|
Another opponent has whined to me that "Terran is imba, always make T1 units," I'm starting to wonder why people even think of units in terms of tiers.
For Zerg, it makes sense. Hatchery tech - T1, Lair - T2, and Hive - T3. What about for Terran? Would a starport be T3 (in that case, wouldn't medivacs be a tier 3 unit)? What about battlecruisers, T4? Wait, what's tier 4?
The game isn't balanced around tiers of units... SC has always been a game where units have purpose no matter how long a game goes. Every time I've been asked by a Protoss player to "stop making tier 1 units," I ask them if they should stop making zealot/stalker/sentry.
Tiers really only apply to Zerg, so why do people throw the term around so much for P and T?
|
Its the WoW effect spreading to sc2.
User was warned for this post
|
It's yet another ridiculously stupid part of balance discussion & a way to generalize groups of units for the sake of simplicity (you'll immediately think of a bunch of Void Rays & Colossus when a caster says something like "the Protoss army consists of mostly tier 3 units").
As far as the balance discussion side of the term is concerned, I don't pay much heed to it.
|
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?
|
its just another way to complain about the game. people always look for excuses as to why they lost rather than looking at their own play and trying to find ways to improve their own game.
|
United States7483 Posts
There is literally no point to it. Units don't even remain the same units throughout the course of the game: there is a massive difference between roaches and speed roaches for example, and people even refer to zerglings with different names based on upgrades (speedlings, cracklings).
It's essentially meaningless.
|
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?
not really, its from wc3
|
its pretty easy to tell with Protoss and terran too
tier 1 is buildings that require only minerals
tier 2 requires gas (starport robo council, factory starport)
Tier 3 requires an additional building (fleet beacon, support bay, armory, fusion core)
its very clearly divided ^^
|
Because they're not too bright? It's a great flag to ignore anything that poster says.
As for where it's from, the concept of tiers in RTS games started with, uh, Dune maybe? It's always been around.
|
It's from wc2/wc3 and it doesn't work really well in the starcraft universe, so people should stop using it.
|
Yes, yes, we know. Tiers don't really exist. This has been talked to death before and this thread is unlikely to change much. It's just useful shorthand for low/middle/high tech.
|
On April 01 2011 01:55 TheBB wrote:
Yes, yes, we know. Tiers don't really exist. This has been talked to death before and this thread is unlikely to change much. It's just useful shorthand for low/middle/high tech.
I'd say this as well. Treating them as WoW tiers, as someone suggested isn't comparable/realistic/the case.
|
On April 01 2011 01:54 lcl wrote:
its pretty easy to tell with Protoss and terran too
tier 1 is buildings that require only minerals
tier 2 requires gas (starport robo council, factory starport)
Tier 3 requires an additional building (fleet beacon, support bay, armory, fusion core)
its very clearly divided ^^ So hellions are the same tier as RAVENS?
And thors are higher tier than ravens? Makes no sense, ravens need as much tech as thors
Tiers make no sense, especially not when comparing different races. One base thor and one base colossus are quite viable, one base ultra is impossible,even two base ultra is. Ultras have a lot longer a tech route same with brood lords.
BC's, carriers, brood lords, ultras, are true late game units, thors and colossi can be fielded from one base.
To say that thors are the same tier as BC's is also nonsense, BC's are obviously higher.
And that doesn't even account for the fact that a chargelot is a completely different unit than a zealot, same with burrowed roaches..
|
Tiers work for Zerg, nothing else. Not sure how it bled over into the other races, because it doesn't work at all.
|
On April 01 2011 02:02 mousepad wrote:
Tiers work for Zerg, nothing else. Not sure how it bled over into the other races, because it doesn't work at all.
