred because players would rather control it themselves. Mechanical skill is part of what defines Starcraft in it's competitive scene.
And magic boxing is NOT the same thing as formation commands. It is an abuse of the game's engine that requires some extra work to pull off. Theoretically, in more intense macro games, controlling Mutas in such a way could be more taxing on a player because of the different things that need multi-tasking. No, this is nowhere near as intense as Muta stacking in BW (which abused the same thing, albeit in a different way) but it's still better than a 1-click button that does it for you. Starcraft is defined by mechanical skill, and the opposition to Starcraft usually seems to include opposition to micro. It's a freaking preference, there is no hypocrisy. I could similarly say (although it's a poor analogy) that it's akin to saying that someone should like poultry because that person likes beef, because they are both meats.
And I'm not even necessarily saying formations would make me kill myself irl because this game would take less skill; keeping a Protoss army in proper formation is annoying! I just think OP has a terrible argument because all it does is call a bunch of people hypocrites.
I haven't tested but... I wonder if you were to move the thors back so the mutas would chase, thus clumping them back up again to do terrible terrible damage
This is a pretty interesting thread. I can definitely see both sides of the argument here.
The Magic Box trick isn't exactly the same as having a "spread out formation" button because it isn't a single button on the UI that you click or set and forget. It's a tool that requires you to babysit your Mutalisks to a degree and requires multiple mouseclicks to do correctly, and it can be done incorrectly.
However, at the same time, if you were to compare the difficulty of magic boxing a group of Mutalisks vs. a Thor with the difficulty of spreading a group of Marines out vs. Banelings, the skill differential required is enormous. Spreading Marines makes spreading Mutas look ridiculously easy.
It's just a back and forth argument of how easy do you want the game to be to play, and there's no real answer to it. I don't think it's hypocritical to be in favor of the Muta trick but not in favor of specific formation buttons though. They aren't the same thing.
Personally, I'd be in favor of having a single button that keeps units in the same relative formation as they move, or doesn't do so. IIRC Warcraft 3 had that command. It bugs me that if I have a group of Marines, and I take some care and time to spread them out in a good arc, and then move them somewhere, it ruins my arc.
A button like that would still require you to create the formation you want through micro, it just would prevent the games pathing from immediately destroying that formation when they move somewhere.
Besides cluttering the UI, and drastically changing the effectiveness of splash damage units in general, I think formations would be a bit too rigid for a game like Starcraft. Sure, you could make it so that formations could be adjusted on the fly during a fight, but considering how short fights in Starcraft 2 actually are, it would really be pretty meaningless. Also, when you put your units into formation, do they always stay in that formation even if they get into a fight or do they break formation to create a concave and attack effectively? This is particularly and issue with ranged units because this could lose the game for you in an instant if they stay in formation. "Magic Boxing" is not so much about putting units in a specific formation, but more about having them maintaining distance from each other in order to reduce splash damage. It takes a certain degree of skill and more importantly, its use is actually very limited, so much so that I don't see why something like this should warrant a UI change that would affect every unit.
Formations and UI elements to adjust them are not inherently a bad thing. It works well typically in slower, more strategic games that are much more based on positioning and more realistic military strategy. That's not the kind of game Starcraft is. It's a very fast paced game where battles are over within seconds with little time to actually think strategically while one is happening. Most Starcraft players are simply thinking "He has a better concave than me so let me move my middle units back a bit." or "Focus fire that Collosus." and act quickly according to those instincts. In-battle strategy in Starcraft rarely amounts to anything more than these quick and general impulses. Even if you programmed this kind of function into the Starcraft 2 UI, it would probably do a lot more harm than good... That's not even counting the changes to units balance and splash damage that would need to occur to balance having this kind of thing happen across all unit types.
From OP you get the idea "magic box" was implemented to prevent thor AoE. That's not the case.
I support "magic box" because you can group 30+ mutalisks in 1 control group. If mutalisks stacked like in Brood War it would create balance issues. The exact same reason Blizzard implemented "magic box" in the first place.
I don't support formation commands because it would just dumb down the game. There's a reason why siege tanks and high templars are good against marines.
This is like saying manually injecting larva is the same as having it auto cast. Magic box requires APM to set up, if you have an easy button for it the games skill ceiling drops even more.
for what i've seen around here the bulk of the sc2 community is opossed to being able to execute simple strategical moves with ease, they want every idea no matter how simple it is to have to be complicated as hell to pull off, unless it is a unintended consequence of the game engine, then it's alright (!).
i'd love to have formations, that's one of the few things i liked about wc3. but maybe it could break the game in some way.
On November 16 2010 03:01 LegendaryZ wrote:It's a very fast paced game where battles are over within seconds with little time to actually think strategically while one is happening. Most Starcraft players are simply thinking "He has a better concave than me so let me move my middle units back a bit." or "Focus fire that Collosus." and act quickly according to those instincts. In-battle strategy in Starcraft rarely amounts to anything more than these quick and general impulses.
You know what would give players more time to think strategically in a battle? If they didn't have to spend those precious seconds fighting with the interface to make sure their Mutalisks remain spread out, that their Immortals are in front of their Stalkers, that their infantry are alternating between moving and firing, that they started this round of Inject Larvae....
You do see plenty of things going on in a battle. Some players are really good at making holes for Hellions to run by. Others are good at maneuvering Zerglings and Banelings to take out juicy targets. Some people can analyze the field of battle and discern a good place to set up a line of Forcefields. Others will engage on multiple battle fronts. Sometimes people try to drag battles away from enemy Siege Tanks, or towards friendly Spine Crawlers.
One of the main hypotheses is that if the interface helped you do mundane, repetitive things rather than being neutral (Inject Larvae) or even an outright obstacle (unit clumping, minimap unusable for warpgate), this would give people more time to manage the more interesting aspects of gameplay.
I suppose it's possible that there is no game-play remaining to be found once you get past these things, but in my estimation, Starcraft 2 isn't anywhere near that shallow of a game.
Hey OP, as a philosopher and (self-considered) game designer I appreciate your penchance for consistency, but I don't think you're being fair in saying that everyone who supports "magic box" is a hypocrite if they also don't support "formations" (i.e. one-click buttons that automatically change the way your units space out). Don't mind me as I attempt to systematically pick your argument apart.
Game design is much more than making consistency decisions, sometimes consistency has to be broken for practical reasons. There are real costs to weigh, and people have already highlighted the costs of the inclusion of formation or the exclusion of the magic box to the skill ceiling of the game. And yes, I do think that it is at least plausible to say that the magic box, which requires APM and some foresight to pull off, as a substitute for having to individually spread mutas out. (It's not as if they automatically spread out in a fashion such that it is the best spread for every possible situation).
People are calling you out for this, and so will I. You betray a huge bias in your postings. Even though it seems like you're arguing for consistency across the board, you pick a very specific unit interaction - the mutalisk and the thor. Why? Individual unit balance is ultimately arbitrary, the game could very well be balanced around mutas who cannot magic box, or mutas who can magic box. Or the game could be balanced around marines who auto spread with a command, or it could be balanced around marines who don't. What isn't arbitrary is that the three races should be in general balanced in the various matchups as a matter of game design principle, but the mutalisk/thor/magicbox situation by no means decide the balance of the game.
If you weigh things differently and think that "magic box" should be removed, or simply nerfed from having substantive effects on gameplay (mutas vs thors), so be it, but your judgements are as subjective as those of others. You're in no better position to call others out for bad supporting bad game design or bad balance, not even those who simply defer to blizzard's decisions (people who simply say "they probably have their reasons" without understanding those reasons themselves).
If Blizzard wanted to balance that one particular unit interaction they could - just as they introduced the hotfix for Thors vs Medivacs, they could very well increase the splash radius of Thors SLIGHTLY just to hit more than one mutas in a magic box, but make them fire a teenie bit slower to compensate. But why don't they? Well, because magic box can be justified precisely because it could help balance TvZ, and if it breaks TvZ other changes can be made, not necessarily to muta/thor/magicbox.
Your insistence at thinking that there are important similarities between magic box and formation buttons that make the inclusion of the former and exclusion of the latter in some sense inconsistent... to pull some philosophical jargon, I'd say your argument is too strong.
Here's a list of other game mechanics of unit control which could be construed as being similar to both magic box and formations, all of which have substantive effects which make them either better or worse depending on context: - Vikings patrolling two very close points. PROS: Allows the vikings to take out the first air unit in their large attack range without giving a chance to escape them, since vikings are slow. CONS: More vulnerable to splash - Workers made to all mine a single mineral patch. PROS: Makes them better fighters in some situations. CONS: More vulnerable to splash. - Ground units patrol moving. PROS: Spreads them out, making them less vulnerable to spread damage as they are moving. CONS: It's essentially an attack move, and the hotkey for patrol is quite far (unless you're on the grid formation). - Unburrowed ground units form a single line when they're asked to move (rather than patrol) to a location. PROS: They can hug cliffs better, allowing you to avoid the detection radius of the enemy, especially against sensor towers. CONS: They might end up being lambs to slaughter when they march one by one into enemy attack range.
Why is your argument too strong? Firstly, because almost any of the above game mechanics, and possibility others, can be considered to be similar to formations in that they also have substantive effects on the gameplay as a result of how they move and space out given particular commands. Secondly, because units have to move in some way or another in any case, and so they're always in some sort of formation anyway. If consistency were somehow valuable in itself, and the game design had to maximize consistency, then we would have to make it so that every unit moves in exactly the same way no matter what you ask them to do. No more difference between burrowed/unburrowed/air/worker units. Are you willing to bite the bullet on this?
On November 16 2010 02:39 Protoss_Carrier wrote: OP is extremely obnoxious and refuse to listen to anyone else's view point. Troll alert.
I'm plenty willing to listen to the opposing point of view. I listened to the opposing point of view. I happen to think most of the opposing arguments are quite ridiculous. From what I can tell, a lot of you oppose what I'm asserting because "one requires skill and the other doesn't". And from a game design standpoint, that's a ridiculously near-sighted argument that doesn't compensate for any of the user input that can follow that mechanic.
On November 16 2010 02:39 Protoss_Carrier wrote: OP is extremely obnoxious and refuse to listen to anyone else's view point. Troll alert.
I'm plenty willing to listen to the opposing point of view. I listened to the opposing point of view. I happen to think most of the opposing arguments are quite ridiculous. From what I can tell, a lot of you oppose what I'm asserting because "one requires skill and the other doesn't". And from a game design standpoint, that's a ridiculously near-sighted argument that doesn't compensate for any of the user input that can follow that mechanic.
That's all there is to it. Using magic box requires more focus and therefor more skill. Removing things like magic box "dumbs" down the game in that it's one less thing to focus on.
They already implemented auto-mine, mbs and unlimited unit selection among other things. People don't want them to remove even more things in favor of an automated system because it reduces the skill required to play the game. If you want your army to maintain a formation, micro them and do it yourself if you think it will give an advantage.
Edit: to clarify.. there is no hypocrisy here at all. It's fine that you think other people's arguments are rediculous just as it is fine that everyone else thinks your arguments are without water.
Another question... how is it short-sighted in game design to require players to have to focus on more things?
On November 16 2010 02:39 Protoss_Carrier wrote: OP is extremely obnoxious and refuse to listen to anyone else's view point. Troll alert.
I'm plenty willing to listen to the opposing point of view. I listened to the opposing point of view. I happen to think most of the opposing arguments are quite ridiculous. From what I can tell, a lot of you oppose what I'm asserting because "one requires skill and the other doesn't". And from a game design standpoint, that's a ridiculously near-sighted argument that doesn't compensate for any of the user input that can follow that mechanic.
Their intuitions aren't necessarily incorrect, you know, they're just lacking the justification for it. You can always ignore the people who make poor arguments, and address these fallacies one-shot by edition your first post or something. That said, skill difficulty is just another of those arbitrary points of balance I've mentioned.
I used to think that zerg macro was unfair since Queen inject larvae was more punishing than say, Mules or Chronoboost if you forgot to use it, and that creep tumours should have a hotkey just like warpgates. I've since come around on this point because I realized it doesn't make sense to cherrypick two things which I found inconsistent with each other and say that something was wrong - what I should be comparing is overall balance wrt macro. And it is not obvious that zerg macro is necessarily more unforgiving or tedious compared to the two other races, given that having only one production building does ease things up somewhat.
