Changing population values of air wouldn't solve anything, as weak players will still struggle against the mobility of air. Sure, thirty Banshees would destroy a base slightly slower than 40 Banshees, but it doesn't matter when that's not the problem.
I just feel air, with leader powers, is too good at steamrolling the map, whilst everything else is in a pretty good place now in terms of strengths/ weaknesses.
The primary issue is that newer/weaker players playing in teams (often solo queue) lack the communication or situational awarness to fight mass air, and because of this, they claim that it's broken/OP. When in reality, it's simply a matter of them not playing correctly. This isn't me trying to bash anyone that complains about air, but most of the people complaining about air aren't taking a step back and looking at what happened, they're resorting to only blaming air.
Air cannot secure expansions. If a player is going mass air and I have a mixed army, my army will win in a straight up fight (assuming I have the proper counters). Air can fly around the map nicely, but it's not winning any straight up fights (save Deci Banshees). Thus, air cannot secure expansions.
I said this in another thread, but I feel that best remedy to this is dropping core air's damage towards structures by 5-10%. This change is 100% no needed, but it would likely help the newer players out, while still allowing core air to remain somewhat viable.
Wasn't the issue of "hog rushing" solved, in part, by increasing their pop? I may have made that up in my head, I just thought that was the solution. Decreased the critical mass that could be fielded and helped solve the problem?
Similarly, I take issue with the fact that when mass Kodiaks became a problem – either their build time/ cost (or both, cant remember) was modified so people could deal with them. And yet, when its air, people say “you shouldn’t let it get that far”. Its just an inconsistent approach – are we working to the top level players (the 1 v 1 where these issues aren’t a problem) or the wider community (3 v 3, where they clearly are).
Thanks for the explanation, I wasn’t sure what Cars meant – I would never assume to use air to hold down a position though? I would use Kodiaks and AA, which when confronted with an air army, would be soundly defeated and I would lose my expansion… so yes, I agree they can’t hold them, but they are much better at denying them than any other unit, adding to their overall effectiveness.
Something that would be remedied with your damage reduction proposal which I 100% behind, I just think it is worth considering alternatives.
Me disagreeing with the "general consensus" isn't to be confused with anger. Frustration, perhaps. That said, I don't wear a wig in the first place. The point is that this game cannot be balanced around what low and mid level players want. It needs to be balanced at the highest level. I don't see a way of reaching an alternative conclusion whilst employing sound reasoning.
What I listed aren't "things dislike", they're problems with the game. There is a difference. I'm being objective. The "general consensus" folks are not. And as for insulting other players, I might recognized difference in skill but is that an insult? Did I single anyone out? I don't think so. "Playstyle" is once again different from skill level. You're confusing many terms.
If you think air can secure expansions, you can add me and we'll see how well you do trying to expo with air when I've got an infantry ball that can beat you in a direct engagement handily.
Changing the pop of Air would not fix anything because there is nothing to fix.
Idioms are lost on you and your head of hair.
I apologise then, for interpreting your writing style as angry, and getting you confused with the previous responded RE playstyle. If my posts are confusing I will clarify - however, I believe you're just engaging in semantics and I’m not sure why.
However, do you see the irony in what you are saying? What I listed aren't "things dislike", they're problems with the game. A
ccording to.. you? According to 34 players? 80? Everyone? I’ve written this before somewhere, we should listen to statistics and consensus, not who shouts loudest - if the data says air is OP, supported by opinion (of which we are limited to the forum player base, not the wider game’s population) then I believe it to be OP. If the data, and the players, say the opposite, then I believe that too.
You don’t do yourself any favours by the fact you immediately assumed I was disagreeing with you regarding air and expansions. I wasn’t, I was asking for an explanation that Joker provided. In addition, when did I say that an infantry ball would not beat air?
You believe there is nothing to fix, and that’s fine. The first three people have all disagreed with my suggestion, and that’s fine too. I think balancing this game is a team effort!