|
The purpose of this thread is to collect feedback on what Blizzard can buff to ensure that Terran has a viable lategame. The current thread is completely unproductive, so I added a poll collecting the most common suggestions I've seen floating around. Please try and be constructive--explain your reasoning instead of complaining. The current balance changes were taken straight from the Korea house balance talk, so we know Blizzard is open to feedback as long as it's within the guidelines they've set (that means no mass Raven missile spam).
Poll: What should Blizzard buff to ensure that Terran has a viable lategame?Nothing. The proposed 10 HP viking buff is fine (28) 25% A bigger Viking HP buff (provide a number) (1) 1% Some other buff to the viking (provide details) (4) 4% A BC buff (provide details) (63) 56% Some other buff to the Raven (keeping the damage isn't an option, and provide details) (4) 4% A buff to some other unit (provide details) (13) 12% 113 total votes Your vote: What should Blizzard buff to ensure that Terran has a viable lategame? (Vote): Nothing. The proposed 10 HP viking buff is fine
(Vote): A bigger Viking HP buff (provide a number)
(Vote): Some other buff to the viking (provide details)
(Vote): A BC buff (provide details)
(Vote): Some other buff to the Raven (keeping the damage isn't an option, and provide details)
(Vote): A buff to some other unit (provide details)
Edit:
There have been a number of people calling for nerfs instead. While I think a Carrier nerf, in particular, is very unlikely given the state of PvZ, there's an outside chance that Blizzard might go down this road, so I've added a second poll for completeness.
Poll: What should Blizzard nerf?Both (24) 59% Carriers (9) 22% Parasitic bomb (6) 15% Something else (2) 5% 41 total votes Your vote: What should Blizzard nerf? (Vote): Parasitic bomb
(Vote): Carriers
(Vote): Both
(Vote): Something else
|
Rebuff raven auto turret cast range to either 2 or 3. And Decrease the missile speed of shredder so people can "split" vs it and maybe take away 5 damage from it (I think 30 damage is fine tbh)
|
^^Keeping the damage isn't an option. We know the damage is going away because they don't want people spamming the missile, period, regardless of whether there's counterplay.
|
On a possible BC buff, making them attack slower but deal higher damage per shot without tweaking their DPS (so basically how they attacked in the previous game) can make them much better since:
1. it makes them stronger against high-armor units
2. it allows them to suffer less DPS loss for having to reposition (c.f. the Cyclone)
Certainly, it would be very boring to see every 20+ minutes Terran game to end up as BC vs anything, but it would be nice if they were used more.
|
Terran ultra-late game is strong enough. Getting there is hard.
|
I support no change that affects TvZ balance. Some sort of buff to terran or nerf to protoss (that doesnt drastically change pvz) is what I want to see
|
On March 09 2018 10:00 Mahanaim wrote:
On a possible BC buff, making them attack slower but deal higher damage per shot without tweaking their DPS (so basically how they attacked in the previous game) can make them much better since:
1. it makes them stronger against high-armor units
2. it allows them to suffer less DPS loss for having to reposition (c.f. the Cyclone)
Certainly, it would be very boring to see every 20+ minutes Terran game to end up as BC vs anything, but it would be nice if they were used more.
That ruins the corruptors role in countering the battle cruiser. It also ruins the role of the voidray or viking (High armored Anti air units)
|
I think viking buff is ok
If we specifically wanted a different buff though, BCs could be neat. I think a big part of BCs being difficult is how hard it is to get enough starports to build them in meaningful quantities. Seems like a build time buff could be helpful; increase cost if necessary.
A bit off topic, I also think that mass BCs looks aesthetically unpleasing. it's this huge ship that has yamato, but then it just sits there tickling things really quickly at really short range... At least carriers look visually imposing lol
I think having BCs deal higher damage per shot is doable. Right now VRs/vikings/corruptors kill BCs pretty well I feel like, it's probably not necessary to have such a hard counter relationship.
Another interesting point about why BCs are uninteresting compared to e.g. carriers is that vs carriers you have to focus fire, which produces overkill (naturally softening a lot of otherwise very hard counters e.g. corruptors) and gives rise pretty naturally to kiting mechanics where the carriers get pulled back. BCs you can just amove into and trust your units will target correctly and not overkill, so while some focus fire is optimal it isn't as necessary as it is vs carriers. I guess an interesting fight to see would be if VRs, corruptors etc. had target priority on carriers over interceptors, then amove. I suspect the fight would look a lot more one-sided than focus firing once both armies are roughly maxed out, but idk
|
I'll keep saying this forever, the BC needs more range and being capable of shoting while moving, BCs are unmicroable because they have such a low range and they need to stop to fire.
