|
On April 01 2011 03:03 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2011 02:54 Treemonkeys wrote:
It's just a way to verbally organize tech, why take it so seriously? Obviously each race has a range of low tech to high tech, tiers are just one way to express that. I thinks some people are WoW-phobic lol, and it's not from WoW, it's from WC3 Pretty much, terminology should exist to clarify not to confuse. A term that means different things with different people is a useless term.
A term that means different things when applied to different races is also a fairly useless term, yet people seem to constantly say "OMG how did he beat my T3 army with his T1 army?" in PvT/ZvT.
|
It's just easy short-hand, don't get the big deal over it. You can choose to use it...or not.
|
On April 01 2011 03:01 Deadlyfish wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2011 02:54 Treemonkeys wrote:
It's just a way to verbally organize tech, why take it so seriously? Obviously each race has a range of low tech to high tech, tiers are just one way to express that. I thinks some people are WoW-phobic lol, and it's not from WoW, it's from WC3 Actually it's not from WC3, i remember playing games in the 90s where they'd use the word "tiers" (pretty sure i played a game on the SNES where they used the word "tier"), it's an actual word, not a gaming word. I dont really mind, the only problem i have with Tier is when people pronounce it "tire or tires". I go crazy because of that 
Yeah lol, the word existed before video games, I think it was first popular with RTS in WC3.
|
Tiers apply to all races, they just apply to each race differently. Who says that tiers have to stop at exactly 3? If a race had an extended tier in favor of other races, perhaps the balance comes from the cost efficiency of that single superior tier unit compared to the quantity of inferior tier units?
As in many cases T3 doesn't always beat T1 depending exactly on the situation however, the fact that the higher tier is available for the owner is ideally suppose to give that person the higher edge of the match but ONLY still depending on the situation. If both players were in the exact situation but one of the players had advanced in the tech tree ie higher tier then ideally that person has the advantage.
|
I like how a bunch of scrubs post some definitive list or method of telling the tiers as if it's universally agreed upon, and not just some arbitrary thing they made up themselves.
Hahahaha. Figure out other ways to whine about games you lose.. there are plenty.
|
On April 01 2011 03:17 Geovu wrote:I'm about to blow all you guys' minds and shatter your perception of the world: + Show Spoiler +
lol.
On a more serious note...
I'm not really sure how anyone can possibly argue that units don't have a tech tier, and as different units require different amounts (or cost) or tech, clearly there are tech tiers. Furthermore, I'm unclear on why we're all so bent on forcing the tech tree into 3 tiers, even with zerg who has the most well defined 3 stages of tech, upgrades such as roach speed which are available directly at lair clearly have a lower tech cost than mutas which require the addition of the spire.
Realistically this would be alot easier to see if we just used, I don't know, 6-9 tiers instead of 3 (if we're so bent on keeping with that term). Obviously marauders need a tech lab and marines do not. Equivalently stalkers require a cyber core and zealots dont so grouping them both on the same tier is silly. Shit gets confusing when we start throwing in decimals but realistically I'm sure someone with more time on their hands could punch out a clean mathematical formula to denote a "tier" of a unit based on tech cost and time required to make that unit available.
|
I've never realized the community had a rage for tier classification. From my knowledge it just seemed a convenient labeling system.
T1-Zealot
T1.5-Stalker, Sentry
T2-Phoenix, VR, Immortal, Observer etc
I just keep in my head to remind me how many tech buildings it takes to get that particular unit. Though in terms of power VR is T3. Also a "T1" bioball is hardly T1 if it has stim and concussive which would make it T2 then Medivacs which up it to T3.
|
On April 01 2011 01:51 HelloSon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2011 01:50 deerpark87 wrote:
Its the WoW effect spreading to sc2. tiers were used in BW, how do you justify that?
This could be a great Bill O'Rielly meme!
The term 'tier' was used in Brood War
You can't explain that!?
|
The purpose of tiers is an attempt to classify the relative difficulty of getting a unit. We all accept that you cant directly compare unit for unit across races so instead we use a tier system. This system has MANY obvious flaws, but it is also useful for understanding how timings work in matches in a very general sense. When he says you only make T1 he is expressing frustration that you gain access to the units that beat him very early and for very low cost. This is a fact well expressed by this system even if your opponent was drawing incorrect conclusions (imbalance).
|
On April 01 2011 04:07 dogmeatstew wrote:lol. On a more serious note... I'm not really sure how anyone can possibly argue that units don't have a tech tier, and as different units require different amounts (or cost) or tech, clearly there are tech tiers. Furthermore, I'm unclear on why we're all so bent on forcing the tech tree into 3 tiers, even with zerg who has the most well defined 3 stages of tech, upgrades such as roach speed which are available directly at lair clearly have a lower tech cost than mutas which require the addition of the spire. Realistically this would be alot easier to see if we just used, I don't know, 6-9 tiers instead of 3 (if we're so bent on keeping with that term). Obviously marauders need a tech lab and marines do not. Equivalently stalkers require a cyber core and zealots dont so grouping them both on the same tier is silly. Shit gets confusing when we start throwing in decimals but realistically I'm sure someone with more time on their hands could punch out a clean mathematical formula to denote a "tier" of a unit based on tech cost and time required to make that unit available. Of couse tech tiers exist. But this is not just '1,2,3', and is also not linear, the tech path of all races branches off at some point, also,most certainly you cannot compare races by them.
