Spring RTS Engine

the interface of starcraft has to suck to some degree because it is part of the balance. Stuff that is standard in spring is omgomgomg ultra micro in starcraft. like putting your units in a line.

Imo there are two different kinds of micro.
1) The one that you can "directly see", like using a probe to stop a terran building from landing by always getting in its way. Or using your constructors to block&reclaim an enemy peewee.
That is cool.

2) The stupid one where you have to keep doing stuff that is just repetive and involves little thinking:
For example with protoss dragoons you have to press stop all the time and move them 1cm forward, otherwise they will not shoot as good and react too slow to kill mines. Can't think of something like this in spring atm, maybe having to replace lots of mex on large map by hand.
Stuff like this is sooooo ultra gay.

The limited zoom adds more "stupid micro" because you need much more clicks to move units across the map.
If players whine about micro taken away, its mostly the stupid micro they miss. Maybe learn real gameplay relevant unit controll instead of useless click orgies.

Imo only valid reason for limited zoom is game atmosphere, with unlimited zoom you are always reminded you are playing on some artifical heightmap and units appear smaller and less cool.

Maek spider unit.You'd have to select each leg and move it individually but it would be very powerfull.

automatic warcrime unit Mousewheel moves blade up&down.

Emmanuel was a genius.

Gota wrote:Maek spider unit.You'd have to select each leg and move it individually but it would be very powerfull.

Tsk, too easy. Just hotkey each of the 8 legs and you will be running around the map wreaking havoc in notime ftw!

And ya, i'm always too serious when i'm this tired.

limit hotkeys to 7

What hotkeys...
micro time.

knorke wrote:the interface of starcraft has to suck to some degree because it is part of the balance. Stuff that is standard in spring is omgomgomg ultra micro in starcraft. like putting your units in a line.

Imo there are two different kinds of micro.
1) The one that you can "directly see", like using a probe to stop a terran building from landing by always getting in its way. Or using your constructors to block&reclaim an enemy peewee.
That is cool.

2) The stupid one where you have to keep doing stuff that is just repetive and involves little thinking:
For example with protoss dragoons you have to press stop all the time and move them 1cm forward, otherwise they will not shoot as good and react too slow to kill mines. Can't think of something like this in spring atm, maybe having to replace lots of mex on large map by hand.
Stuff like this is sooooo ultra gay.

The limited zoom adds more "stupid micro" because you need much more clicks to move units across the map.
If players whine about micro taken away, its mostly the stupid micro they miss. Maybe learn real gameplay relevant unit controll instead of useless click orgies.

Imo only valid reason for limited zoom is game atmosphere, with unlimited zoom you are always reminded you are playing on some artifical heightmap and units appear smaller and less cool.

Maek spider unit.You'd have to select each leg and move it individually but it would be very powerfull.

automatic warcrime unit Mousewheel moves blade up&down.

Yeah, this is one of the reasons I never really got into SC. Everything is about micro, to an extreme. Now, I'm of course fine with micro for things like circling/blocking/manual targeting etc. All of those make perfect sense. It's things like simple motions, moving your units across the battlefield, putting them in a line, making them stop/start all the time to attack, and so on. Basically every small motion requires micro.

This brings the game down to a level where it's not someone who has a great strategy who wins, but the person who can press buttons the fastest. A strong attack on one front with good micro is more effective than a strong attack on 3 fronts with only moderate micro.

Now it's true that there's a lot of things I've taken for granted in Spring that I wish were in other RTS(Line formation <3), but there are things that should be expected. Zoom, firing while moving, more flexible queued orders. Things that let you take your attention off of the extremely menial and tedious 'micro' tasks, and focus on what the game should be about - strategy and tactics. How and where you execute an attack, and how it gets played out on the field.


