Login

russian armor

Against "Tier 0."

12 Oct 2015, 15:48 PM
#1
avatar of Jaedrik

Posts: 446 | Subs: 2

CoH2 isn't like other RTS games. This uniqueness has, unfortunately, resulted in a naming convention which creates confusion and lacks clarity.

Tiers in RTS games can refer to a few things.

In Age of Empires, tiers are called "ages," and are designated by "Dark, Feudal, Castle, Imperial." It is worthy to note that the UI icon for each of these ages is 1-4 respectively, the base age being 1, but including both villagers from the town hall and militia from the barracks. It works well, because all races have the same, universal tech progression, with the same types of units and technology being unlocked at each age. In this game, production buildings themselves are just referred to by name.

In Starcraft, there is less community use of the term tier, or any comparable, and every time I've seen it used on, say, Team Liquid it's resulted in some confusion. For example, I've seen the general consensus that the Terran Barracks is "tech tier 1," but separation in calling a tech lab tech tier 1.5 or just lumping it in with tier 1.
The only faction which has clear consistency is Zerg, because their buildings and tech are gated behind an upgrade progression similar to AoE's ages in upgrades to their HQ building the hatchery (into a lair, then a hive). Those are just called by the name of the building associated. "Lair tech" etc.. The closest comparable is Ostheer.

In C&C Generals, tech is entirely tied to buildings for all factions, more similar to the Soviet's style teching. The term "tier" is rarely, rarely used. Instead, they're referred to the buildings and upgrades individually. Furthermore, all infantry are found in the barracks, all armored units are found in the war factory, and all air units are found in the war field, further simplifying what heading we can group units into.

Anybody remember Dark Colony? Man, the mechanics in that game confused the heck out of me when I was little. Still do, since I lost the disk.

CoH2 has lots of unique tech progression. We've combined ages with optional building progression in the OST, have a dual branch into linear Soviet tech, two first step branches into.

So, why does the CoH2 community use tier a comparably large amount? Why don't we just call everything by its faction-specific name, since most of the factions don't have a linear tech progression, or have their own brand, or amount of tiers in the first place (which makes it unintuitive to say Tier 2 for Brit end game and tier 4, a MUCH higher number, for Ost endgame)? There's also the problem that our initial buildings all produce combat units, and that there's no such thing to call 'workers', engineers being the closest analogue.

Because the names of the buildings are long.
That's it. People don't want to learn each one and say Mechanized Tankoviky Support Battlegruppa Kompanie Post Headquarters Festung for whatever tier they mean.

Okay, so what do we do to get the most intuitive naming convention?

Not calling the HQ tier 0, for starters.

In every case where buildings are called by tiers in other games, it occurs they produce units which fight peoples. Furthermore town halls and command centers are never referred to by "tier 0." Again, CoH2 doesn't have worker units in that sense--all infantry are combat infantry and can aid the generation of resources and build stuff, maybe not the same things but stuff still.
Again! Most "tier 0" structures have mainline combat units! You wanna call that Tier 0???

Calling it tier 0 isn't intuitive at all.
We shouldn't even call it HQ, since it can get more confusing with the pre-built bases factions, and the fact there's a designated building zone on each map that can easily take the name "headquarters zone."

So, what universal basis may we call tech progression for the sake of consistency and ease?

The UI indicates a linear progression of the 'tech level' of each building relative to faction.
Most new players will default to calling the HQ building "tier 1," and logically go up a number each step up the UI chain.
HECK YOU EVEN USE F1-F5 FOR THEIR HOTKEYS! IS THERE AN F0 KEY? NO.

So, cast away this confusing "tier 0" nonsense.
The HQ building is tier 1.
12 Oct 2015, 15:52 PM
#2
avatar of Kreatiir

Posts: 2819

What is the purpose of this thread?
12 Oct 2015, 15:55 PM
#3
avatar of Jaedrik

Posts: 446 | Subs: 2

What is the purpose of this thread?