Hoping you didn't miss my earlier post since it was moments before yours was posted.
On November 16 2010 02:39 Protoss_Carrier wrote: OP is extremely obnoxious and refuse to listen to anyone else's view point. Troll alert.
I'm plenty willing to listen to the opposing point of view. I listened to the opposing point of view. I happen to think most of the opposing arguments are quite ridiculous. From what I can tell, a lot of you oppose what I'm asserting because "one requires skill and the other doesn't". And from a game design standpoint, that's a ridiculously near-sighted argument that doesn't compensate for any of the user input that can follow that mechanic.
Their intuitions aren't necessarily incorrect, you know, they're just lacking the justification for it. You can always ignore the people who make poor arguments, and address these fallacies one-shot by edition your first post or something. That said, skill difficulty is just another of those arbitrary points of balance I've mentioned.
I used to think that zerg macro was unfair since Queen inject larvae was more punishing than say, Mules or Chronoboost if you forgot to use it, and that creep tumours should have a hotkey just like warpgates. I've since come around on this point because I realized it doesn't make sense to cherrypick two things which I found inconsistent with each other and say that something was wrong - what I should be comparing is overall balance wrt macro. And it is not obvious that zerg macro is necessarily more unforgiving or tedious compared to the two other races, given that having only one production building does ease things up somewhat.
Hoping you didn't miss my earlier post since it was moments before yours was posted.
It's the other way around in reality btw. Chronos boost and MULEs allow for an advantage b/c you can spam yourself down to 0 energy easily for T and P. Queens can't spam larvae inject though. Good post otherwise
Edit: you may already know this. Just thought I'd clarify for people looking and not knowing that
On November 16 2010 02:39 Protoss_Carrier wrote: OP is extremely obnoxious and refuse to listen to anyone else's view point. Troll alert.
I'm plenty willing to listen to the opposing point of view. I listened to the opposing point of view. I happen to think most of the opposing arguments are quite ridiculous. From what I can tell, a lot of you oppose what I'm asserting because "one requires skill and the other doesn't". And from a game design standpoint, that's a ridiculously near-sighted argument that doesn't compensate for any of the user input that can follow that mechanic.
That's all there is to it. Using magic box requires more focus and therefor more skill. Removing things like magic box "dumbs" down the game in that it's one less thing to focus on.
They already implemented auto-mine, mbs and unlimited unit selection among other things. People don't want them to remove even more things in favor of an automated system because it reduces the skill required to play the game. If you want your army to maintain a formation, micro them and do it yourself if you think it will give an advantage.
Edit: to clarify.. there is no hypocrisy here at all. It's fine that you think other people's arguments are rediculous just as it is fine that everyone else thinks your arguments are without water.
Another question... how is it short-sighted in game design to require players to have to focus on more things?
Because all of the assumes being thrown my way assume the game couldn't have been designed in a way that would increase the amount of available routes and options for employing mechanical skill. I'm going to end up repeating myself to death on this, but "it wouldn't fit in the current state of the game" is not an option because people would be opposed to these mechanics if the game was years from release.
On November 16 2010 02:39 Protoss_Carrier wrote: OP is extremely obnoxious and refuse to listen to anyone else's view point. Troll alert.
I'm plenty willing to listen to the opposing point of view. I listened to the opposing point of view. I happen to think most of the opposing arguments are quite ridiculous. From what I can tell, a lot of you oppose what I'm asserting because "one requires skill and the other doesn't". And from a game design standpoint, that's a ridiculously near-sighted argument that doesn't compensate for any of the user input that can follow that mechanic.
Their intuitions aren't necessarily incorrect, you know, they're just lacking the justification for it. You can always ignore the people who make poor arguments, and address these fallacies one-shot by edition your first post or something. That said, skill difficulty is just another of those arbitrary points of balance I've mentioned.
Looks to me like the fundamental reason for opposition runs much deeper than this argument. It goes back to "What percentage of skill should be about clicking fast and what percentage of skill should be about good decisions?" That debate will never be settled.
I used to think that zerg macro was unfair since Queen inject larvae was more punishing than say, Mules or Chronoboost if you forgot to use it, and that creep tumours should have a hotkey just like warpgates. I've since come around on this point because I realized it doesn't make sense to cherrypick two things which I found inconsistent with each other and say that something was wrong - what I should be comparing is overall balance wrt macro. And it is not obvious that zerg macro is necessarily more unforgiving or tedious compared to the two other races, given that having only one production building does ease things up somewhat.
The problem with the Zerg macro mechanics is that in this current metagame, there's not a lot of thought that has to be put into using them. Right now, they're very much a spray-and-pray mechanic. Maybe it balances out the strength of the game's three factions, but Warcraft III circa patch 1.05 was considered to be "balanced". And it may be one of the most dreadful states of a Blizzard game since the company took their products into online play.
Hoping you didn't miss my earlier post since it was moments before yours was posted.
I think I got it the right around haha. I said zerg macro was more punishing wrt inject larvae vs mule/boost.
Edit: I was considering my points earlier, and I think I might have been a little hyperbolic with the last few sentences. I'd like to retract those exact words, though not the spirit of my objection. I just think...
1) what is inconsistent depends on how one frames the issue, and I don't think you've demonstrated why the way you have framed it is more salient than other ways (like the ways I've talked about
On the flipside, I would like to agree with you that introducing formations is not itself not necessarily unacceptable. But the fact of the matter is that people are more consistent, not less, for thinking that formation buttons should not be in the game just like control groups for buildings should not be in the game, and the magic box is not simply a pandering to allow for formation for one unit and not for another.
And another fact of the matter is that formations simply don't exist now, so it makes little point for you to call out the hypocrisy of people who don't support it given the current state of the game. I'd just as well call someone else out for making a similar post criticizing the existence or lack of some interface mechanic - each decision is just as arbitrary as its opposite.
2) not all inconsistencies are damning, so you have to show why the magicbox vs lack of formation button is an inconsistency that is damning
I'd like to have formations. If anyone has played the RTS Myth from the 1990's it had formations and it was a really awesome part of the game.
Also I don't think it would cause 1 control group syndrome or deskill microing, but actually the opposite. When you want to make a formation you'll want to have melee units in front and ranged in the back and maybe casters further back so you'd want to separate those types of units in order not to mix up the formation wrongly. If it would be like Myth there would be many different formations (arc, circle, vanguard, tight box, loose line, etc), and the player would have to be quick to choose the appropriate formation based on the terrain.
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.
You haven't been watching GSL have you? Try microing pure marine (without combat shield) against mostly banelings and roaches. Chances are you won't be able to do it nearly as well as FoxeR. We have barely begun to see what people can do with great micro.
I think the difference between this game and most other RTS games is the necessary of micro for you to win battles. In AoE, I found it to a much more macro game, and less micro. I don't really think I microed much, or at all in AoE. I'm not saying I was a great player, but I was playing it recently, and it was an almost purely macro game.
There lies the difference. SC1 required micro and macro. Maybe because of the limitations of game design at the time, but the point is that SC1 developed into a competitive game due to the fact that micro was necessary to decide the factor. Boxer was a micro god, and very bad at macro, yet he still is the Emperor. Why? Because micro is so important in SC1.
When they designed SC2, it was obvious that the people who played SC1 wanted a micro intensive game. If they were to implement formations, then essentially, a lot of the micro is gone in the game. Yes, it would be easy to implement formations. However, it takes away huge essence of what SC1 was, and what SC2 wants to be. A macro game that requires micro to be able to go far.
If formation were implemented, there is no argument that some level of micro is taken way. That fact cannot be argued. Furthermore, a lot of the difficult things in SC1 were simplified for SC2. Auto-mining, grouping of buildings. Whether it was for the good of the game or not, it again cannot be argued that that simplified the game.
As the games becomes more simply, skills becomes less of a factor. Maybe the skill cap is not lowered (though I believe it would be), but the difference in skill between player A and player B is not as large anymore.
Anyways, the point that I believe that you have to understand, is that SC2 players are looking for a micro intensive games, that along with macro, decides the winner of the game. If formations were used, micro becomes less important, and macro is over riding. And that is just not what I (maybe we) want.
I am dumbfounded at how asinine some people in this thread are.
If you can't read both the original post, my post, and his singular response to my post and not immediately come to the conclusion that he's a troll, then I've really lost faith in this community.
On November 16 2010 04:50 MichaelJLowell wrote: Because all of the assumes being thrown my way assume the game couldn't have been designed in a way that would increase the amount of available routes and options for employing mechanical skill. I'm going to end up repeating myself to death on this, but "it wouldn't fit in the current state of the game" is not an option because people would be opposed to these mechanics if the game was years from release.
What does this mean? O_0
I never argued that it wouldn't fit. I'm telling you point blank... people do not want it because it lessens the amount of focus required from a player.
I feel as though we have more time than ever to micro units around, especially considering how streamlined macro is.
I don't think "magic box" is a formation, its basically using the in game mechanics (air units spacing themselves out after clumping up) and then using hold position. It's just a micro technique, not really a formation since it's as easy to clump them up again as it is to keep them spaced.
So I for one am not really interested in seeing formations added to the game, nor do I see how I am a hypocrite because of "magic box" muta movement.
I'll try to add something new to the conversation. If I can't, I'm gonna move on. Repeating myself isn't going to do anybody any good at this point.
On November 16 2010 04:16 IamSooty wrote: Hey OP, as a philosopher and (self-considered) game designer I appreciate your penchance for consistency, but I don't think you're being fair in saying that everyone who supports "magic box" is a hypocrite if they also don't support "formations" (i.e. one-click buttons that automatically change the way your units space out). Don't mind me as I attempt to systematically pick your argument apart.
Game design is much more than making consistency decisions, sometimes consistency has to be broken for practical reasons. There are real costs to weigh, and people have already highlighted the costs of the inclusion of formation or the exclusion of the magic box to the skill ceiling of the game. And yes, I do think that it is at least plausible to say that the magic box, which requires APM and some foresight to pull off, as a substitute for having to individually spread mutas out. (It's not as if they automatically spread out in a fashion such that it is the best spread for every possible situation).
People are calling you out for this, and so will I. You betray a huge bias in your postings. Even though it seems like you're arguing for consistency across the board, you pick a very specific unit interaction - the mutalisk and the thor. Why? Individual unit balance is ultimately arbitrary, the game could very well be balanced around mutas who cannot magic box, or mutas who can magic box. Or the game could be balanced around marines who auto spread with a command, or it could be balanced around marines who don't. What isn't arbitrary is that the three races should be in general balanced in the various matchups as a matter of game design principle, but the mutalisk/thor/magicbox situation by no means decide the balance of the game.
If you weigh things differently and think that "magic box" should be removed, or simply nerfed from having substantive effects on gameplay (mutas vs thors), so be it, but your judgements are as subjective as those of others. You're in no better position to call others out for bad supporting bad game design or bad balance, not even those who simply defer to blizzard's decisions (people who simply say "they probably have their reasons" without understanding those reasons themselves).
If Blizzard wanted to balance that one particular unit interaction they could - just as they introduced the hotfix for Thors vs Medivacs, they could very well increase the splash radius of Thors SLIGHTLY just to hit more than one mutas in a magic box, but make them fire a teenie bit slower to compensate. But why don't they? Well, because magic box can be justified precisely because it could help balance TvZ, and if it breaks TvZ other changes can be made, not necessarily to muta/thor/magicbox.
Your insistence at thinking that there are important similarities between magic box and formation buttons that make the inclusion of the former and exclusion of the latter in some sense inconsistent... to pull some philosophical jargon, I'd say your argument is too strong.
Here's a list of other game mechanics of unit control which could be construed as being similar to both magic box and formations, all of which have substantive effects which make them either better or worse depending on context: - Vikings patrolling two very close points. PROS: Allows the vikings to take out the first air unit in their large attack range without giving a chance to escape them, since vikings are slow. CONS: More vulnerable to splash - Workers made to all mine a single mineral patch. PROS: Makes them better fighters in some situations. CONS: More vulnerable to splash. - Ground units patrol moving. PROS: Spreads them out, making them less vulnerable to spread damage as they are moving. CONS: It's essentially an attack move, and the hotkey for patrol is quite far (unless you're on the grid formation). - Unburrowed ground units form a single line when they're asked to move (rather than patrol) to a location. PROS: They can hug cliffs better, allowing you to avoid the detection radius of the enemy, especially against sensor towers. CONS: They might end up being lambs to slaughter when they march one by one into enemy attack range.
