Why is multiple unit selection justified as a natural advance in UI?

Because, for crying out loud, Command and Conquer had mass unit selection.

So why do they choose to justify it like this? Well, because it's a decision that has affected gameplay and made it easier for people to control large armies, albeit giving up a degree of micromanagement. Like I've said before, so many games you see, even the high level ones, are about big armies clashing rather than the strategically deep action you saw being spread out all across the map. Whether this will still be true or not when the game starts evolving is something we can only guess at. I don't like the current "Look my army's bigger dan urz and I micro my one army better" wins that occur so often. I hope I'm wrong in assuming that this happens all the time. But most replays I've seen have ended like this.

Anyway, it's a mechanic that provides easier access to SCII for casual players. Is this a bad thing? Not necessarily. But don't spin it as a 'natural evolution' of sorts, cause it isn't. Or do you think they couldn't uncap unit selection back in 2003 when they made TFT, or back when BW was released? It's just a decision made to influence gameplay in a way to make it more accessible. Again, not necessarily a bad thing. But is a little honesty too much to ask for?

It happens. Ignore BW and judge SC by its own merits. "Seeing how they stack up" is ridiculously unfair considering BW has the benefits of 12 years of metagame development, an expansion, several post-release patches, and a multi-million pro scene.

For instance, "Spread out" isn't objectively better then "Clumped". One results in ball versus ball, the other results in line versus line. You only think its better because SC1 was "Line versus line"

I don't mean ball vs ball vs line vs line. I was talking about enhancing strategic depth. By that I mean that it seems like unlimited unit selection is encouraging players to keep their armies grouped together and not spread out over the map. In turn, this means that while it doesn't anything negative for the tactical depth, it does lead to a play style that is more superficial, strategically speaking.

Also, I don't like your tone. I never talked about the tactical issues that may or may not arise from mass unit selection, and the phrase "You only think its [sic] better because SC1 was "Line versus line"" is an awesome example of putting words in my mouth and straw-manning my argument. Very asinine, irrelevant and beside the point.

So if you have anything to say on the issue I raised, I'll be glad to hear it.


Now, to end on a high note: I'm watching a Korean ZvT (Boxer vs a friend of his, guess who's the Terran) and it's fricking amazing. Holy Fucking Bejesus, they're playing Starcraft as it was meant to be played. Halfway into the game I've seen tons micro with very few units achieving enormous results, awesome fast-expand macro on both sides and none of the giant bio-balls that have characterised Western Terran play so much.

Also, Boxer didn't use his mules until a bunch of lings broke through his defense and beat the living crap out of his SCV's. Immediately, he called down two mules from both his CC's (can't think of the proper name right now, is it Orbital Command?) to make up for the losses. He achieves two things this way: he makes up for the lost production, rather then increasing upon existing production, which leads to>minerals not being depleted as fast as you would with constant muling. He also conserves energy in this way, allowing him to be more flexible with his macro/micro choices.

Hail the Terran Emperor!

Am I really going to have to ASK for the link? :o

You forgot the magic wooohooord :P

http://www.youtube.com/user/HuskySta.../7/KZA5zFfM8JA

And it's fun hearing Husky being sleep-drunk :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sietsh-Tenk

You forgot the magic wooohooord :P

http://www.youtube.com/user/HuskySta.../7/KZA5zFfM8JA

And it's fun hearing Husky being sleep-drunk :D

---

Wasn't it mentioned that, that wasn't actually Boxer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aldrius

Wasn't it mentioned that, that wasn't actually Boxer?

---

I don't know, perhaps. Who gives. Awesome game.

It's the game itself that forces you to use all your army together. For a direct frontal fight, why would you not use all the units you can? To take more damage in the same fight?

Anyways, it does pay off to have units in different groups. If the players don't recognize that, it's their fault.

But let me ask the question the other way around: why would you limit the amount of selected units to some arbitrary number? Why limit the player to select that amount of units? You have only 9 keys to select units and buildings, and the better ones to use are up to 4 or 5.

To the original post: I don't see it as an "evolution" persay, but what you reference is kinda the overall industry perception.

What it comes down to is a situation of "Pros and Cons" not "right or wrong". Unlimited selection gives a set of pros and cons that are more compatible to the wishes of the general consumer as well as the mindset of the "Let's not fight the interface" mentality that has been cohered by companies over the last many years.

Ultimately though, while this isn't directly "Better" or "worse" for that reason, people will have drastically different views at the end of the day as the values they place on each "pro" and "con" will be different than the person next to them on average.

That's my thought on the matter.

