SC2 Tech Tree

[Norfindel]

I was thinking about making a more readable tech tree graphic than the following 3:







And was able to make this PDF file: http://img40.imageshack.us/i/sc2techtree.pdf/ (i suggest you download the pdf, imageshack's viewer sucks). Do you think it's ok, or i misinterpreted something?

Some of the tech tree oddities i see here are:

• Terrans only have Marines, Ghosts, and Turrets for anti-air until Tier 3. Their only chance vs Mutalisk seems to be high numbers of Marines. If they rush to Starport, the Zerg has Corruptors anyways (should be Tier 3?).
• Immortals require two buildings at Tier 2: Council and Robotics Facility
• Marine and Marauder available at Tier 1. Zergs beware!
• Queen available before Obelisk/MULEs.

Discuss!

[Pandonetho]

What's so hard to read about the current tech trees?

[Wankey]

Why would yo want to replace something that works perfectly fine with something as ugly as you are proposing?

[Hamshank]

Who is going to actually use the Tech Trees anyway? Yea they're really cool , but the game is very faced paced and we will have no need for it after a few games.

[The_Blade]

I'll call your bluff.

We are the oldschool hardcore SC fans that wont need additional information nor the manual to play SC2.

But, many new people will have trouble playing. (I quote several of my friends that just didn't catch up with the campign tutorials, nor builds I teached them) This information is dedicated to this groups of people and well its like an eye-candy for us.

[Hamshank]

I disagree with your solution to new people. It's going to be there taking up space. You have to be as space efficient as possible.

So we have new people, you have to make a compromise, right?
Blizzard is dedicating a portion of the game on teaching players how to play battle.net They can leave the tech trees in that part of the game.

[Blazur]

Their tech trees definitely need improvement, and I can see reasons why it would cause confusion to newbies. Take the Protoss tree for example. It looks as if the Stargate is a prerequisite for the Templar Archives, which simply is not the case. It's very confusing.

[ArcherofAiur]

Their tech trees definitely need improvement, and I can see reasons why it would cause confusion to newbies. Take the Protoss tree for example. It looks as if the Stargate is a prerequisite for the Templar Archives, which simply is not the case. It's very confusing.

It isnt? According to SC Armory all you need to make a Templar Archives is a stargate. I think Twilight Council is just for Immortals.

[Nicol Bolas]

What's so hard to read about the current tech trees?

The way it's structure, particularly the Terran one, gives the wrong impression. The Terran tree is broken down into a spine of 3 buildings: Barracks, Factory, and StarPort. Despite the fact that the Factory and the Merc Compound have the same requirements, they should not be thought of as equivalent. The Merc Compound makes your Barracks's better, while the Factory does not. The Armory makes your Factories better, while the StarPort does not.

Because of that, you get statements that suggest Thors are Tier 3. They are no more Tier 3 units than Goliaths in SC1.

[Pandonetho]

Take the Protoss tree for example. It looks as if the Stargate is a prerequisite for the Templar Archives,

Because it is. Not that hard to read it guys.

The way it's structure, particularly the Terran one, gives the wrong impression. The Terran tree is broken down into a spine of 3 buildings: Barracks, Factory, and StarPort. Despite the fact that the Factory and the Merc Compound have the same requirements, they should not be thought of as equivalent. The Merc Compound makes your Barracks's better, while the Factory does not. The Armory makes your Factories better, while the StarPort does not.

It does not look like it suggests the Thor is tier 3 at all. It looks exactly as if you need a barracks to build a factory, which then unlocks the armory, which allows you to build Thors, that's exactly what it looks like.