I’m assuming this is a genuine discussion, hopefully, and not just spam about imbalance, etc.
================================================================================
< Meta Considerations >
Firstly, I think it is more important to understand why Z needs such a unit.
There is nothing in the current meta that cannot be countered by what Z already has. So it defeats the purpose of the Z having something like that. On a side note:
- Corruptors are tanky, armoured type, 2 base armour
- Ultras are tanky, armoured type, 2 base armour
What you are suggesting is something that already exists in the game as 2 separate units. So there isn’t really a reason why there will be a need to have something as such.
Of course, the common retort would be:
But T and P have BCs and Carriers, Z is the only one that doesn’t have a similar unit.
Which leads me to my next point.
================================================================================
< Game Asymmetry >
I have addressed this at length over here under Topic #3 that:
Races are Asymmetrical
I cannot emphasis this enough. None of the races are intended to be a mirror to another race (but in a different form). That is what Command & Conquer does, but Starcraft is NOT C&C. It is intended to be as such because if the races each have a counterpart, then it defeats the purpose of having 3 distinct races in the first place.
The more probably reason that I think you are considering such a suggestion is because you want something that the Z can mass (similar to T / P) that is a hard counter to everything. Unfortunately, that is not how Z should be played. If you are uncomfortable with the play style, I’d actually suggest that you consider switching race. It isn’t really practical to change the race itself (since everyone has different opinions on how the race should behave / be played; you can easily just look at the state of the forums to have a clearer picture).
================================================================================
< No More New Content >
Lastly, there aren’t any plans to have new content:
Though they did not specifically make mention about it, considering Activision’s track record of monetising new stuff, and their claims of “we’re not going to be producing additional for-purchase content, such as Commanders and War Chests”, it is easy to put 1 and 1 together to mean that it is an equivalent of no new stuff in the future.
So matter how good the idea is (I do think it may lead to a significant variation in meta), what we have is what we get at the moment.
================================================================================
When you combine the above, every point seems to be against such a suggestion. So it begets the question of, “To what purpose,” and whether this purpose is in line with what the developers want.
Just my personal thoughts on this matter.