|
So often, you'll hear someone say something like "Terran T1 is way too effective against protoss and zerg T3, this unbalances the early game." This analysis is flawed. Tiers don't exist for protoss and terran, and even though they do for zerg, analysis using them doesn't really work. Moreover, this analysis is based on an assumption that is not only incorrect, but the opposite of the actual truth!
Tier-based analysis makes two major assumptions. First, that all units can be easily and neatly set into these tiers, and second, that naturally the player will progress from usage of tier one to tier two to tier three. Using these postulates for how units in SC2 (and BW, but this analysis never happens in BW) works can create a lot of nice-sounding answers for how the game works. For example:
-Terran T1 (infantry) completely destroys Protoss T1 (basic gateway units), until protoss gets T3 (colossus/HT), at which point the terran is then forced to tech up.
-Zerg T1 doesn't have an anti-air unit besides the queen, which can only stay on creep, so zerg is forced to play defensively against air units.
And so on. If you accept the previously mentioned two assumptions, then these sorts of conclusions are logical and sound.
However, both are false.
The first assumption was that units are set neatly into these tiers. This simply isn't true.There are multiple ways to define tiers for terran, for example:
-T1 is barracks units, T2 is factory units, T3 is starport units --which satisfies the requirement that you need T1 infrastructure to get T2, etc.
-T1 is MMM, T2 is mech units, T3 is BCs/Thors --which satisfies the requirement that the individual units are stronger as you progress
As you can see, these two definitions satisfy one individual conclusion of what a tier means, but not the other! MMM requires medivacs, which are T3 in the first example; mech usually requires viking support, which is again T3, and the BCs and Thors require support from other units, and themselves are from two different tiers in the first example!
This confusion shows that the division of units into tiers, at least for Terran, isn't clear cut, and therefore the first assumption of tier-based analysis fails.
The second assumption is that the player will naturally progress from the first tier to the second tier to the third tier.
If you've ever watched a StarCraft game in your life you'd know this is false: though a Protoss player may get higher tech, they'll still have zealots, stalkers and sentries usually.
Moreover, the game was not designed so stronger units of equal cost would always crush weaker units of equal cost, this only happens under certain circumstances, based on micro, armor types, bonus damage, individual unit weaknesses, etc.
Also, the inclusion of tier two or three units into an army does not predicate a response from the other player to include units of the same tier. Terran armies often stay on tier two or less units (depending on the definition), and still win games because those are the units that are the most effective. If tier analysis was correct, we'd see battlecruisers in every game that goes past 30 minutes, when in fact we see battlecruisers in nearly zero games that go past 30 minutes!
More on the point of the inclusion of higher tier units not forcing the opponent to tech up, look at the longtime usage of SK Terran in BW. SK Terran relies on exactly three units for lategame TvZ: marines, medics, and science vessels, against a myrid of zerg units, including zerglings, lurkers, defilers, ultralisks, and sometimes guardians. One may argue that the science vessel is a tier three unit, but its usage in SK Terran was mostly for support, and the majority of the legwork was done by extremely low-tech units.
To summarize, the second assumption, that tech in games naturally progresses from tier one to tier two and so forth, is false based on fact that the game was not designed for higher tech units to crush lower tech units, and the fact that the inclusion of higher tech often does not force the opponent to acquire higher tech units.
So units in StarCraft don't fall into neat categories based on how high the tech is, and even if they did, usage of higher tech does not disallow usage of lower tech. Tier-based analysis makes these two assumptions, so it is clearly flawed.
Even if it weren't, it's also a completely one-dimensional way to look at this game. It looks purely at unit composition, and not micro, macro, multitask, tactics, dropping, et al to determine how a game should be won. I'm glad it doesn't seem to logically apply--a game where it would would be completely boring!
 
|
.. No. There aren't multiple ways to define tiers. Look at the tech tree. Those are tiers.
MMM is NOT tier 1. Thors are mech units... wat.
|
One heck a read and quite informative and I do agree with you..