Because casters / people calling it tier 0 is stupid and confusing to newer people.

Whoops I posted this in the Gameplay section.

Mods / admins pls move to lobby :O
12 Oct 2015, 16:06 PM
#4
avatar of Pedro_Jedi

Posts: 543

Well, that's what you think. You're entitled to have your opinion. I disagree. HQ can keep its tier zeroness.

EDIT: damn autocorrect
12 Oct 2015, 16:10 PM
#5
avatar of Jaedrik

Posts: 446 | Subs: 2

Well, that's what you think. You're entitled to have your opinion. I disagree. HQ can keep its tier zeroness.

EDIT: damn autocorrect

Yeah, but you're just keeping it like that for its own sake.
There's literally no good backing for keeping it named tier 0 other than muh tradition / opinions.

Literally
none.

Calling it tier 1 is far, far, far more intuitive than any other option, as I pointed out.
12 Oct 2015, 16:30 PM
#6
avatar of Horasu

Posts: 279

Unfortunately, if you want this change, making a big thread calling for its change won't do you any good. Casters are still going to call it t0. Streamers are still going to call it t0. Barely any of those people who perpetuate the nomenclature will be reading this thread. I say it's either too late to change since it's already ingrained in CoH2 culture, or if you really really want to try to change it, the only option is to become such an influential CoH2 player that you change up the terminology yourself through sheer use.
12 Oct 2015, 16:31 PM
#7
avatar of Iron Emperor

Posts: 1653

I've always called it T1 t1 to t4
12 Oct 2015, 16:35 PM
#8
avatar of Jaedrik

Posts: 446 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post12 Oct 2015, 16:30 PMHorasu
Unfortunately, if you want this change, making a big thread calling for its change won't do you any good. Casters are still going to call it t0. Streamers are still going to call it t0. Barely any of those people who perpetuate the nomenclature will be reading this thread. I say it's either too late to change since it's already ingrained in CoH2 culture, or if you really really want to try to change it, the only option is to become such an influential CoH2 player that you change up the terminology yourself through sheer use.

I BELIEVE
Romeo doesn't call it Tier 0

I think this is more up for change than you think.
The way I see it, this is a pretty even faction split, it's just that nobody's really cared enough to get super mad about something so trivial like me. :D

My confidence is that more strammers / casters will see the light /

If it worked towards Relic and plane crashes, it can work again w/ community and terminology. :snfPeter:

Besides, I'm already an influential... stream monster :foreveralone:
12 Oct 2015, 16:46 PM
#9
avatar of Pedro_Jedi

Posts: 543

jump backJump back to quoted post12 Oct 2015, 16:10 PMJaedrik

There's literally no good backing for keeping it named tier 0 other than muh tradition / opinions.


Muh traditon? As in cattle? Sorry, I do not understand the reference.

Your backing is entirely on opinion and comparative evidence with different gaming communities. I don't agree that it's more intuitive, the zero tiering is pretty logical, considering that the "first" building that you can build receives the number one, and so on.

I do agree that prebuilt base structures make it a little confusing, though.

I wonder how much this reference can scare away new players - I don't know how many take the effort to go after quality gaming casting
12 Oct 2015, 17:09 PM
#10
avatar of Jaedrik

Posts: 446 | Subs: 2



Muh traditon? As in cattle? Sorry, I do not understand the reference.

Your backing is entirely on opinion and comparative evidence with different gaming communities. I don't agree that it's more intuitive, the zero tiering is pretty logical, considering that the "first" building that you can build receives the number one, and so on.

I do agree that prebuilt base structures make it a little confusing, though.

I wonder how much this reference can scare away new players - I don't know how many take the effort to go after quality gaming casting
Basically I was strawmanning your position as "muh tradition." :snfCHVGame:

Nah but as I demonstrated most people won't find it as intuitive or logical as calling it Tier 1 so we should totally call it tier 1.
Also thank you for the prebuilt base thing.

