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

[Sietsh-Tenk]

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?

[newcomplex]

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"

[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. 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!

[pure.Wasted]

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

[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

[Aldrius]

You forgot the magic wooohooord :P

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

And it's fun hearing Husky being sleep-drunk

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

[Sietsh-Tenk]

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

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

[Norfindel]

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.

[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.

[SaZun]

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.