I have to agree with this for the most part. The logic of "tiers" as it applies to zerg loses its effectiveness when, say, you talk about marines. If 3rd tier units are always supposed to be superior to 1st tier units in terms of attack/defense/cost effectiveness, then marines wouldn't at all be a viable late-game unit itself. This is obviously not the case, since stimmed marines with medivacs and good micro is good in any stage of a game (early/mid/late).
|
I've had this shit from a P, same phrase "still only on T1 units, and you win, pathetic etc" when in fact I was using a lot of ghosts and some vikings with 2-1 upgrades against his colo/void/phoenix heavy army.
I'm just pissed off how almost NOBODY I've meet on EU have actually played BW for years before SC2, like old BW veterans are just a forgotten relic now 
|
On April 01 2011 01:55 TheBB wrote:
Yes, yes, we know. Tiers don't really exist. This has been talked to death before and this thread is unlikely to change much. It's just useful shorthand for low/middle/high tech.
And to boot, it's been closed numerous times for it's pointlessness.
|
Any stratergy game where Tier 1 becomes useless once Tier 2 gets out is broken in almost every way possible. Tiers do not exist, only longer tech paths.
|
They don't/shouldn't. It's just a way of describing where your tech is generally at; completely arbitrary and meaningless otherwise.
|
On April 01 2011 02:01 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2011 01:54 lcl wrote:
its pretty easy to tell with Protoss and terran too
tier 1 is buildings that require only minerals
tier 2 requires gas (starport robo council, factory starport)
Tier 3 requires an additional building (fleet beacon, support bay, armory, fusion core)
its very clearly divided ^^ So hellions are the same tier as RAVENS? And thors are higher tier than ravens? Makes no sense, ravens need as much tech as thors Tiers make no sense, especially not when comparing different races. One base thor and one base colossus are quite viable, one base ultra is impossible,even two base ultra is. Ultras have a lot longer a tech route same with brood lords. BC's, carriers, brood lords, ultras, are true late game units, thors and colossi can be fielded from one base. To say that thors are the same tier as BC's is also nonsense, BC's are obviously higher. And that doesn't even account for the fact that a chargelot is a completely different unit than a zealot, same with burrowed roaches..
Ravens require tech lab, hence its tier 3. Medivac/Viking - tier 2.
|
Its from another RTSs. For ex. in Company of Heroes it was very popular. There were no builds like
9pylo
12gate
14gas
16pylon
etc. but
T1(v,b,mg,v) -> T2(p,g,p) -> T4.
This exactly was T2 centered Wehrmacht build, but whatever.
V stands for Volksgrenadiers, B for bike, MG for MG, P for PaK and G for grenadiers.
Tiers were even used in BW...Its just how it is. It is used everywhere. But in SC2 it is little bit irrelevant.
|
On April 01 2011 02:17 bokeevboke wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2011 02:01 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 01 2011 01:54 lcl wrote:
its pretty easy to tell with Protoss and terran too
tier 1 is buildings that require only minerals
tier 2 requires gas (starport robo council, factory starport)
Tier 3 requires an additional building (fleet beacon, support bay, armory, fusion core)
its very clearly divided ^^ So hellions are the same tier as RAVENS? And thors are higher tier than ravens? Makes no sense, ravens need as much tech as thors Tiers make no sense, especially not when comparing different races. One base thor and one base colossus are quite viable, one base ultra is impossible,even two base ultra is. Ultras have a lot longer a tech route same with brood lords. BC's, carriers, brood lords, ultras, are true late game units, thors and colossi can be fielded from one base. To say that thors are the same tier as BC's is also nonsense, BC's are obviously higher. And that doesn't even account for the fact that a chargelot is a completely different unit than a zealot, same with burrowed roaches.. Ravens require tech lab, hence its tier 3. Medivac/Viking - tier 2.