I hear my peers on Teamspeak always telling me that all I need to defeat protoss is Mauraders vs ANYTHING land based Toss can throw at me. While that is true I don't see how I am supposed to tech out of Tier 1 units when they are the staple, like Ling/Muta/Baneling armies.. your using two staples there of zerg infantry right there.
You just have to use Tier 1 units.
|
MMM is Tech 1? What?
Since when is a composition that requires Barracks -> Tech Lab -> Factory -> Starport -> (Reactor) Tier 1?
|
Would you say that tiers in StarCraft II gives you...tears?
|
On November 30 2011 09:11 mizU wrote:
.. No. There aren't multiple ways to define tiers. Look at the tech tree. Those are tiers.
MMM is NOT tier 1. Thors are mech units... wat.
On November 30 2011 09:14 Fruscainte wrote:
MMM is Tech 1? What?
Since when is a composition that requires Barracks -> Tech Lab -> Factory -> Starport -> (Reactor) Tier 1?
My point wasn't that those are correct definitions, my point was that different people defined tiers in different ways, meaning there's no actual solid definition of it.
Moreover, I've seen people define MMM as tier one because you get it early. It didn't make sense to me, but whenever people use tiers to describe StarCraft it doesn't make sense to me, so that doesn't really mean anything.
|
How about maybe just maybe starcraft isn't structured in tiers and your wrong in your whole post.
Think on it
|
On November 30 2011 09:23 Sc1pio wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 09:11 mizU wrote:
.. No. There aren't multiple ways to define tiers. Look at the tech tree. Those are tiers.
MMM is NOT tier 1. Thors are mech units... wat. Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 09:14 Fruscainte wrote:
MMM is Tech 1? What?
Since when is a composition that requires Barracks -> Tech Lab -> Factory -> Starport -> (Reactor) Tier 1? My point wasn't that those are correct definitions, my point was that different people defined tiers in different ways, meaning there's no actual solid definition of it.
You can't say that because some people don't actually know how the tier system works that there's no set definition.
|
On November 30 2011 09:24 Darkren wrote:
How about maybe just maybe starcraft isn't structured in tiers and your wrong in your whole post.
Think on it
That's the point I was trying to prove, sorry if I wasn't clear :x
On November 30 2011 09:25 mizU wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 09:23 Sc1pio wrote:On November 30 2011 09:11 mizU wrote:
.. No. There aren't multiple ways to define tiers. Look at the tech tree. Those are tiers.
MMM is NOT tier 1. Thors are mech units... wat. On November 30 2011 09:14 Fruscainte wrote:
MMM is Tech 1? What?
Since when is a composition that requires Barracks -> Tech Lab -> Factory -> Starport -> (Reactor) Tier 1? My point wasn't that those are correct definitions, my point was that different people defined tiers in different ways, meaning there's no actual solid definition of it. You can't say that because some people don't actually know how the tier system works that there's no set definition.
Each individual set of people arguing for one definition of tiers would argue that the others were wrong, and there's no way to resolve that debate, unless I'm wrong, in which case I'd love to be enlightened.
|
Blazinghand
United States25558 Posts
I think tier analysis has some inherent issues, as I outline in this diagram, the omnitree.
This post inspired by Silverhand's immortal work on the subject: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=260470
GENTLEMEN, I HAVE CREATED IT: THE LEGENDARY OMNITREE, TECH TREE COMPARISON FOR EVERY RACE:
(large image, technical diagram, have a good connection if you open the spoiler)
+ Show Spoiler +
Hope that this in-depth technical diagram* that I spent much time** in photoshop*** working on**** helps.
As the diagram clearly shows, there are a lot of things to take into account when teching ie, lower techs being passed to higher techs, like pool-tech roaches getting speed in lair tech, or lair-tech corruptors getting broodlord after hive tech; similar things for terran with tech labs, and particularly factory tech which allows nukes and reaper speed; and lastly protoss which passes twilight tech down into the gateway/warpgate tech areas.