I mean a tempest has 10 range, a broodlord too, carriers can deploy interceptors at 8 range and then have leash range.
Having higher range makes more sense for a unit like a BC because it rewards control and good micro and makes them necessary to baby sit them, the fact that the best way to use BCs is to teleport them in the middle of a fight and then cross your fingers while you wait to see if you came out on top is nothing but garbage design.
|
None of the above. Blizzard should instead start by nerfing carriers and parasitic bomb, and see where to go from there. And the problems with PvT aren't even ultra-late game related mostly.
Also this poll's options seem rather narrow and unrepresentative of what people have been talking about. It doesn't even include some of the most discussed options (for example removing the stacking on anti-armor missile instead).
|
Also this poll's options seem rather narrow and unrepresentative of what people have been talking about. It doesn't even include some of the most discussed options (for example removing the stacking on anti-armor missile instead).
This is under the assumption that the damage nerf is going through. Removing the stacking is functionally the same as nerfing the damage---it removes missile spam from play so it still calls for a buff elsewhere (or a nerf to other races (but Blizz is proposing a buff so that's what I went with).
If you think that Terran doesn't need a buff, or that the better approach is nerfing, that's fine, but I'd like to keep this poll focused on what Blizzard is most likely to implement in the next two weeks.
|
i think the problem is VIkings lack of survivability. Even adding 10 HP is won't help much about the fact that Viking is easy to clump up and die to AOE whether from Storm or Parasitic Bomb. More range is required for air to help Viking survive, like 11.
|
Maybe something from this?
- Increase Raven's supply cost instead of reducing damage?
- Buff marauders. Give them "conclusive shells" from start of game. +1 additional armor to +1 upgrade?
- Maybe mines upgrade. Cloak ability upgrade and energy bar like it banshee or ghost has?
- Remove fusion core?
A BC buff is a good one.
|
I think doing something with the BC would be really interesting. Having like a BC/raven/Ghost/Thor type of army would be pretty cool to see late game. Most importantly would be how ravens and BCs can work together.
I think one of the really big factors that sucks with BCs is the build time. Because tempests are quite good vs BCs I think they should make the build time of the BCs more similar to that. Right now they take 64s I believe. Change that to a number between the current # and the Tempest build time, which is only 43s (not incl chrono!).
I believe something like 53s would make them more competitive.
I'm not quite sure what else you could specifically change without them just becoming too good though. Changing health I think is unneeded. The abilities are quite good already imo. Damage is okay. Perhaps like a 25, or 50 mineral cost decrease would be okay, though I'm not really sure.
I think the biggest thing is that they need to add some way to get BCs out quicker (hence time change) and some way for them to mesh better with units like ravens.
I have not seen anyone using these two units together, but I think with the new damage thing on the raven they may be quite strong together.
edit: after unit testing BCs and the raven missle idk why people would not use them together vs toss air. the missile increases the effectiveness of 8 carrier or 8 tempests vs 7 bc/1 raven from 3 remaining bcs alive, to 6 or even all 7 in straight up fights+yamato.
the effectiveness of the armor missile vs tempests is insane. in low numbers bcs do almost nothing to tempests without the armor missile, but with it they just delete them.
With the recent stalker nerf, I think BCs are a lot more viable now with this arrangement. I could understand before the risk of transitioning there before with how insane stalkers were before. I often stated that I knew they would be nerfed as their anti armor dmg was way too high, esp for cost effectiveness vs things like BCs. Now, it makes a bit more sense and I think the above is already something that is quite good, people just need to learn to play it/micro it/which situations it would be good in.
|
bc buff would be nice; however, problem is the cost and time it costs to produce them just doesnt seem to be worth it.
|
I think buffing battlecruisers is a terrible idea. If they were good they'd be as oppressive as carriers are (or possibly even more due to their teleport ability). All-rounder capital ship type units are much better off being fringe.
|
Please buff ground units, we have enough air deathballs as it is.
|
I think the Viking is the key unit that should be buffed.
