Page 1 of 3
Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2008 5:03 pm
Formations are now almost never usefull and in the few cases they would be effective, they are of no use, becuase you could do easily without them.
Especially new players try to use formations a lot, wich in mine experience often results in a quick defeat for them. Therefore I say that the way formations are should be changed.
One of the main reasons formations are not worth using is there vunarability to grenades and because they are easily surrounded.
Nerving grenades would not be a good thing because one of the fun parts as of right now, is trying to get to better grounds in relation to grenades. What culd be changed is that formations will have extra fire-power from the flanks. Or that they will have an even larger range of firing.
Another suggestion could be that, let's say, 50% less man are needed for a full formation, but they will keep the same fire-power as like a full formation now.
Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2008 6:35 pm
Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2008 7:30 pm
Please explain yourself. You don't want formations to be changed? If they are not changed you might as well remove them from the game.
In response to Mike, if he is trying to do so, he is not very succesfull, but if you're convinced they are usefull show me
, or tell me how. Let's say for example they are usefull to block radardishes.
In context, formation can be usefull when you have a lot more man then your opponent, or when the opponent has jus a few man. Also for this to count, the formations should not be encircled, like with radardishes. However:
1. If you start attacking from the beginning with even numbers, most of the time there can' be formed an effective formation to block the radardishes
2. If it's late- to mid-game, large formations will be effective against small numbers of man coming trough radardishes, but this could probably also be done with lose man, tho maybe somewhat less effective. However to counter this tactic, the enemy will spare his man and go with a large amount at once trough the radardishes, breaking up the formation defense with grenades, in wich case it would be better if you had lose man instead of formations, because grenades would be more effective against these large amounts.
3. To come to a point, I think formations where ment to player a larger role in the game then they have now and we should give formation back there old glory.
Also I hope that this topic will host a serious discussion, instead of useless comments like No. and..
NOTE: I don't mind if you are against this idea, or if you disagree with me on certain things, just clearly say so and if asked explain if possible
Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2008 8:00 pm
I believe he's trying to tell you that he finds formations to be rather useful.
Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2008 8:16 pm
Formations still have their uses. They are great at choke points (i.e. radar dishes or very narrow bits of land), they are less vulnerable to a car bombing than a group of DGs that are not in formation, and they are a reasonable way of keeping a small number of units around to defend a particular bit of geography while having other units follow officer orders to some other place (though I generally disband the formation if that point is actually attacked). Of course, since you are the all-knowing god of Multiwinia, and we should all pay obeisance to you, whatever you say must be right, so I guess I shall stop using formations, as they are entirely useless. Heaven forbid that any person might play the game differently from you.
Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2008 8:32 pm
Xander, I guess you're right, when you say that formations are somewhat ess vunarable to car-bombs then lose mwg's, tho I think that this difference is so small that it is hardly ever usefull to spend your time on. Also, choke points, yes you would say that formations are usefull, since they can't be encircled that easy, but in Blitz this isn't the case and in Dom and some other modes, but especially Dom, this is hardly ever usefull because you either attack or defend and when you're defending most of the time you have a disadvanatge in numbers, so your formations won't last long and in attack you don't really need, atleast in my experience. Most notably formations at choke points can be usefull at CTS at a few maps, like Maze of Despair and Schorched Earth. So you have a point there, that being said, I wasn't denying they have some us, I just said they have hardly any use, as you probably noticed, and hardly can afcourse be a topic of discussion.
But besides all this, I would like formations to play a bigger role in this game, (again).
I deny being the "all-knowing god of Multiwinia", as you sarcastely stated, but some obedience would be nice, as you, I pressume, wanted to say.
Again, if you have ideas or opinions on this please let me/us now.
Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2008 12:16 am
They are invaluable for choke points, as xander pointed out.
I also find that a full formation of MWs, with a group of 20-40 un-formed MWs just in front can hold a spot of ground incredibly well.
With the loose MWs in front, they make the incoming MWs 'panic' sooner than they would, keeping the formation MWs out of harm's reach. The loose MWs also soak up incoming grenades (which they can move away from), as well as lobbing them in return. The extra range of the formation MWs means this can work incredibly well if there is not much scope for a widely distributed attack.
This is useful both at choke points, and, to some extent, in KOTH and CTS games where you have to hold a position against an easily estimated line of attack.