Why is your argument too strong? Firstly, because almost any of the above game mechanics, and possibility others, can be considered to be similar to formations in that they also have substantive effects on the gameplay as a result of how they move and space out given particular commands. Secondly, because units have to move in some way or another in any case, and so they're always in some sort of formation anyway. If consistency were somehow valuable in itself, and the game design had to maximize consistency, then we would have to make it so that every unit moves in exactly the same way no matter what you ask them to do. No more difference between burrowed/unburrowed/air/worker units. Are you willing to bite the bullet on this?
If it comes down to a matter of the Blizzard design team having to design a set of physics that inadvertently allows for Mutalisks to move the way they do and for players to manipulate Mutalisks in a way that allows them to spread the way that they do, I'm okay with that. I'll live with it. I do not have a problem with the current physics/pathing/artificial-intelligence system in Starcraft II.
I guess what it ultimately comes down to is that looking from the outside-in on the Brood War community for a number of years, the community picks-and-chooses with no consistency which exploits and glitches should be part of competitive play. You may disagree with that, that's what I see. Players have to make a decision on mechanics, fine. But the use of these mechanics and whether they should be in the game are more often supported or opposed because they "increase the amount of skill required to play the game" or "it makes the game more balanced". Not "whether or not the use of those game mechanics is fun or not". I'm not of the opinion that more skill equals more fun. If the manipulation of the magic box is really that great of a mechanic and leads to interesting gameplay, it should be streamlined so everybody can use it. And that doesn't mean "dumb it down so a noob can use it easily". It means "presenting the mechanic in a way that everybody knows its there and it doesn't become insider knowledge for a group of hardcore players on TeamLiquid".
I hope that answers your question, though I'm pretty tired right now. If you need me to elaborate, I'll try to get around to doing it.
On November 16 2010 04:55 Uncultured wrote: I am dumbfounded at how asinine some people in this thread are.
If you can't read both the original post, my post, and his singular response to my post and not immediately come to the conclusion that he's a troll, then I've really lost faith in this community.
Despite the internet's best attempts to mold the definition elsewise, trolling is not "I disagree with you."
On November 16 2010 03:01 LegendaryZ wrote:It's a very fast paced game where battles are over within seconds with little time to actually think strategically while one is happening. Most Starcraft players are simply thinking "He has a better concave than me so let me move my middle units back a bit." or "Focus fire that Collosus." and act quickly according to those instincts. In-battle strategy in Starcraft rarely amounts to anything more than these quick and general impulses.
You know what would give players more time to think strategically in a battle? If they didn't have to spend those precious seconds fighting with the interface to make sure their Mutalisks remain spread out, that their Immortals are in front of their Stalkers, that their infantry are alternating between moving and firing, that they started this round of Inject Larvae....
You do see plenty of things going on in a battle. Some players are really good at making holes for Hellions to run by. Others are good at maneuvering Zerglings and Banelings to take out juicy targets. Some people can analyze the field of battle and discern a good place to set up a line of Forcefields. Others will engage on multiple battle fronts. Sometimes people try to drag battles away from enemy Siege Tanks, or towards friendly Spine Crawlers.
One of the main hypotheses is that if the interface helped you do mundane, repetitive things rather than being neutral (Inject Larvae) or even an outright obstacle (unit clumping, minimap unusable for warpgate), this would give people more time to manage the more interesting aspects of gameplay.
I suppose it's possible that there is no game-play remaining to be found once you get past these things, but in my estimation, Starcraft 2 isn't anywhere near that shallow of a game.
If you start getting as specific as a formation that keeps Immortals in front of Stalkers, it would make the UI much more complicated than any player could handle in a fast-paced environment. What if you suddenly needed to move the Immortals to the back because of a pincer attack? You'd have to manually control them anyway, making the intial formation command pointless. Formations are only useful leading up to a battle. Once a battle begins, a player needs to manually control their units to fit the situation they find themselves in. It seems that the argument for rigid unit formations is to reduce the effectiveness of AoE, but then I would rather argue for the AI pathing to be designed such that units don't clump together as much as they currently do in the first place, which has been a major complaint since beta. As a spectator, it's really fun watching 4 Banelings decimate an entire army of Marines, but it's honestly a bit ridiculous in the fact because of the way bio units clump, they're more effective than Infested Terrans were in Brood War and easier to get. It's possible to spread out units with good enough micro, of course, but even higher tier players often have difficulty doing this and the punishment for failing is a bit too high in my opinion.
As for the point about removing mundane tasks to allow players to focus on the more "interesting" aspects of the game, what would these interesting aspects be? I don't see how removing things from the game makes it any more interesting. It just gives players less to do and manage and promotes the type of tunnel vision play that separates bad players and good players. If you want to play a game that's focused on micro, DoTA and similar games pretty much fit that category and they do it very well.
That all having been said, I wouldn't strongly oppose fixed formations in Starcraft UI depending on how they're applied. I just question how useful they would actually be even if they didn't render all of the AoE units in the game obsolete. And if they're not useful, what's the point?
On November 16 2010 04:50 MichaelJLowell wrote: Because all of the assumes being thrown my way assume the game couldn't have been designed in a way that would increase the amount of available routes and options for employing mechanical skill. I'm going to end up repeating myself to death on this, but "it wouldn't fit in the current state of the game" is not an option because people would be opposed to these mechanics if the game was years from release.
What does this mean? O_0
I never argued that it wouldn't fit. I'm telling you point blank... people do not want it because it lessens the amount of focus required from a player.
That exists on the premise that "Starcraft II" plus "Formations" equals "less mechanical skill". That may be true. But it assumes a good developer or a good team of game designers would not say "Okay, what input will the user counter these formations with? And how can we design the game so playing off of that user input makes the game more entertaining?"
There's this huge debate in the rts world about shit like MBS and automine vs the camp that's like "why the hell isn't that a feature? is this 1995?"
I think the people that whine about MBS are annoying anti-progressives and if it were up to them you wouldn't even have hotkeys because "it takes so much better micro to click with the mouse", and "omg hotkeys make macro too easy"
Anyway I'd love to have formations, as long as they were not default. Some games use formations in really annoying ways. I've always loved the way SC had attack move, move, and hold position.
It'd still be nice to have some formations, especially a 'spread units' command. But that might unbalance some of the splashing units (ie make them worthless) so I can understand why it hasn't been implemented.
But some much older games have had 'spread units' commands. And they've also had 'set formation' commands, although the AI was pretty shitty in those so it usually wasn't worth using.
I think formations would be fine, even spread out formations. But it might require a rebalance of aoe abilities, so unfortunately it kind of needs to be designed from the ground up, not added in.
On November 16 2010 05:18 MichaelJLowell wrote: I'll try to add something new to the conversation. If I can't, I'm gonna move on. Repeating myself isn't going to do anybody any good at this point.
On November 16 2010 04:16 IamSooty wrote: Hey OP, as a philosopher and (self-considered) game designer I appreciate your penchance for consistency, but I don't think you're being fair in saying that everyone who supports "magic box" is a hypocrite if they also don't support "formations" (i.e. one-click buttons that automatically change the way your units space out). Don't mind me as I attempt to systematically pick your argument apart.
Game design is much more than making consistency decisions, sometimes consistency has to be broken for practical reasons. There are real costs to weigh, and people have already highlighted the costs of the inclusion of formation or the exclusion of the magic box to the skill ceiling of the game. And yes, I do think that it is at least plausible to say that the magic box, which requires APM and some foresight to pull off, as a substitute for having to individually spread mutas out. (It's not as if they automatically spread out in a fashion such that it is the best spread for every possible situation).
People are calling you out for this, and so will I. You betray a huge bias in your postings. Even though it seems like you're arguing for consistency across the board, you pick a very specific unit interaction - the mutalisk and the thor. Why? Individual unit balance is ultimately arbitrary, the game could very well be balanced around mutas who cannot magic box, or mutas who can magic box. Or the game could be balanced around marines who auto spread with a command, or it could be balanced around marines who don't. What isn't arbitrary is that the three races should be in general balanced in the various matchups as a matter of game design principle, but the mutalisk/thor/magicbox situation by no means decide the balance of the game.
If you weigh things differently and think that "magic box" should be removed, or simply nerfed from having substantive effects on gameplay (mutas vs thors), so be it, but your judgements are as subjective as those of others. You're in no better position to call others out for bad supporting bad game design or bad balance, not even those who simply defer to blizzard's decisions (people who simply say "they probably have their reasons" without understanding those reasons themselves).
If Blizzard wanted to balance that one particular unit interaction they could - just as they introduced the hotfix for Thors vs Medivacs, they could very well increase the splash radius of Thors SLIGHTLY just to hit more than one mutas in a magic box, but make them fire a teenie bit slower to compensate. But why don't they? Well, because magic box can be justified precisely because it could help balance TvZ, and if it breaks TvZ other changes can be made, not necessarily to muta/thor/magicbox.
Your insistence at thinking that there are important similarities between magic box and formation buttons that make the inclusion of the former and exclusion of the latter in some sense inconsistent... to pull some philosophical jargon, I'd say your argument is too strong.
Here's a list of other game mechanics of unit control which could be construed as being similar to both magic box and formations, all of which have substantive effects which make them either better or worse depending on context: - Vikings patrolling two very close points. PROS: Allows the vikings to take out the first air unit in their large attack range without giving a chance to escape them, since vikings are slow. CONS: More vulnerable to splash - Workers made to all mine a single mineral patch. PROS: Makes them better fighters in some situations. CONS: More vulnerable to splash. - Ground units patrol moving. PROS: Spreads them out, making them less vulnerable to spread damage as they are moving. CONS: It's essentially an attack move, and the hotkey for patrol is quite far (unless you're on the grid formation). - Unburrowed ground units form a single line when they're asked to move (rather than patrol) to a location. PROS: They can hug cliffs better, allowing you to avoid the detection radius of the enemy, especially against sensor towers. CONS: They might end up being lambs to slaughter when they march one by one into enemy attack range.
Why is your argument too strong? Firstly, because almost any of the above game mechanics, and possibility others, can be considered to be similar to formations in that they also have substantive effects on the gameplay as a result of how they move and space out given particular commands. Secondly, because units have to move in some way or another in any case, and so they're always in some sort of formation anyway. If consistency were somehow valuable in itself, and the game design had to maximize consistency, then we would have to make it so that every unit moves in exactly the same way no matter what you ask them to do. No more difference between burrowed/unburrowed/air/worker units. Are you willing to bite the bullet on this?
If it comes down to a matter of the Blizzard design team having to design a set of physics that inadvertently allows for Mutalisks to move the way they do and for players to manipulate Mutalisks in a way that allows them to spread the way that they do, I'm okay with that. I'll live with it. I do not have a problem with the current physics/pathing/artificial-intelligence system in Starcraft II.
I guess what it ultimately comes down to is that looking from the outside-in on the Brood War community for a number of years, the community picks-and-chooses with no consistency which exploits and glitches should be part of competitive play. You may disagree with that, that's what I see. Players have to make a decision on mechanics, fine. But the use of these mechanics and whether they should be in the game are more often supported or opposed because they "increase the amount of skill required to play the game" or "it makes the game more balanced". Not "whether or not the use of those game mechanics is fun or not". I'm not of the opinion that more skill equals more fun. If the manipulation of the magic box is really that great of a mechanic and leads to interesting gameplay, it should be streamlined so everybody can use it. And that doesn't mean "dumb it down so a noob can use it easily". It means "presenting the mechanic in a way that everybody knows its there and it doesn't become insider knowledge for a group of hardcore players on TeamLiquid".
I hope that answers your question, though I'm pretty tired right now. If you need me to elaborate, I'll try to get around to doing it.
On November 16 2010 04:55 Uncultured wrote: I am dumbfounded at how asinine some people in this thread are.
If you can't read both the original post, my post, and his singular response to my post and not immediately come to the conclusion that he's a troll, then I've really lost faith in this community.
Despite the internet's best attempts to mold the definition elsewise, trolling is not "I disagree with you."
