Ingame - Worker count

On July 13 2011 20:37 iMp.will. wrote:
Like automining aint enough. Lets ruin the game even more.

On July 13 2011 20:56 turdburgler wrote:
go to base, box your mineral workers, go to next base hold shift repeat?

On July 13 2011 20:52 SnuggleZhenya wrote:
Yea, its good just to box real quick, 8 units per row x number of rows and you can count very quickly.

On July 13 2011 20:37 iMp.will. wrote:
Like automining aint enough. Lets ruin the game even more.

On July 13 2011 20:21 ODKStevez wrote:
I was wondering about an idea last night and I thought I would post it here to get a few opinions.

We all know there is an idle worker UI mechanic within the game already, but I was wondering, (especially as I am a zerg player), how it would be really useful to have a worker count too, one that would show how many workers you have at that time.

As a Zerg I have major problems stopping at 70-80 drones and I think this would be a great help.

What do you guys think of this idea? Do you think it would be accepted if it was to happen? And how would it affect pro games ect?

On July 13 2011 21:27 Caphe wrote:
Even without all the tips above, after you play enough games, you just can look at your minerals line and have a pretty good idea if your minerals line is saturated or not.

On July 13 2011 20:55 Iamyournoob wrote:
Why not go the Age of Mythology way and add a "repeat button" for production facilities so that you can tell any building to constantly build a certain unit on its own 100% automatically. Wouldn't that be awesome? SC2 would become such a player friendly game. Then we could spend less time on macro and focus on the real tasks: A-moving clumped up unit balls into each other and watch them disappear in 5 seconds!

/irony off

On July 13 2011 21:34 opisska wrote:
Post this on B.NET forums, not here. Even though I like your idea, I am quite sure that you will find no understading here. You are just giving several dozens of people their chance to repeat the "we want more clicking" mantra, and that does help exactly nothing.

On July 13 2011 20:28 sylverfyre wrote:
It's pretty easy, and a good habit to get into, to box all the workers you have each mineral line every once in a while. Pros do this all the time! Can also help if 1 base is oversaturated while another is undersaturated, etc.

On July 13 2011 21:45 ETisME wrote:
Wow, everyone is so heavily against this idea...(I suppose most are broodwar players)

Personally I won't mind it at all, although I don't need it.
I mean the pro's are not going to play better/worse with it, it's gonna be beneficial for the new comers.
Nothing wrong with helping the new comers while not hurting the game balance. Getting the ideal worker count isn't necessarily going to help the "less experienced" player suddenly become a top progamer or something :/

It's not like a super crazy macro-aid tool like auto injection or auto worker production, it's only a worker count for those who want it.

On July 13 2011 21:44 Wrongspeedy wrote:


What!?!?!? Clicking with purpose is always good. Are you saying you always have so many actions to perform that you can't take the 2-3 seconds this should take to know how many workers you have. Boxing at the beginning of games is a good way to practice making different size boxes, for selecting units (I almost always just box 3 workers without minerals near the nexus and send them to gas, because I practice). You are not utilizing all the time you are given, and if you think that "hurts exactly nothing" your nutz. Faster is better, smart and fast is best. Being able to execute simple actions extremely fast while performing other more complex actions, is what separates pro's from other players.

On July 13 2011 20:47 Cuiu wrote:


when autominig ruins the game
than pls pls ruin the game more pls blizz ruin the game more

its so much more fun to play a game where the better robots wins....

On July 13 2011 20:21 ODKStevez wrote:Dear TL, my counting abilities evade me as I'm having trouble distinguishing when I have enough workers. What do you think about Blizzard making the game easier to rectify this problem?

On July 13 2011 20:37 iMp.will. wrote:
Like automining aint enough. Lets ruin the game even more.

On July 13 2011 22:44 Gurblechev wrote:

I've never really understood this mentality.

It's supposed to be a strategy game, not a timing/rhythm game. Maybe Dance Dance Revolution would be more your style.

On July 13 2011 22:44 Gurblechev wrote:

I've never really understood this mentality.

It's supposed to be a strategy game, not a timing/rhythm game. Maybe Dance Dance Revolution would be more your style.

On July 13 2011 22:51 R0YAL wrote:

It's not only a strategy game, its an esport you need mechanics too. The more elements the more room there is to separate and distinguish yourself from others. If you want a game that is only strategy then go play Starcraft the board game.

