Is TML op?

[Evildrew]

This is all nonsense. Too many bad decisions on "balance" have already been made because someone with influence didnt like losing to a tactical play by an opponent.
There needs to be a critical mass point where defence can no longer deny offence especially when the offensive tool costs more.
If you argue for this you also would have to agree that an overwhelming number of t3 static arty should not be enough to break through shields...
A tml plus its missle almost costs as much as a tmd plus a t2 mex. You are arguing that you should be able to get an eco advantage of +4 mass with no downside risk in simple terms. The fact that a tml is able to strike multiple targets just makes it a better decision to make than the t2 mex in some situations so your point as a whole doesnt stand up when having to generalize how to fix it as you desire due to your recent experience.
The t3 mex dying to 1 tml of course is bad i agree but that is as a consequence of a bad decision to make hp on mexes and pgen different per faction. Again that is the result of a bad decision in the past (post august 2016 balance patches).

I was in favor of closing the gap of damage between tml and bombs by strats a bit in line with a general reduction in hp of stuff but i have no say so what does it matter whether my proposal is better than what is there now

[moonbearonmeth]

Also, noone in their right mind would kill a t1 mex with a TML, i never said that.

Perhaps not, but you are arguing that it is difficult to get a T2 engineer to these expansions. I would hope by the time the mexes in the area are worth going to T2 that there has been sufficient time to get a T2 engineer over there.

[ZLO_RD]

Also, noone in their right mind would kill a t1 mex with a TML, i never said that.

Heh, it might be more efficient compared to just keeping missiles in silo.
The mistake was to make missiles when there was nothing to TML i guess.. but if you already made to many then you better use them for something.
imho, Biggest problem is GAP - Wonder map layout, when there is always something to TML, but i guess we can't change that. also mass TML does not do that great of a job against shields. you can also use mobile shield instead of TMD and bait out singular missiles cause if there is no direct vision, enemy will think that mex is protected and waste a TML... tho that ofc probably requres a t2 pgen and certain faction choice.

[AdmiralZeech]

In TA there were no shields, and once a Bertha artillery was raining shells onto your base, stuff would randomly be destroyed and have to be rebuilt. The counter was to kill the Bertha.

I think it's better to have some offense that cannot be passively defended against. Where the only counter is to scout it and destroy it before it does too much damage.

And I think it's fine if something ends up so useful that it's mandatory to build some, or you lose when your opponent builds them. After all, other unit types like tanks and interceptors are pretty mandatory, so why not TMLs and static arty? So if most matches have both sides building a TML or two and trading missiles whilst spamming tanks and planes, that's ok with me.

[Morax]

Nope, they just expose people who use poor Commander management, are overly aggressive, do not protect their bases, important structures, etc, etc, etc

The -120e and -8 (-12?) Mass drain basically prevents a player from upgrading 2 mexes from t1 to t2. That's a pretty hefty flux hit which doesn't even include the cost of the tml battery.

People who suffer from tml strikes are those that don't prioritize holding territory (eg the center of pyramid) and allow themselves or teammates to lose.

TML can also turn the tide of a game should a player who is behind needs something to try and win the game back. There is nothing wrong with that.

[Farmsletje]

I think it's better to have some offense that cannot be passively defended against. Where the only counter is to scout it and destroy it before it does too much damage.

So what is your suggestion for this? Remove tmd? smd? shields? AA? or what?

The -120e and -8 (-12?) Mass drain basically prevents a player from upgrading 2 mexes from t1 to t2. That's a pretty hefty flux hit which doesn't even include the cost of the tml battery.

Tml only requires 6 mass/s (less if you put it next to a mex) and only costs 180 mass per missile. Since tml'ing t2 mexes leaves no reclaim behind you only need to kill 1 t2 mex for your tml to be costefficient (because you can reclaim the tml launcher).

[EcoNoob]

Since tml'ing t2 mexes leaves no reclaim behind you only need to kill 1 t2 mex for your tml to be costefficient (because you can reclaim the tml launcher).

Thats the only reason why i would consider TML "OP"

[JoonasTo]

In TA there were no shields, and once a Bertha artillery was raining shells onto your base, stuff would randomly be destroyed and have to be rebuilt. The counter was to kill the Bertha.

Incorrect. The counter was to keep spamming power generators because those would block the shot and be destroyed instead of whatever more important it was shooting at. Like your own BB.

[Morax]

TML_on_Pyramid_Stops_Aggressive_Behavior.fafreplay

(416.04 KiB) Downloaded 87 times

I see nothing wrong with TML in its current state as a great way to stop games from taking too long and by punishing overly-aggressive behavior.

Above is exhibit A where I tml a player that decided to be a jerk and kill my teammate, followed by me TML'ing nearly every mex Clinch had because he was being a bully to Asparagus thanks to SYSTEM letting have the middle of the map.

What I am trying to say is that people who do not respect the tml are those who lose to the tml. It's not that hard to build a couple tmd to protect yourself, but people like the OP, Clinch, System_Failure, and tjockswhateverswedishperson DO NOT RESPECT THE TML.

[Plasma_Wolf]

Is TML op?

No.