Suggestions to improve the Interface

• I wanted feedback on the content of this post I wanted to make in the official forums.
  
  Do you have any issues with the ideas being suggested? Are there things you think should be added I didn't mention? Do you like the way I present my suggestions?
  
  So far this is what we had in terms of an interface:
  
  ===========================================================================
  Control left click-select N number of the same type of unit you clicked on.
  Double left click- Same effect as Control left click.
  Shift left click-select/deselect one unit at a time.
  Alt left click-select all units associated in the MOST RECENT group they were a part of.
  Space bar-Center focus view to last transimission
  control #key-assign unit to group number.
  shift F2/f3/F4- assign location view to current screen.
  
  while units are selected hold shift and issue commands- to set waypoints and queues.
  
  ============================================================================
  
  
  The commands from SC were fairly good but as my playstyle improved I began to have issues with the interface's limitations.
  
  Personally I would love to have all of these ideas implemented but I can tell some of them would be pretty archaic for other people to get used to.
  
  • Allow the creation and better usage of a sub groups in main groups
  
  There are two ways this can be done.
  
  1. The simplest way is to allow a player to hold down shift and the hotkey associated with a unit type's build hotkey. Defiler's build hot key is currently F and dragoons is G. No other unit should share those hotkeys so this option can work.
  
  2. THe more involved method would allow players to select units within a group and a number could be assigned to that subgroup. So to access a main group you click a number on the number key. To access a subgroup within that group you click on a number key while holding down shift. You use alt+left click.
  
  
  Personally the first one is better because most players only really need to select a single unit type in most cases.
  
  The reason this is useful because it would allow players to control subgroups while they are off screen allowing them to better manage the usage of queue commands and to maintain a good view of things they need to see.
  
  
  This topic leads into my second suggestion which is...
  
  • Implement an optional replacement system
  
  This is just something that would've been nice to have in both single player as well as multiplayer because of certain playstyle quirks.
  
  Units die quickly and creating control groups can be an exercise in futility because you can't spend as much time in multiplayer recreating them and it takes too much time in single player to do them. Creating a system where buildings automatically assign units to a group if they are training the proper unit of a dead group member would be great.
  
  In addition if this was implemented there should be an alternative rally method that allows rallying to group instead of rallying to location.
  
  • 
    Allow casting while controlling a large group
  
  This was my first and biggest pet peeve of the game. When a group has units with special abilities that must be activated, allow those abilities to be accessible from the group instead of forcing us to control select units (which in turn forces us to deselect the rest of the entire group).
  
  This would be beneficial to gameplay because now a combined arms group can be better controlled.
  
  • Expand group selection to buildings
  
  No brainer how this can work and why it is useful.
  
  
  • Allow queueing for N number of seconds
  
  
  The queue command system worked well in a number of situations and sucked in others. Being able to tell units to do a command for N seconds where N == number key * 2 would allow something that was fairly difficult in the existing games, battles on multiple battlefronts. The majority of players could only handle two or three battlefronts at once, their main attack, their primary defense of the opponent's main/decoy attack and their decoy attack. It was almost impossible for games to have each player employing three near simultaneous attacks and two defensive actions but even within the limitations of SC such a level of play was possible.
  
  If units could follow commands in set time intervals this would be one of the factors that can help players expand their abilities to fight beyond the current average of battlefronts they usually fight at.
  
  For this to work I think the best way is to change queue commands so that instead of shift clicking you hold down the F1-F9 keys to issue waypoints. If using F3 units do an action being queued for 6 seconds, if F9 is held they do it for 18 seconds. F10 can be used as a reset command.
  
  
  • Create option to see waypoints
  
  
  One of the things I liked while playing Mechcommander is that if I selected a unit within a group and that group had waypoint commands I could see symbols on the screen showing what type of commands where issued at which location and lines would be drawn to show where units would move from one point to another.
  
  Since even warcraft 3 involves a lot more units than Mechcommander I could see this getting messy on Starcraft but it was still a very good feature to have for those who can get used to it.
  
  • Make rally part of the queueable commands
  
  This is asking for more than what I asked for in the replacements section. With this implementation units being trained upon completion should know immediately not only to go to a certain location but should be able to follow other commands like hold here for 4 seconds than attack move here for 8 seconds, etc.
  
  In addtion an option should exist so that if players click on a building the zoom changes to reveal the buildings rally queue commands to the unit is training so you can see easily what that unit will do in relation to the map and the position of everything that matters in the map.
  