Dude stop saying units have tiers, do u see anywhere that blizz has put units into tiers? Get off the noob bandwagon and makin stuff up cause u think it may be right. This game has nothing to do with tiers, its just different units with diff roles. I wish the word "tier" didn't exist
|
On April 01 2011 02:17 bokeevboke wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2011 02:01 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 01 2011 01:54 lcl wrote:
its pretty easy to tell with Protoss and terran too
tier 1 is buildings that require only minerals
tier 2 requires gas (starport robo council, factory starport)
Tier 3 requires an additional building (fleet beacon, support bay, armory, fusion core)
its very clearly divided ^^ So hellions are the same tier as RAVENS? And thors are higher tier than ravens? Makes no sense, ravens need as much tech as thors Tiers make no sense, especially not when comparing different races. One base thor and one base colossus are quite viable, one base ultra is impossible,even two base ultra is. Ultras have a lot longer a tech route same with brood lords. BC's, carriers, brood lords, ultras, are true late game units, thors and colossi can be fielded from one base. To say that thors are the same tier as BC's is also nonsense, BC's are obviously higher. And that doesn't even account for the fact that a chargelot is a completely different unit than a zealot, same with burrowed roaches.. Ravens require tech lab, hence its tier 3. Medivac/Viking - tier 2. Okay, so ravens and bc's are bot tier 3? Makes no sense, BC's require an extra building.
Also, marauders require a tech lab, so they are tier 2 now. Marauders same tier as medivacs and vikings?
Makes no sense, no matter how you bend, twist, or turn it, tiers don't exist.
|
^^ So stalkers and sentries would be tier two by your same logic semantics?
|
how can you say it applies to zerg and nothing else? the units can be compared race to race almost exactly.
tier 1 = spawning pool = barracks = gateway
tier 1 = roach warren = tech lab = cyber core
***need gas income 1-2 base***
tier 2 = hydra den = factory = robo/twilight council
tier 2 = spire = starport = stargate
tier 2 = infestation pit = armory = robo bay
***need a lot of gas income usually 3 or more base***
tier 3 = hive/ultra cavern/greater spire = fusion core = fleet beacon/templar/shrine
this is not an exact science, but if you say 'tier 2 terran unit' it's pretty feckin obvious that he's referring to units that are the same tech level as hydra/muta... in other words factory/starport units.
saying it doesn't work is just being stubborn and argumentative.
tier = tech level. yes the races do have tiers, end of story.
|
Just a way for some people to make it look like they sound smart. Nothing more really, except in zerg's case where you can actually see different "tiers" (hatch, lair, hive tech).
|
On April 01 2011 02:28 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2011 02:17 bokeevboke wrote:On April 01 2011 02:01 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 01 2011 01:54 lcl wrote:
its pretty easy to tell with Protoss and terran too
tier 1 is buildings that require only minerals
tier 2 requires gas (starport robo council, factory starport)
Tier 3 requires an additional building (fleet beacon, support bay, armory, fusion core)
its very clearly divided ^^ So hellions are the same tier as RAVENS? And thors are higher tier than ravens? Makes no sense, ravens need as much tech as thors Tiers make no sense, especially not when comparing different races. One base thor and one base colossus are quite viable, one base ultra is impossible,even two base ultra is. Ultras have a lot longer a tech route same with brood lords. BC's, carriers, brood lords, ultras, are true late game units, thors and colossi can be fielded from one base. To say that thors are the same tier as BC's is also nonsense, BC's are obviously higher. And that doesn't even account for the fact that a chargelot is a completely different unit than a zealot, same with burrowed roaches.. Ravens require tech lab, hence its tier 3. Medivac/Viking - tier 2. Okay, so ravens and bc's are bot tier 3? Makes no sense, BC's require an extra building. Also, marauders require a tech lab, so they are tier 2 now. Marauders same tier as medivacs and vikings? Makes no sense, no matter how you bend, twist, or turn it, tiers don't exist.
