One of the major issues people have with StarCraft 2, at this stage of development, is the updated control scheme. The new User Interface (UI) constitutes a major overhaul to the now-outdated, almost-10 year old system of the original game. Among the obvious improvements, some changes are the cause of many arguments that are raging all over StarCraft 2 fan sites and forums.

The changes all deal with automation. The new UI will require less attention from the player and will not force him to micro-manage his game as much as the old one did. Some people argue that this represents a cheapening of the game and the skill it requires to play, while others claim that this is a logical progression and a clearly warranted update to the outdated control scheme.

In this post, we will review the proposed changes:

1) Auto-Mining Peons

In StarCraft 1, every peon (Drone, Probe or SCV) a player built out of his headquarters building would idle near its selected rally point. Unlike other, more modern games of this type (including Blizzard’s WarCraft 3), it was impossible to rally the workers to the resources by right clicking them. Instead, a player had to manually select each and every one of his peons and send them to the a mineral patch or to the Vespene Gas extractor. When selecting a group of workers, high level players would still send them to the minerals individually, since they tended to clump together trying to mine one patch, slightly reducing efficiency.

This proved to be a major hindrance to slower players – having to focus on one’s base to keep the economy going every time a new peon popped out meant having less time to focus on the battle itself.

This system would be replaced with something that already exists in WarCraft 3. All the player has to do is select the HQ building, right click on the resource location, and the built workers would get to work right as they came out.

SC2Blog Verdict: This should have been patched into StarCraft 1 by now.

2) Multiple Building Selection

Many recent RTS games have reduced the focus on building multiple buildings with the exact same purpose, like StarCraft does to increase the potential rate of unit production. StarCraft 2 still keeps to this formula, though, but an improvement in this scheme is proposed: Instead of having to select each building individually and issuing the unit production order, multiple buildings of the same type could be selected. That way, a player with 4 Gateways would be able to click once to produce 4 Stalkers (assuming he has sufficient resources for them).

This would streamline the often-tedious procedure of keeping unit production going, especially considering StarCraft’s 5 unit queue limit for each building and the need to churn out units like mad in some matches. Again, this reduces the player’s need to focus on his base and allows him to manage his units in exploration, battle or positioning on the field. Will this really reduce the gap between newbies and professional players?

SC2Blog Verdict: Another logical improvement.

3) Automatic Unit Formation

In StarCraft, and more than likely, in StarCraft 2 as well, unit positioning plays a very important role. The brilliantly executed meld of melee and ranged attacking units lives and dies on the starting position of each unit as it enters the battle. A group of properly positioned Marines, helped by a handful of Firebats, could repel a much larger number of attacking melee units like Zealots or Zerglings. The same attacking group would annihilate those Terrans if they managed to surround and/or separate them, taking few losses.

StarCraft had a very unforgiving unit formation/pathing system. Often, units (un)managed by less skillful players would march to battle in a single file and die before firing a single shot. Players had to make sure each and every one of their units were positioned smartly to make the best use of them, according to the threat they faced and the conditions of the battlefield.

The StarCraft 2 developers are now entertaining the idea of creating automatic unit formations. We do not yet know the nature of these formations, but can speculate as to how they will be implemented. Other RTS games have several formations you can choose from (e.g. box formation, arrow, straight line) while some do as much as make sure your melee units are positioned at the front while weaker, ranged units are protected in the back. How far will StarCraft 2 take automatic unit formation?

SC2Blog Verdict: Properly positioning units and “formatting” them to best take advantage of their strengths while hiding their weaknesses is one of the most important and skill demanding features of every RTS game – with StarCraft being no exception. We hope Blizzard doesn’t take this too far. We would like to see improvements to general pathing, however.

4) Context-Dependent Unit Behavior

Issuing an attack-move order? In StarCraft 1, Medics grouped with Marines who were given this order would run head first into the enemy while the marines paused to attack from a safe distance. In StarCraft 2, the dev team promised, the Terran Medics will receive additional training, allowing them to interpret their commands in a smarter way. We don’t yet know of other examples for more educated unit behavior, but with this precedent, others are sure to come.