But whatever, maybe I'm just spoiled. But it seems like after who knows how long this game has been developed (10 years?) by one of the biggest and most prestigious game developers in the world, that things like this could have been thought of and implemented. Adding zoom and better queues and the like isn't going to ruin the feel of the game, it'll just make it better.

I am sure it was thought of,but remember we are discussing a Blizzard product.
They never experiment.
They had 2 goals;
Please old hardcore players by not changing much and please new players that want updated gfx and controls.
Those are the 2 goals they needed to balance out.
There was never a "deliver some smart new sophisticated gameplay" or something truly original.
This is straightforward money making.
In this case the only place you can place the word art is near the models and textures.

Gota wrote:I am sure it was thought of,but remember we are discussing a Blizzard product.
They never experiment.
They had 2 goals;
Please old hardcore players by not changing much and please new players that want updated gfx and controls.
Those are the 2 goals they needed to balance out.
There was never a "deliver some smart new sophisticated gameplay" or something truly original.
This is straightforward money making.
In this case the only place you can place the word art is near the models and textures.

But that's what I'm saying, simple usability features wouldn't really change the core gameplay, it would just mean you wouldn't have to babysit every unit non-stop. I know the SC fans are rabid and would hate change, but I really don't see that as change....

But I digress, it's not like I'll change anything, I just find it amazing that an RTS would ignore such obviously effective and standard features.

I just find it amazing that an RTS would ignore such obviously effective and standard features.

Yes, me too.
But then I also think Quake III is still the best arena shooter game because it is so simple yet complex. Players of newer games might think "omg each weapon has only one firemode and no button to avoid falling of edges (lol newer ut) and not even a sprint button, thats totally standard"

As long as Blizzard does not totally fuck it up (no LAN mode lolol) it will be sucessfull because there are not many balanced, stable etc. RTS with an online player base. With these circumstances a well done "more of the same" game is fine with me...

Hobo Joe wrote:

Gota wrote:I am sure it was thought of,but remember we are discussing a Blizzard product.
They never experiment.
They had 2 goals;
Please old hardcore players by not changing much and please new players that want updated gfx and controls.
Those are the 2 goals they needed to balance out.
There was never a "deliver some smart new sophisticated gameplay" or something truly original.
This is straightforward money making.
In this case the only place you can place the word art is near the models and textures.

But that's what I'm saying, simple usability features wouldn't really change the core gameplay, it would just mean you wouldn't have to babysit every unit non-stop. I know the SC fans are rabid and would hate change, but I really don't see that as change....

But I digress, it's not like I'll change anything, I just find it amazing that an RTS would ignore such obviously effective and standard features.

Erm, it WOULD change the core of the gameplay... since the focus would be removed from the fastpaced mirco of a small number of units into attack-ground in enemy base, then back to simcity.

You need to remember that this is Starcraft not Spring, there are usually very limited resources so every unit made is a unit you must do everything to keep alive, or if you are losing it, making sure that you deal as much damage as possiable.

Another effect of having limited resources is that you don't have time for testing multiple strategies, you usualy have enough resources for one maybe two strategies, after that you will be a sitting duck.

I think that if you remove the focus from the microing then every sc2 game would be like Hunters on sc1, equivalent of speedmetal.

knorke wrote:

I just find it amazing that an RTS would ignore such obviously effective and standard features.

Yes, me too.
But then I also think Quake III is still the best arena shooter game because it is so simple yet complex. Players of newer games might think "omg each weapon has only one firemode and no button to avoid falling of edges (lol newer ut) and not even a sprint button, thats totally standard"

As long as Blizzard does not totally fuck it up (no LAN mode lolol) it will be sucessfull because there are not many balanced, stable etc. RTS with an online player base. With these circumstances a well done "more of the same" game is fine with me...