They clearly do exist in Zerg race (Hatch, Lair, Hive), but they cant be applied on Terran and Protoss. They are as I said very good label in different games, but SC2 is not one of them. But I guess you guys know what people mean by "Terran beats Protoss T3 with mass T1". It is not accurate, but I htink you understand. So, whats the problem?
|
I'd say its just a simple way of referring to simple tech choices, and provide a distinction between basic units and the expensive tech units that take a little time to get out.
|
On April 01 2011 02:28 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2011 02:17 bokeevboke wrote:On April 01 2011 02:01 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 01 2011 01:54 lcl wrote:
its pretty easy to tell with Protoss and terran too
tier 1 is buildings that require only minerals
tier 2 requires gas (starport robo council, factory starport)
Tier 3 requires an additional building (fleet beacon, support bay, armory, fusion core)
its very clearly divided ^^ So hellions are the same tier as RAVENS? And thors are higher tier than ravens? Makes no sense, ravens need as much tech as thors Tiers make no sense, especially not when comparing different races. One base thor and one base colossus are quite viable, one base ultra is impossible,even two base ultra is. Ultras have a lot longer a tech route same with brood lords. BC's, carriers, brood lords, ultras, are true late game units, thors and colossi can be fielded from one base. To say that thors are the same tier as BC's is also nonsense, BC's are obviously higher. And that doesn't even account for the fact that a chargelot is a completely different unit than a zealot, same with burrowed roaches.. Ravens require tech lab, hence its tier 3. Medivac/Viking - tier 2. Okay, so ravens and bc's are bot tier 3? Makes no sense, BC's require an extra building. Also, marauders require a tech lab, so they are tier 2 now. Marauders same tier as medivacs and vikings? Makes no sense, no matter how you bend, twist, or turn it, tiers don't exist.
terran:
tier 1: barracks units
tier 2: factory/starport units that require no extra building
tier 3: factory/starport units that require extra building
or could be straight up barracks -> factory -> starport. Hard to say. Also not sure what ghosts would fall under. I think most would consider them tier 2?
protoss:
tier 1: gateway units units that require no extra building (outside cybernetics core)
tier 2: robo/stargate units that require no extra building
tier 3: gateway/robo/stargate units that require extra building
zerg:
tier 1: hatchery units
tier 2: lair units
tier 3: hive units
sound good?
|
Why are people over complicating such a simple thing.. Tiers are just basically based on tech.
|
On April 01 2011 01:54 lcl wrote:
its pretty easy to tell with Protoss and terran too
tier 1 is buildings that require only minerals
tier 2 requires gas (starport robo council, factory starport)
Tier 3 requires an additional building (fleet beacon, support bay, armory, fusion core)
its very clearly divided ^^
I disagree. Protoss tier 1 is warpgate units regardless of how much gas they cost.
|
Unit tiers simply refer to the tech and resource requirements (minerals, gas, time) necessary to produce certain kinds of units. That's it. The way some people talk about unit tiers, you would think that Starcraft 2 was Age of Empires (or insert other RTS here).
|
It's really not that hard. This is how I would describe it.
For Terran:
Factory = tier2
Starport = tier3
Addons don't count but buildings add .5
So ghost is 1.5, Thor is 2.5, BC is 3.5
For Brotoss:
Gateway = tier1
Robo = tier2
Stargate = tier3
Same as Terran so Stalkers are 1.5, Colo is 2.5, HT is 2.5, Carrier 3.5
But it's only really a guide that you can use to compare some things. Not set in stone but makes it easier to explain some points you are trying to make.
|
Tiers were used in both BW and WC2. They're just generalizations for tech. They don't fit every unit and they don't work all the time, but they are useful as generalizations. People shouldn't take them so seriously AND people shouldn't just throw them away.