SC2Blog Verdict: While we’re usually proponents of streamlining the game and increasing automation, this might be taking it too far. The player should be the one deciding what units do – even at the cost of them performing stupid moves when he doesn’t notice. If there’s anything that differentiates the pros from the noobs, it’s their ability to control all their units quickly and skillfully at all times.

5) Smart Casting

Another improvement to the normal (as of StarCraft 1) behavior of units. Previously, a group of the same units with a special ability who were given a command to use the ability would all activate it together. This would result in 12 Ghosts all locking down a single Carrier, a group of Templars Psi-Storming a single spot on the field, or Queens using up valuable energy by casting ensnare on a single position.

In StarCraft 2, “Smart Casting” would allow the player to use abilities when selecting a group – only this time, only one of the units (the closest one, no less) would use it. A smart player would select a group of Templars, shift click a few locations on the field, and cover a huge area with a devastating super Psi-Storm.

SC2Blog Verdict: We approve. The end result of this is the same, only less mouse clicks are required. Careful planning will still be needed to execute a good move, just like in StarCraft 1 – but this time, it won’t require superhuman dexterity.

Any changes to the winning formula that is StarCraft would obviously lead to many arguments among fans, and probably among the developers themselves. We will all have to decide which update is essential to the game and will allow all players to enjoy it better, while making sure they do not detract from the skill required to master StarCraft 2.

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

Related Posts:

• » Patch 1.1.2: Roaches Get Their Groove Back, Void Ray Nerfed
• » StarCraft Win Rate Analysis; Future Patch Hints
• » Replay Roundup #4: StarCraft 2 Video Feed Panel Edition
• » StarCraft 2 Patch 1.1.1 Fixes Best Bug Yet

25 Comments to “Automation and UI improvements in StarCraft 2”

1. Dill — October 14, 2007 @ 5:38 pm
   

   In terms of formations, I see stuff like “keep units as they are”, or simple “square, circle, triangle” type options as a good idea, since it would go a long way to keeping units from forming into lines. With mixed units, I’m guessing a “keep the formation you started with” type of programming would work pretty well for still allowing strategy, but not requiring constant babysitting.

   Also, I would be really, really, happy if the stair pathing problems went away. (Though I think warcraft 3 took care of that problem, so it shouldn’t be an issue.) Having a single unit decide to take a map wide detour when it couldn’t go down stairs was quite annoying.

2. Dill — October 14, 2007 @ 5:44 pm
   

   Also, with medics, I don’t agree with the blog on having them attack move past marines. Since a medic’s “attack” is effectively its healing, it doesn’t make sense to still leave medics charging in when a certain attack move order is given. Since medics and attack infantry are often grouped, it seems to make more sense to path them in a way that follows from this grouping.

   (I realize this looks like it disagrees with the comment above,the above comment is mainly meant for two attack units, though. I wouldn’t mind keeping careful control of, say, a stalker/mmortal combination, since they are separate attack units that would likely be managed differently anyway, but with things like medics and infantry that are so closely tied together, it doesn’t make sense for medics to behave oddly when grouped with infantry. hopefully that made sense.)

3. ohhoho — October 14, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
   

   I disagree with SC2blog verdict

4. jibbiajabba — October 14, 2007 @ 8:08 pm
   

   I definitely agree with all of sc2blogs verdicts. There must be Automation and UI improvements in order for Starcraft to evolve as a game. The minority that disagree with these changes are just afraid that they won’t be as skilled in Starcraft 2 than in Starcraft. And anyway what is so skillful about being able to click really fast? Starcraft 2 and Starcraft are RTS games, with an emphasis on massive armies and strategies.

5. brainless — October 14, 2007 @ 9:39 pm
   

   the game is still far from finish and people worry about their skills based on sc 1…what a bummer…

   but well…this type of arguments are essential to blizz team
   i cant imagine how blizz made all their games without any outsider critic…(Except for the very first game they created of course….warcraft 1

6. Ken — October 14, 2007 @ 9:58 pm
   

   I totally agree with this especially SMART CASTING. Before, I used to select a group of corsairs and and ALL OF THEM will cast disruption web on a single spore colony. It would really be nice to have smart casting in SC1 as well.