On July 13 2011 22:57 meRz wrote:



It's not a strategy game. It's a REAL TIME strategy game, things as speed, timing, and what not SHOULD matter. If you want pure strategy you have games such as chess which is turn based.

I agree with the nay-sayers, this is just one more way to dumb the game down. Little things like this that demand a little, but not great, effort to keep track off is one of those things that adds to the skill ceiling. We already have an in-game watch, automining, mbs etc. If things like these keeps getting added into the game, in the end we'll basically have a pure strategy game and none of the real time elements in it anymore.

On July 13 2011 23:05 Gosi wrote:
This is so dumb. Why do people wanna dumb things down even more? I agree with meRz, there is ingame clock, automining,mbs, no max unit selection and you even have a message telling you when you can spawn larvae, mules and chronoboost again (!!!). It's like the players that aint that good wanna cut corners just because they can't stand that some players are dedicated to Starcraft and kows alot about all kinds of stuff.

Imagine if Blizzard allowed modding, all kinds of noob mods would be out and it would be horrible. Everyone who plays HoN knows what im talking about.

On July 13 2011 23:11 Gurblechev wrote:

I would call interface impediments like no auto mining and no multiple building selection "dumbing the game down", because it takes away aspects based on intelligence (strategy) and gives weight to practiced repetition.

I personally prefer starcraft be somewhat like a real time chess, rather than a glorified Guitar Hero or DDR.

On July 13 2011 23:16 Gosi wrote:

Let me guess, you don't have that good mechanics do you? It's like you're mad of losing because some people plays alot and just runs over you ingame with their superior mechanics and speed. Starcraft is not the game for you if you can't stand that it's not just about strategy.

On July 13 2011 23:05 Gurblechev wrote:

Real time strategy just means you have to think and react to your opponent in real time. It is not a reference to repetitive clicking.

Sending a worker to mine every time it comes out is not a reaction to your opponent. It is not real time strategy, it's rhythm and timing (the same genre as dance dance revolution).

If those sort of mechanics improve the game, why not make it so all units forget their orders after 30 seconds and need to have their command given to them again? That increases the repetitive well timed clicking needed and would give more weight to "mechanics" as you call them. By your logic apparently that would make the game better.

On July 13 2011 23:19 meRz wrote:


I'm not talking about "repetitive clicking". While things like these may seem like unecessary repetitve stuff they are all things you can figure out by just _thinking_ a little and have a sense of what's going on. Removing all these things makes the game AI controlled and suited for people who wants to sit with one hand on their mouse, the other on their chin going "Hmm......" while they're planning their next mastermind move. RTS has always been tempobased with a lot of speed involved, requiring decisionmaking and strategy while doing all the other things, that's what makes RTS great, and also adds to the skill ceiling. Removing these things just makes the game "easier".

The amount of triggers and timings you had built into your head in BW was sick for example. You didn't have a clock to watch, you had things such as "if I FE, I know that if I put my gas down on 24, it's time to transfer my workers to my CC when the gas is 3/4th done, that way my SCVs arrive just in time for the CC to complete". Things like these were figured out and added an extra element to the game. By adding in all these things you remove those, that's what I mean, not just repetitively sending your workers to mine every round.

On July 13 2011 23:23 Gurblechev wrote:

Sending your workers to mine isn't decision making.

"Do I still want my workers to mine? Yes. Do I still want them to mine? Yes. Do I still want them to mine? Hmmmm.... yes."

It's just completely mindless repetitive clicking. It benefits people who aren't very bright but have a lot of free time to practice repetition. I call that "dumbing the game down". It rewards stupid people with free time and punishes intelligent people who don't want to waste 10hrs a day practicing repetitive tasks that any first day newbie knows they need to do.

On July 13 2011 23:19 exog wrote:
So if Broodwar didnt have it, sc2 shouldnt have it? What is the problem of making the UI more efficient? Sc2 pros litter their games with errors, its not like anyone here is near skillcap, so dont talk about making it easy.

You armchair-admins/pros should really open your eyes to improvement instead of repeating the 10 year old arguments just to make you feel old-school and good.

On July 13 2011 21:52 Wrongspeedy wrote:


Someone already pointed out that the game does it for you too. If you just put all your workers in a control group it will tell how many units are in the group by the hot-key bar I believe.