As you can see in my technical diagram, the terran tech tree is linear and chopsticklike (rax -> fact -> port), whereas the protoss tech tree is shaped like a trident (gate -> core -> robo or TC or Stargate). This gives the protoss a lot of late game tech flexibility, but not as much early game tech flexibility. 1/1/1 tries to hit during the window when the chopstick is greater than the trident.
In the later game, the Terran player will strive to use the more trident-like and less chopsticklike by using buildings and tech that tech "sideways" instead of upwards, like making a reactor on his starport, tech labs for his raxes, and ghost academy for ghosts, and armory for +2, etc.
The Zerg has a "comb" tech tree is because there's a basic tech progression (pool -> lair -> pit -> hive), but off of each step in the tech progression there are "branches" that increase your tech but don't let you move to the next level. At pool tech, this is Roach Warren and Baneling Nest. At Lair tech, this is Hydralisk Den, Spire, and Nydus Network. These all give you access to powerful units, but don't let you actually tech up to the next level.
The Terran "comb" is actually shorter than the Zerg "comb", but it's wider, which means you can reach higher levels of tech more quickly, but branching out is more difficult. Also, the Zerg "comb" passes techs from one branch to the next more easily (burrow for roaches in lair, even though roach is pool tech, or spire corruptors learning Broodlord Aspect once you have hive tech) which means that although teching takes longer, it is more backwards-compatible, so to speak.
The protoss has the least "integrated" comb, because 2 branches of the comb (stargate and robo) share very little with the so-called "integrated" TC branch, which passes the technology gained back down the trunk to Warpgate.
Hope this shed some light on the tech differences.
+ Show Spoiler +
*: scribble
**: 5 minutes
***: MS Paint
****: dicking around with
|
United States5162 Posts
On November 30 2011 09:28 Blazinghand wrote:I think tier analysis has some inherent issues, as I outline in this diagram, the omnitree. This post inspired by Silverhand's immortal work on the subject: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=260470
GENTLEMEN, I HAVE CREATED IT: THE LEGENDARY OMNITREE, TECH TREE COMPARISON FOR EVERY RACE:(large image, technical diagram, have a good connection if you open the spoiler)
+ Show Spoiler +Hope that this in-depth technical diagram* that I spent much time** in photoshop*** working on**** helps. As the diagram clearly shows, there are a lot of things to take into account when teching ie, lower techs being passed to higher techs, like pool-tech roaches getting speed in lair tech, or lair-tech corruptors getting broodlord after hive tech; similar things for terran with tech labs, and particularly factory tech which allows nukes and reaper speed; and lastly protoss which passes twilight tech down into the gateway/warpgate tech areas. As you can see in my technical diagram, the terran tech tree is linear and chopsticklike (rax -> fact -> port), whereas the protoss tech tree is shaped like a trident (gate -> core -> robo or TC or Stargate). This gives the protoss a lot of late game tech flexibility, but not as much early game tech flexibility. 1/1/1 tries to hit during the window when the chopstick is greater than the trident. In the later game, the Terran player will strive to use the more trident-like and less chopsticklike by using buildings and tech that tech "sideways" instead of upwards, like making a reactor on his starport, tech labs for his raxes, and ghost academy for ghosts, and armory for +2, etc. The Zerg has a "comb" tech tree is because there's a basic tech progression (pool -> lair -> pit -> hive), but off of each step in the tech progression there are "branches" that increase your tech but don't let you move to the next level. At pool tech, this is Roach Warren and Baneling Nest. At Lair tech, this is Hydralisk Den, Spire, and Nydus Network. These all give you access to powerful units, but don't let you actually tech up to the next level. The Terran "comb" is actually shorter than the Zerg "comb", but it's wider, which means you can reach higher levels of tech more quickly, but branching out is more difficult. Also, the Zerg "comb" passes techs from one branch to the next more easily (burrow for roaches in lair, even though roach is pool tech, or spire corruptors learning Broodlord Aspect once you have hive tech) which means that although teching takes longer, it is more backwards-compatible, so to speak. The protoss has the least "integrated" comb, because 2 branches of the comb (stargate and robo) share very little with the so-called "integrated" TC branch, which passes the technology gained back down the trunk to Warpgate. Hope this shed some light on the tech differences. + Show Spoiler +
*: scribble
**: 5 minutes
***: MS Paint
****: dicking around with
Damn, awesome job showing that trying to fit the units it to nice and neat tiers is stupid.