7. Tigron — October 15, 2007 @ 12:30 am
   

   With regard to pathing improvements, what would you say to units automatically moving out of the way when another unit wants to get through? For example, if you had a Firebat in the middle of a dense Marine group and you wanted to move it to the outside (in front possibly). In Starcraft 1, you would have to group select half the Marines to clear a path for the Firebat manually. But suppose you could just command the Firebat to move to the outside, and all the Marines in his path would kindly step out of the way until he passed by, and then return to their original positions. Such a system would make it much easier for a player to arrange his units. (NOTE: these rules would not apply in combat, or when the Marines are ordered to Hold Position.)

   I agree with Dill that mixed units should “keep the formation they started with,” but in such a case, would your Zealots stay “in front” of your formation, or “on the north side?” I support the latter. One, keeping Zealots in front may add a layer of automation that the OP may not be comfortable with. Two, your units may be unnecessarily delayed (walking around each other) while attempting to reverse direction; this happens all the time in WC3. Three, how can the game tell where the front is when your units are standing still?

8. dark templar — October 15, 2007 @ 3:47 am
   

   multiple building selction is good. Everything is great. BUT if the casters are all casting the same thing on one spot, will the psionic storm be longer lasting or more powerful?i trust blizzard

9. Joshua — October 15, 2007 @ 6:42 am
   

   In WC3 you can double click buildings and select multiple buildings and then issue production orders. I don’t know why this is even a discussion issue. Its so obvious.

10. Tigron — October 15, 2007 @ 7:11 am
    

    The issue, Joshua, is that it greatly reduces the number of keystrokes needed to produce units. Experts feel this is too great a blow to macro in the game. Several compromises have been suggested, such as using “smart casting” with build orders so that one click produces one unit no matter how many are selected, or limiting tab group size to a single building.

11. Starfeeder — October 15, 2007 @ 9:12 am
    

    Very good article and I agree 100% with the SC2blog verdict.

    Even with these new gameplay elements, the skill level in StarCraft 2 will still greatly vary, skilled players with automation will just be as deadly. This just means they can put more attention on their battle tactis, base management will still take a lot of skill, automation isn’t going to save your base from an attack. Newbies just won’t have an excuse now for losing, oh well cept for hacks whenever season 2 hits. :p

    I’ll post a “track back” to this post later today

12. ULysses — October 15, 2007 @ 11:53 am
    

    I agree that whatever automation blizzard adds to the gameplay, it will never help noobs to do anything against an experienced player. The question is, however, will the process of playing still be as exciting as it is in the SC1. There is a possibility, on my opinion, that having a very smart unit auto positioning will decrease the satisfaction a good hand-arranged battle gives. It is interesting to watch the AI for the first 2-3 times, but then you will just send your troops to kill another troops and loose any interest to the battle..

13. keikun17 — October 15, 2007 @ 6:08 pm
    

    batch 17 q&a is up

14. Johan — October 16, 2007 @ 3:50 am
    

    One click mining and 10 ghost lock downs one carrier should still be the same as SC1..
    thats just the sport of gaming, all the advanced tactics and so on.

15. aaron — October 17, 2007 @ 12:05 am
    

    In terms of unit formations, I like the way Supreme Commander does this: you hold control as you right click to have units move somewhere in formation. The exact formation used would be up to blizzard, I guess. It doesn’t matter what marines are doing, so long as they’re not all marching in a line!

    The only one of these I see as potentially being an issue is smart casting. The difficulty of microing casters dissuades players from massing large groups of casters, except on the expert level. Likewise, countering a cast takes skill. Smart casting might rapidly grow the ease of casting, while it also makes countering harder. Thus, smart casting would require weakening caster abilities, which is maybe undesirable.

16. bashologist — October 21, 2007 @ 5:29 pm
    

    Why not have the units attack by themselves too? Sending an attack command is too tedious. Lets have it pick what units to build, attack, micro, etc. It’s gonna be more like a movie than a game.