On July 13 2011 23:30 meRz wrote:


... You're not reading what I'm saying. My argument has never been "omg automining is bad we should be required to send our workers to mine!" Why do you keep bringing that one up?

We already have tools that reduce the repetitive clicking. Things like keeping your worker count, knowing timings and what not is not repetitive, it's something you develop by having good game sense and overall great experience of the game, things you need great amount of practice to learn.

And also, I get what you're trying to do. It's funny how you argue that repetitive things means that "all the stupid people" can excell over "smart" people. If a smart guy "doesn't want to waste 10hrs a dayt practicing" then he has no business in competitive play. An e-sport game should require immense dedication if you want to excell, it shouldn't be a game where you are either good or bad by default, it should be a game that rewards work and effort.

On July 13 2011 22:14 Wrongspeedy wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +

Well, it takes 2 seconds to do what the OP wanted in game. Why are you even posting in this thread for now? We answered the question and its already possible to have the game tell you how many without having to be able to count more than your own fingers and toes without socks or shoes on. So please move along.

Guy below me is clicking waaaaaaaay to much.

On July 13 2011 23:46 EnSky wrote:
Having worker count is useful indeed but quite unnecessary. Next thing you know, someone's gonna be asking for the production tab to be displayed as well.lol

On July 13 2011 23:50 Ch3rry wrote:
Well, as for myself, I think all the observer info should be avaible in-game (of course not showing opponent stats).
UI Improvement is Improvement.

On July 13 2011 23:52 me_viet wrote:
Well, in that same sense let's all have tanks auto-shoot baneling clumps and marines auto-spread when banelings roll-in like the atuo-maton200k. Let's justs have the game work out the best course of micro-action for us so we, as the commanding general, justs concentrate on the strategy side.

It's this kind of thinking that dumbs down games with the 'increase fan/developer interaction': "oh herp-derp i'm bad at this, let's just qq till they make it easier". You end up with a bland game that anyone can get into, but leaves within 2 days cause it's too easy. If I want to play a mind-numbing game, i'll go play Facebook games.

I mean, if a person is intelligent, he'll work out quite fast the best way to count workers quite easily, it's not he has to do a series of complex actions or anything. I used to not know how to get a good grasp on worker numbers, and overmake them too. I kicked myself when I realised how to do it. Part of the fun of the game is finding new/quicker ways of doing the common tasks. Why shouldn't a person who dedicates time to the game not beat someone who doesn't and is supposedly 'intelligent'?

I can counter by just saying, maybe they're not that intelligent to not see how to count workers just by selecting them.

On July 13 2011 23:56 Sueco wrote:

Hey you know what we should do to make the game require even more skill? REMOVE THE SUPPLY COUNTER, that way only people that can count and click at inhuman speed are ever going to be able to be good at it, and the rest of us will be reduced to watching in awe.

Tbh, I don't understand why people seem to think that limiting the information given to the player makes for better gameplay.

On July 13 2011 23:56 Sueco wrote:

Hey you know what we should do to make the game require even more skill? REMOVE THE SUPPLY COUNTER, that way only people that can count and click at inhuman speed are ever going to be able to be good at it, and the rest of us will be reduced to watching in awe.

Tbh, I don't understand why people seem to think that limiting the information given to the player makes for better gameplay.

On July 14 2011 00:00 Gurblechev wrote:

It's probably because they are afraid that on equal footing with their opponent they will lose, so they want interface impediments that require practice to overcome. This rewards them simply for practicing, rather than being intelligent or creative.

On July 14 2011 00:07 me_viet wrote:



Holy shit, you're going to fail at life if you think you can excel at anything with no practice.

On July 14 2011 00:00 Gurblechev wrote:
It's probably because they are afraid that on equal footing with their opponent they will lose, so they want interface impediments that require practice to overcome. This rewards them simply for practicing, rather than being intelligent or creative.

On July 14 2011 00:17 clusen wrote:

People who are willing to practice such things(aka they were smart and creative enough in the first place to realize how to do it) would be the first ones to make use of the freed up apm and improve their micro or whatever, and still crush you.