Terran has the tools to deal with everything except Carrier/HT (with support units).
If Vikings had 20 more hit points and 1 native armor they would do their intended job of countering capital ships. Since Vikings should not become too strong vs ground I suggest lowering their ground damage by 2 or 3.
|
In my opinion the remake of Raven is the stupidest thing that balance team has ever did (even though I like it  )
Just recall how strong Science Vessel is in BW, it has irradiate and EMP, which is for Zerg and Protoss respectively. Now massing Raven just like the Science Vessel in the past. Loss of armor just like casting irradiate among the units (your units die more quickly) and EMP the protoss army (your units die way faster when shield are gone).
Also, the interference matrix just resembles lock down of Ghost in BW. Imagine that you have a flying Science Vessel and Ghost thingy and it only cost 100/200, that may account for why massing Raven is so powerful.
Reduce the damage might be a good choice, but I think this ability should never have existed. Chronoboost indeed make Protoss upgrades much faster than Terran, but how can a single ability deny all the upgrades for so much long time? Also, after the debuff, Protoss can choose replace a few stalkers with chargelots and upgrade shield instead of armor, the Raven becomes useless again.
|
The problem with improving BC is that it might turn into another Carrier. Carriers are bad for the game since they are good against almost anything.
Another way to go is to nerf Carriers and parasitic bomb. Then Terran needs no changes and the game will be in an overall better shape.
|
Since there are so many people complaining about the strength of air armies (not just in this thread, but all over) I think giving late game upgrades to ground units would be best. Have fusion core as a requirement for upgrades in a tech labs on barracks and/or factory:
a) Upgrade the marauder so it has 1 shot 10 (20 vs armoured) damage instead of 2 shots 5 (10 vs armoured) damage. The protoss ground army and the ultralisks would not be as strong vs bio terran with that upgrade.
b) Give hellbats more tankiness with +2 armour.
c) A speed boost simular to the medivac's for the hellions. Make it easier to flee engagements.
d) A general movement speed bonus to cyclones.
e) Give the old anti-structure grenades to reapers. Making them a late game harass menace.
f) Give reapers the ability to dogde one projectile every 15 seconds. "Fear the reaper man". In combo with e) this would be even scarier harassment.
g) Widow mines back to always cloaked while burrowed. Overseers, observers or oracles should be available when terran has fusion core.
Those are a few ideas. The intent is not to implement them all. Giving terran access to everything would make the race OP. Just give them a couple of these.
|
On March 09 2018 17:18 MockHamill wrote:
The problem with improving BC is that it might turn into another Carrier. Carriers are bad for the game since they are good against almost anything.
Another way to go is to nerf Carriers and parasitic bomb. Then Terran needs no changes and the game will be in an overall better shape.
I like this suggestion.
|
Battlecruiser buff:
Change the attack to how it was in Brood War. Single powerful shots, rather than rapid fire weak shots.
|
+15 HP buff would be enough to make terran lategame competitive.
A BC buff would be terrible for the game because lategame then would be just both players sitting back and massing capital ships.
|
Terran late game is already over the top, this is apart from the obvious imbalanced Seeker Missile that outranges everything and instantly shoots. BC's beat Carriers and or Tempests. Anti-armour missile + Liberator + Vikings and later incorperating BC's beats Protoss air. Ghosts are super buffed and takes care of the Protoss ground. Liberators produce so insanely fast it's ridiculous. I don't mind this minor Viking buff since it would be cool to see more Terrans go Ghosts/Vikings again, but it seems more like a buff to the defence of Void Ray allins, rather than a late game buff. Speaking off.. Void Rays are so terribly bad now and with buffed Vikings, they will get even worse. I don't want Shield Batteries + Voids to end every game, but it would be nice if Protoss had some air unit that would deal with the Liberator spam.
|
I'm not against BC buff if they remove the tactical jump ability because that's a joke.
|
Make the AAM damage non-stackable. There's no need to nerf the damage
BC should get a buff. It's a tier 3 unit so it should be good. Buff the air attack damage but reduce the attack speed so it behaves like the BW counterpart. Add an new upgrade in fusion core where it can move and shoot at the same time.
|
The viking buff is good, but not near enough to compensate for the AAM having its damage removed. I actually agree with PiG that they could wack it up to 155 or something.
|
Just nerf parasitic bomb/fungal.
|
1. Make Widow Mine invis again when burrowed
2. Nerf Carrier stats
3. Parasidic Bomb to be made a projectile like seeker missile
|
Definitely a BC buff, would be nice for this tier 3 unit to be actually used more. You see plenty of carriers, colosus, broodlords and ultralisk, but hardly any battlecruises.