Yeah, quake is still nice =)

No LAN for Starcraft 2 sucks =/

But i belive that there wont be too long before there is a way to localy host a battlenet emulator. *wink wink*

Seriously Soul, just looking at your examples and analogies like this one:

Battles aren't now only about firepower, range, speed and hitpoints like in spring, but more of constant awareness of your and your oponents units, trying to exploit temporary weaknesses like the time it takes for a seigetank to deploy buying you a few valuable moments to rush in with zerglings, zealots or maybe a vulture before the seigetank become operational.

... really show that you have no clue about spring.

And then we have arguments such as this:

The zoom have been discussed alot on the starcraft2 forums, and there is a good reson why you can't zoom out very much.
Its another way of forcing you to do more micro with fewer units.

... which really aren't arguments at all but just babbling. Just to jump on the sarcasm train: disable the keyboard from SC2 since this involves moar maicro!1!11

There is a reason why many progamers can have 200 -> 300+ apm, around 50% of them are often hotkey spam.

Most of it seems to be spam for the sake of spam, just to keep the player on the toes.

Erm, it WOULD change the core of the gameplay... since the focus would be removed from the fastpaced mirco of a small number of units into attack-ground in enemy base, then back to simcity.

DOES NOT COMPUTE. If this is how you play games that have firing-while-moving then no wonder you stick to those where this feature is missing.

Another effect of having limited resources is that you don't have time for testing multiple strategies, you usualy have enough resources for one maybe two strategies, after that you will be a sitting duck.

In a typical good SC game the core strategies used switch as often as even in spring. I guess you could even say the same story with bad games from SC/Spring.


Even though what you are saying is fatally flawed in almost every post, i can agree that SC2 will be a very fun experience when it comes out - fun SP and probably after the last expansion, a balanced MP aswell. You don't need to think up bs to defend SC2 as it can hold its own without it and might even be better off...

In any case, definately going to buy SC2. No lan is a shame though.

Gertkane, you say i fail at every post, and yet you only comment about half of them and some of them out of context, does that mean that you agree with the rest?

I have been using the Spring engine to play mods for many years, and i love it.

Saying i know nothing about Spring seems abit illdeserved.

I was mearly exaggregating in order to point out the differences between the game mechanics of the two games and what kind of gameplay they promote.

And about the zoom, it is perfect logic that you are forced to more micromanagement if you are close to your units, if you are zooming out and just tell your 50+ flashes to walk into the enemy defenceline so you can make a breach... so you can storm in with your next wave of units.

Sure this might sometimes require some micro, but it is not the kind of micro you will be able to use in Starcraft.

In Spring units have less value and you build them at a very high rate, you do that because you will need to sacrifice alot to deal damange onto you opponent.

This is not a strategy that can be used in Starcraft, but it is a strategy that the game mechanics of Spring promote.

Thus the game mechanics of Spring won't do much good in Starcraft.


Starcraft game mechanics is focused on minimising your casulties to a much higher degree then in Spring, mainly because if you are of equal skill as your opponent then resource wasting will make you lose.
Breaching 5 bunkers and losing 40 units in doing so is not a viable option in starcraft, because you will have no next wave to clear upp the opponents tech.

I'm not trying to say that Spring is only played in that manner, in someways there are similarities.
Like in trying to do a raid without needing to headbutt into defences, example killing workers with mutalisks, is quite similar to destroying winds with a few sneaky gunships.

Destroying tech, like a Spire is very useful in Starcraft, and it is similar in Spring, destroying a tech 2 factory that are currently being made, or perhaps a fusion powerplant.

This are the kind of things in spring i enjoy doing.

And then it shouldn't be suprising that i prefer the game mechanics and zoom-level in Starcraft since this promote to only doing this, all the time, with every single unit.

Sure you could probably do similar things with the Spring mechanics, but when it comes down to micromanagement of units one at a time trying to win against a larger forces, then the mechanic in Starcraft it is much more dynamic.

Seige tank is being seiged and unseige giving you opportunities to attack when it is in its vulnerable state, and intercepting enemy reinforcements the move-stop-attack-move mechanic gives more tactical choices.