|
On November 30 2011 09:28 Blazinghand wrote:I think tier analysis has some inherent issues, as I outline in this diagram, the omnitree. This post inspired by Silverhand's immortal work on the subject: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=260470
GENTLEMEN, I HAVE CREATED IT: THE LEGENDARY OMNITREE, TECH TREE COMPARISON FOR EVERY RACE:(large image, technical diagram, have a good connection if you open the spoiler)
+ Show Spoiler +Hope that this in-depth technical diagram* that I spent much time** in photoshop*** working on**** helps. As the diagram clearly shows, there are a lot of things to take into account when teching ie, lower techs being passed to higher techs, like pool-tech roaches getting speed in lair tech, or lair-tech corruptors getting broodlord after hive tech; similar things for terran with tech labs, and particularly factory tech which allows nukes and reaper speed; and lastly protoss which passes twilight tech down into the gateway/warpgate tech areas. As you can see in my technical diagram, the terran tech tree is linear and chopsticklike (rax -> fact -> port), whereas the protoss tech tree is shaped like a trident (gate -> core -> robo or TC or Stargate). This gives the protoss a lot of late game tech flexibility, but not as much early game tech flexibility. 1/1/1 tries to hit during the window when the chopstick is greater than the trident. In the later game, the Terran player will strive to use the more trident-like and less chopsticklike by using buildings and tech that tech "sideways" instead of upwards, like making a reactor on his starport, tech labs for his raxes, and ghost academy for ghosts, and armory for +2, etc. The Zerg has a "comb" tech tree is because there's a basic tech progression (pool -> lair -> pit -> hive), but off of each step in the tech progression there are "branches" that increase your tech but don't let you move to the next level. At pool tech, this is Roach Warren and Baneling Nest. At Lair tech, this is Hydralisk Den, Spire, and Nydus Network. These all give you access to powerful units, but don't let you actually tech up to the next level. The Terran "comb" is actually shorter than the Zerg "comb", but it's wider, which means you can reach higher levels of tech more quickly, but branching out is more difficult. Also, the Zerg "comb" passes techs from one branch to the next more easily (burrow for roaches in lair, even though roach is pool tech, or spire corruptors learning Broodlord Aspect once you have hive tech) which means that although teching takes longer, it is more backwards-compatible, so to speak. The protoss has the least "integrated" comb, because 2 branches of the comb (stargate and robo) share very little with the so-called "integrated" TC branch, which passes the technology gained back down the trunk to Warpgate. Hope this shed some light on the tech differences. + Show Spoiler +
*: scribble
**: 5 minutes
***: MS Paint
****: dicking around with
Way to crush my analysis on why units don't fit into tiers (assumption one in my post). This post analyzes why they don't much better than I did.