Honestly you just have to wait for the game to evolve. People are still trying out strategies and learning the ropes of the games capabilties. The fact people run around in balls mean nothing. They will run around in balls as long as they want. You don't have to. If you have the micro to manage it you can tie up that ball with a smaller force while hitting him with other strike forces.

There is nothing forcing you to use this "ball" method. That is purely peoples choices. Them changing the ui to limit the amount of units in a selection won't stop balls. It would just mean the balls would get strewn out into conga lines while heading to their position.

As far as the replay you mentioned I watched it and it was a great replay. We got a chance to see a mech build that worked against a zerg. But without his harrassment being able to take down that expansion it wouldn't have worked so well. (Watch the other match where he doesnt take the expo down)

He also said during the replay that the guy who sent him the replays said in an email it wasnt actually boxer playing. It was a good friend of boxer playing under his name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gifted

To the original post: I don't see it as an "evolution" persay, but what you reference is kinda the overall industry perception.

What it comes down to is a situation of "Pros and Cons" not "right or wrong". Unlimited selection gives a set of pros and cons that are more compatible to the wishes of the general consumer as well as the mindset of the "Let's not fight the interface" mentality that has been cohered by companies over the last many years.

Ultimately though, while this isn't directly "Better" or "worse" for that reason, people will have drastically different views at the end of the day as the values they place on each "pro" and "con" will be different than the person next to them on average.

That's my thought on the matter.

---

Kind of an open door there, buster. Of course people have different opinions, that's why we share them here.

Anyway, your observation on how it's part of a new consensus is quite correct, though it's perhaps not all that new: apart from TFT there have been very few RTS games ever not to have unlimited unit selection.

While I agree that it's best not to battle the interface but rather your opponent, it's still a good idea to discuss the UI changes. Remember how pressing X in some of the C&C games would make your units scatter? It was pretty useless back then because the AI didn't know how to figure out a useful way to scatter, but it could be worked into a hugely useful button with today's AI - if you prefer easier micro. We don't have a button like that in SC2. Why not? Because sometimes not battling the UI is part of learning the game. I think there are still many people who agree that being able to control several groups of units at once, even if forced to do so by the UI, can be a good thing. The limit doesn't have to be 12, but I'd like to see some limit. I think it would improve gameplay and nudge people into a style of playing where strategic depth and map-wide action is more important that winning single battles.

I don't have prove for this, and as above replays show mass unit selection can still lead to exciting gameplay where the action takes place on multiple fronts, but so far, the Western style of play has been dominated by big-ball battles enabled by mass selection, and I think it's not the way SC is supposed to be played.

I want to respond, but I'm not sure what to respond to.

What's the issue? Or is there even one?

I so cunfooz'd :(

The UI is meant to let the player control their units in the way they want.
The player should not be restricted by the UI, but by the limits of each unit and the map.
Starcraft had limited UI and thus people had to break the game to achieve their goals and get the most out of their units.
Giving the ability to select all your units does not mean you have to select all your units if you do not wish to do so.
It is simply giving you the option to do so. Options are good.

Artificially lowering the number of units that can be selected at once won't help micro. If anything it hurts it. You can't divide your control groups by unit and still easily put all units into position at once. This allows me to easily have my whole are together to move them into position and then have one control group for microing each unit type, no matter how many I have of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aldrius

Wasn't it mentioned that, that wasn't actually Boxer?

---

Yes. Husky has two games between this Terran and CelaWerra. In the first, he says explicitly (hilariously fatigued et al) that CW told him that his opponent is a friend of Boxer's, not Boxer himself, in the early game where he goes through why the game is going to be awesome.

To the OP and more on-topic:

A suggestion is to let the user designate unit selection in the setup menu. Say there are options for 1, 6, 12, 24, 36, and infinite. It's a small program addition that simply requires the game engine to count the number of units highlighted for selection, compare to the max, and select up to the designated max number. For multiplayer, this would be set in the game lobby after you create the game. The game would pop-up a choice screen on game start. Or you could have a pull-down menu in the game description screen. This could also be included in game type for game searches to your preference.

Besides, you don't have to control your whole army at once. Just use control groups, as stated by DSquid. Furthermore, if you truly wanted to limit the number of units selected at once, you would have to remove control groups, which would be extraordinarily bad. :)

Control groups aren't infinite. I already pointed out that if the total number of units is infinite then you can use one control group for your army and other control groups for specific groups of units. Also, what you suggest would take a lot more programming than you think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sietsh-Tenk

I don't mean ball vs ball vs line vs line. I was talking about enhancing strategic depth. By that I mean that it seems like unlimited unit selection is encouraging players to keep their armies grouped together and not spread out over the map.

---

Beta is how old? Players will learn and adapt.