You're absolutely right that there's little consistency when it comes to what this community accepts in terms of glitches and exploits, but you have to realize that making the game harder or more balanced is not the only reason the community accepts them. Taking Brood War as the classic example, Mutalisk stacking may or may not have been an intended mechanic, but there's no doubt that it helped balance TvZ and at the same time turned out to be an interesting mechanic that made the game a lot more fun. Bugging workers through mineral patches is another glitch that the community came to accept not so much because it balanced anything, but because it made the game much more fun in that it allowed for new types of maps to be made and expanded the creativity possible on the part of the player.
I can definitely understand the argument for making these tricks more accessible, but the truth is that they're not some sort of big inside secret of the trade kept within TL.net or some other community. Magic boxing Mutalisks takes a certain degree of effort and skill, particularly to do it in time for a fight or in the middle of one and the reward of reducing AoE damage is what you get for investing the time to learn how to do it and practice it, just like not having your bio army absolutely owned by Banelings is the reward for time invested in practicing your Marine spreading skills. These are all things that are completely within the realm of possibility for any player if they just invest their time into learning how to do them. The trouble with arguing to make it accessible on demand simply because it's possible is that there's no end to that argument. It's theoretically posssible to never miss a Larva injection so should it be set so that you can toggle it to auto-cast? It's possible for good players to spread their creep almost perfectly, so should that be automatic so that Zerg games are more interesting? There's a whole lot of automation that could be thrown into the game to make things more accessible to the greater community, but at some point, it starts to take away from the gameplay and reduce the reward for hard work and practice.
This is the very reason a lot of people feared "noob-friendly" features such as MBS or infinite unit selection. Once you start going down that route, there's no end to it except by drawing some arbitrary line in the sand as to when you stop making things easier in the name of seeing better games. You're absolutely right about the arbitrary nature of what this community will accept and reject, but that's always going to be the case and even the community argues with itself as to where the line should actually be drawn as you'll see in just about every argument and debate about game features and unit balancing.
On November 16 2010 05:18 MichaelJLowell wrote:If the manipulation of the magic box is really that great of a mechanic and leads to interesting gameplay, it should be streamlined so everybody can use it. And that doesn't mean "dumb it down so a noob can use it easily". It means "presenting the mechanic in a way that everybody knows its there and it doesn't become insider knowledge for a group of hardcore players on TeamLiquid".
Again, there are plenty of gameplay mechanics that are arbitrary, whichever way it goes. If the community gets to pick and choose, so be it - as long as the games are balanced around those decisions, the game is fine anyway.
I think the idea that the magic box needs to be presented in a way that is accessible to everyone is flawed, as there is really no end to where this will go, in that the people who really care are the ones who will find out anyways. The game is necessarily played online, and even if people don't learn from forums, they will learn by playing in game and having the tactic used against them, or by simply being smart enough to think of it.
Formations, especially elaborate formations, certainly seem against the spirit of the way Blizzard designs RTSes, (if you ignore the token formation button in WC3; Blizz probably realized it was a pointless addition anyways). In some sense, there's perfect consistency in the lack of formation, and the presence of odd, incidental but substantive gameplay mechanics in both SC1 and SC2.
As I see it, your complaints don't even get off the ground once you realize the arbitrariness of it all. You can chalk up the game mechanics and balance as being designed by beta players who have no idea how to design a game, and choose certain aspects of the gameplay to be more obscure where it doesn't need to be, but ultimately Blizzard made the final decisions.
I think everyone's just up in arms because they just fail to see the force of your criticism, as much as their own position lacks justification (i.e. if they have one, and are not agnostic like me and the poster above).
On November 16 2010 04:50 MichaelJLowell wrote: Because all of the assumes being thrown my way assume the game couldn't have been designed in a way that would increase the amount of available routes and options for employing mechanical skill. I'm going to end up repeating myself to death on this, but "it wouldn't fit in the current state of the game" is not an option because people would be opposed to these mechanics if the game was years from release.
What does this mean? O_0
I never argued that it wouldn't fit. I'm telling you point blank... people do not want it because it lessens the amount of focus required from a player.
That exists on the premise that "Starcraft II" plus "Formations" equals "less mechanical skill". That may be true. But it assumes a good developer or a good team of game designers would not say "Okay, what input will the user counter these formations with? And how can we design the game so playing off of that user input makes the game more entertaining?"
Mechanical skill again, defines Starcraft competitive play. I bring it down to preference; we could utilize features such as formations but would they really be necessary? Either they wouldn't be the better choice or they would be, and the game could remain unchanged. Starcraft doesn't rely on AI-controlled formations that are initiated by clicking a certain button. The AI does have to be accounted for when doing your manual formations, but that's all that it really boils down to. Having a button that keeps units from stacking may not be feasible in the engine, but then it could be, I don't know. Whose to say aside from those that understand the engine?
Honestly I kind of understand in a sense. There was no situation like the Thor vs. Muta in BW. The closest I can think of is against Corsairs or Irradiate, and there players had to manually split up their Mutas because stacking gave them the risk of taking more damage from splash. Magic Box (in the sense of SC2's Mutas) actually does dumb that down. Still, changing the need to press Stop or Hold to using a formation seems superfluous except that it could make it more intuitive to other players. But then you bring up formations and counters to them, and all that does is create more complexity and could introduce new balance issues and may require reworking the game.
I won't downright say it's bad, but it seems to be beyond the scope of a lot of people here because it would delve into more complex matters.
when i finised reading the OP, i am confused: ' wtf?? whats the point of this thread at all??'. we can discuss/argue/flame with each other when it comes to some race/units balance, single player story is bad etc, but the now people start making thread on dissing the game structure? i mean, you can simply make another thread of :'SC2 is for noobs' (which will be removed by mod) rather pulling alot of words talking of 'magic box'.
and imo 'magic box pathing' was purely a game design rather than a 'balance' or 'fit into the game' or whatever.
I'm not really sure what people consider formations and what people don't. Are you saying a little button that automatically spaces your units out a little and maybe even makes them all move the same speed as the slowest unit??
Cause I would be opposed to that simply because of how that wildly diminishes the power of all splash effects. Remember, the magic box only works in a specific instance. If there are marines with the thors, the magic box doesn't work very well at all. And the only reason it's used is because of the frankly absurd amount of damage that thors do to mutalisks otherwise.
With almost all other splash effects, there's something the opponent can do micro-wise. Such as storm, fungal, or tank placement. There's interesting positioning and effects. There's really nothing you can do with Mutalisk vs Thor other than the magic box and pray you don't get hit by the crazy 10 range.
I honestly think all splash radii would be raised if such automatic positioning was available. Then the positioning would no longer be that useful. Endless cycle.
On November 16 2010 05:21 LegendaryZ wrote:If you start getting as specific as a formation that keeps Immortals in front of Stalkers, it would make the UI much more complicated than any player could handle in a fast-paced environment.
The most basic functionality that would be widely useful is also very simple -- you just want a button press that makes everything move at the same speed when out of combat.
The same logic would keep your Roaches in front of your Hydralisks, and your Zealots in a protective arc around your Stalkers, or your Hellions with your Thors or whatever arrangement you like to keep your army in, but have to fight with the user interface to keep units with different movement rates from splitting into separate groups.
What if you suddenly needed to move the Immortals to the back because of a pincer attack? You'd have to manually control them anyway, making the intial formation command pointless.
Two reasons why it wasn't pointless:
At the beginning of the engagement, the Immortals were taking fire instead of Stalkers, just like I wanted
I wasn't wasting my time babysitting my Immortal / Stalker in the time leading up to the engagement and during its first moments
And, of course, in the majority of battles I'm not walking into a pincer attack.
Formations are only useful leading up to a battle. Once a battle begins, a player needs to manually control their units to fit the situation they find themselves in.
That's fine, because they were useful leading up to the battle!
As for the point about removing mundane tasks to allow players to focus on the more "interesting" aspects of the game, what would these interesting aspects be?
As an example, manually controlling units to scout the enemy position and making last minute positional adjustments is more interesting than click spam to make sure your Stalkers don't outrun your Immortals as you approach the battle site.
The most basic functionality that would be widely useful is also very simple -- you just want a button press that makes everything move at the same speed when out of combat.
The same logic would keep your Roaches in front of your Hydralisks, and your Zealots in a protective arc around your Stalkers, or your Hellions with your Thors or whatever arrangement you like to keep your army in, but have to fight with the user interface to keep units with different movement rates from splitting into separate groups.
If this is what is meant by formations, then I honestly think they wouldn't be that useful. It would simply reduce the amount of clicks, but it would also become completely useless in high level play. That's the sort of bad army control that will get you flanked and killed in a lot of situations.
So by all means, implement it. I don't think it would be very useful and I think anyone using it would be at a significant disadvantage.
On November 16 2010 05:21 LegendaryZ wrote:If you start getting as specific as a formation that keeps Immortals in front of Stalkers, it would make the UI much more complicated than any player could handle in a fast-paced environment.
The most basic functionality that would be widely useful is also very simple -- you just want a button press that makes everything move at the same speed when out of combat.
The same logic would keep your Roaches in front of your Hydralisks, and your Zealots in a protective arc around your Stalkers, or your Hellions with your Thors or whatever arrangement you like to keep your army in, but have to fight with the user interface to keep units with different movement rates from splitting into separate groups.
What if you suddenly needed to move the Immortals to the back because of a pincer attack? You'd have to manually control them anyway, making the intial formation command pointless.
Two reasons why it wasn't pointless:
At the beginning of the engagement, the Immortals were taking fire instead of Stalkers, just like I wanted
I wasn't wasting my time babysitting my Immortal / Stalker in the time leading up to the engagement and during its first moments
And, of course, in the majority of battles I'm not walking into a pincer attack.
Formations are only useful leading up to a battle. Once a battle begins, a player needs to manually control their units to fit the situation they find themselves in.
That's fine, because they were useful leading up to the battle!
As for the point about removing mundane tasks to allow players to focus on the more "interesting" aspects of the game, what would these interesting aspects be?
As an example, manually controlling units to scout the enemy position and making last minute positional adjustments is more interesting than click spam to make sure your Stalkers don't outrun your Immortals as you approach the battle site.
And if someone said that designing the AI to ignore those Immortals and attack the Stalkers first by being able to assign priority to them rather than having to manually click on them would make the game more interesting because it would remove the redundant and mundane task of having to babysit your units and free time up to focus on harassment or their production because that's what they find more interesting, what would your argument be?
You could take that a step further and say that the AI should be designed to automatically focus fire units with just enough damage to kill them in order to make them more efficient and effective in combat and it could be designed to automatically assess the units in combat and focus them in whatever order would be best to reduce losses. Then you don't have to babysit the units during combat at all, freeing up time to instead focus on their positioning and all that other strategic stuff such as thinking about your next move.
On November 16 2010 02:03 TzTz wrote: I don't even get why you call it magic box anyway. It's a term from Broodwar where it made sense. Now it's just not make your mutas clump up. Every airunit takes space and if you don't give commands they will spread out evenly. Now you just control your air units so that they don't clump up. If you directly attack a unit all your units will stop once in range, thus clumping up. So you fly up until every unit is in range to attack and THEN attack, leaving every unit where it is. I really don't understand why people call that magic box... THIS is a magic box
So what you do with mutas versus Thors has nothing to do with formations... When you order units to move it's just natural (for air units especially) that they stay roughly in place to each other as long as they have same speed and acceleration etc.
When you give a move command to a group of units, you're telling them to all move to a specific zero-dimensional point in space. Therefore they would all always clump up onto that point if not for the magic box. It's natural for units to clump, except that the magic box mechanic maintains formations. It's the exact same mechanic from brood-war exactly. The only difference is that SC2 has this auto-spreading for clumped air units, which I think is what the OP is actually referring to. But you're right that when you attack command a thor, they clump because they all stop when just in range.
On November 16 2010 06:10 LegendaryZ wrote: And if someone said that designing the AI to ignore those Immortals and attack the Stalkers first by being able to assign priority to them rather than having to manually click on them would make the game more interesting because it would remove the redundant and mundane task of having to babysit your units and free time up to focus on harassment or their production because that's what they find more interesting, what would your argument be?
Then we have finally reached a nontrivial point on the "no automation" - "all automation" scale.
Do note that something similar is already in Starcraft 2-- when is the last time your Marine ball was torn apart by Zerglings because they were all stupidly attacking the Mutalisks instead?