Tier 1 = units that come from building only one structure (rax, gateway, hatch tech)
Tier 2 = units that come from building the second structure (robo, factory, lair tech)
Tier 3 = anything above that
Again, they don't work exactly in every situation, and it's debatable whether one unit belongs one one tier or another, but they are useful for generalizations and overall strategic thinking. Just like categories for other things (cars: trucks, SUVs, crossovers, sedans, sports cars) (races: black, white, asian) there are going to be things that fit and things that don't fit, but it doesn't mean you throw out the generalization completely.
|
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)
|
does it actually matter, it's just something people say instead of saying "better units" higher tier means more tech can't you just accept it as a general term and stop nerding everything up?
|
It's from Warcraft 2. Each tier representing the level of tech that's provided by the level of the town hall which is the same mechanic the zerg hatcheries use. This can't be translated too well for protoss and terran.
|
bad terminology being propogated amongst QQ's is bad.
|
United States15275 Posts
It's a simple, generalized way of noting how much investment one puts within the tech trees of each respective race.
|
well partly
take HT for example, those are >>> Tier 3
logic applys the same for i.e Broodlords or BCs
Are Thors and BCs on the Same tier?...
|
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)
Hellions aren't 1.5 by that logic...and when the system varies that much by races it's totally useless for comparison. Just say "he's teched to Starport/Factory" or "he's going Robo." Also tanks need Rax/Factory/tech lab but most wouldn't consider them T3, nor would they consider Vikings/Medivacs when they need three as well (rax/factory/starport). There's just too many inconsistencies in this sort of logic.
|
the number of buildings doesn't necessarily work, because it doesn't always account for certain units being available very early due to building cost/speed... or the cost of unit.
for example you can get ghost a lot earlier than templar, but costing 150/150 each it won't be a safe investment until later on when the protoss/zerg have got templar or infestor etc.
|
Is this thread for real?
Tiers are simple short-hand for what "tier" a unit comes in. Using terrans. Does it come from a barracks, your first unit producing structure T1, does it come from a barracks w/ a tech lab T1.5, does it come from a factory T2 or a starport T2 (considered T2 because while it requires a factory the tier concept applies only a step further beyond barracks for arbitrary reasons) does it require an additional building beyond the factory/starport T3. You run into things like ghosts, which people consider to be T2 because the building is in the advanced tab, but imo they're much like roaches and are more a T1.5 unit.
I don't see how this could ever be a big deal, someone earlier in the thread said it's just a shorthand, this is correct. It's a shorthand used by observers or people talking about the game to refer to the amount of tech investment (correlations with gas can be drawn here) is needed to reach that unit. It's not about how powerful a unit is, it's about the amount of tech time require to unlock said unit.
I get the feeling you know this, but wanted to shake a hornet's nest and be cool on the internet.
Edit: People are really, really being for real I guess. To expound... It's just a shortening of time required for people talking about the game to talk about it. That's it, there is no reference to power (although one may be implied b/c Tier 3 units take a lot of investment to get to) it's just a reference. This is not a big deal at all...
|
On April 01 2011 02:35 blabber wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2011 02:28 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 01 2011 02:17 bokeevboke wrote:On April 01 2011 02:01 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 01 2011 01:54 lcl wrote:
its pretty easy to tell with Protoss and terran too
tier 1 is buildings that require only minerals
tier 2 requires gas (starport robo council, factory starport)
Tier 3 requires an additional building (fleet beacon, support bay, armory, fusion core)
its very clearly divided ^^ So hellions are the same tier as RAVENS? And thors are higher tier than ravens? Makes no sense, ravens need as much tech as thors Tiers make no sense, especially not when comparing different races. One base thor and one base colossus are quite viable, one base ultra is impossible,even two base ultra is. Ultras have a lot longer a tech route same with brood lords. BC's, carriers, brood lords, ultras, are true late game units, thors and colossi can be fielded from one base. To say that thors are the same tier as BC's is also nonsense, BC's are obviously higher. And that doesn't even account for the fact that a chargelot is a completely different unit than a zealot, same with burrowed roaches.. Ravens require tech lab, hence its tier 3. Medivac/Viking - tier 2. Okay, so ravens and bc's are bot tier 3? Makes no sense, BC's require an extra building. Also, marauders require a tech lab, so they are tier 2 now. Marauders same tier as medivacs and vikings? Makes no sense, no matter how you bend, twist, or turn it, tiers don't exist. terran: tier 1: barracks units tier 2: factory/starport units that require no extra building tier 3: factory/starport units that require extra building or could be straight up barracks -> factory -> starport. Hard to say. Also not sure what ghosts would fall under. I think most would consider them tier 2? protoss: tier 1: gateway units units that require no extra building (outside cybernetics core) tier 2: robo/stargate units that require no extra building tier 3: gateway/robo/stargate units that require extra building zerg: tier 1: hatchery units tier 2: lair units tier 3: hive units sound good? How can factory and staport units be the same tier as you you require a factory for a starport? Obviously it's higher up the tech tree?
