MMLs are terrible - Lack of competent T2 siege option contributes to turtling
-
@FunkOff This is a pointless statement. T2 units should always be less mass efficient than T1 and T3 should always be less efficient than T2 when looking at raw HP and dmg stats.
This is because you get better dps/hp density on higher tier units, you need to limit the way it scales.
If you had linear scaling then as Femto has already mentioned certain units would clear be game breaking.
If you are playing a wide open map, how many tmD and t2 pd combinations must the enemy make? For 1 MML you are now making him spend the mass for 4-5 TMD?
This is why on DG Nuke is always netgain 0, because you force 2 SMD which is 15k mass against 15k mass. Which is why its so dominant.
@FtXCommando I don't think TML are that dominant. They cost a lot in initial investment are easily scouted and easily countered. If you're suggesting bombing TMD then i suggest bombing TML. Also you can block TML with a single land fac in construction.
Also cybran shields are cheap.
-
I've always wanted an increase in MML max missile speed, provides more of an incentive to hold fire to overwhelm TMD (except the aeon one) since the reload speed wouldn't change.
-
I have to agree that MMLs feel a bit weak. Not because their dps is is so bad but because tmd is so effective against them. One tmd can certainly block one mml shooting at it. Except cybran but the missile split is rather a gimmick. and a tmd is only 280 mass vs 200 mass for the mml. I am very sure it is effective to block unsynced mmls with tmd. Synced mmls might be more efficient than tmd. But then you still have to break through a shield. I nearly never use them to break through a fire base. But they are great at stopping pd creeps. 3 MMLs make pd creeping with a t2 acu nearly impossible. For breaking firebases I would rather suggest t3 mobile arty, as it has only shields to fight against and it is more dps/mass efficient than t2 stationary arty.
But this discussion is only happening again because people play lame chokepoint maps where building firebases is viable. On more open maps you just can ignore the firebase and destroy your opponents eco and deal with the firebase once you are so far ahead it doesn't even matter anymore.
-
The problem is MMLs exist solely to break firebases, and TMD exists solely to protect from MMLs/TMLs. You have to keep a balance between the two or else MMLs become either under or overpowered.
I would agree for a straight damage buff. This would preserve the current MML/TMD balance while also nerfing shields' ability to block them.
-
How do we nerf the ability of shields to block them? Literally just let them through some percentage of the time? 100%? 50?
You could use MMLs to kill shielded TMD and then bases would break instantly. At least with shields absorbing some MML shots you have a chance to react if your opponent spams MMLs.
-
By buffing MML damage. If the missiles do more damage shields cannot hold under fire as long, while this has no effect on TMD.
-
There are different ways to change MML's balance and at least 2 types of passive defense can be used
Shields: any buff or nerf will contain changing dps
TMD: more about how many MML's they counter. Healthy (IMO) state is about 0.7-1.2 . 1.5 will be OPThere is possible even buff MML aganist shields and nerf aganist TMD
From test:
It takes about 3 min by 10 MML's to do ANY damage to firebase with around 2000 mass in shields and TMD -
Unless the map is cluttered with players or the map is a turtle map i fail to see where turtle bases are an issue at all. The most common scenario is that 2 opposing players have lots of t1 / some t2 spam when fighting over territory and you try to build some t2 pd to support your army. Note that it's for army support and not to make it act as a "turtle base". These fights are often pretty chaotic so both having the time to build tmd and letting it live is pretty rare. After your mml's have killed the pd's they shoot safely from the back at random units and will eventually give you value as well, since armies tend to grow big enough for them to randomly hit units anyway. You often can build just 2 or 3 mml's and when the fight is over you check the mass killed on the mml's and they often have reached 500+ mass killed, which means they have more than done their job.
This was all talk about teamgames btw. 1v1's turtle bases aren't even worth talking about.
-
I'm not sure where the idea came from that MML were suddenly unable to break firebases. Maybe you have some replays where this is not the case? They're supposed to be the basic requirement for balance posting. Instead of making 8 posts a week full of claims that are not backed up in any feasable manner.
Stop asking for the balance team to randomly change stats because of what is essentially napkin-theorycrafting.
If you cannot even provide people the basics (The replay where you think you lost because of MML balance) It's on you to test this simple idea.