17. Zelnaga — October 25, 2007 @ 9:45 am
    

    i agree with Bashologist in that if we let it be too automated it will be more of a movie. pros in SC1 have already conqured the spells that their race has. if we put fast casting in yes it will make it ez but will give an advantage to the spellcastors maybe to the point that real attacking units.

18. meh... — November 1, 2007 @ 12:07 pm
    

    I’ve got two other ideas in my head, #!: I’d like there to be a “pace” ability so that a unit will follow or slowdown so they can stay in a group. so you could have mutilisks and overlords sweep and area togeather, or have carriers fly under an arbiter easier, that kind of thing. #2; I like the formation thing, maybe something where you can set a formation, like you set a unit group, and then you hit a button and the units reform in the spot you click, alowing you to react to a back attack for example w/out having to make all your units stop, break formation, and then reform.

19. virLudens — April 24, 2008 @ 9:39 pm
    

    I have to say that I don’t really like the idea of unit formations in starcraft. Not because it would lessen the amount of skill required, but because it just wouldn’t look as good.
    It just looks better to have units pouring in.
    Pathing needs to be improved, but formations would just be ugly.

20. goladragon — June 1, 2008 @ 6:29 pm
    

    Much of the pro-SC gaming community doesn’t like Multiple Building Select because they worked long and hard to get really good micro, and feel that the skill that they have aquired will be made useless, and fear that less skill will be required to master the game. I find this kind of argument totally against the entire spirit of game development. Good games are easy to play, and strategy games are no exception. Some anti-MBSers have argued that wth MBS macro will be so easy that all games will become rock paper scissors between players because they will all have similar micromanagement skills. I think that these players underestimate how important micro is. No matter how good your macro is, if your opponent is winning on the battlefield, they’re going to have the advantage in terms of population, army size, and tech. Reducing macro is good, because macro is boring. It’s just a fact. It’s one of the reasons that Heroes and creeps were introduced in to WC3. While SC2 shouldn’t go too much in that direction, MBS is just plain common sense.

21. Anonymous — December 15, 2008 @ 1:32 am
    

    First I would like to say that article was great, I completly agree with the writer. I have two questions that I have not seen addressed any where:

    1. Is there any form of veterinary in this game? Meaning the more a unit kills the enemy the stronger it gets? I would actually prefer that over the simple “buy an upgrade button”.

    2. Do the zerg get an added effect/bonus when they attack in numbers? I saw a few videos where they simply surrounded and just trash a substantial enemy.

    Thank you

22. Joe — December 17, 2008 @ 12:03 am
    

    I don’t represent this website, but as far as I know, units don’t get stronger, and zerg group bashes do not receive extra effects/bonus. I would guess the reasons are more or less related to simplicity and clarity for the player and audiences.

23. cJw — December 20, 2008 @ 5:20 am
    

    I’ve been waiting for ‘auto-mining’ in starcraft since the day it came out. What? I can’t rally to a mineral cluster? wtf!?

    MBS, however, is a little more un-starcraft, imo.

    I don’t see the other issues as issues, really. Formations could be an issue, but we’ll have to see how that plays out.

24. meru — April 17, 2009 @ 10:40 pm
    

    MBS is not that much of a “easymode” compared to auto-mining to be honest. Assuming the play will be exactly like Starcraft 1, you really won’t get to use MBS to any extent until around mid game because early on, every mineral is precious and you don’t want to wait for 200 mineral to gather to make 4 marines when you can make them faster every time you get up to 50 mineral.
    And getting multiple buildings to create units is not that hard even later.

    I feel Auto-mining will definitely make it less clicky (which is something I approve because it’s just boring as hell).
    I have no problems with the improvements they make as long as unit management doesn’t become like Company of Heroes of Dawn of War II

25. Jay — July 14, 2009 @ 3:51 pm
    

    as if blizzard is going to cater to the few pro-sc players. their gonna add auto everything to the game and the newbies are going to love it. I can see now that starcraft 2 will not require half the amount of focus sc1 required. Lets just hope they add more strategy to it and release another sc1.