And how on earth can a thor be the same tier as a battle cruiser? That makes no sense, the battle cruiser is the obvious end of the terran tech tree, the thor is not. You need a factory to get to BC's, you don't need a starport for thors.
Tiers are a terrible comparison between races that makes no sense, the tech trees work too dissimilar, protoss for instance needs a core for 'T2', zerg and terran need no such thing.
|
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
|
lol. And this is why Tiers should only apply to Zerg.
Everyone has some kind of different way to define Terran and Protoss "tiers" It gets confusing and stupid trying to get everyone to agree what is what.
Anyhow its not a huge deal in the long run. Its just crappy vocab that really shouldn't be used.
|
I've always thought of it like this:
Zerg: Hatch = T1, Lair = T2, Hive = T3
Terran: Barracks = T1, Factory = T2, Starport = T3
Protoss: Gateway (and core) = T1, Robo/Stargate/Twilight Council = T2, Robo Bay/Fleet Beacon/Templar/Dark Shrine = T3
But that's just inside my head.
|
It was used a lot in WC3 indeed. I don't see why you would have issues with it, it's just a different way of saying early/mid/late-game units.
|
On April 01 2011 02:54 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2011 02:35 blabber wrote:On April 01 2011 02:28 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 01 2011 02:17 bokeevboke wrote:On April 01 2011 02:01 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 01 2011 01:54 lcl wrote:
its pretty easy to tell with Protoss and terran too
tier 1 is buildings that require only minerals
tier 2 requires gas (starport robo council, factory starport)
Tier 3 requires an additional building (fleet beacon, support bay, armory, fusion core)
its very clearly divided ^^ So hellions are the same tier as RAVENS? And thors are higher tier than ravens? Makes no sense, ravens need as much tech as thors Tiers make no sense, especially not when comparing different races. One base thor and one base colossus are quite viable, one base ultra is impossible,even two base ultra is. Ultras have a lot longer a tech route same with brood lords. BC's, carriers, brood lords, ultras, are true late game units, thors and colossi can be fielded from one base. To say that thors are the same tier as BC's is also nonsense, BC's are obviously higher. And that doesn't even account for the fact that a chargelot is a completely different unit than a zealot, same with burrowed roaches.. Ravens require tech lab, hence its tier 3. Medivac/Viking - tier 2. Okay, so ravens and bc's are bot tier 3? Makes no sense, BC's require an extra building. Also, marauders require a tech lab, so they are tier 2 now. Marauders same tier as medivacs and vikings? Makes no sense, no matter how you bend, twist, or turn it, tiers don't exist. terran: tier 1: barracks units tier 2: factory/starport units that require no extra building tier 3: factory/starport units that require extra building or could be straight up barracks -> factory -> starport. Hard to say. Also not sure what ghosts would fall under. I think most would consider them tier 2? protoss: tier 1: gateway units units that require no extra building (outside cybernetics core) tier 2: robo/stargate units that require no extra building tier 3: gateway/robo/stargate units that require extra building zerg: tier 1: hatchery units tier 2: lair units tier 3: hive units sound good? How can factory and staport units be the same tier as you you require a factory for a starport? Obviously it's higher up the tech tree? And how on earth can a thor be the same tier as a battle cruiser? That makes no sense, the battle cruiser is the obvious end of the terran tech tree, the thor is not. You need a factory to get to BC's, you don't need a starport for thors. Tiers are a terrible comparison between races that makes no sense, the tech trees work too dissimilar, protoss for instance needs a core for 'T2', zerg and terran need no such thing.