  Lastly if this can be implemented then it would be nice if the unload command also was queueable since it shares many of the same issues rallying had in preventing it from being a queue command in the current iteration of SC.
  
  
  • Support split screening
  
  
  Queueing for N seconds is a step in the right direction of making battles feel bigger but not sufficient on their own. A couple of other features are needed. Making rally part of the queueable commands is one way of supporting the expansion of battle sizes. But the one thing that I really think would help is allowing players to split their screens to view multiple battle fronts at once.
  
  One screen would be the active screen and the other would be the passive screen. The world map would still be viewable in the corner. The UI revealing group selection and hotkeys needs to shrink to around 70 Percent of its current size so more can be seen on each half.
  
  To change which half of the screen is the active screen press tab. Whenever you use a command that changes your vision of the screen such as space ar to view last transimission or left clicking on the world map the active screen is what would change. The passive screen won't be affected until you hit tab to make it active.
  
  
  • Expand the usage of right clicking
  
  Don't go nuts on it but I think right clicking while holding down shift would improve the overall interface if some of my suggestions are too messy to implement with just the keyboard alone.
  
  
  • Redesign space bar command
  
  The primary reason I wanted to use spacebar was to instantly get to battle hotspots. Building/training transmissions are important but nowhere near as much, so to see last creation transmissions hold shift+click space bar. To see last transmissions of buildings under attack control spacebar. Last transmission of units under attack should be space bar. Last transmission of peons being attacked while gathering should be accessed via alt+space bar.
  
  Lastly these space bar commands should be modifiable so one command can be swapped for another incase a person prefer peons to be looked at with simply space bar instead of alt+space bar, etc..
  
  
  
  Concluding Remarks
  
  In short more options are needed to control the game while maintaining most of its intuitivity and creating new layers of depth that old interface rules didn't allow or hindered. You want SC to make players feel as if they are part of big battles and in certain ways my ideas are bad because there is a steeper learning curve involved and people should be able to control more units with less rules to keep track of. But one major component of big battles are multiple battlefronts. Maybe there are better ways to reach this goal but I only see a few other options that don't involve interface design and I only want to focus on this. Thank you for your time.

Bonus 400 minerals for a great post.

 

great post, there are many good suggestions but i really really like newly built units automatically assigned to group idea, good work

 

I am pretty sure I like all the ideas, but some of them are a bit too highly specialized: the amount of complexity they introduce is not made up for by the utility gain by the average player. Ones under this category would be the replacement system and queue for N seconds. Others are reasonable, but probably doubtful, while still others are actually already in the game as of BlizzCon. For example, there is already structure group-selection, and visible waypoints. Of course, the visible waypoints are just lines of decreasing opacity between points: it doesn't say what commands are being followed, but it's there. Also, casting from within a group works, to an extent. A group that includes Marines will have a Stimpack command, a group that includes Ghosts will have a Snipe command. Well, I am not sure about the second one, but I think it is the case.

As you're aware, a lot has happened in the world of game interfaces since StarCraft was first released. Blizzard has seen it, and even come up with some of it. With the heavy emphasis on competitive gameplay, I am sure that Blizzard will be putting an enormous amount of consideration into everything relating to the UI.

--

While we're on the subject, let me throw my hat into the ring. Just a couple of tiny things that occurred to me the other day: mini-map pings colored to the player that called them (this would conflict with the red/yellow system pings, perhaps the shapes would be different?) and additionally, the ability to squelch pings.

 

I like these ideas. I think I will send you some more minerals since Neon seems to be rather stingy today.

I would like to make a few comments. Something I have seen in other games is a planning mode where you an issue commands but the units will not carry out those plans until you have exited planning mode. They were a great way for setting up advanced maneuvers and then once underway you then just micro the units that hit unexpected situations while the rest carry one automatically. This allows you to if you scout you can queue up the commands to attack tank 1 then 2 then 3 and drop in a few psi storms.

Another thing that would be nice is to be able to put special abilities in waypoints. I used to play C&C 3 and one of the things I always did was make a set of waypoints to my enemy's base for space and the last waypoint told them to start channeling ion storm that boosts aircraft effectiveness. Here we could use it to tell a ghost to go here then there then drop a drop pod then drop another so more reinforcements can rain from the skies while I am busy using the first batch.

