Factory Complex

Summed up here.
Either you want two tiers or you don't, anything else would be inconsequential.

How is it redundant?

You're hung up on the definition of tier, aren't you? It's incomprehensible that one 'tier' could be equal in power to another. You don't see the separation of 'General Purpose' and 'Specialised', as being applicable to the word 'tier' do you?

We could talk about only having one tier.
But I already said why I dislike that, too.
Because it would make this into an arcade game. There would be no more progression in this game, nothing to invest ressources in because you're already able to build everything (because that's what no tiers mean) in the first 5 minutes. It only becomes the question of how much you can build of it. People will pick their favorite unit compositions and never change them, because everything is as viable as the next thing.
And a RTS needs a little bit more complexity than that.

Because tiers basically mean tech trees or better said steps in a tech tree. You invest ressources purely into progression, not into actual stuff you can do anything with. You heavily invest ressources and time in building a T2 factory, the T2 fabber, and everything after that. So shouldn't you expect better results when investing more? That's simple logic to me.

If you adjust the costs and strenghts of those, as to make them as powerful as T1. Then there couldn't even be a T2 factory because it would mean that it would cost more. It would become redundant.
And if it doesn't cost more, and is as powerful as T1, then why even make a difference between T1 and T2 and not call it the same?

Power and cost is not the only way to differentiate between tiers, that is the whole argument we are trying to make. Did you read the post nanolathe made about the guardian vs. bertha? What if the same thing applied to T1 and T2 pgens? One is not strictly better than the other, but they both have their advantages and disadvantages.

Yeah but you can not ignore power and cost either. If I don't get rewarded by investing money, then I have no reason to invest money. There's no way around that.

The basic idea of T2 is to invest ressources and time into progression. It creates a weakness that can be exploited. Also it is fun and motivating to have it imo. It means that the more expensive it gets, the harder your decisions are to make.

Seriously Arachnis, if you cannot comprehend what Nano is trying to tell you, let me tell you in ways you can understand.

In SC2, you had da tech trees rite? Does dat mean dat once u build a mutalisk (SO OP) u never stop building lingz? Or once u had tankz from da factory you stop rine production?

The lower 'tier' units, even in starcraft had a use and were not obsoleted by the next in line on the tech tree. You got a basic marine, then you felt you wanted some long range AOE, so you build tanks to complement your force, simply having a tank didnt make your marines useless.

You could even use Zerglings to counter a tank because they were not more "powerful" or "stronger" like an Ant to a Leveller, they just filled a different role.

Does that help?

The reward doesn't have to be power though, it could just be more specialized units. A more specialized T2 unit does not fully replace its T1 counterpart, which is more generalized. In the case of the guardian vs bertha, you don't want to build only one or the other. They are similar in that they are both artillery, but they are different in that the bertha is specialized in long-range base siege, whereas the guardian is for general base defense or proxy firebases. You certainly get your moneys worth building a bertha, but it does not replace its guardian counterpart.

Lets apply this to pgens. We have the current T1 pgen that can be built anywhere, but provides low power. What if T2 was changed to have geothermal, solar, and tidal power? Geothermal is location dependent, solar has a penalty during nighttime, and tidal only works if there's water on the planet with a moon nearby to generate tidal forces. Lets say each one is balanced to generate more power per cost than T1 generators. Now T2 is useful and worth its cost, but there is a risk involved with each. Geothermal requires you to control the geothermal vents, solar isn't as reliable at night, tidal exposes your power generation to naval attack.

If you spam T1, you are missing out on the advantages of T2 power, since its output is higher. If you spam T2, you are taking a huge risk, and you suffer the consequences of that specific generation method. A mix of both is required, which makes the game more interesting. T1 is still useful for filling the gap and providing reliable power, but for raw output, T2 is the way to go.

If the game is balanced properly, you could design all units/structures in this way, without adding in upgrades or other unnecessary complications. Keep it simple.

Edit:

My above suggestion meets this criteria I think. If you disagree, please explain.

No that's not a problem to me at all, and I never argued against that T1 units should be useful later in the game.
But there were things in Starcraft 2 that simple zerglings and rines couldn't give you. The higher tiers were powerful counters to the lower tiers, like High Templar just decimated zerglings. But they were designed so they needed protection from cheaper, more standard units.
Honestly you shouldn't build masses of zerglings when your enemy had those. So no, they didn't stay viable in every situation. But they were still useful because they were cheap, and you were able to do quick counterattacks with them to destroy their eco.

But let me get this straight: higher tiers in Starcraft 2 were indeed more powerful and cost efficient if used right (and much more expensive), that means if they're in the right unit compilation which usually consisted of cheaper units to protect them and to draw fire.

And I think the same can apply to PA if done correctly. Where the cheap units can be the meat shield for the stronger units or the other way around. But I don't see the changes suggested from some people necessary in achieving that.

Have you even played Starcraft? Have you ever seen what happens to Mutas/Carriers/Voidrays when they try to fight Marines?

No that's completely fine with me, I just wouldn't remove the T2 pgens and mexes just to make T1 ones viable again. That would be taking away instead of adding depth.

Have you ever seen Marines running into a Storm?
Also Mutas were more of a harassing unit, exploiting weak spots where there is no defence.
Same with Voidrays, also they were quite good against some units too.
Carriers just sucked, at least when I was playing.

But like I said, even Carriers made sense in the right unit combination consisting of cheaper, lower tier units like the High Templar.

It seems that your ideal game would be a race to see who can get the most advanced unit out first.

Advanced units should be more extreme. That means not an all round unit. They should have more weaknesses then strengths. They should suck if used in the wrong situation.

Also why are you talking about SCII? Its a completely different game.

Am I not talking English here?
How can you come to the assumption that I want it to be a race on who can get the most expensive unit out? I never said that.

It would take me hours to collect all the quotes from this thread where I already said the contrary.

Hours? Don't be so dramatic about it.

Mike

So helpful and diplomatic, aren't you?

Well I certainly can't understand what point you're trying to make here, so it's not like I can explain your intent myself.

Mike

Are there any points left unresolved or did my discussion convert you a bit?

No it's ok, if you don't have any more will to discuss this in a constructive fashion, then you're willing to attack the person making the argument instead of the argument itself. A common informal fallacy, but I couldn't say that I'm not used to it.

Other people certainly understand what I mean.