I guess they just want to stick with the вЂњBasic sc1вЂќ formula for now. Players could choose weekly (or a time based rotation or something) a вЂњtech-treeвЂќ of sorts and had to stick with it for a while, making matches more dynamic in team battles wich players could cover each others weaknesses on tech (ground maniac with vehicle master for example) and make multiplayer a bit fresh.ДЄgain IвЂ™m talking this out loud, nothing stops Blizzard from actually implementing something similar, since special zerg and protoss units are still a bit lackingвЂ¦ but it would be something to consider. Sure some are WAYYYY overpowered but the idea I discussed with my friend was a pre-choice tech war (with balances of course) before matchesвЂ¦ like you could choose if you wanted medic (again BALANCED, not that multi heal bullshit and etc.) or the medivacвЂ¦ or hellions/FirebatsвЂ¦ vikings or goliathsвЂ¦ etc.

Like the campaign has like tons of units that are not used besides single player, wich could be used on multiplayer. Well one thing a friend discussed with me (although I still havenвЂ™t played much sc2 but have been following it from friends of mine that play it) is that they did so much for the campaign and yet the multiplayer felt a bit вЂњlackingвЂќ in a senseвЂ¦ I understand that Starcraft was/is a beloved international e-sport, but why release a sequel after a dozen years if it isnвЂ™t going to bring current-gen standards to the table?ДЄnd nothing says current gen like blowing mile-wide craters into every inch of terrain in sight. Neutral, unstable transportation wormholes. WhatвЂ™s the point of putting advanced physics into the game engine if they arenвЂ™t used for anything outside of explosions?Д«lizzard could have easily added destructable bridges. Why didnвЂ™t Blizzard incorporate a day/night cycle (which is used in the campaign) or more destructable elements? But so was Warcraft 2, for the most part. You would imagine that if an SCV could (eventually) destroy 300 tons of rocks, it could also chop down some shrubbery, but no such luck. Yes, there are vision-blocking plants and smoke in some locations, as well as Xel Naga watchtowers, but these are all static effects. Yes, the extent of the entire gameвЂ™s map-shifting is that in a few key locations boulders impede expansion or back routes. In Starcraft game lore, it is clearly stated that the Xel Naga had a 'giant, pointless boulders' fetish. What did Blizzard implement to revolutionize RTS tactics? In essence, the environment was constantly in flux.ДЇlash forward to Starcraft 2. Entire strategies were built around the day/night cycle. Previously impassable, NPC-filled routes were slowly cleared out for proxy buildings and access to special units and items. What was once a wall of trees became a backdoor entrance to a base. But, to its credit, the gameвЂ™s maps were contstructed in a way such that they evolved over the course of each battle.

Warcraft 3вЂ™s environments are nothing like those in Red Faction or Battlefield Bad Company. What else did BlizzardвЂ™s oldest RTS include in its newest offering? For one thing: dynamic environments. With them, Warcraft 3 managed to remove the majority of all-in cheese from the game without placing awkward terrain or time restrictions on players. The previous article focused primarily on anti-cheesing measures built into each raceвЂ™s infrastructure that decreased the rock-paper-scissors aspect of early game rushes. More puzzling, however, was the large number of RTS innovations included in Warcraft 3 that are absent in Starcraft 2.

From the basic 3D camera to the UI and control improvements, a lot of the credit Starcraft 2 has received for its advancement since the original is probably a tad overstated. Last time, we established that the majority of improvements between Starcraft 1 and Starcraft 2 were actually improvements from Starcraft 1 to Warcraft 3. Deforestation adds strategy and fun to any encounter.

Warcraft 2 tech tree