No unit selection cap?

On May 20 2007 11:27 FrozenArbiter wrote:
I'd prefer a number like 12, 16, maybe 20 (seems a lot to me tho).

But most of all I'm concerned they'll let you hotkey all your gates at once AND build from them (if you could hotkey all your gates and rally point them that'd be fine I think).

On May 20 2007 11:40 Yogurt wrote:


i wouldnt mind so much if u could hotkey and cycle with tab. but definately not 2 button massing

On May 20 2007 12:17 oneofthem wrote:
I agree this affects gameplay severely. Whether this is a good change or not, it is a huge change. I do not know why they did this, a 16 unit selection limit would be much better than limitless.

On May 20 2007 14:16 EscPlan9 wrote:
You should only be able to select three units at a time - not only because the unit profiles on the bottom would be more detailed and sexy due to the size, but also because it requires more SKILL to handle all your units when you can only control three at a time. Fuck all you noobs who want 12 or more!

On May 20 2007 12:19 Jyvblamo wrote:


In the gameplay trailer, there were like 120 zerglings bursting out of nydus worms. Imagine trying to control that smoothly with a 16 unit selection limit. It seems likely that they've decreased the strength of zerglings and increased their numbers significantly (You see how pathetic they were against the ~12 zealots?) so it makes sense to have no selection limit.

On May 20 2007 12:19 Jyvblamo wrote:
In the gameplay trailer, there were like 120 zerglings bursting out of nydus worms. Imagine trying to control that smoothly with a 16 unit selection limit. It seems likely that they've decreased the strength of zerglings and increased their numbers significantly (You see how pathetic they were against the ~12 zealots?) so it makes sense to have no selection limit.

On May 20 2007 15:08 useless wrote:


Gameplay was just a demo. The Zealots were probably fully upgraded against that swarm, and was backed up by the Cols.

On May 20 2007 15:26 GrandInquisitor wrote:
unit selection cap is the worst thing to be complaining about, honestly

blizzard isn't just catering to the whim of players that want to make this game as hard as possible on the player with stupid interface limitations. they also have to cater to the casual player, who will quite correctly be pretty pissed if a 2008 game still has a 1998 unit selection cap.

sure, it brings *something* to competitive play, but really, is it that big a difference? does it really matter that much? could you beat bisu zvp if you had unlimited unit selection cap?

On May 20 2007 15:34 mahnini wrote:

Actually, didn't Blizzard say WC3 was catering to the "average" gamer and SC2 would be leaning towards more competitive play?

Anyway, I'm sure most of us wouldn't mind a larger control group, but having an unlimited one just seems over the top.

On May 20 2007 15:40 GrandInquisitor wrote:


you really think we're the only ones that care about SC2? remember, starcraft was hugely popular among casual gamers too, and blizzard's definitely not going to overlook that. we're talking millions of other people that would love to play starcraft ii, and alienating them with decade-old interface limitations is the fastest way to tank blizzard's reputation for fun games and to kill this community in the long run

On May 20 2007 15:40 GrandInquisitor wrote:


you really think we're the only ones that care about SC2? remember, starcraft was hugely popular among casual gamers too, and blizzard's definitely not going to overlook that. we're talking millions of other people that would love to play starcraft ii, and alienating them with decade-old interface limitations is the fastest way to tank blizzard's reputation for fun games and to kill this community in the long run

On May 20 2007 14:19 Jyvblamo wrote:


No, we should return to our primordial roots in Dune 2 and allow only 1 unit selected at any time. Imagine how awesome players would be just by having his army move at the same time.

On May 20 2007 15:49 EscPlan9 wrote:


OMG
That's too hardcore for me!

On May 20 2007 16:41 EmS.Radagast wrote:
Another cool feature would be to deselect a dragbox, so if you recalled some of your units to an island, for instance, you could easily remove them from the "main army" group.

Mynock: Thank you very much -_-. Want your opinion on this: many people (War3 posse mainly) say it's time for SC to type GG - no new strategies coming out, this way excitement about it is gone, etc...
Rekrul: Let�s put it this way: BroodWar is basketball, War3 is that new TV show where they play basketball but with trampolines. That show sucks, and so does the "sport." Sure, almost all the basketball plays have basically been discovered, but people still play it, because execution is the key. There are plenty of ways to execute strategies because of new maps / new discoveries / etc. War3 is just run, jump on trampoline, fly through air, slam dunk. Oh, and all of this in slow motion.

