missiles subject to TMD should ignore shields

0

Edit: The purpose of this suggestion is to significantly change the dynamics of the mid-game. Imbalancing the game in favor of MML this way would, I believe, create more opportunities for a low eco player to gain an advantage over a high eco player.

FAF lacks a skill-sensitive siege option, where a player with significantly less economy than its opponent can break its defenses.

MML counter shields fine, but this is in a macro view where MML is cost effective vs TMD. If the defending player has much more eco, then the shields offer him enough time to use his superior eco to spam up cost ineffective TMD and defend the base.

I want a player with less eco to destroy a firebase without TMD quickly, so he has a chance to get ahead purely through superior tactics.

Turtles are getting time they don't deserve
Normally you see TMD only being mass spammed up after a MML attack has begun. In my opinion this is wrong.
The turtle needs to either:

  • Scout the incoming attacks, so he can spam up TMD before the MML attack arrives
  • Pre-emptively build massive amounts of TMD.

If missiles ignore shields, then a MML force that gets into range makes short work of the defenses if there isn't enough TMD. These kind of fast and drastic changes, when a defense line collapses, can make this area of the game much more interesting.

It also reduces the time T2 artillery has to destroy attacking MML.

Much better harass option
MML drops are nice at the right time, but once all important structures have been shielded there is little point to it anymore. By having missiles ignore shields, MML drops remain relevant much longer, possibly the entire game.

When no longer faced with a limited window of opportunity to for example snipe the first T2 power generator, it is much easier to commit to these kind of tactics.

Maybe offer Seraphim and Cybran also some T3 missiles
UEF and Aeon already have good and interesting missile T3 units (Spearhead & Torrent). If missiles become more relevant, and to make them more relevant, Cybran and Seraphim could use them as well.

  • Give Sinntha T3 bomber a free manual launch missile attack similar to T2 MML
  • Allow cybran to upgrade T2 TML to T3 TML
    • Allow T3 TML to waypoint missiles
    • Possibly increase range, not damage
1

Again an issue which is completly map and skill dependant.
I've never had problems with firebases in 1v1 ~1600 elo ladder, therefore i would say that MML are quite balanced and cost efficient to destroy firebase.
But obviously a lot of players play maps like astro, and a lot of players make MML too late, when the firebase is already too strong, and then a lot of players want firebases to be nerfed because they can't counter it.

Problem is : if you nerf shielding or buff MML, it will impact all players, and then you'll have a unit that will be probably be a little bit broken for competitive gameplay.

0

I don't think making missiles ignore shields is a good idea. The shield is a great force multiplier to a fire base and the shield building can be killed by tml very quickly if they are able to ignore the shield. So building shields on firebases would become completely useless.
I don't like the gameplay of firebases either but they are a feature of the game and on well thought out maps they can be efficient to secure a reclaim field or temporarily protect an important expansion from a superior army.

Also who does MML drops?

0

fire bases always lose to units,i don't have problems with them at 1.7k both tmm and ladder,i haven't also experienced problems at 1.9k-2k global any troubles,firebases aren't cost efficient,you can just ignore them and tech up or rush t3 land which is going to completely wreck them kappa.

P.S. MMLS are good enough if you DO still feel like they are bad,try playing UEF since their mmls launch 2 projectiles at a time,then again if you still feel the problem,get t3 mmls,not sure it's this can be countered without huge investments.

0

@Auricocorico said in missiles subject to TMD should ignore shields:

Problem is : if you nerf shielding or buff MML, it will impact all players, and then you'll have a unit that will be probably be a little bit broken for competitive gameplay.

This is not about firebases per sé, this is about making the game more volatile, opening more opportunities for military over economic skill. Speaking as exclusive 1v1 and 2v2 player.

@harzer99 said in missiles subject to TMD should ignore shields:

I don't think making missiles ignore shields is a good idea. The shield is a great force multiplier to a fire base and the shield building can be killed by tml very quickly if they are able to ignore the shield. So building shields on firebases would become completely useless.

A firebase without shields is easily overwhelmed by a sizeable tank army. Shields are still needed to protect against air and direct fire.

It is also not as if shields actually stop missiles long term, you actually NEED tmd to defend right now. This is about NOT having TMD being immediately punishing.

@Resistance said in missiles subject to TMD should ignore shields:

P.S. MMLS are good enough if you DO still feel like they are bad,try playing UEF since their mmls launch 2 projectiles at a time,then again if you still feel the problem,get t3 mmls,not sure it's this can be countered without huge investments.

I don't think MML are bad, I think the game would be much improved if MML beats firebases and defenses right away, instead of after a few minutes of battering the shields away.

0

well technically a shield would be useless then:)

0

Honestly for what it matters for longest time I did think missiles ignore shields*. Back when I thought Solid Shots = PassThrough and Energy = NoBueno. (I been meaning retest on steam, just to statisify idle curosity of my insanity).

*If actually want to be super pedantic, Missiles do go through shields. Its really only blatant with TML’s. But way shields work is on impact they take damage = to damage of shooter. If the thing does AoE it calculates AoE based on where the object impacted the shield. So T3/MobileT3/T2 Stationary can and do damages things under shield. I don’t know how this works with overlapping shield code however in faf.

Its also why certain units (Titans, Obsidians, and Harbringers) have “less” HP then they appear to have so in some cases.

In principle Shields/Water work essentially the same in this regard

0

You can kill shielded cybran t2 pgens with tml because the shield bubble barely covers them and isn't enough to stop the aoe damage.

0

*Maybe offer Seraphim and Cybran also some T3 missiles
UEF and Aeon already have good and interesting missile T3 units (Spearhead & Torrent). If missiles become more relevant, and to make them more relevant, Cybran and Seraphim could use them as well.

Give Sinntha T3 bomber a free manual launch missile attack similar to T2 MML
Allow cybran to upgrade T2 TML to T3 TML
Allow T3 TML to waypoint missiles
Possibly increase range, not damage* Very interesting suggestion.

0

Moved to Balance Discussion

@Valki if you believe TMLs/MMLs are underpowered, provide a replay as an example

0

@Deribus said in missiles subject to TMD should ignore shields:

Moved to Balance Discussion

@Valki if you believe TMLs/MMLs are underpowered, provide a replay as an example

I do not believe they are underpowered, and this was a suggestion to significantly change a game dynamic, not a balance discussion. If anything, this suggestion if adopted would un-balance the game and require balancing to fix later on.

I think we would get a faster and more dynamic game when TML/MML ignore shields.