MMLs are terrible - Lack of competent T2 siege option contributes to turtling

0

I would like to see MMLs used go good effect. As a previous postet noted, Vipers are quite good (due to rapid fire and split missiles) so a replay of another MML should be required.

@Biass I do not build MMLs because they are underpowered and are not effective at the basic task for which they are intended.

1

the amount of disrespect being given to beastmode spearhead in this thread....

0

@FunkOff So did you even watch my video? All MML performed nearly as good, with considerable differences only showing up if you are gonna micro the shit out of them. Which you won't.

And why the fuck would you even consider that replay when the attacking side have 1k mass less. 1K FUCKING MASS LESS THAN THE DEFENDING SIDE?

0

@JusticeForMantis If MMLs are to be an effective counter, they need to quickly and reliably defeat their intended target for lower cost. The equal mass vs equal mass argument is so stupid it need not be considered. Read the OP again to see why. T1 Arty is effective against T1 pd. T2 MML is ineffective against t2 pd/tmd/shield.

0

@FtXCommando Who is Beastmode spearhead?

0

@FunkOff said in MMLs are terrible - Lack of competent T2 siege option contributes to turtling:

As a previous postet noted, Vipers are quite good (due to rapid fire and split missiles)

Is your argument that all T2 MMLs are bad or that the other 3 should be brought in line with Vipers?

0

@FtXCommando said in MMLs are terrible - Lack of competent T2 siege option contributes to turtling:

No I don't lol. You lose t2 mex and you lose t2 mex reclaim. There is nothing a dude gains from getting tml'd in any way. If you kill more mass than the attack cost you, then you have a relativist mass lead.

1 T2 mex kill is all a TML needs, the opportunity cost is irrelevant, it's always good ceterus paribus.

Your critics are counting the cost of building the launcher itself (700-850 mass) and making missiles (250 mass each) but they are not counting the mass you can get if you ctrl-k the launcher and reclaim it (roughly: the cost of the launcher minus 150 mass).

So if you make the launcher, make 1 missile, launch it, ctrl-k the launcher, and scoop the reclaim, your total cost is around 400 mass. That is obviously a good price for killing 1 enemy T2 mex.

If your enemy makes a bunch of TMD, you should decide whether to keep the launcher, or just ctrl-k it and scoop the mass.

0

No, that is what I'm counting. That's how I got my numbers in my first post. You would need 3 more failed launches if you include the reclaim to make it not worth making the TML. Didn't include anything about enemy cost of building TMD, though.

0

But that ignores the cost of making a TML in the first place. Coming up with 700-850 mass just to make the launcher (which could be sniped before it ever gets a missile out) is not insignificant.

0

No it doesn’t?
850 + 250 (ignoring adjacency bonus) = 1100

Missile kills 900 mass t2 mex, leaves nothing in reclaim. This results in 1600 total mass killed because of that.

You get 688 in reclaim back from the TML leaving total cost at 411.

Why would I factor in the risk if it dying? If it has a serious risk of dying then I don’t make it. I mean you could model through modeling risk but if you go that way you might as well as model the risk of t2 mex dying to tml, notha, t1 arty when discussing the value of it.

1

@FtXCommando said in MMLs are terrible - Lack of competent T2 siege option contributes to turtling:

Missile kills 900 mass t2 mex, leaves nothing in reclaim. This results in 1600 total mass killed because of that.

No, that would be double-counting. If I spent 900 mass to make something, and suddenly it disappears completely from the map, I lost 900 mass.

0

No, if you reclaimed a hypothetical 729 mass from the dead t2 mex that 1 mantis killed while your engineer stood next to it, you did not lose 900 mass from an attack.

I guess it is double counting, nvm. But I wasn't really using the double counting in the math beforehand anyway.

It still takes several failed launches for the TML to no longer be efficient.

0

Lol guys start scouting and the whole tml discussion is done.
The problem is that U guys sit idle around and not having t2 land or any intent to attack a firebase before it is not 5 minutes old.
By that time there is a should and 2 tmds ofcouse.

So simple solucion.
Change your gameplay!!!
Scout more and as soon as you see the first turret beeing under construction make 4 mml out of your t2 land asap.
That way u don't loose the game because of having fuckin wood in your brain.
Cheers guys

[EDC] - EngineerDaycareCenter
Come and learn this game with us!
https://discord.gg/MuPNDT66DY

0

Please tell me how scouting makes a TML on a canis 2v2 less nutty. Nothing about the TML discussion relates to the firebase bs anyway, I don't think MML sucks and I don't think TMD is op. TML is just absolutely beastly in game though, never understood why people don't abuse it aside from sheer laziness.

0

Don't tell them

0

This is the mml vs firebase discussion i am commenting on.

Tmls are my babes and i will not talk of them.

[EDC] - EngineerDaycareCenter
Come and learn this game with us!
https://discord.gg/MuPNDT66DY

0

If MMLs are any good, we can probably see a good few used to good effect in the LOTS tournament. Same for T1 subs. If we see few or none, that's important, too.

0

I have seen so many faces wrecked by MML spam in midrank team games it is not even funny. One of the guys in our normal crew has actually integrated "the mml phase" into his general strategy it is so successful.

If you have ~10 mml (which is not that expensive) you cannot reasonably build enough TMD to defend against it in a firebase. If you do manage, you are so far behind on eco, you've pretty much thrown. Yes, I know, not every game has firebases, but I think it should logically follow that not every game needs MML to be built either.

0

@FunkOff said in MMLs are terrible - Lack of competent T2 siege option contributes to turtling:

@Biass I do not build MMLs because they are underpowered and are not effective at the basic task for which they are intended.

Are you going to tell me you just woke up one day and decided this was the case? I don't think it's unreasonable to believe an event happened that caused you to come to this conclusion. Post the damn replay or don't post at all mate

2

Not sure if previously stated, I just think the problem is this:

A standard t1 army comp almost always has a few t1 arty in it. This is because t1 arty is good at both PD killing and as a combat unit. This means you almost always have t1 mobile arty available to kill PD that spring up. Its cheap and it works, and it helps to kill army units as well.

A standard t2 army comp usually does NOT include MML, as they are terrible combat units outside if niche situations. 99/100 times, you would rather have a few more t2 tanks to bolster up your forces. This means that once you see a firebase, you need to pause land facility, build 2-5 MML's, haul their ass too the front line, kill the PD, and then advance. By then, whatever reason the enemy built those T2 PD for already fulfilled their task (cover for an upgrade, secure reclaim field, buy time for t3 land). Now you are left with a dead firebase that already fulfilled its purpose, while you have a few MML's that will now do fuck all for your army.

I to fix your problem, I see two solutions: Make MML more of a combat unit (splash increase?) to have it be a standard part of a t2 army. This way you can counter t2 PD quicker/more effectively. Problem is this would wreck havoc with the meta and cause a few problems. Not sure if we want the game to go this way.

Make the missile damage significantly higher. This will mean you could kill t1/t2 PD much faster, with less units. Having a single MML in your army might be useful as a utility piece. Or rushing a pair of MML's out in a transport could actually break a firebase fairly quickly. Also this way, its interaction with TMD will remain unchanged.

Food for thought.