On a serious note I think this very clearly illustrates the way players at different levels see unit balance.
@firv said in Why don't we have t3 sera gunships, but we have this?:
Wait get out, cybran weak at t2 navy? Their t2 navy is opressive as fuuuck.
I personally don't think cybran t2 is bad because salem is alright, stealth is awesome and u always have frigates to put in formation to get the defender's advantage, and barracudas can be good too. Maybe just weak vs hover because salems cant hit shit
Their t2 air is arguable the strongest for snipes
I'd say aeon gunships are better. Aeon also has swiftwinds which at some point cannot be beaten by interceptors. Nothas outperform corsairs in t2 mex&pgen bombing, and notha and janus both are actually competent at winning air
Aeon has nothing on t3 land
This one's insane, the harbinger is the best t3 land unit in the game. It's fast, destroys t1, t2, pd, titans and loyalists, can surround, swarm, and beat percies and bricks, but that's not even needed because sniper bots exist.
So it's clear that balance views differ, but I strongly believe balance should be built around the top level of play. Otherwise, if cybran navy were nerfed, what could one possibly do as a cybran to beat a competent aeon/sera navy player, when they already have the edge as it stands now?
What could one possibly do to beat a competent aeon player in t3 land when their already insane harbinger gets another buff because the majority deemed it underwhelming?