EDIT: I guess you could say it even existed in Starcraft 1 -- priorities are the reason why Marines were attacking the Mutalisks and not the Zerglings.
The argument that formations should not be added because it would dumb down the game, i say precisely the inverse. Not having formations, automining, rally points, infinite unit selection is asking a human being to make dumb decisions that require no intelligence and decision making at all, it's nothing but brainlessly clicking, which i find as unimpressive as possible, and quite frankly boring to watch.
I'm totally in favor of adding formations, since i believe it follows the same reasoning why other parts of the game were put automated.
Unit control / positioning / concaves are in no way related to workers being able to be rallied to mineral patches and multiple productions being able to be selected at once. Like the point I made in my previous post, having those things more streamlined is all the reason NOT to make micro easier, since you innately have more time and more actions to spare on micromanaging your units by yourself.
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.
None of what you said has any real weight considering I doubt you ever significantly played BW...but I'll humor you.
SC2's units hard counter each other MUCH more strongly than anything in BW. I have no idea where you got the idea that BW has any significant hard counter at all. NAME ONE. I don't care about other RTSs. I'm comparing BW and SC2, since your OP took issue with that game specifically.
What exactly makes SC2 superior to BW? The game's overall infrastructure is about the only thing I can think of. The matchmaking system and custom game selection system is very impressive. In-game, it's way to early to pass judgment on the overall gameplay, but I do feel there are fundamental issues that make the game less interesting than BW. Those are personal opinions, of course, though.
And do you have actual numbers? Are there really more people playing SC2 than BW? That may indeed be the case, but you're also comparing a game more than ten years old. Back when it came out, there was barely internet and everyone was still using AOL. Are you really going to make that comparison? Really? That's just retarded.
I'm terribly sorry you never got into BW because the game was too hard for you. God forbid it requires you to practice to get good at it.
Mechanics are central to a game. If you want to just THINK a game through, look for a turn-based strategy game, or a simulator like SupCom where the game plays itself for you. BW set itself apart from other games because playing at the top level was like being a master of an instrument. Interpretation is of tantamount importance, but if you can't actually play the instrument, what does it matter? I would love to see the same in SC2: who care how well you can play SC2 at a strategic level if you can't actually put into action what you're thinking? Maybe we're looking for different things, but whether you like it or not, SC2 is a part of BW's legacy. As someone who played BW since nearly when it came out, and as someone who has followed the pro scene for years, I can't look at or play SC2 without seeing BW in it. For people like me (who, sadly, yes, have quickly become the minority here on TL), SC2 is not just SC2. SC2 is starcraft 2, and unless you really do choose to deny BW's existence, the inevitable effect it's had on SC2, and the effect it's had overall on competitive gaming, you can't easily ignore such a connection, either, no matter how much you want to. But I digress.
It's really not that I'm not open to change. I play SC2 more than I play BW now. In fact, I'd largely stopped playing BW for a while before SC2 came out. I'm also a lot better at SC2 than I ever was at BW. I accepted the fact that SC2 would be a different game a long, long time ago. However, I feel the changes are ruining a good game's chances at being a great game, much less giving it a shot at holding a candle to its predecessor.
Whether you like it or not, BW was an amazing game, and believe it or not, I want SC2 to be as good of a game as BW is. SC2 is, indeed, the future of the franchise, and yes, BW will eventually die out, probably within the next couple years. This is the group of people such as myself that you group together as being like your grandpa are so critical of this game. It needs to succeed and has a responsibility to do so as BW's successor.
All we're trying to make some people understand is that if it takes you less clicks to play the game because of issues regarding interface, unit pathing, or any other solved technical limitation regarding the control of the game, this does NOT outright make a game inferior or worse.
On November 16 2010 07:11 PH wrote:Mechanics are central to a game. If you want to just THINK a game through, look for a turn-based strategy game, or a simulator like SupCom where the game plays itself for you.
Yes, please do. You'll find near universal agreement that it's a good thing when the user interface makes it quick and easy to do the things you want to do, see the things you want to see, and minimizes the amount of time you need to spend on boring and repetitive tasks. The same is true for just about any type of computer software.
Real-time strategy games stick out as a sore thumb as being one of the few (only?) genres of computer software that has a vocal segment actively demanding software with a poor user interface.
On November 16 2010 07:11 PH wrote:Mechanics are central to a game. If you want to just THINK a game through, look for a turn-based strategy game, or a simulator like SupCom where the game plays itself for you.
Yes, please do. You'll find near universal agreement that it's a good thing when the user interface makes it quick and easy to do the things you want to do, see the things you want to see, and minimizes the amount of time you need to spend on boring and repetitive tasks. The same is true for just about any type of computer software.
Real-time strategy games stick out as a sore thumb as being one of the few (only?) genres of computer software that has a vocal segment actively demanding software with a poor user interface.
You are just taking what people are saying and re-labeling it as a "poor user interface" because no one is actually saying that. The thing is the gameplay control IS the interface, more or less. It would be like saying an FPS needs to have auto-aim and if it doesn't it needs to get with the times and have a better user interface. Then when people say that makes the game too easy your response is "shooting people in the head is boring and repetitive so that time should be minimized". On the other hand, maybe the game just isn't for you.
Ultimately any level of user input is a user interface, so you could pigeonhole the entire gameplay experience into a "better user interface". Hell you could even argue fog of war as a poor user interface, why should the game hide information that is there?
Personally I am not too bothered by how much easier SC2 is, but at the same time I am really glad they didn't go any farther than they did with making it easier.
On November 16 2010 07:11 PH wrote:Mechanics are central to a game. If you want to just THINK a game through, look for a turn-based strategy game, or a simulator like SupCom where the game plays itself for you.
Yes, please do. You'll find near universal agreement that it's a good thing when the user interface makes it quick and easy to do the things you want to do, see the things you want to see, and minimizes the amount of time you need to spend on boring and repetitive tasks. The same is true for just about any type of computer software.
Real-time strategy games stick out as a sore thumb as being one of the few (only?) genres of computer software that has a vocal segment actively demanding software with a poor user interface.
that's because, unlike turn-based strategy games, real-time strategy games have a resource call time that you have to manage. it's kind of like posting in a CS forum that crosshairs should snap to heads to reward the team with better synergy rather than the team with the best aim.
On November 16 2010 06:10 LegendaryZ wrote: And if someone said that designing the AI to ignore those Immortals and attack the Stalkers first by being able to assign priority to them rather than having to manually click on them would make the game more interesting because it would remove the redundant and mundane task of having to babysit your units and free time up to focus on harassment or their production because that's what they find more interesting, what would your argument be?
Then we have finally reached a nontrivial point on the "no automation" - "all automation" scale.
Do note that something similar is already in Starcraft 2-- when is the last time your Marine ball was torn apart by Zerglings because they were all stupidly attacking the Mutalisks instead?
EDIT: I guess you could say it even existed in Starcraft 1 -- priorities are the reason why Marines were attacking the Mutalisks and not the Zerglings.
Of course there is priority, but I'm talking about a feature that allows you to customize that priority on the fly or as I said in the second case, where the AI automatically calculates and determines the best possible way to focus down your opponent's army in that exact situation and carries it out automatically.
Where do you draw the line as to how much is trivial and how much is non-trivial? Obviously my example is a pretty extreme one in terms of automation, but logically there's no reason not to go that far except for whatever arbitrary expectation of gameplay a person has. It wouldn't necessarily make the game better or worse, just very different. You would basically be saying little more than, "This much pointless clicking is ok, but that much is not." which is why this is a pointless argument to begin with. Starcraft 2 is what it is, nothing more and nothing less.
There are plenty of other games out there to fit the various preferences players have. Admittedly, not all of them are popular and most aren't anywhere near as popular as Starcraft, but I think that in itself says something about the formula Blizzard has used for these particular games. The fact is that we like a certain amount of pointless clicking and mundane repetition. Whether it's to satisfy our APM e-penises, separate ourselves from our competition, or just to constantly give us something to do, it's pretty clear that it hasn't made the game any less popular than its counterparts.
A lot of what has driven Starcraft is really the fact that it isn't easy or accessible. Elitist as that may sound, that's just something that has become part of Starcraft's identity. Blizzard obviously realized this when making the sequel and while they did remove some of the mundane mechanics, they added new ones such as Larvae Injection, MULE, Chrono Boost, and Creep Tumors to fill some of the void left behind.
Also, the argument about a good interface making easier to do what you want it to is not true at all. The interface and its limitations are part of the challenge of playing the game. Starcraft isn't just about what you want to do in the game. It's about whether or not you're physically able to do it. By separating the interface itself from the game, you're separating a large part of the game experience that the developers purposely designed for you to have. This is a little more obvious in rhythm games such as DDR and Guitar Hero where physical dexterity is an assumed requirement, but it's really a requirement in any game that's not turn-based from Puzzle Bobble to Street Fighter. I think the "Strategy" part of Real-Time Strategy tends to skew peoples' impression of what the game should be or what it's intended to be and leads them to think that strategy alone should decide the winner when that's clearly not the case.
On November 16 2010 02:39 Protoss_Carrier wrote: OP is extremely obnoxious and refuse to listen to anyone else's view point. Troll alert.
Not a troll, he's just not willing to listen.
'Magic boxing' Mutas is manual. Formations are Auto. That's why people are opposed to it.
So if activating a formation required 4-5 clicks instead of 1, would it be acceptable then?
It still wouldn't be acceptable because after those 5 clicks presumably they'd stay in formation whereas magic boxing requires constant attention. Your point though that increasing the number of clicks required is correct though... people wouldn't mind having auto-magic box as long as whatever the auto was, was as hard to maintain as magic box. People want that element of difficulty to remain
On November 16 2010 07:11 PH wrote:Mechanics are central to a game. If you want to just THINK a game through, look for a turn-based strategy game, or a simulator like SupCom where the game plays itself for you.
Yes, please do. You'll find near universal agreement that it's a good thing when the user interface makes it quick and easy to do the things you want to do, see the things you want to see, and minimizes the amount of time you need to spend on boring and repetitive tasks. The same is true for just about any type of computer software.
Real-time strategy games stick out as a sore thumb as being one of the few (only?) genres of computer software that has a vocal segment actively demanding software with a poor user interface.
that's because, unlike turn-based strategy games, real-time strategy games have a resource call time that you have to manage. it's kind of like posting in a CS forum that crosshairs should snap to heads to reward the team with better synergy rather than the team with the best aim.
I read the OP, listened to the arguments. Still can't get a clear answer. How would adding formations (how in depth would formations be?) make Starcraft 2 more competitive/skill rewarding? I mean isn't that what it comes down too? I can't see any good reasons.
that's because, unlike turn-based strategy games, real-time strategy games have a resource call time that you have to manage. it's kind of like posting in a CS forum that crosshairs should snap to heads to reward the team with better synergy rather than the team with the best aim.
You want 10 units to move together, they do whatever they want if you just click and wander around, get stuck behind each other, and in turn your enemy kills them. If you micro them properly, they do move correctly.
How can this be really related to the core gameplay of any game? Games should have good and responsive controls, not clunky and bad. RTS is a genre of decision making, it should be as less as it can on mechanics side. FPS is mechanics for most of it, because you need to have good aim, you need to be precise and have very quick reflexes and perception to beat your opponent. Your analogy isn't similar, auto-aim completely takes everything what makes an RTS.
The biggest difference is that in FPS, mechanics is the game itself, to put it simply, it's just who can point and click faster than your opponent. It is a game of perception and precision. Anything else, flanking or other strategies regarding movement is secondary. You might have a perfect plan, but your mechanics would be terrible, so whatever you can do, you cannot win if your enemy has better aim and control over his crosshair. That's fair and what it should be, FPS is all about it, who can draw and shoot gun faster, will prevail.
Starcraft is a complex game with many things to take into account, you cannot really simplify it as "clicking" or "pushing buttons", you do many different things with those actions, and they all add up in the long/short run to give you the advantage you need to win the game. Macro and Micro are two parts of it, I'd call Macro as "mechanics", as it can be comparable to repeated actions in an FPS such as pointing the crosshair to somewhere and clicking to shoot, and Micro itself is a completely different game in itself, it is something seperate and enjoyable from Starcraft, because it is all related to your choosing of the way you move your units in order to get the absolute advantage over your opponent. It also has the mental side, you may have to decide in miliseconds on the right decision, and this is what makes it really enjoyable when you pull it off.