I got this great idea for a game you would love: Let's remove all execution, that is just for stupid robots. Everyone just writes a script beforehand and then we have 2 computer executing it flawlessly - the better strategy wins! To make it less boring to play(aka watch) everytime you click somewhere a random explosion (or boobs for the older ones) appear and do terrible terrible damage. Perfect strategy game, isn't it?

On July 14 2011 00:10 Gurblechev wrote:

I'd prefer practicing reacting to unpredictable human opponents, rather than practicing overcoming perfectly predictable interface impediments.

If you are scared of unpredictable thinking human opponents I can see why you would prefer that the game be heavily weighted towards dealing with the predictable and consistent interface.

On July 14 2011 00:21 EaryKing wrote:
why not you play turn base strategy game, no multitasking needed.

On July 14 2011 00:26 Gurblechev wrote:

Well the thing is we still can't write AI that is smarter than a human, so someone who wrote their script to give themselves a degree of control would win. But yes generally any repetitive easily scriptable task should be removed to get closer to actual strategy.

Also trying to describe sending every worker to mine or control clicking your workers and setting them to a hotkey as "smart and creative" is just completely asinine and shows how you have no leg to stand on.

The reason some people prefer these interface impediments be a large part of the game is because they are completely predictable and this predictability gives them a degree of comfort.

On July 14 2011 00:28 me_viet wrote:


Sorry, to continue this argument i need to understand what you mean by 'practicing reacting to unpredictable human opponents'. Because you can't 'practice a reaction' you just know that in certain scenarios there are certain solutions that are optimal, if you don't, you make a [H] thread on TL after using the search bar.

On July 14 2011 00:30 -Frog- wrote:


When my stalkers are fighting versus marines it's obvious that I want to have them shoot, move away from the marines and then shoot again. This is called stutter step micro. There really isn't any decision making involved here, there's only one thing I want the stalkers to do. Can we have an option to "autocast" stutter step micro? I feel like this would give me more time to think about which units I want to produce and where I want to send them. If that were the case then I feel like I could use my intelligence and strategy to overcome my opponent rather than having to worry about doing the same repetitive task over and over again just to kill some marines. a

On July 14 2011 00:36 Gurblechev wrote:

But you're wrong. It involves taking in the layout of the map, where the enemies units are, whether that is his whole army or if you could be flanked, etc.

It involves a lot of variables where a human would perform a lot better than an AI.

On July 14 2011 00:39 -Frog- wrote:


Understood. But once I've identified a path I want my stalkers to micro along can't I just set autocast? When the marines change course or an obstacle is in my path can't I just move the stalkers with a single click and then set autocast again? Why do I have to constantly click behind them and then click on a marine or attack move on the ground? What's the purpose in constantly clicking once I've ordered my stalkers to begin stutter step microing.

I've made my strategical decision: stutter step micro along this path. If the path becomes inefficient I can quickly change the path and set autocast again. Maybe the AI can be improved so that my stalkers won't constantly try and back up into a wall. OBVIOUSLY I don't want them to do that. So once i've made my decision to engage and stutter step why should I be responsible for anything else?

On July 14 2011 00:48 -Frog- wrote:
And that skill takes hours of practice to master just like it takes hours of practice to master the multitasking required to build units, supply structures, buildings, control your army, scout and check your worker saturation constantly. If all I have to do is check a counter to see how many workers I have then you've removed an element of what is required to be good at multitasking in SC2 and you've made it easier to reach the skill cap.

I don't believe that adding the counter will break the game - not even close - but when you start adding features like this they will eventually add up so that the game becomes easier to master.

Strategy is of course vital to your success in SC2 and it requires you to be creative and intelligent; not to mention the countless hours of practice and brainstorming required to have good strategy. But mastering multitasking also requires you to be highly intelligent and to have a powerful enough mind to juggle many tasks at once and decide which ones are the most important at the moment.

Watching a player that is able to multitask well is one of the most impressive things for a spectator and makes the game a pleasure to watch. That's why in Broodwar when you'd see a pro with no idle workers, never being supply capped, constantly attacking and defending and moving around the map it was so impressive. I'm not saying we need to take away automine but I do believe we should keep as many multitasking elements in the game as we can to make it more enjoyable for a spectator and to keep the skill cap high so the game has longevity.

On July 14 2011 00:51 Gurblechev wrote:

Do you feel chess is easy to master? There are no interface impediments in chess.