On May 20 2007 16:54 Klogon wrote:
I've always thought that having a greater unit selection limit as an upgrade in the game (in the command center, nexus, or hive) makes a bit of sense as the efficiency of the chain of command from commander to grunts isn't always completely smooth... and thus the "upgrade" would theoritically allow the commanders to control more of their troops at once, increasing efficiency. It can even have things like Zerg already have the highest unit selection possible to start off unlike protoss and terran because the telepathic controls the celebrates have on their minions is much greater than that of generals.

On May 20 2007 16:59 mahnini wrote:

Hey, that doesn't sound too bad at all, if they can implement it. If you want to be able to control more units you pay 200/200 or some other amount while players who are able to control units 12 at a time can stay like that and not take the economic blow.

On May 20 2007 16:57 Zironic wrote:
I suppose I've made myself clear by now, personally I think SC2 should be about pure skill and not getting past UI limitations by having a high APM.

Skill should be more about effective use of the units then selecting different buildings fast in order to build them in the first place.

On May 20 2007 17:01 FrozenArbiter wrote:

I don't like it t.t Too 'clutterish', doesn't feel clean.

On May 20 2007 17:01 FrozenArbiter wrote:

I don't like it t.t Too 'clutterish', doesn't feel clean.


Producing units is a skill-_-

I'd be fine with something like, being able to tab your way through the gateways (like in war3 you can click tab to switch between subgroups of a select group) and producing that way, b ut I HATE the idea of being able to click 2 keys to produce from 50 gateways all across the map.

Where's the multitasking in that?

On May 20 2007 16:57 Zironic wrote:
I suppose I've made myself clear by now, personally I think SC2 should be about pure skill and not getting past UI limitations by having a high APM.

Skill should be more about effective use of the units then selecting different buildings fast in order to build them in the first place.

On May 20 2007 17:08 mahnini wrote:

Like mentioned before SC2 should be like BW: 50% micro 50% macro.

What you are describing is basically WC3, strong focus on micro not so much on macro, not saying that's a bad thing, but that is definitely not SC.

Also, how is being able to effectively use units different from being able to produce them? You still need physical speed, accuracy, hand-eye coordination, etc. Maybe for the sake of compromise, we would limit the amount of buildings you are able to hotkey to like 2 or 3, still I'd rather much keep it the way it is, a real time strategy game.

On May 20 2007 17:10 XG3 wrote:


I should point out that unlimited selection is purely a macro concept. 1a2a3a is micro.

On May 20 2007 17:13 mahnini wrote:

?
I thought the unlimited selection applied to units only. I only brought up the concept of limiting building hotkeys because it seems everyone looks at it in only two ways: all buildings to one hotkey or one building per hotkey.

On May 20 2007 17:13 mahnini wrote:

?
I thought the unlimited selection applied to units only. I only brought up the concept of limiting building hotkeys because it seems everyone looks at it in only two ways: all buildings to one hotkey or one building per hotkey.

On May 20 2007 17:08 mahnini wrote:

Like mentioned before SC2 should be like BW: 50% micro 50% macro.

What you are describing is basically WC3, strong focus on micro not so much on macro, not saying that's a bad thing, but that is definitely not SC.

Also, how is being able to effectively use units different from being able to produce them? You still need physical speed, accuracy, hand-eye coordination, etc. Maybe for the sake of compromise, we would limit the amount of buildings you are able to hotkey to like 2 or 3, still I'd rather much keep it the way it is, a real time strategy game.

On May 20 2007 17:17 Zironic wrote:


In SC2 I think economy will play a much larger role then in WC3 since minerals are alot more abundant then gold mines and more complex to gather then "send 5 workers and be done with it". The macro in the game should focus more on economy managemement and base design then tabbing between buildings.

I don't see how the UI limitations make the game any more strategic then it would otherwise be.

On May 20 2007 17:41 Ghin wrote:
personally, i think pressing 50 gateways individually is quite annoying. for less than 8 gates its really only saving a second or two.

On May 20 2007 17:47 FrozenArbiter wrote:
At least have a limit.. No fun if you can build from every single gateway you own at once =[

On May 20 2007 17:50 EscPlan9 wrote:
It's not like by adding the ability to select many units at the same time you no longer can do the individual selecting you so enjoy doing. I know it sucks that you spent so much time practicing to get up to your 200 APM or whatever, and now you THINK SC2 will let people get by with less. But I really don't think that's the case. Instead of spending more actions on menial tasks like 1a2a3a4a5a6a or whatever, it can be spent on microing the units better, etc. Someone with 200 APM on SC1 will still be able to make use of it in SC2 (although it'll take a while to rebuild up your APM since its a new game and all).