As with what I called "strategy" in the paragraph regarding FPS above, I'd call Micro as "secondary" to the game. You might have the perfect micro, but not enough units. You might have the perfect micro in the mental side, but not enough handspeed to pull it off, which is an issue of practice (keep in mind that this "handspeed" shouldn't be insane, it should be enough to make that action work). You might still have the perfect macro and micro, but your opponent might have a better unit composition than you.
What really makes SC an RTS, in the sense of decision making or strategy (not to be confused with the "strategy" term in above paragraphs) is things such as build orders, the specific decision to tech switch, knowing the right time to expand, training the right unit in the right situation and knowing the timings to attack and defend. The game should be focused as much as possible on this, because this is what takes the biggest effort from the mental side. Leading 15 dragoons in a perfect formation through a small choke takes nothing but muscle memory, it is just a repeated action. It doesn't make much effort at all, but practice. Sure, you also practice your strategies in game, but what you actually gain is an experience regarding that strategy, which kind of strengthens the connections in your brain and makes you think. With enough practice, you think nothing when you move those dragoons correctly. This is why it shouldn't matter TOO much, it definitely has a place in the game and it should matter, to micro perfectly you need to be fast with your mouse, however, if you're doing nothing but trying to get over game's lack of design regarding controls, it doesn't take you anything but your muscle memory. I find Starcraft 2 perfectly balanced in this regard, and I think devs have done a great job on this.
I don't know why people keep saying RTS is mostly about decision making and strategy as well as trying to group every RTS game together. You know what is purely about decision making and strategy? The already existing genre of TURN-BASED strategy games. In real-time, where you have full control of all your units, it's quite obvious it puts quite a bit of emphasis on micro/macro/mechanics. If you want a more strategy based game, play Age of Empires or something. StarCraft is it's own style now and it emphasizes good mechanics while being able to make the right decisions. There is no 'norm' of RTS games.
I cannot fathom how this thread hasn't been locked by now. The OP is nothing more than the author calling out everyone, a group of people not even defined in the post itself, as a hypocrite. They're clearly not discussing in good faith because they literally open with a huge ad hominem about everyone that disagrees with them before they've even had a chance to disagree.
Why does the game work the way it does and not some other way? Game designers made it that way. Q.E.D.
Everything else in this thread is just arguing over whose opinion of the game design is right which is, though a frequent idiom of 'discussion' on the internet, asinine and futile.
As with what I called "strategy" in the paragraph regarding FPS above, I'd call Micro as "secondary" to the game. You might have the perfect micro, but not enough units. You might have the perfect micro in the mental side, but not enough handspeed to pull it off, which is an issue of practice (keep in mind that this "handspeed" shouldn't be insane, it should be enough to make that action work). You might still have the perfect macro and micro, but your opponent might have a better unit composition than you.
What really makes SC an RTS, in the sense of decision making or strategy (not to be confused with the "strategy" term in above paragraphs) is things such as build orders, the specific decision to tech switch, knowing the right time to expand, training the right unit in the right situation and knowing the timings to attack and defend. The game should be focused as much as possible on this, because this is what takes the biggest effort from the mental side. Leading 15 dragoons in a perfect formation through a small choke takes nothing but muscle memory, it is just a repeated action. It doesn't make much effort at all, but practice. Sure, you also practice your strategies in game, but what you actually gain is an experience regarding that strategy, which kind of strengthens the connections in your brain and makes you think. With enough practice, you think nothing when you move those dragoons correctly. This is why it shouldn't matter TOO much, it definitely has a place in the game and it should matter, to micro perfectly you need to be fast with your mouse, however, if you're doing nothing but trying to get over game's lack of design regarding controls, it doesn't take you anything but your muscle memory. I find Starcraft 2 perfectly balanced in this regard, and I think devs have done a great job on this.
I have so many issues with your viewpoint that it's borderline nerdrage, but I'll sum up my main issue with your argument.
Starcraft 2 is not meant to simply be a game, but a spectator sport. Thus, entertainment value and balance, in my opinion, should take precedence over all else. Entertainment value comes from understanding the game and recognizing the insane skill of progamers who execute actions we could never imitate. If you put micro and macro as secondary to build orders, units compositions, etc, you strip away that entertainment factor.
Let's take BW for example. If micro and macro didn't stand up to straight up counters, would Jangbi have had any hope of taking on Nada's huge tank army with nothing but arbiters, dragoons, and templar? No way in hell. Would the spectacle of Flash cranking out a billion M&M against some poor zerg thinking mass ultra can overcome the beast of Flash's macro exist? I don't think so. These are iconic moments in BW history that everyone remembers because they were in awe of the incredible skill these moments required.
Let's say that Starcraft was indeed the way you described, where perfect micro and macro could be overcome by strong build orders, unit compositions, and solid strategy. Suddenly, anybody can beat a mechanically superior player by simply outthinking them. Where's the fun in that? Sure, Calm is fun to watch for some of his wacky strategies, but he isn't nearly as entertaining to watch as say, Jaedong, who can brute force his way to victory over armies that are built to counter him.
Several years down the line, when everything has been developed to be as efficient as possible, we will begin to see standardization of builds. People will know what is on the table and what is a potential threat further into the game. This is where mechanical skill will rule over trendy builds, and this is where (again, in my opinion) the greatest games will happen.
that's because, unlike turn-based strategy games, real-time strategy games have a resource call time that you have to manage. it's kind of like posting in a CS forum that crosshairs should snap to heads to reward the team with better synergy rather than the team with the best aim.
You want 10 units to move together, they do whatever they want if you just click and wander around, get stuck behind each other, and in turn your enemy kills them. If you micro them properly, they do move correctly.
How can this be really related to the core gameplay of any game? Games should have good and responsive controls, not clunky and bad. RTS is a genre of decision making, it should be as less as it can on mechanics side. FPS is mechanics for most of it, because you need to have good aim, you need to be precise and have very quick reflexes and perception to beat your opponent. Your analogy isn't similar, auto-aim completely takes everything what makes an RTS.
The biggest difference is that in FPS, mechanics is the game itself, to put it simply, it's just who can point and click faster than your opponent. It is a game of perception and precision. Anything else, flanking or other strategies regarding movement is secondary. You might have a perfect plan, but your mechanics would be terrible, so whatever you can do, you cannot win if your enemy has better aim and control over his crosshair. That's fair and what it should be, FPS is all about it, who can draw and shoot gun faster, will prevail.
Starcraft is a complex game with many things to take into account, you cannot really simplify it as "clicking" or "pushing buttons", you do many different things with those actions, and they all add up in the long/short run to give you the advantage you need to win the game. Macro and Micro are two parts of it, I'd call Macro as "mechanics", as it can be comparable to repeated actions in an FPS such as pointing the crosshair to somewhere and clicking to shoot, and Micro itself is a completely different game in itself, it is something seperate and enjoyable from Starcraft, because it is all related to your choosing of the way you move your units in order to get the absolute advantage over your opponent. It also has the mental side, you may have to decide in miliseconds on the right decision, and this is what makes it really enjoyable when you pull it off.
As with what I called "strategy" in the paragraph regarding FPS above, I'd call Micro as "secondary" to the game. You might have the perfect micro, but not enough units. You might have the perfect micro in the mental side, but not enough handspeed to pull it off, which is an issue of practice (keep in mind that this "handspeed" shouldn't be insane, it should be enough to make that action work). You might still have the perfect macro and micro, but your opponent might have a better unit composition than you.
What really makes SC an RTS, in the sense of decision making or strategy (not to be confused with the "strategy" term in above paragraphs) is things such as build orders, the specific decision to tech switch, knowing the right time to expand, training the right unit in the right situation and knowing the timings to attack and defend. The game should be focused as much as possible on this, because this is what takes the biggest effort from the mental side. Leading 15 dragoons in a perfect formation through a small choke takes nothing but muscle memory, it is just a repeated action. It doesn't make much effort at all, but practice. Sure, you also practice your strategies in game, but what you actually gain is an experience regarding that strategy, which kind of strengthens the connections in your brain and makes you think. With enough practice, you think nothing when you move those dragoons correctly. This is why it shouldn't matter TOO much, it definitely has a place in the game and it should matter, to micro perfectly you need to be fast with your mouse, however, if you're doing nothing but trying to get over game's lack of design regarding controls, it doesn't take you anything but your muscle memory. I find Starcraft 2 perfectly balanced in this regard, and I think devs have done a great job on this.
This is so incredibly off-base, I don't even know how to approach this one. First of all, your entire position is based on the baseless assumption that mechanical dexterity should matter less than strategy and decision making in an RTS. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that this is how it should be or how it is intended to be.
Secondly, reducing macro to repetitive mechanical actions is completely wrong. Macro involves just as much thought and decision making as micro. Knowing how to manage your economy and controlling your production and unit composition is a key part of macro. Brushing that off like it's some trivial, mindless matter comparable to aiming your cursor in an FPS is absurd and simply shows that you lack understanding of the game. Similarly, your comments about FPS games also show that you completely lack an understanding of those as well...
Just out of sheer curiosity, what is your vision of what an RTS interface SHOULD look and act like? I'm not talking general concepts like "It should be responsive.", but if you were to redesign Starcraft 2's UI today, what exactly would you do?
On November 16 2010 08:27 tetracycloide wrote: I cannot fathom how this thread hasn't been locked by now. The OP is nothing more than the author calling out everyone, a group of people not even defined in the post itself, as a hypocrite. They're clearly not discussing in good faith because they literally open with a huge ad hominem about everyone that disagrees with them before they've even had a chance to disagree.
Why does the game work the way it does and not some other way? Game designers made it that way. Q.E.D.
Everything else in this thread is just arguing over whose opinion of the game design is right which is, though a frequent idiom of 'discussion' on the internet, asinine and futile.
I agree, the OP's attitude shows no good faith in a good discussion.
Secondly, reducing macro to repetitive mechanical actions is completely wrong. Macro involves just as much thought and decision making as micro. Knowing how to manage your economy and controlling your production and unit composition is a key part of macro. Brushing that off like it's some trivial, mindless matter comparable to aiming your cursor in an FPS is absurd and simply shows that you lack understanding of the game.
Indubitably. Sorry I don't have much to add, I just really like the word Indubitably. Cannot pass on the chance to use it.
I'm pretty sure Warcraft 2 had Hotkeys and I'm pretty sure that Starcraft didn't have Auto-Casting... -_-
Just throwing it out there.
Yeah War 2 had hotkeys, but he meant the 1, 2, 3 hotkeys i guess. And the auto-casting is about medics. In War 2 you had to do the deed manually. I think so at least. Haven't played Warcraft 2 in like a decade.
What makes a game good for pro gaming is the amount of skill needed to be the best. BW requires crazy mechanics, nothing like SC2 and that's why its played even now as a pro game. If you dumb down SC2 even more than it already is might as well be pro WoW or pro Halo.
TBH, if you feel the game should be made easier, this forum isn't your place, you're going to get hated on by all the BWers and ex-BWers. IMO, ofc.
Magic boxing Mutalisks takes a certain degree of effort and skill, particularly to do it in time for a fight or in the middle of one and the reward of reducing AoE damage is what you get for investing the time to learn how to do it and practice it, just like not having your bio army absolutely owned by Banelings is the reward for time invested in practicing your Marine spreading skills.
This is all well and good. However, I would like to point out a fundamental difference between Marine spreading and SC1-style Mutalisk stacking/micro.
Marine spreading is something obvious. Everyone can look at the Baneling AoE and the Marine's health/stats. Everyone can conclude that keeping your Marines spread out is a good idea. You do not have to have specialized knowledge of the engine to know that this is a good idea. Now obviously actually spreading your Marines out is quite hard. It requires a lot of micro, and many people won't be able to do it.
That's all well and good.
SC1-style Mutalisk micro doesn't work like that. SC1-style Mutalisk micro is not something you can figure out for yourself, not without months/years of experimentation until you just happen to luck-up on the right combination of patrol/click commands that make it work. In general, people did not discover Mutalisk micro and Patrol micro for themselves; they were told about it by others.
That is not well and good. It is not obvious that the Patrol command should behave so differently from regular attack/move. It is not obvious that using Patrol will cause certain units to "glide," to effectively be able to move while attacking. This is only something that can be derived through complete trial-and-error. It is a quirk of the game's engine and doesn't otherwise make sense.