On July 14 2011 00:57 Sueco wrote:

Essentially, this is a continuation to the of geyser worker count. People thought geysers shouldnt show worker count because it was an indication of skill, but tbh it was just an interface impediment. Starcraft skill shouldnt be fighting the interface, it should be everything else.

On July 14 2011 00:51 Gurblechev wrote:

Do you feel chess is easy to master? There are no interface impediments in chess.

On July 14 2011 00:05 JinDesu wrote:
Is there even a discussion here anymore? As far as I can tell, everyone is saying "select your workers, add to control group, look at number in control group"

Which is pretty much all we need o_O

On July 14 2011 00:59 TheResidentEvil wrote:I can count my workers just as well as MC. He isn't any better than me at it.

On July 14 2011 00:26 Gurblechev wrote:
Also trying to describe sending every worker to mine or control clicking your workers and setting them to a hotkey as "smart and creative" is just completely asinine and shows how you have no leg to stand on.

On July 14 2011 01:02 -Frog- wrote:


No. However there are no multitasking elements in chess in the first place so it's a moot point. Starcraft is a game that requires you to be intelligent enough to create diverse strategies to be able to make quick decisions. It is also a game that requires you to be intelligent enough to do all of the above while managing your units and economy.

I understand "I don't want to fight against the interface" argument but at the same time we need the interface to be inefficient so that players can be differentiated from each other in more ways than strategy.

On July 13 2011 23:56 Sueco wrote:

Hey you know what we should do to make the game require even more skill? REMOVE THE SUPPLY COUNTER, that way only people that can count and click at inhuman speed are ever going to be able to be good at it, and the rest of us will be reduced to watching in awe.

Tbh, I don't understand why people seem to think that limiting the information given to the player makes for better gameplay.

On July 14 2011 01:16 Gurblechev wrote:
I would prefer to see professional players showcase their multitasking in the form of strategy elements, like multi pronged attacks, attacking and defending at the same time, attacking while adding tech and altering their unit composition, etc.

On July 14 2011 01:02 -Frog- wrote:


No. However there are no multitasking elements in chess in the first place so it's a moot point. Starcraft is a game that requires you to be intelligent enough to create diverse strategies to be able to make quick decisions. It is also a game that requires you to be intelligent enough to do all of the above while managing your units and economy.

I understand "I don't want to fight against the interface" argument but at the same time we need the interface to be inefficient so that players can be differentiated from each other in more ways than strategy.

On July 13 2011 20:37 iMp.will. wrote:
Like automining aint enough. Lets ruin the game even more.

On July 14 2011 01:24 Zocat wrote:


Fog of war is limiting information. Should we remove it as well?
Hiding the production / unit / income tab is hiding/limiting information. Should be accesable during the game by the players.

About "only strategic decisions should be relevant not stupid clicking mechanics".
I'd love to be able to tell my Immortals to only shoot at armored units. I'd love to tell my Banshees to kill marines without taking damage. I'd love to tell my individual roaches when to burrow so they avoid dieing. I'd love to tell my marines to do a perfect split when the banelings start to roll.
I'd love to tell my Nexus/CC that it should constantly produce workers until I tell it to stop.
I'd love to tell my rax/warpgates/robo/.... what unit it should build and have it constantly producing.

See - I can make ridiculous statements as well!

There needs to be a certain mechanical difficulty in the game. Or it would become very boring to watch for the majority of people (people want to see goals in football - not static defense lines).

I personally dont see the need for a worker count. Shift-Click all workers. Each full page has 24 workers. For a strategic genius it should be really easy to see how many workers he has if it's easy for me. 3*24 isnt really high math




Sorry to take you as an example
Isnt the strategic decision "I want to do a multipronged attack". So wouldnt be an interface a better solution if it would have the ability to say "At <time> you attack here, you attack over there, and you attack there". All this while microing perfectly.
It would remove the mechanical requirement and leave only the strategy.
That's basically how you sound like :/ (even if you mean something different)

On July 14 2011 01:33 Gurblechev wrote:

AI is not that advanced. A human with finer grained control will be able to execute that better or take advantage of flaws in your AI to crush your attack.

I have never claimed it should be AI vs AI. Simply that adding artificial impediments to having the humans showcase their own intelligence and creativity is not interesting to me. Sending your worker to mine when it pops out requires no intelligence, just timing and rhythmic repetition.