So technically, no their aren't tiers, there are branches, technically speaking tiers don't branch off.
|
Tiers are silllly for sc2, I think it comes from wc3 where each race had a similar tech to zerg involving their main building
|
the tiers in sc2 are very loosely defined, you can't really just straight up call a unit "tier 2" or "tier 3".
It's a warcraft3 concept and I don't think it has a place in a game like starcraft
|
On April 01 2011 03:17 Geovu wrote:I'm about to blow all you guys' minds and shatter your perception of the world: + Show Spoiler +
Wow...Zerg is seriously underpowered.
I'd love to QQ about it but we don't have any tiers...
|
On April 01 2011 04:37 Rhyme wrote:Wow...Zerg is seriously underpowered. I'd love to QQ about it but we don't have any tiers...
A+ pun my good man, hats off to you
|
It also bugs me when people use Macro as an adjective, such as a macro player or a macro map. All players need to be able to macro, and you can macro on all maps, Though some are better than others.
|
Canada11367 Posts
Eh, people are getting way too technical with this. I've loosely used the concept of tiers coming from BW, but really it's just a short hand for saying when new units/ tech has been opened up when a building's been made- from BW rax, fac, starport. But even in BW it's imprecise because Protoss has so many buildings to make (should robo, star, and cit/archives be considered 2 tier or 3 because of cyber?). SC2 everything gets thrown off with add-ons.
Consider a short-hand general term for opening a new branch of tech/ units.
|
On April 01 2011 02:43 Insanious wrote:
Its different for each race...
Terran
T1 = Marines
T1.5 = Marauders and Hellions
T2 = Tanks, Vikings, Medivacs, banshees
T3 = Ravens, Thors, BCs, Ghosts
Zerg:
T1 = Zerglings
T1.5 = banes, roaches
T2 = Hydras, Mutalisks, Corrupters, overseers
T3 = Broodlords, Ultralisks, Infestors
Toss:
T1 = Zealot
T1.5 = Stalkers, Sentries
T2 = Observers, Immortals, DTs, Pheonix, Void Rayx, warpprism
T3 = HT, Collosus, Carrier, Mothership
Those are the tiers...
T1 = Needs only 1 building to make (Ex. Rax, Spawning pool, etc..)
T1.5 = Needs a tech building + starting building (Ex. Roach waren, Cyber core, tech lab)
T2 = Needs another tech building/ a new production facility (Ex. Robo bay, Lair, Factory)
T3 = Needs at least 3 building to be made (Ex. Ghosts need Rax, Tech lab, Ghost accademy. Ultras need Spawning pool, Hive, Ultralisk Cavern, Mothership needs Cyber core, Stargate, Fleetbeacon, Nexus)
I think this is the best way to look at it, but I'd make a slight adjustment. Since blizz gave each race 2 massive units (not counting mothership), 1 ground, 1 air; the logical mold is to define those as Tier 3 and leave it at that. So, here is how I would break it down:
Terran
T1 = Marines
T1.5 = Marauders and Hellions
T2 = Tanks, Vikings, Medivacs, banshees
T3 = Thors, BC
Caster = Raven, Ghost
Zerg:
T1 = Zerglings
T1.5 = banes, roaches
T2 = Hydras, Mutalisks, Corrupters,
T3 = Broodlords, Ultralisks
Caster = Queen, Infestor, Overseer
Toss:
T1 = Zealot
T1.5 = Stalkers
T2 = Observers, Immortals, DTs, Pheonix, Void Rayx, warpprism
T3 = Collosus, Carrier, Mothership
Caster = Sentry, HT
I'd also consider separating dropships and detectors from the tiers, but I think everyone gets the point. Tiers aren't perfect, but I think everyone knows what is meant by tier 1 or tier 3. Its the in-between that confuses
|
tier is shorter then high tech or low tech so its faster to say. also you can give it numbers so you can clarify it even better hehe. But sc2 people made their own tiers so you just get hiccups listening to tier discussions.
I suggest to ignore it at some point it will get generalized as one opinion will emerge as the winner because of popularity.
especially the terran ability to easily get to almost any unit really fast heats up the discussion.
PS: if you want to be exact you should not only take buildings into consideration but also need of upgrades, cost etc. ^^ Especially because i think there are clearly some units in sc2 that deserve the t4 label  .
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/IQCoC.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/cKRlY.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/xs7XT.jpg)