I really think the majority of complainers here have a problem with the fact that they've been practicing building up their speed for many years and now some of the stuff they've built up speed on MIGHT be simplified in the final version. It's similar to WC2 players complaining about the easiness of selecting multiple units in SC or WC3. But no one cares about the WC2 players, right?

On May 20 2007 15:26 GrandInquisitor wrote:
unit selection cap is the worst thing to be complaining about, honestly

blizzard isn't just catering to the whim of players that want to make this game as hard as possible on the player with stupid interface limitations. they also have to cater to the casual player, who will quite correctly be pretty pissed if a 2008 game still has a 1998 unit selection cap.

sure, it brings *something* to competitive play, but really, is it that big a difference? does it really matter that much? could you beat bisu zvp if you had unlimited unit selection cap?

On May 20 2007 17:50 EscPlan9 wrote:
It's not like by adding the ability to select many units at the same time you no longer can do the individual selecting you so enjoy doing. I know it sucks that you spent so much time practicing to get up to your 200 APM or whatever, and now you THINK SC2 will let people get by with less. But I really don't think that's the case. Instead of spending more actions on menial tasks like 1a2a3a4a5a6a or whatever, it can be spent on microing the units better, etc. Someone with 200 APM on SC1 will still be able to make use of it in SC2 (although it'll take a while to rebuild up your APM since its a new game and all).

I really think the majority of complainers here have a problem with the fact that they've been practicing building up their speed for many years and now some of the stuff they've built up speed on MIGHT be simplified in the final version. It's similar to WC2 players complaining about the easiness of selecting multiple units in SC or WC3. But no one cares about the WC2 players, right?

On May 20 2007 18:19 IntoTheWow wrote:
It helps develop big money communities, but also narrows the chance of people going to low money communities. At least thats what i feel it would happen if the game becomes slo (not in terms of speed, but in terms of what you need to do in the game).

What i like in bw is that i always have something more to do in a game. Even if im just scouting, i can drone harras, produce go back, build, make a drop etc. With this little things dissapearing i think imma end up watching fights after pressing 1a2a.

On May 20 2007 18:22 Zironic wrote:


I think you'll find yourself spending alot of time trying to exploit the cliffs to your advantage rather then just watching your units fight. I wonder when they'll start releasing proper gameplay videos showing the inhouse pros duking it out against eachother.

On May 20 2007 18:22 Zironic wrote:


I think you'll find yourself spending alot of time trying to exploit the cliffs to your advantage rather then just watching your units fight. I wonder when they'll start releasing proper gameplay videos showing the inhouse pros duking it out against eachother.

On May 20 2007 18:22 Zironic wrote:


I think you'll find yourself spending alot of time trying to exploit the cliffs to your advantage rather then just watching your units fight. I wonder when they'll start releasing proper gameplay videos showing the inhouse pros duking it out against eachother.

On May 20 2007 20:21 red.venom wrote:
I dont mind no selection cap at all. Ive always known it was pretty stupid, but not some of the thoughts behind it. Like keying different units to different keys for quick recall, this lets you effectively set up movement for units that have different move speeds. I mean most high level Zergs now just control most of their army with almost no hotkeys, its literally uneffective to key your weaker/more plentiful units and have them die and then have to do it again. Quicker to just set them up on the map and macro control them as best you can.

But the real reason why I find this worry to be unfounded is that we have no idea what the aim of SC2 will be at all. It could very easily be less about massing like the first, especially given the 3D nature of the game. I mean aside from the 50 ling stuff I havent seen anything that really shows that the game is about big bases and huge armies. Each of those lings could be 1-2 supply, who knows.

WC3 had the swiss army knife style for all units, everything had a secondary mode or a plethora of spells or upgrades. I wouldnt really love if SC2 is like that, but most of the new units seem to have some amount of stuff in that vein. It could very easily be a lot more small scale than some of you are envisioning.

On May 21 2007 00:30 Nyovne wrote:

Cooldown is fine tbh, and it's prolly an upgrade so im fine either way. If its automatic Im curious to what the rest gets in return since it's a nightmare to micro against that tier 1 vs tier 1.