Aside from balance point of view, imho it's just bad design as well.
|
On March 09 2018 19:26 ilikeredheads wrote:
Make the AAM damage non-stackable. There's no need to nerf the damage
can you explain that a little bit further? the anti-armor debuff of the the missile has a 21s duration. Does your suggestion mean that the missile can only deal dmg every 21s?
I like the proposed change to the Raven, it removes the unwanted use of the AAM as a seeker-missile but still allows mid game Raven play. (Maru vs sOs Game 3 at IEM is a good example for mid game Raven usage)
The thing is, we haven't really seen how impactful the -3 armor alone is in late game engagements.
pre 4.0 we saw Terrans go successfully for lategame in TvZ and TvP, most of the time without even building more than one or two Ravens (remember those TY games) and the lategame composition haven't really changed with 4.0, so even with the nerfed raven lategame will be at least a little bit better than pre 4.0.
The reason why we almost never see macro games in TvP is not because Terran late game is weak, no the reason is that the Terran player is either dead or super far behind before reaching the late game.
|
On March 09 2018 11:39 Athenau wrote:Show nested quote +Also this poll's options seem rather narrow and unrepresentative of what people have been talking about. It doesn't even include some of the most discussed options (for example removing the stacking on anti-armor missile instead). This is under the assumption that the damage nerf is going through. Removing the stacking is functionally the same as nerfing the damage---it removes missile spam from play so it still calls for a buff elsewhere (or a nerf to other races (but Blizz is proposing a buff so that's what I went with). If you think that Terran doesn't need a buff, or that the better approach is nerfing, that's fine, but I'd like to keep this poll focused on what Blizzard is most likely to implement in the next two weeks.
Since you base your poll on mere assumptions on your part there‘s no reason to take it more seriously than his stance.
Problem with Terran is that, opposed to the other two races, it lacks reliable splash damage coming from a spell caster.
|
On March 09 2018 22:34 Creager wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2018 11:39 Athenau wrote:Also this poll's options seem rather narrow and unrepresentative of what people have been talking about. It doesn't even include some of the most discussed options (for example removing the stacking on anti-armor missile instead). This is under the assumption that the damage nerf is going through. Removing the stacking is functionally the same as nerfing the damage---it removes missile spam from play so it still calls for a buff elsewhere (or a nerf to other races (but Blizz is proposing a buff so that's what I went with). If you think that Terran doesn't need a buff, or that the better approach is nerfing, that's fine, but I'd like to keep this poll focused on what Blizzard is most likely to implement in the next two weeks. Since you base your poll on mere assumptions on your part there‘s no reason to take it more seriously than his stance. Problem with Terran is that, opposed to the other two races, it lacks reliable splash damage coming from a spell caster.
The assumption is based on Blizzard what actually said:
The Anti-Armor Missile is intended to combo with core units such as Marines, Marauders, Liberators, and Cyclones—not to be massed purely for damage, as is currently the case
and
At the same time, since Terrans are currently relying on the Raven for their late-game power, reducing the Anti-Armor Missile’s damage would help rein that strategy in. We think this would provide a good opportunity to give Terrans a bit more late-game help in the form of a buff to the Viking.
But hey, feel free to keep tilting at that windmill! I'm sure if you whine hard enough Blizzard will totally do an about-face on their intended role for the Raven for the last six months.