Attacking 20 marines with 5 zealots is usually suicide, but if you attack them when they are on a rallypoint, they wont attack back right away, not untill the opponent manages to get them under control.
If there where a move-and-attack mechanic the marines would kill the zealots and then continue down the way point.

You are probably going to say that his is how its suposed to be, but in thinking that way you are prioritizing macro before micro.
That player where able to get more units cause he was better in macroing, thus he should win?

This is a typical situation where move-and-attack promotes macro, rally points and simcitying before micro, awareness and unitcontrol.

Perhaps my choice of words could have been better, but i was realy tired, and i still am.
No sleep does that to a man.

Don't get me wrong, i am really hyped about SC2 but i don't think there is a need to use invalid arguments to make it seem more awesome.

Forgot to say thanks to swift earlier for one of the links he gave, that Sean Plott is quite an interesting listen-watch.

Soul wrote: And about the zoom, it is perfect logic that you are forced to more micromanagement if you are close to your units, if you are zooming out and just tell your 50+ flashes to walk into the enemy defenceline so you can make a breach... so you can storm in with your next wave of units.

You keep harping on this but it's still an invalid argument and makes no sense at all.

luckywaldo7 wrote:They should re-add the 12 selected unit maximum, to force more micro.

or add a new revolutionary system where you can only select one unit at a time

go go go!

Hobo Joe wrote:

Soul wrote: And about the zoom, it is perfect logic that you are forced to more micromanagement if you are close to your units, if you are zooming out and just tell your 50+ flashes to walk into the enemy defenceline so you can make a breach... so you can storm in with your next wave of units.

You keep harping on this but it's still an invalid argument and makes no sense at all.

Gertkane wrote:Don't get me wrong, i am really hyped about SC2 but i don't think there is a need to use invalid arguments to make it seem more awesome.

Forgot to say thanks to swift earlier for one of the links he gave, that Sean Plott is quite an interesting listen-watch.

There is nothing invalid in my arguments, and i would have though i had cleared all that up with my previous post.

How about you pointing out what argument is invalid, and more importently why.

Or are you just trolling? If thats the case then please do so elseware, so i don't have to "validate" somthing obvious and can spend my time playing Starcraft 2 instead.

Soul wrote:Attacking 20 marines with 5 zealots is usually suicide, but if you attack them when they are on a rallypoint, they wont attack back right away, not untill the opponent manages to get them under control.

dawg, I dont know if you have seen beta but a) there is attack move, and was attack move in SC 1 and b) rally points from structures ARE attack moves in SC2

a great deal of SC gameplay is microing to compensate for the poor interface. that is a design decision so there is no point moaning about it. SC is the game from he who loves micro. for he who loves macro, there is tbs

1v0ry_k1ng wrote:

Soul wrote:Attacking 20 marines with 5 zealots is usually suicide, but if you attack them when they are on a rallypoint, they wont attack back right away, not untill the opponent manages to get them under control.

dawg, I dont know if you have seen beta but a) there is attack move, and was attack move in SC 1 and b) rally points from structures ARE attack moves in SC2

a great deal of SC gameplay is microing to compensate for the poor interface. that is a design decision so there is no point moaning about it. SC is the game from he who loves micro. for he who loves macro, there is tbs

Hm intresting. I supose my mind is till stuck in SC1, but nevertheless the discussion about move-and-attack and move-stop-attack-move i still valid since we where mainly talking about the difference between these game mechanics.

And i know there is attack move in sc1 i did a post concerning that earlier in this topic.

But people don't always use that, especially in what they would think of as "safe" teritory and it is there you would try to intercept them, it have worked multiple times for me.
And taking down units that was on rally points was easy in sc1.

But i must say that i'm still abit suprised that the standard rallypoint in sc2 is is an attack move command. Are you realy sure? Cause i have seen lots of units walking/flying along a rally point and dying without returning fire in sc2.