-
@biass said in MMLs are terrible - Lack of competent T2 siege option contributes to turtling:
I'm not sure where the idea came from that MML were suddenly unable to break firebases. Maybe you have some replays where this is not the case? They're supposed to be the basic requirement for balance posting. Instead of making 8 posts a week full of claims that are not backed up in any feasable manner.
Can you provide replay when they can?
I'm asking cos I'm not that good player and newer being able to break firebase with MMLs. I want to become better
Unprotected PDs and interesting mex locations are other story -
Just post a replay of you not being able to break a firebase then. This is exactly what he asked for.
-
@BlackYps said in MMLs are terrible - Lack of competent T2 siege option contributes to turtling:
Just post a replay of you not being able to break a firebase then. This is exactly what he asked for.
For argument sake i would like a replay where mml's did break firebase.
Secure the kill and send it off.
-
All this talk about replays just sidelines the discussion and instead of talking about balance of specific units, people will be discussing all the other things right and wrong with the player in that replay.
If you meant to derail the thread then congratulations.
Can we get back on topic now?
-
Ah yes, the spreadsheets are far more relevant than playtesting. There is no way that there could be some game mechanics not covered by the holy spreadsheet.
You realize that you can also post a replay of a sandbox where you test a specific scenario?
For argument sake i would like a replay where mml's did break firebase.
I hate to start this "burden of proof" debate, but the only sane way is to assume that things are balanced until proven otherwise. It is just too much effort to "prove" something is balanced in all scenarios. Much easier to focus on the specific scenario where they are not.
Also you are the one, that wants a change, soo... -
edit: basically the same as what BlackYps said, didn't see his comment before I wrote mine.
Psions said in MMLs are terrible - Lack of competent T2 siege option contributes to turtling:
All this talk about replays just sidelines the discussion and instead of talking about balance of specific units, people will be discussing all the other things right and wrong with the player in that replay.
If you meant to derail the thread then congratulations.Yeah, let's only talk theory and not back it up with actual gameplay, that would derail the thread.
HintHunter said in MMLs are terrible - Lack of competent T2 siege option contributes to turtling:
For argument sake i would like a replay where mml's did break firebase.
The claim is that MMLs suck and that thus T2 favors turtling. The burden of proof is on the person/group who makes the claim. Anything else is absurd.
-
@advena said in MMLs are terrible - Lack of competent T2 siege option contributes to turtling:
I'm asking cos I'm not that good player and newer being able to break firebase with MMLs
I don't see where the difficulty lies, just launch the missiles 4head
If you take damage build some mobile shields@Psions said in MMLs are terrible - Lack of competent T2 siege option contributes to turtling:
If you meant to derail the thread
The point of the thread, if no evidence is given to support claims, is just to argue with random people and for you to flag every post you dont agree with. The balance team doesnt read this forum, posts like this is why.
If you want anything to actually happen, you need to PROVE with REPLAYS there is an issue. Don't just claim it is so and then spend 40 posts arguing for no reason, it's cringe.
I'm assuming OP just lost a game and is mad because he thinks he lost to the balance. Just post that replay then? I don't see how you would randomly decide to make this post without seeing them underperform in a game beforehand.
-
@BlackYps said in MMLs are terrible - Lack of competent T2 siege option contributes to turtling:
Just post a replay of you not being able to break a firebase then. This is exactly what he asked for.
That's proof of absence. Person requiring this is either don't understand what asking or just trolling.
At most there can be synthetic test.
-
In what world is posting a replay of an underpowered unit proof of absence?
-
@BlackYps You want replay of not being able to break a firebase to proof that MML cannot break firebase
That's proof of absence. Even if you'll see argument viable others won't (me including)
BZW
I did syntetic test 10 MMLs aganist UEF 2 shields and 4 TMD
https://replay.faforever.com/13322669
Cybran MML is fine 2:45
Aeon is second with more than twice time 6:15
Seraphim 7:15
UEF got caught in shield sync 11:50PS I'll try and use cybran one given a chance. Other factions - just shit
PPS I newer seen MMLs to break firebase in my plays or random replays. Usually something else happen (MML die, firebase no longer a problem, firebase got nuked, etc). -
@advena said in MMLs are terrible - Lack of competent T2 siege option contributes to turtling:
You want replay of not being able to break a firebase to proof that MML cannot break firebase
That's proof of absencei think that's just regular old proof my man
