I'm not usually one for drastic suggestions on here (well maybe once or twice) but I was watching the Gyle cast this week and had the thought that maybe a mobile missile rework could be in order:
Add a mobile TMD.
Split mobile missile launchers in to two groups or have two settings on them, one for normal operation (best vs buildings) and another higher rate of fire, lower damage, and partial unit locking setting (making them much more usable vs spam units.
Not perfect locking just somewhat better (IE splash hits on units moving in straight lines but missing jukers)
anyone else have thoughts?
You don't explain the problem. What's wrong with MML and TMD right now ?
@spy_emanciator said in Mobile missile Rework:
anyone else have thoughts?
I did have a thought once that it is a shame that UEF has both a T3 mobile artillery and T3 mobile missile platform. It would have been awesome if the mobile missile platform performed both tasks - for example as you suggested.
Turning off a mml makes it shoot it rockets to intercept missles
I have stated awhile ago that MMLs need a buff, but it doesnt look like the balancers agree, so it's not happening.
I think letting them ignore shields would make TMD much more important and games much more volatile in a good way. Your thoughts on that @FunkOff ?
@valki I like this idea. It seems consistent given that strategic missiles avoid shields, too.
You can already break firebases in below one minute mass for mass using MML. There is no need to work on that.
@auricocorico The thing I see is that there could be more gameplay at standoff ranges with anti missile and homing missiles added aside from turtle. Right now missile just miss moving armies and are only effective when formations are still or moving on predictable lines (e.g. shooting at one column and hitting something behind).
So if you had anti-MML units in your formations, and either a second rapid fire mml shooting somewhat homing missiles either by toggle or unit composition, then the game could show more standoff meta instead of being a close range only unit ball game.
Yes mml still works against static positions if they are not microing their artillery correctly. But this change would be more about moving armies at medium and closer ranges where MMl and anti-mml would be a t2 support unit of more importance instead of just being an auxiliary tool or something to intensely micro the shot pattern of to predict movement.
I think a fair test to show how bad MMLs are follows: Players A and B start a sandbox. Player A gets a 5000 mass firebase. Player B gets 5000 mass in MMLs and mobile shields. (Unlimited pgens as needed for each.) Then each player gets 5000 additional mass for whichever units they prefer. Victor of the resulting battle wins. (Or whoever has highest value remaining in a stalemate.)
This experiment, run sufficiently well, will prove that MMLs are ineffective generally. This owes to their low damage, low health, limited mobility, and extremely limited functionality.
You left out the result and jumped right to the conclusion. The 5000 mass armies will more or less draw and then the MML will crush the firebase. Player B is now 5000 mass ahead. How does this show that MMLs are ineffective?
I see funkoff learned from the last time and is now trying to make sure people forget the fact that shields take energy to run and that power gens actually cost mass to set-up.
Also trying to introduce additional variables just to make the tests more random so he can get a chance to prove his point by sheer luck.
Thread locked. There hasn't been a description of the issue, and it has been discussed before. Thus far this has been nothing but a retread of old ground.