Quote:

---

Also, I don't like your tone.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sietsh-Tenk

Because, for crying out loud, Command and Conquer had mass unit selection.

So why do they choose to justify it like this?

---

This is a very negative tone, too. And you can't say they chose to do that because of C&C; Blizzard has never said that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dalarsco

Control groups aren't infinite. I already pointed out that if the total number of units is infinite then you can use one control group for your army and other control groups for specific groups of units. Also, what you suggest would take a lot more programming than you think.

---

I am aware of the limits on the number of control groups you can have and totally forgot to include it, thus is my point regarding them is incorrect. COnsider this retracted.

However, the programming mentioned is simply an integer comparison, a counting mechanism, and a random chooser such as SC1 employed. The difficulties would occur in identifying units as (a) the player's, and (b) as units as opposed to doodads and such, so yes, the decision matrix would be quite complex. It is the logic that is simple. My bad on an oversimplification. This would be why I am not a programmer. My strength is in theorizing and conceptualization, after all. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sietsh-Tenk

Kind of an open door there, buster. Of course people have different opinions, that's why we share them here.

Anyway, your observation on how it's part of a new consensus is quite correct, though it's perhaps not all that new: apart from TFT there have been very few RTS games ever not to have unlimited unit selection.

While I agree that it's best not to battle the interface but rather your opponent, it's still a good idea to discuss the UI changes. Remember how pressing X in some of the C&C games would make your units scatter? It was pretty useless back then because the AI didn't know how to figure out a useful way to scatter, but it could be worked into a hugely useful button with today's AI - if you prefer easier micro. We don't have a button like that in SC2. Why not? Because sometimes not battling the UI is part of learning the game. I think there are still many people who agree that being able to control several groups of units at once, even if forced to do so by the UI, can be a good thing. The limit doesn't have to be 12, but I'd like to see some limit. I think it would improve gameplay and nudge people into a style of playing where strategic depth and map-wide action is more important that winning single battles.

I don't have prove for this, and as above replays show mass unit selection can still lead to exciting gameplay where the action takes place on multiple fronts, but so far, the Western style of play has been dominated by big-ball battles enabled by mass selection, and I think it's not the way SC is supposed to be played.

---

*chuckles* A firefox crash saved you from a wall of text. *chuckles* In jist, I was just pointing out how the original post was more or less talking about "good and bad" instead of the pros and cons of each option. If the discussion heads to the identification of both option's pros and cons, I think the discussion could be more productive, that's all. I do VERY MUCH encourage the discussion though :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid

The UI is meant to let the player control their units in the way they want.
The player should not be restricted by the UI, but by the limits of each unit and the map.
Starcraft had limited UI and thus people had to break the game to achieve their goals and get the most out of their units.
Giving the ability to select all your units does not mean you have to select all your units if you do not wish to do so.
It is simply giving you the option to do so. Options are good.

---

Contrary to popular belief the goal of the UI is not to let the player control their unit in the way they want. The goal of the UI is to let the player control their unit in the way that give best gameplay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

Contrary to popular belief the goal of the UI is not to let the player control their unit in the way they want. The goal of the UI is to let the player control their unit in the way that give best gameplay.

---

You have the most disgusting design philosophies Archer.

The UI is there to let the player interact with the game. Its there to help them play, not hinder them. The limits on the player should be imposed though the gameplay balance, not their interaction with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid

You have the most disgusting design philosophies Archer.

The UI is there to let the player interact with the game. Its there to help them play, not hinder them. The limits on the player should be imposed though the gameplay balance, not their interaction with it.

---

Your taking an idea and applying it as universal. Its like saying "you should never cut people" yah its true allot of times....unless your a surgeon.


As one example take zoom out limits. They are limited even though the player may want to zoom out farther than he can. See this is what people have trouble realizing. The UI is a part of the game just like minerals or zealot hit points. And they are all tailored towards creating the best gameplay experience.

Other examples
Production based interfaces (like C&C)
Player programable macros (like wow)
No rally points, queues for Warp-In
No autocast for the macro mechanics
Terran production buildings requiring tabs for different addons
No shift build
No autocast workers
Max unit limit
No Scatter command

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

Your taking an idea and applying it as universal. Its like saying "you should never cut people" yah its true allot of times....unless your a surgeon.


As one example take zoom out limits. They are limited even though the player may want to zoom out farther than he can. See this is what people have trouble realizing. The UI is a part of the game just like minerals or zealot hit points. And they are all tailored towards creating the best gameplay experience.

