by uberge3k » 27 Oct 2011, 13:50
It has already been established that bombers do not need a nerf.
It has also already been established that bomber first is only "bad and wrong and OP and gamebreaking and other inflated negative adjectives" when the disparity of skill level between the two opponents is sufficiently high. In other words, that bomber first is not an issue.
This change, while "simple" on the surface and seemingly innocuous, has many and far reaching consequences, a few of which being:
- Air first is even less viable than it already is. That reduces strategic diversity for no apparent reason other than to slow the defeat of a noob by a pro for a few more minutes, which is an absurd way to balance the game.
- Naval and air heavy maps are now dramatically changed, as you need even more land facs than before to spam engineers for increased build power, resulting in a net nerf to both naval and air where they were previously balanced just fine. For example, when you now build a naval factory, you can no longer build engineers to assist it, meaning increased build and travel time while your now-needed land facs produce their engineers and move them to the target factory.
- Removal of strategic options to fix a problem that doesn't need fixing. There is no reason to remove T1 engineers other than several people complain about air first, and since support could not be rallied to nerf bombers, this is a roundabout attempt at accomplishing the same goal.
Aside from attempting to nerf air first builds, what is your reasoning for this change? If there is no other valid reason, then I believe the topic has already been sufficiently covered in previous threads.
Ze_PilOt wrote:If you want something to happen, do it yourself.
