Give us tier 3, FPS problem solved.

Meh, the game is supposed to be macro. Besides, its fairly straightforward to add more roles and balanced stronger cost-ineffective t2 units, but this becomes harder with t3.

If they did add it, and make it incredibly hard to tech to, then it would be the "meta" tier (and I would call it that) and if balanced wouldn't hurt the game, you would rarely see it except in really really long games if it were balanced, games would be balanced to end on most occasions long before meta tier, meta tier would be exodia in the classic generation of Yu-Gi-Oh (that shtuff is OP in current gens of that card game), an intentional expensive game-ender thing and a risk-reward that is suicide-risk for longer-delayed reward.

And I see no problem with that.

yes...a 10 unit cap...commmander 4 mass 2 energy 1 factory 2 light tanks then battle it out!

Thought tier 3 allrdy was in the game kind of? orbital laser, hallys, nukes and such

Drainage of resources, such as metal can only last like 7 minutes or so

Tiers need to work like this:

Tier 1:
Eco at a relative 1.0 level, easy access to units, harder access to def towers and orbital units.

Tier 2:
Eco at a relative 2.0 level, Spaaaaam units, easy access to t1 towers, easy access to orbital strats, and planetary control necessary for nuke spam and halley creation.

That's it.

No other.

We've gotten close to this before. It opens up tons of strategies for viable play, from early orbital to nuke rushes to unit spam.

Adding more tiers is not only pointless, it needlessly complicates the game for newer players.

Unit could cost energy upkeep and negative energy should have a more negative impact on radar, towers and so on.

Edit: Had to add...make nuke building and anti nuke building very expensive. You shouldn't spam nuke or anti nuke. Tid for tad is boring. Counter each nuke with a anti nuke and having 100% covered is very boring....

I think that some different units would be cool. I think the grenadier is a step in the right direction.

However I don't think that making T3 would fix the fps issues. They are two completely different issues.

Like saying you need a different bike so that your dishes wash faster.

I love groundless statements like this. People use all kinds of weird, non-applying arguments against a third tier.
Like "it would delay the issues" (wtf?), "it would make the game too complicated" (wtf²?) "it wouldn't add to gameplay" (wtf³?)

But the most disgusting statement I can find is: "Please, don't add a third tier, we don't want another SupCom tier system".

That is how far the termites have spread, ladies and gentlemen. I'm at the point where I wish that Uber would listen LESS to the community, because most people, especially those in this thread, have no clue what they're talking about.

The most irritating thing about all these arguments is that they've all been disproven (just look at other RTS games except SUPCOM), and that they're always the same. It's like a tumor that has been spread intentionally and carefully, because of some vocal minority, based on some groundless fears and reasons that I can only describe as silly. I have lost hope of this game becoming the game it deserves to be, because of the close-minded community it has.

And I don't care if anyone feels offended by this, because it offends my intelligence every time I read comments like those in this thread.

I just stopped caring. I will come back to this game in one year or so, in hope that Uber will have added a third tier by then, in order to make the lategame at least partially interesting.

Greetings

it certainly only delays any FPS problems players have because too many units are on the field until the point where everyone spams t3 instead of t2.

This kind of thinking is exactly what the problem is. You can design t2 and t3 in a way that doesn't create unit obsolescence, and that doesn't force you to spam anything. But people don't seem to be able to grasp that kind of concept. They're too traumatized by the experiences they had with SupCom.

Arachnis, you've missed the point. I'm tired of making the same arguments to you people.

Take the time to research the topic of tiers and why two works so well, and why three would destroy the vision of the game as put forth by Uber.

Good day.

So you are against spamming units?
First we do not need t3 to prevent that, you could design t2 to have no more spam as well. But tbh personally I like spamming units and introducing a full extra tier that is not spammy anymore completely goes against what I want from PA. Basically I would not really care about a spammy t3, it would be fine with me.
I would however not like an experimental-1-unit-wins-everything tier, cause that is something I never liked that much in FA.

And SupCom has been mentioned again...

It's not about spamming. It's about reaching t2/t3 and still keeping t1 spam as a viable strategy.
The mindset that every time you reached a higher tier made lower tier units redundant is wrong, old-fashioned, and out of place here. I can't stand hearing it anymore.

But sadly it seems that it's exactly what Uber wants, as they have stated in their latest lifestream.

I think I'm going to play Starcraft 2 again, atleast there higher tier units didn't make lower tier units obsolete.
Why can't it be the same in PA I ask?

Like I know this community, someone will come and say "Go back to your beloved Starcraft 2; PA will never be like that game which needs hundreds of APM to be played correctly".

And I don't want to read that, because every time I do, I feel like it makes my IQ drop several points.
I'm tired of reading arguments that are completely besides the point.

You're missing the point of this thread and you are misunderstanding me.
The whole argument of this thread is: "give us t3 that is so expensive and so t2/t1 replacing that we do not have this many units anymore so fps will be better".
That's the context you need to see my statements in. T3 can be many things and you can turn around whatever I say by claiming t3 is supposed to be something else, but in the context of this thread t3 is what I stated above.

And where's the problem of making t3 so expensive that there are only few units?
If it's balanced, and roles are given intelligently, no obsolescence will be created.

Can't imagine that? Ofc not, because you're thinking about SupCom again.

But I don't think that I should argue against you, there are enough other people that fit my description perfectly.

I don't really see how adding a tier would deal with giant masses of patrolling units
It would just mean the t2 patrolling units will eventually be replaced with T3 units patrolling.
Or worse, add T3 units patrolling to the already patrolling mess because all the t2 units became absolete and need to be replaced

But yeah the lag of all the patrolling is a bit anoying. Especially when its orbital fighers who's patrol is useless because an anchor invasion will shred em to bits

I don't use massive army patrols myself anymore because it lags and having your units spread out that way its impossible to defend effective against an attack anyway.
And for intel (orbital) radar does the trick just as good.

To answer your first question: There is not problem with that.
You are misunderstanding me on purpose it seems. You have a mindset of what I or others who do not perfectly fit your idea of t3 will answer and you are making out my answers to fulfill that mindset.
Please read again. Basically I am not arguing against you at all and I am not claiming what you make me out to claim. I have not created this thread, I am only commenting on the idea of the op.