On July 14 2011 01:30 Sbrubbles wrote:


Why do we need players to be differentiated from each other in more ways than strategy?

On July 14 2011 01:45 Zocat wrote:


Where did I mention AI?
Telling my unit to attack unit X instead of Y is not AI. It's just a stupid mechanic like sending my workers to mine. I just fail at clicking and an option to tell my unit prior to the battle to combat specific units would help me to concentrate more on the strategic aspect of the game.

How can a human take advantage of the option "If you have blink, blink back as soon as your shields are down"? Or "if you're about to die from the next shot - burrow!".

Attacking at the same time is also no AI. It would just be issuing a "wait" command to the unit. Multipronged attacks are just mechanical difficult. My strategic decision is "I want you A to attack at time X, you B attack at time X and you C atttack at time X".
I'm only limited by my poor multitasking.

I also fail to see how "AI is not that advanced." is an argument. First of all - AI is advanced enough for this (see the Automaton 2000 micro vids). So perfect micro is possible.
It also sounds like if AI would be advanced enough you would agree with me?

On July 14 2011 01:50 -Frog- wrote:


Maybe saying we "need" players to be differentiated from each other in more ways than strategy was a poor way to phrase it. I "think" that's how the game should be because it's what makes Starcraft a different genre of game from Checkers. The added mechanical skill required to play Starcraft makes it fun to watch and - for me at least - fun to play.

There's not much strategy in blinking back damaged stalkers but it is highly entertaining to watch when done well.

Another thing to consider is that completely new and innovative strategies that win a game outright with how unique and powerful they are are incredibly rare. How often do you see a game won because someone did something people have never ever seen before and win because of it?

Of course I can think of examples (Nestea using spine crawlers + OL creep to kill a toss expansion defended only with cannons) but after that strategy has been revealed it is now available for anyone to copy. What separates the truly great players in a real time strategy game like Starcraft 2 is the ability to execute and multitask a strategy better than anyone else.

On July 14 2011 01:53 Gurblechev wrote:

The Automaton 2000 videos are done in a controlled environment and would not work so well in an actual game. For example marines perfectly kiting banelings may be impressive but if they back away from the battle and fan out it could leave other units vulnerable or result in your marines getting easily cleaned up one at a time by a group of roaches. If they are deciding which direction to kite based on the situation, that is AI.

In a strategy game it is more important to be able to make intelligent decisions based on the situation than to just have a blind dumb reaction to something.

What you seem to be referring to is artificial intelligence. If units weren't making decisions based on the situation then your unmanaged attacks would get obliterated very easily.

So either your idea would result in you dying because you aren't paying attention to your units, or your idea is that you should have a sophisticated artificial intelligence making decisions for you based on the circumstances. Either way your argument is invalid.

On July 14 2011 02:03 Zocat wrote:


Automaton maximizes the distance between the unit and the enemy units. They always run the "safe way".
Marines backing away from a battle to avoid banelings (while the siege tanks stay) is something people see in a lot of progames. As soon as the banelings are targeted down the marines return and clean up the mutas fireing at the siege tanks
I dont really see how you want to exploit it with roaches? Either a lot of banelings run with the roaches (which leads to splitting being the best option) or the marines target down the banelings.


And no. My argument is not invalid
"If units weren't making decisions based on the situation then your unmanaged attacks would get obliterated very easily."
Is actually a very nice point.
If units werent making decisions based on the situation then workers not being told to mine would just stand around doing nothing

So why should my units do something without my interaction in situation X but shouldnt do something without my interaction in situation Y?

On July 14 2011 02:09 Gurblechev wrote:

Oh wow, smiley punctuation. I can see I am arguing with a mental heavyweight.

What if you are dropping and your marines are backed into a corner. Trying to fan out because your units see a baneling lets lings get great surface area and gets everything killed . Picking up is the best option probably.

Guess what, if your units make that decision for you that is artificial intelligence. If they don't, you are going to die to people who know how to deal with the predictable unit behaviour.

With automining the player has made the decision by rallying them to where he wants them to mine. The units are not making any decision on their own.

On July 14 2011 02:12 Gurblechev wrote:
Anyways I am done here. I can see people have decided to try and conflate decision making (when and where to blink, when and where to kite) with interface impediments (rally workers to mine, show worker count).