|
On March 09 2018 22:54 Athenau wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2018 22:34 Creager wrote:On March 09 2018 11:39 Athenau wrote:Also this poll's options seem rather narrow and unrepresentative of what people have been talking about. It doesn't even include some of the most discussed options (for example removing the stacking on anti-armor missile instead). This is under the assumption that the damage nerf is going through. Removing the stacking is functionally the same as nerfing the damage---it removes missile spam from play so it still calls for a buff elsewhere (or a nerf to other races (but Blizz is proposing a buff so that's what I went with). If you think that Terran doesn't need a buff, or that the better approach is nerfing, that's fine, but I'd like to keep this poll focused on what Blizzard is most likely to implement in the next two weeks. Since you base your poll on mere assumptions on your part there‘s no reason to take it more seriously than his stance. Problem with Terran is that, opposed to the other two races, it lacks reliable splash damage coming from a spell caster. The assumption is based on Blizzard what actually said: Show nested quote +The Anti-Armor Missile is intended to combo with core units such as Marines, Marauders, Liberators, and Cyclones—not to be massed purely for damage, as is currently the case and Show nested quote +At the same time, since Terrans are currently relying on the Raven for their late-game power, reducing the Anti-Armor Missile’s damage would help rein that strategy in. We think this would provide a good opportunity to give Terrans a bit more late-game help in the form of a buff to the Viking. But hey, feel free to keep tilting at that windmill! I'm sure if you whine hard enough Blizzard will totally do an about-face on their intended role for the Raven for the last six months.
On March 09 2018 11:39 Athenau wrote:
If you think that Terran doesn't need a buff, or that the better approach is nerfing, that's fine, but I'd like to keep this poll focused on what Blizzard is most likely to implement in the next two weeks.
What windmill? What the hell are you talking about? Blizzard nowhere stated they would potentially buff BCs or any other unit apart from Vikings, which your poll suggests anyway, so please stop talking out of your ass while trying to sell it as "likely to be implemented in the next two weeks".
Having multiple nerfs across a bunch of units across all races might be WAY more benefical to the game than just plain buffing, you just chose to exclude this completely by labelling these suggestions "unlikely" on your part... That's mostly what rubs me the wrong way, but yeah, try to further pat yourself on the back for being so pro-active and "constructive" here...
|
I am not sure why there is a need for terran late game buff...just looking at the all ZvT late games, terran seems strong enough.
There might be some buff for PvT..but making BC stronger won't help PvT
|
On March 10 2018 01:04 Creager wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2018 22:54 Athenau wrote:On March 09 2018 22:34 Creager wrote:On March 09 2018 11:39 Athenau wrote:Also this poll's options seem rather narrow and unrepresentative of what people have been talking about. It doesn't even include some of the most discussed options (for example removing the stacking on anti-armor missile instead). This is under the assumption that the damage nerf is going through. Removing the stacking is functionally the same as nerfing the damage---it removes missile spam from play so it still calls for a buff elsewhere (or a nerf to other races (but Blizz is proposing a buff so that's what I went with). If you think that Terran doesn't need a buff, or that the better approach is nerfing, that's fine, but I'd like to keep this poll focused on what Blizzard is most likely to implement in the next two weeks. Since you base your poll on mere assumptions on your part there‘s no reason to take it more seriously than his stance. Problem with Terran is that, opposed to the other two races, it lacks reliable splash damage coming from a spell caster. The assumption is based on Blizzard what actually said: The Anti-Armor Missile is intended to combo with core units such as Marines, Marauders, Liberators, and Cyclones—not to be massed purely for damage, as is currently the case and At the same time, since Terrans are currently relying on the Raven for their late-game power, reducing the Anti-Armor Missile’s damage would help rein that strategy in. We think this would provide a good opportunity to give Terrans a bit more late-game help in the form of a buff to the Viking. But hey, feel free to keep tilting at that windmill! I'm sure if you whine hard enough Blizzard will totally do an about-face on their intended role for the Raven for the last six months. Show nested quote +On March 09 2018 11:39 Athenau wrote:
If you think that Terran doesn't need a buff, or that the better approach is nerfing, that's fine, but I'd like to keep this poll focused on what Blizzard is most likely to implement in the next two weeks. What windmill? What the hell are you talking about? Blizzard nowhere stated they would potentially buff BCs or any other unit apart from Vikings, which your poll suggests anyway, so please stop talking out of your ass while trying to sell it as "likely to be implemented in the next two weeks". Having multiple nerfs across a bunch of units across all races might be WAY more benefical to the game than just plain buffing, you just chose to exclude this completely by labelling these suggestions "unlikely" on your part... That's mostly what rubs me the wrong way, but yeah, try to further pat yourself on the back for being so pro-active and "constructive" here...
Do I really need to spoon feed this to you? The windmill you're tilting at is keeping Raven damage intact, unless you mean something different by:
Problem with Terran is that, opposed to the other two races, it lacks reliable splash damage coming from a spell caster.