On May 20 2007 22:28 DeCoup wrote:
Actually... I change my mind. 24 units for sure.
Check this video at time index 7:25
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6287387257388853221

16 units are selected, but there is room for 1 more row. Notice how even the shape of the hud has a few pixels delete to allow the 3rd row to fix snugly in the frame?

24 units for sure. :D

On May 21 2007 00:32 TeRRan`UseR wrote:
I'm pretty confident that the unit selection cap shall be 24; just look at this picutre. He can only have a maximum of 8 units per row, and there's enough room on the screen for 3 rows:



The only way I can see this being different is if it's like Age of Empires where the portraits just get smaller the more units you select; but I doubt this. Blizzard is too smart to put an unlimited selection cap IMO.

On May 21 2007 02:21 HeadBangaa wrote:
A good game designer wants to eliminate interface-issues.

But interface-obstacles are part of Starcraft's charm, and a mastery of controls distinguishes player skill very greatly, in a good, respectable way.

On May 21 2007 02:42 EmS.Radagast wrote:
Anyway I noticed a common misconception here that multiselect is responsible for WC3's complete lack of macro. This is not true -- by far the worst macro killer in WC3 is the UPKEEP feature. For those not in the know, here's how it worked:

If your pop was below 40, you mined gold at 100% efficiency
If your pop was between 40 and 70, you mined gold at 70% efficiency
If your pop was between 70 and 90, you mined gold at 40% efficiency

This means fexp to mass unit strategies sucked because they would make you lose gold in the long run, and provide the enemy with countless weak lower tech units to kill for experience. Any attempt to outmacro your opponent was severely punished, and the game became about having the strongest possible 40 pop army going around killing creeps. All that has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the building selection interface.
WC3 is about trying to do anything in your power to increase your heros xp and deny xp and items to enemy heros, the units themselves are part of that. Thus, you get the boring one-army-walking-around-killing-creeps 80-90% of the time, which sucks for spectators. That's what I think the biggest problems of WC3 are. I don't know why SC players attribute it to the improved interface, of all things...

On May 21 2007 00:30 Zironic wrote:
Somethings should really be on autocasts.

Examples:
Normal attack (You maybe havn\'t noticed but standard attack really is just a spell on autocast game mechanics wise)
Heal
Standardised buffs (I don\'t think SC2 will have any though, doesn\'t make sense in Sci-fi)

I think Blizzard is also adding alot of semi passive abilities. Like the Zealot charge activates automaticly and I also think that it looks like the Reapers jump ability is automatic if you tell them to go somewhere above or below them. Generally I think skill should be about deciding what to do, not clicking 5 times per second.

On May 21 2007 02:15 red.venom wrote:
It is confirmed there is no unit selection cap. This thread isnt about theorizing.

On May 21 2007 03:16 DeCoup wrote:


Where and when was it confirmed? Give me a url. I think you may be mistaken.

On May 21 2007 05:30 KlaCkoN wrote:
New acc cause java was disabled on this comp and required to retrieve pw, original acc "The_HoG" not that it matters.

anyways~~

What you request Zironic has already been done. As an example I am going to use the only RTS aside from bw I ever really played even half seriously. Age of Titans. Both cause it is a better example than wc3 when it comes to removal of UI limitations and because well I totally blow at wc3.

In AoT the number of units you can have on a given hotkey is in no way limiting to how well you move your often huge army.

Furthermore you can mass select production facilities (And you often have more of those than in an average pvt game) and put them on hotkeys. But this only really helps with the constant changes of rally point cause there is a feture in the game called auto queue, yea thats right units constantly queue up without you having to do a thing. You can rally workers to work, which combined with said auto queue option really reduces ecco managment to zero, at least if u look at it with BW eyes. Which is a very wrong way to look at it.

Because AoT is infinitly more macro and "strategy" based than broodwar. And 75% of all games are decided on who has better macro, macro here meaning ability to balance workers beetween the 4 types of res, base layout, strategic decisions on where and how to expand, what goldmines to go for and in lategame when exactely to start preparing the ecco switch to caravans. etc etc
Often the game is decided purly on skills than can be denouted "singleplayer skills" (Exagerating here) Becuase managing workers and building an efficient base is HARD. Even very good players constantly learn new things on these fronts. And there are very clear skill gaps.
This far it sounds almost exactely like what you wanted from sc2 right?