I'm sure the issue scares away very few players, but, still, we should try to be as intuitive and informative as possible.
12 Oct 2015, 17:13 PM
#11
avatar of Dullahan

Posts: 1384

I mostly agree in theory, but the problem is I can never remember the actual names of any buildings.

So I go by the UI. First tab is 0 last is 4.

12 Oct 2015, 17:37 PM
#12
avatar of dasheepeh

Posts: 2115 | Subs: 1

this thread truly is pointless
12 Oct 2015, 18:53 PM
#13
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

As you say, it's meant to be a quick way to name tech buildings rather than "tiers".
Only OH follows this pattern with a real progressive teching (main line infantry > support weapons > light vehicles > med tanks > heavy tanks/arty). Thing is you can't consider other factions techs to be on equal tier levels.
12 Oct 2015, 18:55 PM
#14
avatar of __deleted__

Posts: 4314 | Subs: 7

This thread will have affect like telling Relic that Ostheer is actually Ostheer not Wehrmacht. They will still call em everywhere Wehrmacht
12 Oct 2015, 18:58 PM
#15
avatar of __deleted__

Posts: 4314 | Subs: 7

Only think that can be a bit confusional is that russian tier0 is the same as ostheer tier 0 but it is the same as USF and OKW tier 1 (cause we want to give em all 4 tiers , that why schwer is tier 4 and tank commadant is tier 4 ) correct me if im wrong :D
12 Oct 2015, 23:45 PM
#16
avatar of Nuclear Arbitor
Patrion 28

Posts: 2470

i see tiers as relevant because you can roughly compare power level across tiers.
12 Oct 2015, 23:58 PM
#17
avatar of van Voort
Honorary Member Badge

Posts: 3552 | Subs: 2




This ship has long since sailed...
13 Oct 2015, 00:34 AM
#18
avatar of Intelligence209

Posts: 1124

OP makes an excellent point, it gets confusing at times.
13 Oct 2015, 00:40 AM
#19
avatar of van Voort
Honorary Member Badge

Posts: 3552 | Subs: 2

Well we could always update:

http://www.coh2.org/guides/5732/company-of-heroes-2-basic-concepts-and-glossary


However I doubt it would get updated in the manner OP would like


Teching and Tiers (T0-T4)

Teching refers to investing resources into the construction of new base buildings or into unlocking new abilities from base buildings. In the case of the Ostheer faction, Tiers may refer to the purchasable headquarters upgrades that unlock new abilities and allow the construction of new buildings, and it may also refer to the base buildings themselves. The headquarters building is often referred to as "Tier 0" or "T0."

For the Soviets, the Tiers refer to the base buildings that have been constructed. "Back-teching" refers to constructing a base building from a lower tier. For example, an Ostheer player may begin the game, tech to Tier 2, build Tier 2, and then later back-tech by constructing the Tier 1 building.
13 Oct 2015, 01:47 AM
#20
avatar of Pedro_Jedi

Posts: 543

jump backJump back to quoted post12 Oct 2015, 17:09 PMJaedrik
Basically I was strawmanning your position as "muh tradition." :snfCHVGame:


Please don't do that.

jump backJump back to quoted post12 Oct 2015, 17:09 PMJaedrik
Nah but as I demonstrated most people won't find it as intuitive or logical as calling it Tier 1 so we should totally call it tier 1.


I'm used to epidemiological data, so "most people" should translate to at least a poll. Right now, "most people" are you.

jump backJump back to quoted post12 Oct 2015, 17:09 PMJaedrik
Also thank you for the prebuilt base thing.


Well, that was quite logical

jump backJump back to quoted post12 Oct 2015, 17:09 PMJaedrik
I'm sure the issue scares away very few players, but, still, we should try to be as intuitive and informative as possible.


I agree, but I disagree on your terms of what is most intuitive and informative. This is just my opinion, without rough data to make any hard judgements. Again, maybe a poll?
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

778 users are online: 778 guests
0 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
35 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49104
Welcome our newest member, zhcnwps
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM