I think these tiers in HW2 are based in usage. My opinion may bring some criticis.m and may also be a target from other comments saying I'm wrong, but that's just my opinion and I'll ignore any kind of judgement, in fact, will respect it all. When making the tiers, it's being considered 'how powerful' a leader is considering the current patches and changes, but, again, i smash the same thesis: i think that the leaders that are being considered low-tier or unviable are just not being as much used as they should. It's hard to identify the full potential of something when there are paradigms taking us to do diferente actions and hiding any kind of information that could come from a diferente source. You guys know a lot of the game and say many useful things that make sense. But my point is that any leader can be viable considering it's way to play. I'm considering a 1v1 perspective. Tiers are most used to define champions in MOBA games, where theres a solid meta defining which role will fill each lane, but this is a RTS and I think the interpretation should be singular and consider only the playstyle of the player. I do consider inconsistencies, leader powers and units that can make a leader stronger than other, but I think that in a mathematical perspective it wouldn't be more than 5% or something like this. So it's a kind of advantage that can be mitigated by the correct playstyle of each leader.
I'm kinda new to the game and I'm trying to see it like the others RTS i've played in the past (SC BW, SC 2, CQ, AoE, AoM). But I know there are many other players here in this fórum that are very experien.t in this game. The players that have more matches, more playtime and a unique knowledge of how the game Works. I would like to propose to these more experien.t guys to try playing for a determined period of time with each of these leaders called 'low tier'. I'm sure that during the gameplay they would break some of the paradigms installed by the gameplay of other leaders (the ones called 'OP) and start making a legitimate and unique strategy to beat the game. Some guys are getting too much attracted to what feels 'wrong' and not in how to overcome the obstacles of the game and start thinking as a RTS game, making strategies, microing and macroing. I saw some streams of high rank guys in this game and even those were basically hitting double RB, attacking and spamming the leader powers against the enemy units (considering counter unit). They win, yes, they are used to it and are experiente. But I dont see na intense use of grouping and microing like I was used in SC2, which this game also give the possibility to use (just 4 groups but that's kinda enough since we can swap bases my other button). Just a thought I'd like to share with you guys. Hope it contribute positively to the post, which is Always a health way to discuss and get more knowledge from others.
A good citation coming from a metalurgic engineering Education article ilustrates what I tried to expose here, which says: "The multidisciplinarity stands out here as one of the main sources of solutions for the problems, as a single object its evaluated from several views of different subjects. The comprehension of the system and the identification of its mostly significant elements depends of the acquaintance, experience and ability of the specialist" (Sakurada & Miyake, 2009).