MMLs are terrible - Lack of competent T2 siege option contributes to turtling
-
@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.
Analyze, Adapt, Overcome...
-
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
-
@advena said in MMLs are terrible - Lack of competent T2 siege option contributes to turtling:
@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).Make it 16-17 mml chad so the mass investment is the same.
-
Anyway here, mass for mass firebase vs same mass in MML.
Also accounted for t2 pgen cost to run the shields(960 mass)
MML x16=3200 mass vs 4/5 t2 pgen 960m + x4 Tmd 1120m + x2 shield 1200m = 3280mass.So the post saying that it takes 10 fucking minutes to break this shitty firebase is straight up lying and should be removed for spreading misinformation.
Not to mention I could shave up to 20-30s on breaking the bases if I were to actually properly micro the MML... -
If TMD are in front of the shields, the TMD gets more shots off before the missiles hit the shields. That should account for some of the difference between tests by @JusticeForMantis and @advena
These tests of course are artificial. In a real game, other stuff would happen. For example you could send nothas to try to bomb the shields/TMD which might create an opportunity for MML missiles to get through, to break the firebase faster. Or you could send 30 light artillery at them.
-
That's 5s to 10s change. Not important at all when I didn't even bother to micro MML properly.
I didn't bother to watch his replays nor care for cuz looking at his batshit crazy numbers is enough to say he fucked up. -
Why you take mass for p-gens in question and not take mass for T2 Land HG or MMLs defence?
We can reliably compair only mass on field vs mass on field
-
Are you for real or just trying to look stupid? Cuz sure those shields will look nice when they don't have power to run on.
-
@JusticeForMantis Are you for real or just to look stupid? Cuz sure those MMLs will look nice when they're dead or not ever built
-
Almost like this is why you were asked to post a replay of a real game situation.
-
@JusticeForMantis said in MMLs are terrible - Lack of competent T2 siege option contributes to turtling:
That's 5s to 10s change. Not important at all when I didn't even bother to micro MML properly.
I didn't bother to watch his replays nor care for cuz looking at his batshit crazy numbers is enough to say he fucked up."I didn't like his claims so I didn't look at his evidence" DansGame
