TMD could be cheaper
-
TMD is already incredibly cheap for what it counters and making it cheaper won’t solve the issue of getting locked out of TMD if your T2 HQ gets sniped
-
I do not think there's anything wrong with TMLs. Yes, they can be strong if your opponent is not ready for them. Especially remote extractors are often good candidates. Which is fine in my opinion - if your opponent is being greedy then TML is the tool that is available to you to punish your opponent.
What I think @SainseRow is referring to is that TML (just like SML) scales quite decent with the number of players. And as a result, you need more TMD (or SMD) and therefore they look expensive. But usually my problem is not with the costs of a TMD, it is the lack of a tech 2 build suite in the area where it is required.
@caliber said in TMD could be cheaper:
The problem here is not the TML being too strong or that TMD are too expensive. The problem is that the opponent team let white build the TML in the center of a 10x10 map. Especially considering that they have a lot more units in the area than white does. They let you to sit there with a TML. And that's good mechanics working - white takes advantage of its opponents being too passive. Good on white for doing so.
-
You could reduce the health of TML so it would be more effective to kill it with t1 bombers. Proactively scouting the TML and sniping it should be cost effective, since it requires attention and air, but right now you would need 8 t1 bombers which costs too much mass.
-
@thomashiatt It's already planned in the forecoming patch alongside with TML being volatile
-
@SainseRow you should have lead with the fact that you are already planning some changes, I highly aprove of these xd
although as my loathing of TML use grows with each game, I feel that more nurfs should be considered for a better balance.
-
TMD is fine as is.
I could see an argument for making TML or its missiles more expensive, but even that's iffy
-
lets compare 2 similar T2 static units to highlight how cheap a TML is.
considering that a tml does 5000 damage and a klink hammer does 2000 damage
tml takes 1.01 to build and klink hammer takes 2.03 to build
the klink hammer is 1900 mass and 13585 energy
the tml is 800 mass and 4000 energy plus projectile 250 mass per shot
the Klink Hammer has a range of 115, the TML is 256
TML can even fire quicker than T2 arty
it seems that justifying a significant increase in costs to the TML would be a slam dunk.
-
Iffy? TML is one of the most risk free forms of aggression in the game. Combine it with TML ACU that can move wherever and cannot be sniped (but also can’t be reclaimed when no longer useful) and factions like sera which can one shot TMD with a singular notha u will never catch in time and it’s ridiculously strong.
People out here making it sound like it’s mid and not worth it half the time. It’s in the same category as first bomber in teamgames where a competent team should be abusing it every game pretty much.
A TML killing a single t2 mex is already mass efficient when you actually take into account the fact reclaim is entirely killed and you can reclaim the launcher at your own leisure.
-
What about 1 health missiles? That way tmd becomes much better at countering and you don’t need as many to protect an area, without hurting mmls.
It also still preserves the ability of tmls to punish players, while rewarding scouting the tml slightly more
-
isnt this all a big skill issue? (just dont afk; let the guy sit in the best position on the map, go t2 and win?)
-
all attacks are a skill issue because if you just defended better they would lose
-
Just play optimally and no attack would ever work, it's pretty simple
frick snoops!
-
got his ass
-
This post isnt about a player or skill, its about the TML itself being so cheap compared to the damage that can be done with it, with absolutely no risk vs reward structure with which this whole game is about, it leaves no mass behind if you fail.
-
Would it make sense to make it impossible to reclaim a tml to get mass back from it? This way it stays as a skill check but is more risky to make because you actually lose the mass you invest no matter what? Just a random idea, and not sure it’s a good one. It definitely has some flaws.
-
It would not be consistent with the rest of the game where structures turn into wrecks that you can reclaim.
-
There are several different paths to take in order to balance the TML more fairly
-
reduce TMD costs
-
reduce TML damage to 2000 so that its enough to kill a t2 mex but still leave the wrecks
-
increase build times, mass and energy costs to match the potential mass damage that can be done
-
reduce fire rate
-
reduce missile storage, only the cybran TML has multiple launch tubes so making all other TML storage to 1
-
largely increase energy costs to match a T2 energy economy requiring the need for at least a T2 Power Gen, this would also slow down the TML rush and reduce the ability of players locking their opponent out of T2 by Killing their HQ early on and allow the "victim" a better chance of spreading t2 engineers around to build TMD. This would also create a risk reward structure as making a TML would largely increase the chances of energy stalling wich has a large number of repercussions.
-
-
you really gotta ask yourself if it isn't your own fault that your opponent managed to acquire T2, built a TML in a forward position, and loaded it with multiple missiles before you even had T2 up
-
@thewheelienoob said in TMD could be cheaper:
Just play optimally and no attack would ever work, it's pretty simple
-
That was in regards to preventing players from sniping your tmd, and tml acus. Both of these are much harder to prevent than a simple tml rush. If your opponent gets a loaded tml before you even have access to t2, you ecoed too much or spammed t1 too much (in which case you should be able to rush the tml and kill it)