If you pay just a bit more attention, disbanding a formation is a simple click, and can save them from grenades or distributed attack groups easily.
Two formations pointed at 45 degree angles from the exit of a spawn point with a handful milling around can make capturing a spawn point near the edge of a map a real challenge.
They are also good for those times when you are attacking in a number of positions. Often I leave one line of attack to concentrate on a more difficult battle. Rather than having an officer direct a drip-drop attack from a single spawn point, mass enough to make a formation 1/3 to 3/4 of the distance towards the heading, then send them forward. Then have your officer direct those leaving the spawn point to their destination.
By the time the newly spawned MWs reach the destination, they'll be just ahead of the formation, making an attack much easier - with just a tiny bit more effort and minimal micromanagement - allowing you to concentrate elsewhere.
Then again, we all know that cyan cannot be distracted when playing MW, and can happily micromanage the whole map at once.
Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2008 2:57 am
I think the formations are great. Someone who used several at a time going after one target just beat me online. His formations won every time they just mow right through. Using one right behind another works even better.
I’m afraid I see no fault in formations…or anywhere for that matter.
Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2008 1:34 pm
Lowell, I am glad you like the game so much, but with all respect, I am guessing you are new and that what you have seen wasa nothing more then a nice finishing move. Wich is fine and nice to see, but not of real importance, tho correct me if I am wrong.
In my view, can best be used when you have;
1. more man then the opponent
2. the opponent has not so much man that it will be more then likely his group will throw a grenade when it comes in range
Both points require that you have an advantage in numbers, wich most likely could be exploited anyway, tho maybe somewhat less effective.
I cannot disagree with cooper42 points, thank you for sharing those tips, but I'll share you my "counter-tactics" for some of these situations.
1. Choke-points, I would walk both mountains sides, assuming they are there, and have another force waiting ahead of you fromations, a soon as you realise you need to disband I move that troop in to the fight and you are trapped in a grenade fire
. This is afcourse how it would ideally work.
2. Spawn at edge of the map, 2 formations, I'll save my troops then move in a mass of mwg's killing your formations and all of your reinforcements that couldn't join the formations anymore in a sea of grenades, because they have no where to run.
Some guys that use formations and are more experienced do indeed use the tactics described but cooper42 and lowell, namely 2 formations behind each other and some lose man upfront or on the side, but my gerenal experience is that in a even fight I still beat this with loose mwg's. Tho cooper42 has a god point saying that it is extra usefull when there is not much room for a widely distributed attack.
One thing I have to say about loose man upfront tho, formations when damaged suck up loose man, at wich point you become vunarable.
Using formations instead of a drip-drop attack is an excelent tactic, but mostly because it's never wise to send in to few man, but it also does cost less micro-manage and I guess this is a playing-style choice. I am glad, atleast some people find them usefull and maybe they have more use then I first thought, but my question still remains, should formations be more powerfull in order to be MORE usefull? My answer is definitely Yes.
Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2008 2:01 pm
Their main problem is that they're vulnerable in pretty much every direction that isn't forwards and the ideal defensive strategy is to occupy all geographically useful areas that surround important points*. Very few spring to mind where formations are immediately useful (OK, just Price of War at exactly one place per team, and it really needs two in a 'V' shape).
* For an example, let's have a damn near comprehensive guide to Eternal Guardians KOTH:
For the central hill, the mountain and raised ground on either side.
For the spawn in that goddamned ditch in the back right corner, the ground behind it and the raise ground between it and the mountain.
For the spawn at the back left corner, the jagged rocks next to it, the raised ground between it and the Sepulveda statue, and the mountain.
For the hill at the back right corner, the mountain, and most of the edge of the gigantic hole.
For the hill at the back left corner, the statue, the raised ground, and pretty much any high up in between the two hills.
For the middle right spawn, haha, you wish; for the middle left spawn, who cares?
For the starting spawns, stop losing so hard.
Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2008 2:01 pm
Cyan. wrote:Lowell, I am glad you like the game so much, but with all respect, I am guessing you are new and that what you have seen wasa nothing more then a nice finishing move. Wich is fine and nice to see, but not of real importance, tho correct me if I am wrong.
I'll correct you. How much longer are you going to pretend not understanding the countless messages directed to you which are all summarised as "stop acting like an arrogant twat"? Just because you
think you don't need a certain feature doesn't mean people who do need it are playing it wrong.