Also another thing I have see done in Homeworld 2 that was a great option was the ability to box select units to attack or defend. I would love to be able to box select a group of zerglings to tell my units attack these zerglings while group 2 gets the other half. It would also allow you to tell your marines to defend and follow all three Thors instead of having the marines broken into 3 groups and having 2/3 of them idle when a Thor is attacked

 

I had those thoughts as well. My inspiration for that though wasn't other rts games but from Madden where you can use preselected plays and create your own playbook.

A playbook would add a lot of depth to the game but it would change the feel of multiplayer greatly. A playbook system that is functional enough would force everyone to spend time off line to play the game. The essence of strategy is all about planning ahead but there is certain thing that differentiates games from real life. Games are fun when they abstract the drudgery of real life so we can focus on things that are more exciting.

A playbook would bring back more of the drudgery in war planning, hence why I didn't consider listing it. It would be a good idea for other rts games but not neccessarily Starcraft or more specifically the current consumers of Starcraft.


Regardless the playbook system would do a lot to make some of my ideas easier to manage (especially the queueable for N seconds commands) but I came up with a different alternative which I already posted on Bnet.

10-Neon - The queue system doesn't have to be that difficult for the average player. Instead of having a range of 9 time intervals to work with the range can be as small as 4 to 6 multiplied by 3 to 5. Just that change alone makes timings less daunting to understand. Other than that all it does is add a timing component to the waypoint system. It wouldn't be that much harder to code an internal clock into the sequence and it would be up to the playes to experiment with it.

I don't see exactly what's hard about the replacement system. It automates the maintainance of your favorite group make ups.

I heard from second reports that blizzard was working on a mixed spell system just recently after I made this original post so it's good to know somethings about the interface will get better.

 

I like the playbook idea. I always though it would be a nice feature to set threat levels on a unit by unit basis so that they would favor attacking one unit over another instead of shooting the first thing that comes in range. So you could set firebats to favor attacking zealots over attacking stalkers and scourge would not chase after phoenixes if there are any carriers or motherships in the vicinity There would be a default list but you can change it if you want so say you think medics NEED to die first but the original list does not have it set up like this then you can manually adjust it so your units will drop whatever they are doing and kill medics on sight

 

Here's my take:

• Allow the creation and better usage of a sub groups in main groups

See nothing wrong with that, although it would be relatively useless in most multiplayer games except large ones. Although I see nothing wrong with the WC3 tab subgroup select, but once again rarely used.

• Implement an optional replacement system

This WILL kill macro completely and utterly. Although I'm diehard micro, I also respect great macro players and would not like to see their advantage of balancing micro and macro. It would also take away the huge tactic of distraction that delays unit building when you attack a couple times and run away. The computer would just replace your workers for you dramatically reducing the prowess of an important strategy necessary for tech people who don't rush.

• Allow casting while controlling a large group

You're going to get auto-cast and smart-cast, no more. Selecting individual units and casting with them makes them unique, it requires skill of selecting the right units, maneuvering them, and casting. I do NOT want to see 91028 units smashing into each other with a player lazily bashing random spells at each other without any work except building the casters and selecting all the units in one big group and being able to press the letter a and the lmb.

• Expand group selection to buildings

I don't doubt this will be in the game anyway and I like it, I see no reason why not.

• 
  Allow queueing for N number of seconds

No, I have to disagree with this one too. (I'm being subjective here, not just stubborn although I realize it may appear so.) Move them yourself, there is no need for the computer to move them for you. Yeah, you can't fight 8 battles at once, no one expects you to fight 8 battles at once. But this goes back to tactics which is pivotal for RTS games, attacking basses simultaneously is strategy and the player to manage their army or armies in this case better wins the game, that's the point of RTS games. If the computer did everything for set amounts of times just watch two computer play and get it over with. In RTS games, you should be responsible for timing on your own.

• Create option to see waypoints

Will be in the game, and I support it.

• Make rally part of the queueable commands

Disagree with the time thing but the queue of rally points will be in the game.

• 
  Support split screening

Interesting and unique. I like this idea to a point and dislike it in some aspects, so all in all I'm neutral on this and wasted a couple words writing this opinion.

• Expand the usage of right clicking

With as little offense as I can muster, I hope the things I spoke out against are not implemented, but for right clicking if it is put in good use I like it.

