Will TML ever be balanced?
-
Sounds boring
-
From TML discussion to drug talk.
Avoiding the latter...
TML is a little strong but nothing too unwearing, I'd say.
The overkill factor is what gets me every time, especially on Mexes.A TML can deal more damage than a strat and leaves no reclaim in comparison.
But with adequate scouting, one could see the TML being built and prepare.
Sure, one may argue that you'd have to TMD all mexes, but the same can be said about
Nukes - forcing all players to build Nuke-Def,
Telemazer - forcing all players to build Tele-Def,
Sats - Forcing all players to shield their economy
etc. etc.Granted, these are late T3 stage plays as opposed to T2, so I can see that being a counter-argument.
TML can also be used all the way up to the T4 stage, sniping high-value targets like game-enders and/or Exps.
Regardless, TML, when used properly is absolutely devastating.
Hard to say what can be done to 'adjust it', though.For now, it isn't too unbearable, I'd say - just gotta see the TML being built and either defend or rush to take it out.
~ Stryker
-
@ftxcommando said in Will TML ever be balanced?:
Just buff tmd hp so they dont get cancered as easily
That would certainly make tml less oppressive in high rated lobbies, esp. if you bring the currently quite shitty aeon tmd to a similar level of the other ones.
For lower rated lobbies the problem is mostly that a single tml launcher can just win the entire game by itself, if your opponents make tmd even just 1 minute too late.
It could be something simple, like making tml launchers only load at half the speed and/or have twice the cost, to make tmls way less instan-game-winning while still staying powerful.
-
@ftxcommando but what about MMLs? Buffing HP of TMD would also nerft MMLs, because it won't be as easy to destroy them in bunkers as before.
-
MMLs are already extremely bad for breaking bases, most of the time they exist to stop creeps from pushing further rather than breaking them down. If you want to break something you're better off with t3 mobile or t2 stationary arty.
-
T1 MML then?
- Same range as current T2 MML
- Reminds players of tactical missiles as threat, TML not so easily forgotten
- DPS nerfed appropriately for T1 by reducing rate of fire, rendering it inefficiënt against TMD.
-
New unit and breaks the balance. Not happening.
-
For me, TML and SML are what forces tech level ups, not letting you to drag behind your opponent for long.
-
I can see many ways TMLs can be adjusted without altering them too much.
The first way, and probably the best way would be:- (Greatly) Increase the BP of the Structure and the BP cost of the Missile.
This will lower the effectiveness of assisting which slows down each consequent missile.
Not the BP required to build the structure itself, but the BP it has, similar to a Nuke Launcher.
Other simple options could be:
- Increasing the BP cost of the projectile.
- Increasing the BP cost of the structure.
- Reduce the BP of the structure so it builds missiles slower.
Other more drastic options could be:
- Increasing the resource costs of the structure.
- Increasing the resource costs of the projectile.
- Lowering the speed of the projectile.
- Lowering the damage of the projectile.
I imagine as an overall missile theme, you'd want to keep the damage high, so, maybe reducing the damage is not the way to go.
I can see the BP being adjusted though.
~ Stryker
-
@xiaomao TML has to have worst game flow of any element in the game. When T3 arty begins firing you hear it, aside from noticing the investment. A small building, no warning, silent missiles.
Introducing missiles at T1 is one way to create such a flow without changing the TML itself. If TML is changed then fiddling BP is not the point I think, introducing a global cruise missile noise would do more.
-
Maybe add a sound that tmk has been launched like sml
-
the balance on tml is beyond awful every game you make twice the mass of the launcher simply in tmd to stop it even if it doesn't kill a single thing.Tml missiles should cost around 300 mass I think and the launcher should cost around 1800.
-
I've reached opposite conclusions - TMD being really cheap compared to the cost of TMLs!
I kinda dislike the fact that a turtle-type player can rely on very few TMD, whereas a player with map control needs many TMDs to protect their economy; but over time I've found that, provided an appropriate amount of resources have been dedicated to economy, the 'I have the whole map' player still tends to be able to defend against TMLs with a stronger economy, compared to the turtle.
OUTSIDE of such extreme turtle gameplay, I find the cost of TML and TMD to be pretty good - if TML were more expensive, I'd struggle to see any real use cases for it.
That being said, I'm talking very much from a 1v1 perspective. I thought that team games would shut down TML strategies even harder (since there tends to be less area that an individual player needs to cover with TMD), but I'm not experienced enough to anything more than 'reckon' here.
-
Also, aren't they OP against experimentals? I was once even practicing on shooting down czars with them; result: gets easier the more you practice, but the effective range is not great.
-
That's really funny, you shouldn't say that though it probably will get patched out
-
@snoog
I created a thread in the balance team channel, these are the results so far:Stat wise, the TMLs
Sera needs 6.3 seconds / missile to launch
UEF needs 8.2
Aeon 8.8
Cybran 1.75For now my proposed change was Cybran launcher 1.75sec -> 6sec. It got denied.
"There is no animation visually blocking the delay", "Build more TMD", "Cybran's area here is strong, therefore it's fine".
At least Farms agreed though.
Other ideas like "Make the building volatile" or adjusting more stats like nerfing the hp etc. are not possible as the team simply is not active enough. Hence the delay of this response.Update:
Apparently it goes from 1.75 sec -> 3 sec now. Still way too small in my opinion, think about their arguments what you want, I tried my best. -
The fact that they remove wrecks of anything they kill is pretty bullshit.
Other than that I don't really have problems with them.
@wtfboomnoob
Since the missiles need to be loaded I think the firing rate isn't really an issue.
I have never heard anyone complain more about cybran tml than any other.
Besides, UEF and Seraphim can strap a full fledged TML to their back and make it mobile, which is a way bigger deal. (and without testing it specifically I'm pretty sure they fire faster to)I think that the problems with TML's are exactly the same as with Strat bombers, they have no conceivable counter of a lower tech level and you can't hold them back. I actually think the strat issue is way worse, but to stay on topic I won't go ranting about Air here.
-
Don't get me wrong, I do not think that my nerf idea was enough to balance them. But it was something we could've done without a whole team voting.
The thought process behind that nerf in particular is that is was insanely punishing bc the moment you lost a TMD a cybran TML can kill 3-4 structures before your next TMD is up. Against other factions' TMLs you have more time to build the TMD. -
The wreckage overkill remains the largest issue IMO.
That said, firing speed is important too. ACU's just received a 30s fire speed nerf recently, so it makes sense for cybran to be made in line with the others as well.
-
@snoog said in Will TML ever be balanced?:
ACU's just received a 30s fire speed nerf recently,
What do you mean with this?