Other examples
Production based interfaces (like C&C)
Player programable macros (like wow)
No rally points, queues for Warp-In
No autocast for the macro mechanics
Terran production buildings requiring tabs for different addons
No shift build
No autocast workers
Max unit limit
No Scatter command

---

You're too nostalgic for the abysmal UI of SC1 which limited players and forced them to break the UI just to make some units useful. StarCraft isn't a popular game because of what it is, its popular because it takes skill to break it.

That is BAD game design.

Limiting the game though the unit balance is better than limiting what the player is allowed to do with their UI. Cutting multiple unit selection would be no different than cutting the players ability to see their income. Pro players don't really use them or need them, they've memorized their build orders and are constantly clicking anyway to build stuff before they have enough resources to do so. But the indicator is there for new players, and to use if you want it. Its the same with unlimited selection. Good players won't use it, but its there if you need it. That's the choice we constantly support, and you constantly want removed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gifted

*chuckles* A firefox crash saved you from a wall of text. *chuckles*

---

This must be the least upset I've ever seen someone over losing an entire post. :eek:

I don't know if I can trust you anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid

You're too nostalgic for the abysmal UI of SC1 which limited players and forced them to break the UI just to make some units useful. StarCraft isn't a popular game because of what it is, its popular because it takes skill to break it.

That is BAD game design.

Limiting the game though the unit balance is better than limiting what the player is allowed to do with their UI. Cutting multiple unit selection would be no different than cutting the players ability to see their income. Pro players don't really use them or need them, they've memorized their build orders and are constantly clicking anyway to build stuff before they have enough resources to do so. But the indicator is there for new players, and to use if you want it. Its the same with unlimited selection. Good players won't use it, but its there if you need it. That's the choice we constantly support, and you constantly want removed.

---

Did you really just suggest that good players dont look at their income?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

Did you really just suggest that good players dont look at their income?

---

Why should they? SC is based on builds and keeping your income as low as possible. I can guarantee you that if you removed the income counter most pros would adapt very, very quickly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid

Why should they? SC is based on builds and keeping your income as low as possible. I can guarantee you that if you removed the income counter most pros would adapt very, very quickly.

---

I really think you should take me up on my offer to train you. At the very least watch the Day9 dailys....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

I really think you should take me up on my offer to train you. At the very least watch the Day9 dailys....

---

No. You are full of shit. You are hellbent of destroying StarCraft and I will fight you as long as it takes.

For everyone who keeps saying the UI should just give you the options, and then you can pick and choose:

I once read about a bit of research on people's eating habits. They investigated if people would eat a plate of food regardless of the portions served. Guess what? Whether it was two kilos of food or half a kilo, people would try to finish their plate regardless. They couldn't really figure out why this was so, but they did conclude that part of the obesity problem in the US is due to the size of the portions served, which is pretty much ingrained in American culture. It also sheds light on why most Asians and Europeans are not as overweight as Americans, though especially Europeans share eating habits.

The very elaborate point here being:

We're not as conscious as we like to think.

We just take whatever we get, and do as we're told. So if we have the options to easily bunch a large group of units together because our UI allows us to, we will probably just do that, because it's the way of least resistance to go about organising your units.

I don't understand why this is such a hard point to get for most people. And you, skeptic, are not above it either. Trust me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sietsh-Tenk

For everyone who keeps saying the UI should just give you the options, and then you can pick and choose:

I once read about a bit of research on people's eating habits. They investigated if people would eat a plate of food regardless of the portions served. Guess what? Whether it was two kilos of food or half a kilo, people would try to finish their plate regardless. They couldn't really figure out why this was so, but they did conclude that part of the obesity problem in the US is due to the size of the portions served, which is pretty much ingrained in American culture. It also sheds light on why most Asians and Europeans are not as overweight as Americans, though especially Europeans share eating habits.

The very elaborate point here being:

We're not as conscious as we like to think.

We just take whatever we get, and do as we're told. So if we have the options to easily bunch a large group of units together because our UI allows us to, we will probably just do that, because it's the way of least resistance to go about organising your units.

I don't understand why this is such a hard point to get for most people. And you, skeptic, are not above it either. Trust me.

---

Good point, aligned with what people are saying regarding the whole "the game is only beta" information. The only reason that people are going around in balls and the battle isn't all over the battlefield is because people are moving around in balls and they are not instead choosing to attack all over the battlefield.

I still believe that while the "unlimited unit selection" is a good discussion for some points, I believe that it's not the issue regarding the "ball" and "player control" issue, I believe it's merely an undeveloped metagame... personal thoughts.