No, don't hit the reply button right now, read on before returning another obnoxious comment.
Formations are used by many people. Shitloads. Fucktons. I have yet to witness a game that doesn't
have formations. And you want to say that they are useless? What kind of logic did they teach you at school? Let's be clear about these 'faults' you're talking about: they are intentional. They are weaknesses to stop formations from becoming overpowered. Yes, they are easily surrounded/flanked, and don't have much firepower in the flanks. Imagine what would happen if this was not the case. Formations become some sort of free 'Rage' powerup because they have extra firepower to all sides and don't have any additional weaknesses. Grenades are not thrown by formations for exactly the same reason, and their weakness to grenades is only more than that of regular DGs because of their strong will and lack of evasive cowardly behaviour - but uh, when you start suggesting to remove that you have seriously missed the entire point of formations.
It's been discussed time and time again, in discussions about wildly varying feature suggestions which all boil down to the same thing: if you can't seem to use a game's feature in a useful way, start by changing your gameplay style before saying it's a fault of the game itself. And if you do give suggestions, make them sensible, taking into account the oh-so-important concept of 'balancing' or 'pro/con compensation'.
Finally, it would help if you take the time to not only read posts written up by others, but also those you've written yourself before hitting Submit. For example, the following sentence doesn't make any sense: "Formations are now almost never usefull and in the few cases they would be effective, they are of no use, becuase you could do easily without them."
Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2008 2:22 pm
, all I can do is laugh
and pray I won't get kicked of the ladder. But if thre is someone that sees any sense in Jeloc's ost, a part form me being an arrogant twat
, then I am happy to clear some time t write a descent answer.
Let this be clear, I don't think I am better then you all in anyway, I don't even think I am the best in MW for that matter, but sometimes I am convnced of something and I speak out, it that's received as being an arrogant twat, well sorry that's just me then, like we all have our flaws.
And since this is a useless post anyway, thank you Mas for your support and please tell them that I told you that formations pretty much sucks like more then a month ago, to proof I gave the game time to proof me wrong. That is afcourse if you remember
In my opinion pro/con's of formations are not equally balanced and this is not a shame as I think IV will be glad to admit that the gamplay of this game is different then it was when they tested it I assume, atleast this counts for some players.
Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2008 2:29 pm
Cyan. wrote:2. Spawn at edge of the map, 2 formations, I'll save my troops then move in a mass of mwg's killing your formations and all of your reinforcements that couldn't join the formations anymore in a sea of grenades, because they have no where to run.
A significantly larger mass of MWs will win, regardless of how the defese has been set up, so that argument is a bit redundant. If my formations are ever faced with a mass they can't easily deal with, I'd always disband them, as loose MWs will slow a massed attack down more easily.
Formations do have their uses, albeit more limited now people know the game better, and are more likely to ctrl-click and attack over steep slopes and rough land, on which and against which formations are useless. They are also less useful against massed attacks, or distributed attacks. All this is obvious, but doesn't render them useless as you keep suggesting. Apart from the times when you can't distribute an attack (radars and jump points as the best example) and for defending against smaller enemy attacks (you always suggesting massing attacks - sometimes that's just not possible, nor necessarily desirable when you need to move fast, such as in KOTH). Formations may have lost some of their effectiveness in front of developing strategies, but they are not entirely useless.
Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2008 2:54 pm
I agree with you that they are not completely useless, I said this before. Tho a small correction when it comes to the edge of the map thing, I won't need more mwg's then you just enough to be sure they'll thow a grenade of 2 or 3 wich will damage your formations and reincforcemnts so much I could easily take over after that, my point was that we both spare our man and then when it comes to attacking formations are useless in this situation. And you are right when I keep saying mass attacks, because this is the most logic situation in this discussion.
And again you are right about KOTH situations, but small formation are almost never usefull because they are even easilier surrounded, or you have to really micro-manage them so you get some extra shot because of extra range, but apart from this, attcking a large formations wth a few man is useless, so you spare some and attack with mass, in wich point formations become vunarable. If you don't use formations and you have more man then in the same sitation you would be better of, first with small attacks it doesn't matter much, and later with larger attacks, saving you from some micro-management.
But saying they have lost some of there use, do you think they should be empowered to be more usefull again somewhat?
Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2008 3:16 pm
If you power up formations, you might endanger accessibility to newer players. Formations were nasty before we learned what tore them apart fastest.