Compare this to Magic Box. This is something that is fairly obvious. The Hold Position command stops units from moving. Thus, you can use it to stop air units from clumping together. It is intuitively understood by anyone who understands what Hold Position does. It is not easy to do correctly, and it requires upkeep to make units behave the way you want them to, but it is easy to understand why it works.
Unlike Patrol micro. And that's why I consider Patrol micro and other similar glitches (clipping workers through minerals, etc) to be bad mechanics. They do not grow naturally from the expected effects of the game.
In Basketball, it is reasonable to expect someone to be a great 3-point shooter. Maybe he's so good that he never misses unless someone blocks him. That may be beyond human, but it's well understood and possible, if unlikely. It is not reasonable to expect someone to be able to teleport from one end of the court to the other. Or to be able to slam dunk from 30 feet away, by performing an arcane ritual involving incantations and body movement.
No matter how much it raises the skill ceiling or balances the game, magic should not be a part of competitive RTS play. You can raise the skill ceiling or balance the game in other ways.
The trouble with arguing to make it accessible on demand simply because it's possible is that there's no end to that argument. It's theoretically posssible to never miss a Larva injection so should it be set so that you can toggle it to auto-cast? It's possible for good players to spread their creep almost perfectly, so should that be automatic so that Zerg games are more interesting?
Consider this.
Should Chrono Boost be auto-casted? Of course not. There are many different targets you might want to use it on. Sometimes you CB your probes, sometimes you CB your Gateways, other times its CB-ing your Warpgate research, etc. You cannot automate Chrono Boost, because where to cast it is an important player decision.
Should Mules be auto-casted? Hell no. The Terran player might need that energy for Scans.
For creep spread, position and direction matters. You can't just automate it; it has to be spread to specific locations. That means the player needs to decide where he wants his creep spread to. Also, Overlords can be involved; badly positioned Overlords means losing precious food. And you may not want to expand beyond a certain point with Creep Tumors, lest your active tumor is destroyed by a raid and you have to send a Queen out to make another.
In all of these cases, there is a player decision that interferes with potential automation. Even if you did automate it, skilled players wouldn't use that automation.
But look at rally-mining. Skilled players use it. Why? Because it automates the process perfectly. There's no decision interfering with it. You made a worker, and you want a worker to work. Immediately. Always. Without player thought or intervention. Rally-mining directly takes the player's will and makes it reality.
So you cannot simply automate everything without taking choices away from the player. But you can automate anything that doesn't require the player to make a choice.
And that's where Spawn Larva has a real problem. See, Chrono Boost and Mules both are designed to not be automatable. These are mechanics that Blizzard specifically designed to be difficult if not impossible to automate with 100% fidelity. Therefore, it makes sense to not automate them.
Spawn Larva is not. Spawn Larva is something you could automate perfectly with 100% effectiveness. And while this might make you wonder why Blizzard didn't automate Spawn Larva, the more salient question is why Blizzard didn't design a Zerg mechanic like the Protoss/Terran ones that couldn't be automated.
This is the very reason a lot of people feared "noob-friendly" features such as MBS or infinite unit selection. Once you start going down that route, there's no end to it except by drawing some arbitrary line in the sand as to when you stop making things easier in the name of seeing better games.
But there has always been an arbitrary line. Just look at the history of RTS games, or even just SC1.
Why 12 units? Why not 24 or 6? What makes the number 12 special? Zero, one, or infinity; they all have non-arbitrary justifications. So why 12? Wouldn't SC1 have had a higher skill ceiling if the limit had been 6? Would it have had a noticeably lower skill ceiling if the limit had been 18 or 24?
And what of more primitive RTS games where you could only select 1 unit at a time? Were these the epitome of skill?
There was a time before hotkeys. Hotkeys certainly made things easier; did they not also reduce skill?
I can keep going, but I think my point is clear.
My question is this: why are you using the interface to make the game difficult to begin with?
Leading 15 dragoons in a perfect formation through a small choke takes nothing but muscle memory, it is just a repeated action. It doesn't make much effort at all, but practice. Sure, you also practice your strategies in game, but what you actually gain is an experience regarding that strategy, which kind of strengthens the connections in your brain and makes you think. With enough practice, you think nothing when you move those dragoons correctly.
That's an interesting inversion of what most people would expect. Leading 15 units through a small choke is something that, by all rights, ought to be easy, simple, and trivial. Whereas building workers, committing upgrades, building buildings, constructing units, making expansions (ie: macro) ought to be hard.
Macro, by its nature, requires balancing of a lot of elements simultaneously. It requires doing lots of things all at once. It earns being complex and difficult, because it is complex and difficult by its very nature.
Having 15 Dragoons go somewhere is conceptually simple. Therefore, it does not earn being a complex and difficult action. It's not something that earns requiring lots of attention and clicking. It simply does not deserve it.
Now, does this have beneficial effects for overall quality of play? Yes. Because it requires attention, players must be able to give it more attention while still doing other things, or else they aren't as good as those who can. It creates stratification between player skill groups.
That being said, this alone does not justify the presence of such mechanics. Why? Because the ends do not justify the means. If the ends can be achieved in other ways, ways that earn their difficulty the way macro does, then they should.
To put it another way, just because this kind of difficulty helped the game does not mean that you can't help the game in a different way without that interface-based difficulty.
On November 16 2010 07:46 LegendaryZ wrote:Where do you draw the line as to how much is trivial and how much is non-trivial?
And that is the interesting question. The ideal answer is "at the point that makes for the best game". Of course, that's rather vague. However, pointless clicking pretty much by definition of "pointless" is over the line in any case where it could be eliminated without causing greater problems.
I would add to the list of things that are over the line any easily removable obstacle that is completely irrelevant to expert play, but can make things difficult for other players. I can't think of a concrete example off hand, but I can make a hypothetical. Starting your initial 6 peons mining is pretty much a trivial thing for experts, but suppose it took the average rank amateur 30 seconds to get started. I would then consider that a strong candidate for being automated.
(Honestly, I think it should be automated anyways. But it's an irrelevant enough of a thing that I don't really care)
The fact is that we like a certain amount of pointless clicking and mundane repetition.
Quite honestly, it doesn't look that way to me. What I see is a vocal minority resisting change, and general acceptance of every ease of use feature Blizzard managed to get into the game without causing a riot.
I don't watch games casted very often, but I have never seen anyone celebrate a Zerg player's consistency with Inject Larvae, or gush over a Protoss player's ability to keep his ground force together.
A lot of what has driven Starcraft is really the fact that it isn't easy or accessible. Elitist as that may sound, that's just something that has become part of Starcraft's identity.
This is already true without adding artificial obstacles to gameplay.
The interface and its limitations are part of the challenge of playing the game.
A fact, but it doesn't prove that the interface should be laden with unnecessary limitations.
By separating the interface itself from the game, you're separating a large part of the game experience that the developers purposely designed for you to have.
Of course, there is also the philosophy that the best interfaces are the ones that are completely transparent so that they don't detract from the game experience.
but it's really a requirement in any game that's not turn-based from Puzzle Bobble to Street Fighter.
Street Fighter is actually quite a relevant example. When Street Fighter HD Remix was being made, it got a lot of criticism for simplifying many of the commands -- they're dumbing down the game. The end result? The developers stuck to their guns and made a great game that was pretty much liked by everyone. The "dumbing down" didn't detract from expert play, and yet made the strategic and tactical elements of the game accessible to a wider audience.
I think the "Strategy" part of Real-Time Strategy tends to skew peoples' impression of what the game should be or what it's intended to be and leads them to think that strategy alone should decide the winner when that's clearly not the case.
"Real-Time Strategy Game" means a game where you have to make strategic decisions under time pressure, whose consequences unfold in real time. The title has nothing to do with whether or not the game requires feats of dexterity.
The particular type of RTS Starcraft is naturally lends itself to feats of dexterity being relevant. But it seems very silly to deliberately push the game away from being a strategy game and more towards being Guitar Hero.
This must be one of the weirdest threads on TL for a while now. Why is everybody making normative statements about what RTS games are "supposed" to reward and what they are not supposed to reward. Knowing and being able to execute things like the magic box just adds yet another dimension to the game. If you choose to call that dimension shallow is not up to me but you cannot simply state that it doesn't exist. Remembering to use it when it is necessary and having the APM to do so while also doing other things and thinking about other stuff is part of playing StarCraft.
This whole discussion is just so ridiculous in that everyone seems to have an opinion what what a game should have, is supposed to reward and how it should be made. The bottom line is that StarCraft games do not have formations, other games do, StarCraft does not. I think everyone would agree that watching Foxer play at the GSL would not be as impressive if he had a button which said "spread marines perfectly" and just a-moved in the back of the opponents base.
Another point is that with everything else equal these tiny little nonsense "muscular memory" tricks can decide a game. However, my point is: The fact that you have to do these things by hand just adds another dimension to the game, regardless of "right or wrong" or good or bad. For all I care, next time you describe StarCraft to a friend just say its about macro, micro and splitting units.
This would reduce the need for microing, which in turns lowers the need for apm, which in turn lowers the skill cap which is something that is far from necessary. Not to mention from a spectator's viewpoint how awesome it is to see sick micro. Foxer's marines anyone?
This is a good point. Would those games against Kyrix be as badass if there was simply a button to push and your marines spread themselves out?! I think not. He really got to shine there and with having to manually spread them out it was that much more awesome to witness.
On November 16 2010 04:16 IamSooty wrote: Why is your argument too strong? Firstly, because almost any of the above game mechanics, and possibility others, can be considered to be similar to formations in that they also have substantive effects on the gameplay as a result of how they move and space out given particular commands. Secondly, because units have to move in some way or another in any case, and so they're always in some sort of formation anyway. If consistency were somehow valuable in itself, and the game design had to maximize consistency, then we would have to make it so that every unit moves in exactly the same way no matter what you ask them to do. No more difference between burrowed/unburrowed/air/worker units. Are you willing to bite the bullet on this?
This paragraph has not garnered the attention it deserves. The OP responded to the rest of IamSooty's post, but notably not this paragraph, which happens to be the one which unequivocally rebuts the OP's argument (note: his argument, not his idea).
Anyway, this really is a pointless discussion. It reminds me of the one which was held over supply in SC2 in the blogs section recently - whether or not there was any merit to an individual argument came completely down to preference, and thus no conclusion was ever or could ever be reached.
On November 16 2010 09:27 NicolBolas wrote: Consider this.
Should Chrono Boost be auto-casted? Of course not. There are many different targets you might want to use it on. Sometimes you CB your probes, sometimes you CB your Gateways, other times its CB-ing your Warpgate research, etc. You cannot automate Chrono Boost, because where to cast it is an important player decision.
Should Mules be auto-casted? Hell no. The Terran player might need that energy for Scans.
For creep spread, position and direction matters. You can't just automate it; it has to be spread to specific locations. That means the player needs to decide where he wants his creep spread to. Also, Overlords can be involved; badly positioned Overlords means losing precious food. And you may not want to expand beyond a certain point with Creep Tumors, lest your active tumor is destroyed by a raid and you have to send a Queen out to make another.
In all of these cases, there is a player decision that interferes with potential automation. Even if you did automate it, skilled players wouldn't use that automation.
But look at rally-mining. Skilled players use it. Why? Because it automates the process perfectly. There's no decision interfering with it. You made a worker, and you want a worker to work. Immediately. Always. Without player thought or intervention. Rally-mining directly takes the player's will and makes it reality.
So you cannot simply automate everything without taking choices away from the player. But you can automate anything that doesn't require the player to make a choice.
And that's where Spawn Larva has a real problem. See, Chrono Boost and Mules both are designed to not be automatable. These are mechanics that Blizzard specifically designed to be difficult if not impossible to automate with 100% fidelity. Therefore, it makes sense to not automate them.
Spawn Larva is not. Spawn Larva is something you could automate perfectly with 100% effectiveness. And while this might make you wonder why Blizzard didn't automate Spawn Larva, the more salient question is why Blizzard didn't design a Zerg mechanic like the Protoss/Terran ones that couldn't be automated.
This is the very reason a lot of people feared "noob-friendly" features such as MBS or infinite unit selection. Once you start going down that route, there's no end to it except by drawing some arbitrary line in the sand as to when you stop making things easier in the name of seeing better games.