That ship has sailed. You can screech all you want, but it's not what Blizzard intended and they made that clear from the beginning. It's going away. Get over it.
Judging from history, they'll most likely make a numbers tweak to what they've proposed. There's a smaller chance that they'll implement some other buff because they've already said they're open to a buff. The BC buff is there because that seems to be one of most common suggestions both here and on reddit.
It's much less likely they'll implement wider-ranging nerfs, especially those that affect PvZ, even if the long term outcome might be better. They've targeted this patch for March 19th. You're out of your mind if you think there's any chance of getting "multiple nerfs across a bunch of units across all races".
|
On March 10 2018 01:31 BigRedDog wrote:
I am not sure why there is a need for terran late game buff...just looking at the all ZvT late games, terran seems strong enough.
There might be some buff for PvT..but making BC stronger won't help PvT
Then choose option #1.
|
I've added a second poll for nerfs even though I think it's the least likely possibility.
|
I think they should buff either BCs or Ghosts.
For BCs it makes the most sense to have them fire while moving. For Ghosts, snipes should be energy free if they are cancelled by enemy fire.
|
On March 10 2018 04:29 sneakyfox wrote:
I think they should buff either BCs or Ghosts.
For BCs it makes the most sense to have them fire while moving. For Ghosts, snipes should be energy free if they are cancelled by enemy fire.
Snipes return the energy if they are cancelled by damage. The balance team fixed that a few patches ago.
Re. the nerf poll:
The parasitic bomb change to high, unstackable damage was presented as an anti-protoss change. At the moment a viking hit by parasitic bomb dies if it takes any other damage from the zerg. Nothing in the zerg anti-air arsenal deals so little damage as to leave the PBed viking alive after one shot.
My suggestion is to change the damage of parasitic bomb to deal 100 damage + 20 vs shield. Vikings will survive a hit while the golden armada still takes the damage.
Carriers should have a reduced leash range. No other nerf is needed.
|
This is the change I want to see in vikings:
Increase (air) attack by 5
Increase acceleration by 50%.
That way vikings will fulfill their intended kiting role.
|
Just buff the BC already. Noone asked for the teleport gimmick, just make the unit as a-movey as Carriers and Ultras.
It's by far the hardest unit in the game to get, sitting at tier 4 tech, most expensive unit after mothership, requiring massive infastructure commitment and taking extremely long to build. It should be the ultimate 'don't let them get there' unit with all that is required for it.
|
Make the Raven anti-armor debuffs stack, so armor becomes -3, -6, -9.. etc with each subsequent missile hit. Also, increase the debuff duration to 60 seconds, with each hit refreshing the duration.
|
It will be interesting to see what Blizzard decided to do.
Almost every Terran I have talked to agrees that 10 hit points on Vikings is no where near enough. I think either:
a) +20 hit points and 1 armor on Vikings so that you can start trading units against Protoss and Zerg air without always losing the air war or
b) Nerf Carriers DPS or hit points and lower Parasitic Bombs base damage but give it bonus damage vs massive air.
A BC buff will even out the late game but it is better for the rythm of the game is Terran has strong vikings that can punish a Protoss that transitions into air too early or over invest in capital ships.
Strong BCs is fair but it would be Capital ship vs Capital ship which is not that interesting compared to ground fights. It would be better for the game if it was easier to punish over investing in capital ships so that capital ships acts more as support units instead of the main army.
|
I think BC need a secondary weapon for air: a stronger shoot that will allow them to not be garbage against corruptor
|
Buffing BCs even more would brake balance both in TvZ and TvP. Top pros are only now realising how good the armour disablement effect of the AAM is, Terran is going to be ok.
|
On March 13 2018 02:45 Mun_Su wrote:
I think BC need a secondary weapon for air: a stronger shoot that will allow them to not be garbage against corruptor
BCs have two attacks currently, Ground is 8 while Air is 6. They could just make ground attack standard instead of having an inexplicably weaker attack with the same animation/cooldown. But you're right, if they gave the BC the Stalker treatment with slower+stronger attack that would definitely help. Corruptors and Tempests wreck BCs atm, and that's on top of the BC transition being slow and expensive as fuck. No surprise that BCs are basically extinct at the pro level.
Imo the better solution is to just nerf lategame air for Protoss/Zerg instead of buffing Terran. Lategame air makes for shitty games all around.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