|
Blazinghand
United States25558 Posts
On November 30 2011 09:36 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 09:28 Blazinghand wrote:I think tier analysis has some inherent issues, as I outline in this diagram, the omnitree. This post inspired by Silverhand's immortal work on the subject: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=260470
GENTLEMEN, I HAVE CREATED IT: THE LEGENDARY OMNITREE, TECH TREE COMPARISON FOR EVERY RACE:(large image, technical diagram, have a good connection if you open the spoiler)
+ Show Spoiler +Hope that this in-depth technical diagram* that I spent much time** in photoshop*** working on**** helps. As the diagram clearly shows, there are a lot of things to take into account when teching ie, lower techs being passed to higher techs, like pool-tech roaches getting speed in lair tech, or lair-tech corruptors getting broodlord after hive tech; similar things for terran with tech labs, and particularly factory tech which allows nukes and reaper speed; and lastly protoss which passes twilight tech down into the gateway/warpgate tech areas. As you can see in my technical diagram, the terran tech tree is linear and chopsticklike (rax -> fact -> port), whereas the protoss tech tree is shaped like a trident (gate -> core -> robo or TC or Stargate). This gives the protoss a lot of late game tech flexibility, but not as much early game tech flexibility. 1/1/1 tries to hit during the window when the chopstick is greater than the trident. In the later game, the Terran player will strive to use the more trident-like and less chopsticklike by using buildings and tech that tech "sideways" instead of upwards, like making a reactor on his starport, tech labs for his raxes, and ghost academy for ghosts, and armory for +2, etc. The Zerg has a "comb" tech tree is because there's a basic tech progression (pool -> lair -> pit -> hive), but off of each step in the tech progression there are "branches" that increase your tech but don't let you move to the next level. At pool tech, this is Roach Warren and Baneling Nest. At Lair tech, this is Hydralisk Den, Spire, and Nydus Network. These all give you access to powerful units, but don't let you actually tech up to the next level. The Terran "comb" is actually shorter than the Zerg "comb", but it's wider, which means you can reach higher levels of tech more quickly, but branching out is more difficult. Also, the Zerg "comb" passes techs from one branch to the next more easily (burrow for roaches in lair, even though roach is pool tech, or spire corruptors learning Broodlord Aspect once you have hive tech) which means that although teching takes longer, it is more backwards-compatible, so to speak. The protoss has the least "integrated" comb, because 2 branches of the comb (stargate and robo) share very little with the so-called "integrated" TC branch, which passes the technology gained back down the trunk to Warpgate. Hope this shed some light on the tech differences. + Show Spoiler +
*: scribble
**: 5 minutes
***: MS Paint
****: dicking around with
Damn, awesome job showing that trying to fit the units it to nice and neat tiers is stupid.
Thanks! I guess a "tl;dr" of my post would be something like "the shape of the tech trees are different, so tiers work differently for different races"
I think this is especially true of the protoss tech tree, which expands a huge amount after cyber core tech.
|
Calgary25993 Posts
On November 30 2011 09:16 SpearWrit wrote:
Would you say that tiers in StarCraft II gives you...tears?
hahahaha
|
just because each races Tier system operates differently and some people don't understand that doesn't mean the races don't have them >.< I agree comparing them is dumb but they still exist. Your points on how the units themselves work though I believe is correct. Just because a unit is a higher tech it does not mean it will beat a lower tech unit without a problem.
|
Katowice25012 Posts
It's verbal shorthand to refer to different levels of tech. You're getting mixed up in thinking it's a technical comment when really people are just using slang to describe commonly accepted groups of units.
|
Tier 1: gateway (zealot)
Tier 1.5: cyber core (stalker, sentry)
Tier 2: robo/sg/templar archive (obs, warp prism, immortal, voidray, phoenix)
Tier 3: robo bay/fleet beacon/dark shrine/templar archive (colossus, carrier, mothership, dt, ht, archon)
I wasn't aware there was any other definition... It's dependent on a building tree which strictly determines unit order based on how many buildings it takes in order to create the unit.
|
I think the point of this thread is to really stop the people who scream "OMG Terran T1 beat Protoss T3 army where's the justice in the world".
I mean, if you transplanted those people to BW (oh the horrors that would bring), they would be screaming "OMG T1 P > T2 T WTF imba" as Zealots and Dragoons (supported by Arbiters and HTs, but those whiners never care about the support units) tear through Tanks and Vultures.
But I think the tiers are already well-defined, and there's not that much point contesting that. However, we should stop thinking that only T3 should be able to fight T3 and if a lower tier beats a higher tier then said lower tier is imba. I hope I have been clear. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/DE3sG.png)