• Redesign space bar command

Seems a little exuberant. You seem to like to hotkey everything including armies. Just do a 1;1 to get to your army and you'll be fine. Although I really see no good reason not to redesign the space bar also so there are more options for player.

My summation:

I think your ideas makes a huge progression into less player involvement in the RTS genre and continues to strip it of the strategy aspect. Although all of what you said would make it easier on the player, there are somethings that just do not need to be made easy. Players control timing in war, players control armies, and units need individualism. If a mass army is used and auto-casts are everywhere and you can cast whichever spell you want, the units are now muddled and do not even act as a whole because they are barely recognizable from other units you are also using. If units were kept individual with their own pros and cos and their limitations, they would support their army to a greater extent and add their own touch to the army. The player supports his army with these casters by calling them to strike and protecting them while having other units take damage and what not, creating a more whole player specified and variated army. Similarly, human players have limitations and these limitations result in the difference in skill levels. It would be unfair and pragmatically stupid to put everyone on the same playing field by covering up weaknesses with "convenience".

 

I like the multiple building selection due merely to the fact that I only have 10 hotkeys and by the end of the game I will have more than 10 production building a. So even if I dedicated ALL of my hotkeys to the buildings (preventing me from using them for my army) I still wont be able to hotkey everything. MBS allows me to hotkey all of the buildings in a base and order units leaving me with hotkeys for my units.

I suppose one solution would be to allow hotkey sets. F1-F6 will be the selections for Army 1-6 and each "army" will have a different hotkey set. You will still use the number keys as normal but each hotkey will be linked to a different set of units deeding on which army is selected.

The army selection will be persistent meaning once you hit F2 you are in army 2 and every time you hit a hotkey it selects the group in army 2 unlit you hit a different F# key for a different army. Also when you have an army selected it will have a small bar showing you the type and number of units in that army. It will be minimal of course so you don't have to worry about it monopolizing the screen.

 

I can see why this might be rarely used only because units die faster in SC than WC3. It's more probable that it is unneccessary work. The only reason it is even remotely functional is due to the existence of the waypoint system. With the introduction of smart casting there is less of concern for managing units that aren't in your main view screen. But if some of my other ideas are implemented off screen management becomes more important. For instance if the ability to see waypoints is more refined to the way I suggest it and you see the waypoints you layed out will create problems for your group instead of going back and forth changing screens to manage subgroups in a group you can fix your self to viewing the area you laid down the waypoints and use hotkeys to reissue new waypoints.

This wouldn't kill macro. If anything would be hurt it would be micro. Besides the way I described replacement system doesn't work with the example you provided for replacement being bad. That example is an arguement against the expansion of the queue system as a whole.

*shrug* Yeah that will happen but it could also open up new avenues on microing bigger armies in ways that are more satisfying than what we have to deal with now. Will try to give this one some more thought later.

Your mistake here is not realize the timing is still a responsibility of the player. Do really think modern warfare has become less sophisticated with the integration of computers? It hasn't and the same will apply to an RTS even if by its nature it obscures many details of conducting a war. Improving synchronization has lead to improved battlefield tactics and strategy.

Never heard about this till now. I'll see if that is true when the game comes out.

Yeah I think this is one of the best and worst ideas to implement as well. It would adically change the game but it forces people to view strategy games let alone starcraft in ways they never had to before. People had a taste of this in Nintendo DS game I'm betting but I doubt if any such game existed it was as fast paced as traditional rts games are.

Strategy is an artform to define and execute a plan. The goal of generals has always been to find easier ways to employ (un)orthdox ideas. Making things easier doesn't make war less intense or in the case of war games neccessarily less fun.

My goal with these suggestions is to take away some archaic features while adding new substantive features in return. Thank you for the response so far and I respect your judgement but I can't agree with your assertion that on the whole more is taken away than added. Simplifying certain aspects doesn't certainly level playing fields.

For instance if rallying to group was possible the better player would know when to turn that off because units can be killed if by themselves trying to get to large group. Another example goes with queueing for a set time. There is less need to micro a single marine or a single group of marines but with advanced timings you can increase the number of individual marines and group of marines by a factor of N since you are given some time to change back and forth in issueing waypoints.


Units may lose their individually because of easier casting in a group but in turn the group as a whole gains from better integration. Instead of having clumps of ghosts to one side while your main force attacks in one direction you can insert a couple of ghosts into different parts of that blob and split them up to attack different targets. So on and so on.