Who cares if it's not the same across the board? It's really, really easy to learn what the different tiers for the different races are, and I used to think they were really intuitive with small variations. Looks like some people just don't get it, or are a little bit more picky than the people who have been playing RTS' for the last decade.
Pre-edit because it just came to me
When you look at the flow chart in the game for each race you'll notice how it looks like a tree branching down. Each of these levels can be considered a tier if it is condensed, and while yes, starports are T3/what the hell ever, they're considered T2 b/c that simplifies things. This isn't groundbreaking, it's not like this tier system is the first to simplify things to make them easier to talk about while not EXACTLY hitting the nail on the head.
|
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 
|
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.
|
^No one thinks the word "tier" is made up. The question is why it's applied to SC. And it's because there was a clear tier system in WC2. Town halls for both races upgraded like hatch does, and the units were clearly different "tiers"
Tier 1 was footmen, grunts, archers, trolls...
Tier 2 was knight and ogres which were much stronger than the tier 1 stuff
Tier 3 added casters like magi, ogre magi, paladin which were a huge step up from tier 2.
Everything blends much more in SC, but people like to pretend it doesn't. It's much more of a continuum rather than tiers.
|
On April 01 2011 02:17 bokeevboke wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2011 02:01 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 01 2011 01:54 lcl wrote:
its pretty easy to tell with Protoss and terran too
tier 1 is buildings that require only minerals
tier 2 requires gas (starport robo council, factory starport)
Tier 3 requires an additional building (fleet beacon, support bay, armory, fusion core)
its very clearly divided ^^ So hellions are the same tier as RAVENS? And thors are higher tier than ravens? Makes no sense, ravens need as much tech as thors Tiers make no sense, especially not when comparing different races. One base thor and one base colossus are quite viable, one base ultra is impossible,even two base ultra is. Ultras have a lot longer a tech route same with brood lords. BC's, carriers, brood lords, ultras, are true late game units, thors and colossi can be fielded from one base. To say that thors are the same tier as BC's is also nonsense, BC's are obviously higher. And that doesn't even account for the fact that a chargelot is a completely different unit than a zealot, same with burrowed roaches.. requiring tech lab would make ravens tier 2.5 techincally. Ravens require tech lab, hence its tier 3. Medivac/Viking - tier 2.
|
It's a useful way of grouping units based on how long it takes to get them in a game. Time is an important resource in SC2. If you stick with units that you can produce early in the game, you'll have a larger army, early map control, and options to expand or attack. If you opt to cut back on the easily accessed units in favor of teching to higher 'tiers', your army will likely be smaller, but it may be more cost efficient or tactically versatile. The 'tier' breakdown is a little rough around the edges, but it conveys an important concept.
|
I can't believe people are shitting all over the word tier. This was a well accepted word in the broodwar days. It works to help describe the game or flow of the game. Did Day9 at some point say that the word tier is not useful? That's the only reason I can see so many people saying only noobs use the word -_-
|
I'm about to blow all you guys' minds and shatter your perception of the world:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
I dont see why people have a problem discussing and deciding tiers. They seem pretty obvious to me.