This is because interface impediments are indefensible in a strategy game. Without trying to conflate them with decision making they have no leg to stand on.

On July 14 2011 02:16 Zocat wrote:


Oh now we start the adhominem attacks. "A mental heavyweight"

Adding an option to retreat to the medivac in a drop-baneling situation isnt really that hard.
"When you're backed in a corner - go up in the medivac". Kinda obvious - no strategic mastermind needed.

And when you say you make the decision with rallying. Comman man! We're talking about interface improvements here! Your whole point was "we need more interface improvements, like worker count, so we can do more strategic decisions and not deal with stupid mechanics!"
Option:
"Be safe" - try to kite as much as possible (for the banshees)
"Target your enemy" - attack units which you gain +dmg from. Like an immortal targeting stalkers not zealots.



You justified your interface improvements with saying "it should be about making strategic decisions and remove mechanics".
I just followed your logic & argument further.
But well - bye

On July 14 2011 02:16 Zocat wrote:

I just followed your logic & argument further.

On July 14 2011 02:37 _Darwin_ wrote:
No worker count... apm required to be competitive is already half (being generous here-) of what it was in bw. now u can sit back and watch as 4 shift-clicked medivacs drop at 4 different locations.

i want the game to remain difficult. that's the value in playing and watching, and what allows players to stand out from others.

On July 13 2011 20:37 iMp.will. wrote:
Like automining aint enough. Lets ruin the game even more.

On July 13 2011 23:11 Gurblechev wrote:

I would call interface impediments like no auto mining and no multiple building selection "dumbing the game down", because it takes away aspects based on intelligence (strategy) and gives weight to practiced repetition.

I personally prefer starcraft be somewhat like a real time chess, rather than a glorified Guitar Hero or DDR.

On July 14 2011 02:39 Gurblechev wrote:

Is chess difficult? Can you beat a chess grandmaster because apm is irrelevant?

Difficulty should come from the opponent, not the interface. That is what makes a good strategy game.

On July 14 2011 02:39 mewby wrote:
why do people keep suggesting the game get easier when it is already easier then bw, go play world of warcraft if you want everything to be simple

On July 14 2011 02:39 arew wrote:


This. Adding worker count into the game would make it even more noob friendly... It's is already much more easier to play compared to SC:BW. Do not need even make it more easier, please.

On July 14 2011 02:45 Gurblechev wrote:




It's actually more difficult than brood war as it involves more strategy and less repetitive clicking. Even an artificial intelligence can do repetitive clicking.

On July 14 2011 02:45 Gurblechev wrote:




It's actually more difficult than brood war as it involves more strategy and less repetitive clicking. Even an artificial intelligence can do repetitive clicking.

On July 14 2011 02:50 R0YAL wrote:

Did you even play bw competitvely? Prove to me right now that sc2 has more strategy than bw.

On July 14 2011 02:49 Navillus wrote:
Ooh ooh, and how bout Blizz also lets you just press a button to make workers continuously until you have the perfect number... You'll never have to macro again!

But seriously, stop giving them ideas to make the game even easier.

On July 14 2011 02:56 Gurblechev wrote:

I think the way idra cries that his mechanics don't win him games automatically any more is proof enough of that.

On July 14 2011 02:39 Gurblechev wrote:
Is chess difficult? Can you beat a chess grandmaster because apm is irrelevant?

Difficulty should come from the opponent, not the interface. That is what makes a good strategy game.

On July 14 2011 02:45 Gurblechev wrote:




It's actually more difficult than brood war as it involves more strategy and less repetitive clicking. Even an artificial intelligence can do repetitive clicking.

On July 14 2011 02:59 Polymath wrote:


I wouldn't mind this. I thought it was pretty awesome how in Supreme Commander you could tell any unit-producing structure "keep building this unit until I tell you to stop".

Why, exactly, is making the interface easier to use a bad thing? Do you really think it lowers the skill ceiling? It makes the learning curve easier, which allows more people to participate in the high level play where strategy actually starts to matter, but all the top pros already execute these basic macro mechanics near perfectly anyway. So even if you allowed people to completely automate worker production, it would not change the way top pros play.

In fact, the only real effect such a change would have on the pro scene, that I can see, would be to free up a few extra actions for more interesting-to-watch types of control--like, for instance, marine micro.