Though i, in my post actually didn't mean rallypoint but move point, and that should have been quite obvious since a rax can't finish training 20 marines at the same time.

Sry for using the wrong word in my previous post, i am like i said very tired.

And i do have sc2, i played it just moments ago. I don't have a beta key though... ^^

1v0ry_k1ng wrote:a great deal of SC gameplay is microing to compensate for the poor interface. that is a design decision so there is no point moaning about it. SC is the game from he who loves micro. for he who loves macro, there is tbs

No, its not microing to compensate for anything. Its just microing, which goes through the interface in any game. How the interface is affects how you micro, what are good strategies, it affects everything in any rts game how the interface is set up. Of course it changes the required skillset too a bit. And gotta realise that any rts game (ok any decent game at least), you gotta constantly do stuff as fast as you can, not just those you think have poor interface. And when you understand that having good mechanics and awareness is always huge part of the game - then you might think that interface doesnt matter so much since it still boils down to similar stuff in any case.

And its not some fucking crap that with more streamlined interface you could "concentrate more on strategy" or just sit back and manage your base or whatever. You always have to focus on micro, macro, strategy, all aspects of the game it just veries from game to game and between different players too, how you balance those for best results.

And move-or-fire isnt just interface issue, its more about just how units work. Even with perfect micro it kinda matters if you could just indefinitely kite slower, shorter ranged units or will they inevitably get to attack you if you stop your unit to shoot for example. Or that your scouts stay alive longer when they run around, and enemy cant just running follow it but must stop if it wants to shoot. If you took starcraft and made units move&fire, itd be really retarded game - and if you changed the mechanics so that micro is still interesting its not really starcraft anymore.

Whats most important for a good game imo is that microing isnt just going through the motions, but that it has some feel to it that you can use your brain a bit... That the battle isnt the same stuff every game, just focusfiring/dancing dudes back.

Some random incoherent thoughts answering to some random things I read here... Damn so many stupid ideas I saw :/ And fuuk this really looks like rambling looking back at this post, o well ill post anyways

So, that pritty much ended a tiring "discussion" i hope.

Thank you JohannesH, even if it wasn't for me, i'm still tanking you =)
I was getting bored by the direction that was heading.


So lets go to something else, to begin with, how many would be intrested in making a Starcraft Spring clan in the future?

And the lets go on to what kind of Starcraft players we are =)

Whats your main race and whats your first off race?

Do you got any signature strategies?

I can start.

My most prefered race would probably be Protoss, in both SC1 and SC2.

In SC1 i usually go proxy and an early reaver-elevator, if im not going for some funky strat like the "royal stove".
Sometimes when i'm bored i got for fast arbiter and dark templar tech letting the zealots go under the arbiter while the templars roam freely.
If game goes on for too long i would probably get alot of high templars or as an last resort carriers.


Im still trying to get something that suits me in SC2, i tend to go warp prism and fly it over behind enemy base, and then warp in some dark templars early.
But its a quite boring strat.

I have been playing some with the idea of only going alot of sentries and high templars, it seams like it could be a realy fun but quite problematic gameplay.
It seems like zelot/stalker/colossus is a good strat but its not fun imo.


My off race changes depending on what mood i am in, in sc1 i kinda like terran, but realy don't like them in sc2, mainly cause of thor, which more or less makes seige tank obsolete after early game is over.

Zerg seems like fun in sc2 so ill probable make them my off race.
I don't have any real strat with zerg, so ill probably go mutalisks to be on the safe side.


So does anyone feel like sharing? I would realy like to learn about some fun zerg strat in sc2, and i don't mean something like:
queen -> lair -> use overlords to place creep by enemies expansion or in their base -> queens creep tumor -> and alot of spine crawlers.
Although it was quite hilarious the first time i used this.

Or am i out of luck? Maybe there aren't many starcraft gamers in the Spring forums :/