Zerg
T1=Hatch
T2=Lair
T3=Hive
Terran
T1=Barracks
T2=Factory
T3=Starport
Protoss
T1=Gateway
T2=Robo/Stargate/Council
T3=Support bay/Fleet Beacon/Dark Shrine/Templar Archives
Of course you need to keep in mind that not all tiers are equal. Terran can get to T3 super quick with 1-1-1, however in reality they also need addons and extra requirement buildings like Armory for thors, ghost academy for ghosts, and fusion core for battlecruisers. Most "tier" complaints I see come from Zerg, because they tend to slow their tech in order to drone heavily. But thats just kinda the way theyre built.
|
On April 01 2011 02:59 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2011 02:54 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 01 2011 02:35 blabber wrote:On April 01 2011 02:28 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 01 2011 02:17 bokeevboke wrote:On April 01 2011 02:01 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 01 2011 01:54 lcl wrote:
its pretty easy to tell with Protoss and terran too
tier 1 is buildings that require only minerals
tier 2 requires gas (starport robo council, factory starport)
Tier 3 requires an additional building (fleet beacon, support bay, armory, fusion core)
its very clearly divided ^^ So hellions are the same tier as RAVENS? And thors are higher tier than ravens? Makes no sense, ravens need as much tech as thors Tiers make no sense, especially not when comparing different races. One base thor and one base colossus are quite viable, one base ultra is impossible,even two base ultra is. Ultras have a lot longer a tech route same with brood lords. BC's, carriers, brood lords, ultras, are true late game units, thors and colossi can be fielded from one base. To say that thors are the same tier as BC's is also nonsense, BC's are obviously higher. And that doesn't even account for the fact that a chargelot is a completely different unit than a zealot, same with burrowed roaches.. Ravens require tech lab, hence its tier 3. Medivac/Viking - tier 2. Okay, so ravens and bc's are bot tier 3? Makes no sense, BC's require an extra building. Also, marauders require a tech lab, so they are tier 2 now. Marauders same tier as medivacs and vikings? Makes no sense, no matter how you bend, twist, or turn it, tiers don't exist. terran: tier 1: barracks units tier 2: factory/starport units that require no extra building tier 3: factory/starport units that require extra building or could be straight up barracks -> factory -> starport. Hard to say. Also not sure what ghosts would fall under. I think most would consider them tier 2? protoss: tier 1: gateway units units that require no extra building (outside cybernetics core) tier 2: robo/stargate units that require no extra building tier 3: gateway/robo/stargate units that require extra building zerg: tier 1: hatchery units tier 2: lair units tier 3: hive units sound good? How can factory and staport units be the same tier as you you require a factory for a starport? Obviously it's higher up the tech tree? And how on earth can a thor be the same tier as a battle cruiser? That makes no sense, the battle cruiser is the obvious end of the terran tech tree, the thor is not. You need a factory to get to BC's, you don't need a starport for thors. Tiers are a terrible comparison between races that makes no sense, the tech trees work too dissimilar, protoss for instance needs a core for 'T2', zerg and terran need no such thing. Who cares if it's not the same across the board? It's really, really easy to learn what the different tiers for the different races are, and I used to think they were really intuitive with small variations. Looks like some people just don't get it, or are a little bit more picky than the people who have been playing RTS' for the last decade. Pre-edit because it just came to me When you look at the flow chart in the game for each race you'll notice how it looks like a tree branching down. Each of these levels can be considered a tier if it is condensed, and while yes, starports are T3/what the hell ever, they're considered T2 b/c that simplifies things. This isn't groundbreaking, it's not like this tier system is the first to simplify things to make them easier to talk about while not EXACTLY hitting the nail on the head. No it's not 'easy' have you seen the thread? every person has a different opinion about tiers, especially if Starport is T3 or T2. Terminology is only useful insofar people mean the same thing with it.
It's only meaningful for Zerg, because people all agree there.
|
Tiers were from wc3, where every race had an upgradeable town hall (like zerg in sc). Your 'tier' determined your access to tech/production structures.
|
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?
No they weren't and I don't know why people believe this still. It's what happens when you bring different communities together.
-_-
It's as mind blowing as people calling a timing attack a push.
Ugh.
|
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)