Am I seriously the only one here encouraging options? Just because you can do something doesn't make it the best way. Good players will still use more control groups than newbs. If you want to get better you'll gradually stop using the unlimited selection. But thats no reason to remove it completely as a choice, or at least a stepping stone. No one uses Gateways once Warp-Gates are available, but Gateways remain in the game if you want them. That's all I'm advocating: choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sietsh-Tenk

The very elaborate point here being: We're not as conscious as we like to think.

---

This point, however true, is irrelevant. The goal of constructing a UI should not be to baby gamers and nudge them toward more effective strategies. If some players aren't as "conscious" as others, they'll lose to those able to think critically--and that's how it should be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maxa

This point, however true, is irrelevant. The goal of constructing a UI should not be to baby gamers and nudge them toward more effective strategies. If some players aren't as "conscious" as others, they'll lose to those able to think critically--and that's how it should be.

---

No where do I suggest "babying." Its about choices, pure and simple. More choices make a better game. I'm not advocating more right choices, but more choices in general.

I was responding to Sietsh-Tenk's post, not yours DS. Sorry for any confusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid

No where do I suggest "babying." Its about choices, pure and simple. More choices make a better game. I'm not advocating more right choices, but more choices in general.

---

Gotta put my 2-cents into this one. In short, I feel unlimited selection encourages too much 'a-click' strategy - particularly with new players.

A little extra interaction managing a large group isn't going to hurt anything. TBH, it didn't even take that much extra work in the original. Between the unit group selection (command card) mechanics, the advanced pathing, and the 'follow' command, moving large units around the map is already going to be pretty easy. Unlimited selection is just overkill. 36-50 units is more than plenty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caliban113

Gotta put my 2-cents into this one. In short, I feel unlimited selection encourages too much 'a-click' strategy - particularly with new players.

A little extra interaction managing a large group isn't going to hurt anything. TBH, it didn't even take that much extra work in the original. Between the unit group selection (command card) mechanics, the advanced pathing, and the 'follow' command, moving large units around the map is already going to be pretty easy. Unlimited selection is just overkill. 36-50 units is more than plenty.

---

Hear hear. I like the encouragement point, which is one I was making earlier.

This is easy: unlimited unit selection doesn't limits what the player wants to do. Limited unit selection does.

If players play bad because the UI allows them to, then so be it, but it isn't the UI's function to train players in good gameplay (as already mentioned). It's function is to be as unintrusive as possible.

If you limit unit selection and the player needs to move a large group of units, that limits the player and impairs gameplay. On the other hand, with unlimited unit selection you can choose to select any amount of units. You can select 12, or 6, or 50. That's your call, and that's how it need to be. You're the one playing, not the UI.

.

I didn't like that the only way to get really good at SC1 was by basically "breaking" the UI. What Blizzard has done with the Multiplayer is re-create the same challenging nail-biting game play, but have polished and fixed what was a nuisance in the first SC, or was considered "busy work", and have attempted to make the "busy work" fun with the macro mechanics.

It 'feels' different, because its better (at least I think its better). If you don't like it, I say, play SC1. From what I've seen though, throughout all the blogs and interviews, the true pros will adapt to SC2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid

Am I seriously the only one here encouraging options? Just because you can do something doesn't make it the best way. Good players will still use more control groups than newbs. If you want to get better you'll gradually stop using the unlimited selection. But thats no reason to remove it completely as a choice, or at least a stepping stone. No one uses Gateways once Warp-Gates are available, but Gateways remain in the game if you want them. That's all I'm advocating: choice.

---

This, a thousand times, this.

*NOT IN THE BETA* but I can see it being very convenient to group units by type and then group your entire army together for ease of movement, then use the smaller groups to micro with. Only a sub par player will get all their units into one group and just hope attack move will win the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sietsh-Tenk

For everyone who keeps saying the UI should just give you the options, and then you can pick and choose:

I once read about a bit of research on people's eating habits. They investigated if people would eat a plate of food regardless of the portions served. Guess what? Whether it was two kilos of food or half a kilo, people would try to finish their plate regardless. They couldn't really figure out why this was so, but they did conclude that part of the obesity problem in the US is due to the size of the portions served, which is pretty much ingrained in American culture. It also sheds light on why most Asians and Europeans are not as overweight as Americans, though especially Europeans share eating habits.

---

While that is an interesting observation, the UI is not so much a plate as it is a utensil. UI is more like a Spoon, because a player uses this as a tool to interact with the game (the Plate). To have less UI options is like eating different types of food with limited tools.

The portions are the same. Take for example - 50 zerglings. In SC1 you would need 3 control groups to manage this size of a force. In SC2 you would only need 1 (with the option of separating them into smaller groups). This is akin to using a teaspoon to drink soup instead of a tablespoon because 10 yrs ago you only had teaspoons.