But there has always been an arbitrary line. Just look at the history of RTS games, or even just SC1.
Why 12 units? Why not 24 or 6? What makes the number 12 special? Zero, one, or infinity; they all have non-arbitrary justifications. So why 12? Wouldn't SC1 have had a higher skill ceiling if the limit had been 6? Would it have had a noticeably lower skill ceiling if the limit had been 18 or 24?
And what of more primitive RTS games where you could only select 1 unit at a time? Were these the epitome of skill?
There was a time before hotkeys. Hotkeys certainly made things easier; did they not also reduce skill?
I can keep going, but I think my point is clear.
My question is this: why are you using the interface to make the game difficult to begin with?
Leading 15 dragoons in a perfect formation through a small choke takes nothing but muscle memory, it is just a repeated action. It doesn't make much effort at all, but practice. Sure, you also practice your strategies in game, but what you actually gain is an experience regarding that strategy, which kind of strengthens the connections in your brain and makes you think. With enough practice, you think nothing when you move those dragoons correctly.
That's an interesting inversion of what most people would expect. Leading 15 units through a small choke is something that, by all rights, ought to be easy, simple, and trivial. Whereas building workers, committing upgrades, building buildings, constructing units, making expansions (ie: macro) ought to be hard.
Macro, by its nature, requires balancing of a lot of elements simultaneously. It requires doing lots of things all at once. It earns being complex and difficult, because it is complex and difficult by its very nature.
Having 15 Dragoons go somewhere is conceptually simple. Therefore, it does not earn being a complex and difficult action. It's not something that earns requiring lots of attention and clicking. It simply does not deserve it.
Now, does this have beneficial effects for overall quality of play? Yes. Because it requires attention, players must be able to give it more attention while still doing other things, or else they aren't as good as those who can. It creates stratification between player skill groups.
That being said, this alone does not justify the presence of such mechanics. Why? Because the ends do not justify the means. If the ends can be achieved in other ways, ways that earn their difficulty the way macro does, then they should.
To put it another way, just because this kind of difficulty helped the game does not mean that you can't help the game in a different way without that interface-based difficulty.
I agree 100%. Though some people seem to find having players doing mindless yet hard to master techniques is a pleasure to watch, and in that regard, even though i find it boring for the same reason, we can't say anything because that's subjective.
First, let me say that I stink at Starcraft 2. I'm not a very good player. However, despite my inability to play like a progamer I can "magic box" mutas. Click, wait, click, stop, done. Doesn't require epic speed nor impeccable timing.
I think a lot of players would have a differing opinion on "magic box"ing units if other units had this ability. Magic Box is only applicable in very narrow circumstances. If "Magic Box" worked for Marines player's opinions would be vastly different. If one could select a bunch of marines, click a location, and watch the marines spread out and then move the marines while roughly keeping that formation Starcraft 2 and players opinions of "magic box" would be different. I can't micro marines at all. Once again, I stink at Starcraft. One match from the GSL had Banelings rolling in at SCVs. Somehow the Terran player split his 16 SCVs into something like 8 pairs and spread them out nigh instantly. My mind couldn't even comprehend doing all that and I don't think my mouse skills are capable of splitting them into two piles. It was quite impressive. However, if "magic box" worked for other units I might, in my terrible starcraft ability, have a chance to spread out my SCVs with a simple click and waiting a few seconds.
I think the point is that "Magic Box" is essentially a formation. I personally don't have a strong opinion whether formations should or shouldn't be in the game. However, I do strongly feel that one direction OR the other should be taken. Mutas essentially do have formations. I think starcraft needs to either get rid of "Magic Box" or let other units be easily set in formations. I think my opinion is similar to the Original poster's, please correct me if I'm wrong, in that one shouldn't really support having both "Magic Box" in the game but have formations kept out of the game.
On November 16 2010 10:04 Smurphy wrote: First, let me say that I stink at Starcraft 2. I'm not a very good player. However, despite my inability to play like a progamer I can "magic box" mutas. Click, wait, click, stop, done. Doesn't require epic speed nor impeccable timing.
I think a lot of players would have a differing opinion on "magic box"ing units if other units had this ability. Magic Box is only applicable in very narrow circumstances. If "Magic Box" worked for Marines player's opinions would be vastly different. If one could select a bunch of marines, click a location, and watch the marines spread out and then move the marines while roughly keeping that formation Starcraft 2 and players opinions of "magic box" would be different. I can't micro marines at all. Once again, I stink at Starcraft. One match from the GSL had Banelings rolling in at SCVs. Somehow the Terran player split his 16 SCVs into something like 8 pairs and spread them out nigh instantly. My mind couldn't even comprehend doing all that and I don't think my mouse skills are capable of splitting them into two piles. It was quite impressive. However, if "magic box" worked for other units I might, in my terrible starcraft ability, have a chance to spread out my SCVs with a simple click and waiting a few seconds.
I think the point is that "Magic Box" is essentially a formation. I personally don't have a strong opinion whether formations should or shouldn't be in the game. However, I do strongly feel that one direction OR the other should be taken. Mutas essentially do have formations. I think starcraft needs to either get rid of "Magic Box" or let other units be easily set in formations. I think my opinion is similar to the Original poster's, please correct me if I'm wrong, in that one shouldn't really support having both "Magic Box" in the game but have formations kept out of the game.
I don't understand this post.
Magic box DOES work on marines. It works for every unit in the game. It's a fundamental mechanic.
Mutas are capable of moving over top of each other. Their natural tendency when attacking a target or moving to a location is to clump together. Magic boxing makes them stand shoulder to shoulder. Their shoulder to shoulder length is rather large and allows aoes to miss them.
If Marines "magic boxed" similar to mutas and spread out, even slightly, it would be to great advantage and vast game change.
This paragraph has not garnered the attention it deserves. The OP responded to the rest of IamSooty's post, but notably not this paragraph, which happens to be the one which unequivocally rebuts the OP's argument (note: his argument, not his idea).
"The magic box is the ultimate compromise for how everything in the game works and thus singling out a single application and comparing it to formations" doesn't refute anything, because I never said I was opposed to the magic box. Not that at it matters at this point. Everybody already made up their opinion on this thread before they clicked it. And rather than actually discuss the point that I was trying to make (the similarities between the application of the magic box for Mutalisks and the general design of formation commands in real-time strategy games), the thread's become a general referendum on whether real-time strategy games should be designed to deliberately reward mechanical skill or not. The multiple-building selection catfight has risen from the dead and taken a dump in this thread. There's no longer any reason to post in this thread unless you want to relive the flame wars of late 2007.
I don't see the problem with either Magic Box or Formations. The only problem I have is that some units are much easier to effectively magicbox than others.
Alot if people seem to not understand magic box in sc2. Magic box does not spread out units. Mutas and all other air units stack if told to attack. All magic box does to mutas is make them not stack because if you move them with this technique they maintain their normal formation. This works with ALL UNITS. Put marines in an L shape and move them in this manner. They are still an L. There are your formations, any formation you can imagine is already possable. It seems to me that you are asking for a trivial feature that doesn't add any functionality to the game. It doesn't even really make the game easier because you would need to hit a button for a probably bad premade formation when you could just set up an infinate variety yourself in a few mouse clicks. And if you are not asking for the feature and are just trying to stir shit up then this thread should be closed. Also, to whoever said it, spawn larva is a choice just as cb and mules. There are creep tumors and transfusion. Your point made no sense.
OP and a lot of posters in this thread don't understand what magic boxing really is.
It is NOT a magic technique/button that automatically spreads your units (eg. mutas). It IS a by-product of the game's engine that allows you to keep your units in a formation that you created.
Plenty of people have explained before me how magic boxing works, I won't reiterate what has already been said. However, I have to clarify the muta v. thor issue.
ALL air units have a natural tendency to clump when attacking and to spread when not attacking. This is a function of the game engine itself, not of magic boxing or anything else. What the muta v. thor trick does is it causes the mutas to spread via the stop command so that they don't automatically clump when attacking.
Magic boxing can be done with ANYthing and EVERYthing. It's only most visible and useful (at this stage of the game) with air units, especially in muta v thor battles. In short, magic boxing and auto-formations are two completely different things. It's like comparing cloning from BW with MBS from SC2.
Magic boxing can be done with ANYthing and EVERYthing. It's only most visible and useful (at this stage of the game) with air units, especially in muta v thor battles. In short, magic boxing and auto-formations are two completely different things. It's like comparing cloning from BW with MBS from SC2.
Which is why people should question it. Why should 1 race be able to EASILY abuse a mechanic, when another has to use 30-40 actions to get equivalent use out of the magic boxing mechanic.
Magic boxing can be done with ANYthing and EVERYthing. It's only most visible and useful (at this stage of the game) with air units, especially in muta v thor battles. In short, magic boxing and auto-formations are two completely different things. It's like comparing cloning from BW with MBS from SC2.
Which is why people should question it. Why should 1 race be able to EASILY abuse a mechanic, when another has to use 30-40 actions to get equivalent use out of the magic boxing mechanic.
It is not one race that can abuse it. It works equally well with everything. The reason it is prevalent in this scenario is because of the small aoe radius of thors. It has nothing to do with zerg. It just works well against thors. If for some reason you flew phoenixes above thors it would be the same. Or banshees against thors. If you space out zealots with it they will be more effective against tanks, but its really the mechanic of the thor that makes it effective.
It is not one race that can abuse it. It works equally well with everything. The reason it is prevalent in this scenario is because of the small aoe radius of thors. It has nothing to do with zerg. It just works well against thors. If for some reason you flew phoenixes above thors it would be the same. Or banshees against thors. If you space out zealots with it they will be more effective against tanks, but its really the mechanic of the thor that makes it effective.
Yea, but mutas are the only air unit that are consistently massed. If people used void rays all the time in PvT and magic boxed to avoid Thors, and Terrans used Magic boxing vikings to destroy mutas maybe your argument holds.
As the game is now, only in the ZvT scenario is magic boxing a super effective and easy thing to do. Microing ground units to avoid blings/storms/collosi takes tens of actions in a tiny window, and not just spamming actions, they need to be incredibly accurate and precise.
It is not one race that can abuse it. It works equally well with everything. The reason it is prevalent in this scenario is because of the small aoe radius of thors. It has nothing to do with zerg. It just works well against thors. If for some reason you flew phoenixes above thors it would be the same. Or banshees against thors. If you space out zealots with it they will be more effective against tanks, but its really the mechanic of the thor that makes it effective.
Yea, but mutas are the only air unit that are consistently massed. If people used void rays all the time in PvT and magic boxed to avoid Thors, and Terrans used Magic boxing vikings to destroy mutas maybe your argument holds.
As the game is now, only in the ZvT scenario is magic boxing a super effective and easy thing to do. Microing ground units to avoid blings/storms/collosi takes tens of actions in a tiny window, and not just spamming actions, they need to be incredibly accurate and precise.
But that's more a metagame issue more than anything. Who knows, maybe as the strategies develop we will eventually see people massing void rays in PvT or perhaps magic boxing of mutas against Protoss storm.
The purpose of this thread is to discuss auto-formation in comparison to magic boxing. What you're talking about is a whole different issue/thread.
On November 15 2010 22:13 XavierGr wrote: All those people that complained about the new features of SC2 (large selection groups, multiple building selection, automining, etc.) are elitist idiots. They fear that their point and click skill will be surpassed by pure strategic players. The game has to be intuitive and fun, why on earth shouldn't I be able to control all my buildings/units on one control group? It doesn't make any sense and people arguing against it completely miss the point of the game. Strategic choices should be rewarded way more than APM capabilities.
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.
"strategic choices should be rewarded way more than APM capabilities" thats just your opinion, other people would think apm capabilities should be rewarded more. Anyway, there is already an RTS game that rewards strategic choices more than APM capabilities. Forgot the name but apparently, that game requires ABSOLUTE strategic choices, no macro or micro required, its done perfectly by the AI. And that game isn't as popular as sc2, or BW, or even WC3. Think of the priority between strategy and APM as democracy:just like where you opt for an equal balance of power between people and government, the success of sc2 depends on the equal balance between the reward given for strategy and APM.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/ZXmDy.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images/thumb/0/0a/Derp.jpg/350px-Derp.jpg)