The downside with all this, is that it is newbie unfriendly and, very important, there is very very little "adapting to your opponent" going on. The only scouting actually happening even in high level games is scouting the map (One uses random maps) When introducing a friend of mine (~~top 5 AoT) to the broodwar concept of scouting he was like what the hell why???.
When starting a game of AoT both players know pretty much what the other one is going to do in terms of unit composition and such. After the usuall FEs a constant rally pointed mega fight usually breaks out in the center and keeps going until someone gains and advantedge through harassing the opponents eco into ruins or simply managing his own ecco better. (Or gets his super titant up quicker but whatever bw ailien concept lol=P) (Sounds sorta like a pvt no?) Only all mathups are like this.

No comes the part where I am NOT going to recomend you to start playing AoT, cause the game only ilke 2 years after its releze hade like 5000 people playing.... It "died" insanly fast.

The things that made broodwar so great (and so _popular_) is the fact that it is both *easy* and straight forward while beeing physically demanding and at the same time having a decent strategic depth. (Not like chess but enough to allow someone to win purly by outsmarting the other from time to time, especially on higher levels).

soccer is more popular than cricket no?

If the UI limitations dissapear in sc2 and the skill in the game becomes more knowledge and strategy based, without the insane physicall and "fast thinking" demands of bw. There is no doubt in my mind that it will face the same fate as AoT (or DoW, or any any other RTS ever made aside from wc3 and possibly AoC)

On May 21 2007 05:53 Zironic wrote:


The difference would be that SC2 would still be a game that's atleast 50% focused on microing your units in a good manner, if you just massed units to the front with excellent macro you would lose. I'm fully confident that you can remove arbitiary UI limitations and still make the game fast and frantic.

On May 20 2007 11:17 Meta wrote:
I think that this will make the game feel too much like C&C and not enough like starcraft. I'd be all for increasing the number of units you can select to something like 24, but eliminating the cap all together seems like it would cause balance issues. Imagine if zerg could swarm their whole army with one click!

On May 20 2007 11:54 FrozenArbiter wrote:

Yeah, I think I actually wrote the exact same thing in another thread, great minds think alike?

On May 27 2007 21:26 Kwark wrote:
Unlimited selection makes things easier for the player and allows them to concentrate on strategy without being limited by arbitrary rules.

And that's why footballers should be allowed to pick the ball up.

On May 27 2007 19:54 quasi -QS- wrote:
I think the problem with a lot of the arguments against unlimited unit selection is they are applying it to BW.

SC2 is not BW.

On May 27 2007 22:44 gravity wrote:

Yes, it's called Rugby/Starcraft 2 :p. Besides, that's a bullshit analogy since the UI of a game, especially a strategy game, is not an inherent part of the "rules" (ie game mechanics). Having a 12 unit selection limit is more like making players play with bare feet. It makes the game harder but not better.

On May 27 2007 22:50 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:

And you do agree that BW is the best RTS game ever so maybe they should take it as a fucking example.

7 groups of ultra ling flanking from all sides with a single click. ya, whatever.

On May 27 2007 23:01 Kwark wrote:


No. Rugby has a different set of entirely arbitrary rules which make the game harder.

I'll accept that a higher unit selection would make it easier. And I'll accept that the current selection limit is arbitrary. I just don't see why this is a bad thing. All games have rules which serve no purpose but to make things harder and therefore more skillful.
And UI isn't part of the rules since it goes without saying. The objective doesn't say 'destroy enemy buildings using only selections of 12 units or less' for the same reason it doesn't say 'destroy enemy buildings using no units from NOD or the skrin'. It is still game rules, it just isn't explicit for the same reason that using your tail isn't explicitly banned in football.

On May 27 2007 22:50 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:

And you do agree that BW is the best RTS game ever so maybe they should take it as a fucking example.

7 groups of ultra ling flanking from all sides with a single click. ya, whatever.

On May 28 2007 01:49 lamarine wrote:


for me this is a only minus of unlimited unit selection.. for other races it won't do much difference... u need to stim your marines and spread them in diff. direction vs lurkers.. u need to make your zealots run on move vs tanks but dragoons attack-move etc
but 100+++ultraling attacking by one click o_O they gotta give protoss some ultimate weapon vs that kind of shito_O otherwise it's GG....

On May 28 2007 02:33 Zironic wrote:


Considering that they have several proffesional gamers playing the game full time to find balance issues I don't think that will be a problem of all things...

Between a few Zealots, some Collossus and some High Templars I think the protoss can handle quite a few ultralings.