Monkey lord cost reduction.

[Gowerly]

Am against this. ML isn't a replacement for T3 strategic bots. You, ideally, want MLs to be killed by them. MLs are there to obliterate t1/t2 armies, get vet and then kill bases. As they are, I think they're OK.

In general, I think T4 is slightly underused, but I'm actually ok with that.

[Cantor]

T3 does not just beat a monkeylord 1v1, but is also more effective at fighting T1 and T2 than a monkeylord is.

[Rocksteady]

People just need to use t4 effectively and shouldn't be comparing t3 land with t4 mass for mass.

An ML can cause ALOT more damage in "mass" compared to t3 land and has a much stronger map presence. If kept alive and supported it offers much more than t3 it also has much better veterancy.

T4 Should be treated much like the ACU, aggressive skirmishes then pulling back before it dies or once there's no more support near by, Of course it's going to die if mindlessly rushed from A to B into 10 siege bots. They should only be sent in head first as meat shields when supported with an army that can finish the game or get a kill.

Also economy isn't finite it's infinite so time is a very important resource which most people ignore. 10 bricks have a build time of 48000. a ML has a build time of 15750 if your going to compare them mass for mass you must also account for the extra 32250 which is ticking away after the ML has been built. I'm crap at maths so somebody else can work it out.

[Sunny]

Gowerly: people do not build ML for it's purpose, they build it because it's cool.

ML is one of greatest things we have in FA and is an impersonation of badassness and coolnes, being a big chop-chop spider with huge red schlong on top.

On the other hand, thing with cost of 22k mass commited in one piece, should be valuable on the stage of the game it's build. Things about "obliterating" T1 and T2 armies is fun, as 1 brick obliterate T1 armies and to obliterate T2 armies you need 2, well, 4 for tens of Obsidians.

ML should be encouraged to be used, it was pretty useless with cost of 17k mass (try to build it with 10 T3 arties, being 8k mass kill your base, in real games they'll be there, or T3 air will), now it's just a fun option.

For me, the best way to buff it - is to make it cost the money. Range, speed, you name it.

[rxnnxs]

Whatever you do, please do not touch the plasma guns. i like it as they are.

[uberge3k]

The problem with the ML currently are probably the players. They are too greedy or think that a cheap T4 should destroy a base easily.

Rush a ML, gain map control, don't go to the enemy base. Just use it so nothing come out. Force your enemy to build his T4 with less mass (you own the map now), and win the game.

The problem right now is that people are doing a ML, ignore the whole map, and rush mindlessly to die into the enemy base, basically giving mass to the enemy.

This.

The only thing I can add is that it was figured out long, long, long ago, and people seem to have forgotten it. Even before T4 was nerfed, as prior to their nerf they were still easy to counter with T3 if you played intelligently - I believe it was in _PINK's legendary guide on GPG's forums where he points out that your ML is not Indiana Jones and that your CZAR is not the death star, and that they will indeed die horribly if sent in like all-powerful I-win-button cowboys instead of being properly supported with an army.

Even the game's lore references this strategic concept - "tip of the spear, my boy, tip of the spear".


I would much rather have people improve their gameplay than balance the game around making bad strategic decisions work.

[edit]:

I'm thinking on teams games, were it would be possible to rush the ML in around 15 min if all players are building it.

You can already do this with the ML, or indeed most other experimentals. The problem is that no one plays teamgames as a team. Everyone goes off and does their own thing, acting like it's four concurrent 1v1s, and we simply don't see this level of team play anymore.

Do people even remember that you can gift mass and energy to allies? Perhaps that feature needs to be more obvious...

[Sunny]

ML is not for map control, because it's a weak unit for it's mass (even in 3599), located in one point. Actually MLs cost was raised to be 17k specifically to balance it so that it wouldn't be rush-effective. Don't forget, that travel time for ML is going to be no less, than 2 minutes, it was enough to build a GC when rushing GC symmetrically even in 3599.

T3 bots are much better in map control (well, pretty much anything, including T1 spam), and in killing bases too.
Also in ML-rush scenarious, some players are so affraid of, the rusher will have much worse economy (we suppose players are of the same playlevel). In basic RTS mass-power concepts (not to be confused with mass-energy, mass here is units, power is economy), T4s are concentrated mass, and this also makes a player to commit and wait, and gamble and probably lose because of this. For me, T4s should be better than anything else for their costs. Now we consider, should ML be 1/2 mass-effective (9 or so percies kill it), or a bit better, like 2/3 mass-effective. A shame

Also even on very average playlevel, everyone adds T2 flaks to T4 as otherwise T4s are destoryed with <10 T2 gunships (3,2k mass) half-way.

I seriosly suspect, that all this whining about T4s being OPed is caused by players who are being constatnly outplayed and locked in the base firsly and roflstomped with T4 consequently for lulz. I, personally like to do it alot. Probably I shouldn't as now they nerfed ML... But I guess, I would do it anyway.

Care to watch replays, guys, don't blame some expensive as life unit in you failure, blame yourselves.
Best wishes

[JeeVeS]

don't blame some expensive as life unit in you failure, blame yourselves.

Man this would probably be my signature if not for the typo. All of you opposing this change should stop and consider for a minute the possible alternative reasons for why your asses have been lit up by a ML's microwave: you didn't scout, you were substantially out-eco'd, you didn't scout, you had your commander standing somewhere stupid, you didn't scout, your units were grossly out of position, and you didn't scout.

An ML can cause ALOT more damage in "mass" compared to t3 land and has a much stronger map presence. If kept alive and supported it offers much more than t3 it also has much better veterancy.

Rocksteady's 1v1 score: 365 at 20% wins.
Rocksteady's global: 1202

You are COMPLETELY wrong on all accounts. Why don't you run some tests in sandbox before you show up here spouting nonsense that other noobs will undoubtedly take as the gospel.

Consider the following: you are in a 2100+ 1v1 game on a map like open palms, badlands, or twin rivers. Aeon vs Cybran. Economies are dead even and the game is in the solid t3 stage and progressing. Scouting occurs every minute or two because you've actually realized that it's necessary to win (I know, lost 3/4 of the audience already). Tell me why the Cybran player would want to make a monkeylord. Tell me why it's even a legitimate thought when 2/3 the mass in harbs can accomplish more in any capacity.

Before someone reiterates some crap about the ML's supposed super powers when combined with other land units, I challenge you to find a scenario where a monkey lord + ? will defeat straight harbs. For example, a ML + 10 bricks = 40 harbs, and is easily flattened. Kiting against a 50% speed advantage is worthless and the harbs will win every time.

Arguments related to build capacity are also without merit. The standard of building several t1 factories and the prevalence of t1 engineers means build capacity at one's base is not a problem in high level games.

I'm crap at maths so somebody else can work it out

Here's some "math's" regarding your statement that a ML causes "ALOT more damage in 'mass'": one harb = 375dps. 25 harbs (the mass cost of a ML; 27 if you use energy) = 9000+ dps, at a longer range then a ML's laser. Looks like I can lose half and still have a higher dps. Not that I will, given my combined hp/shielding of 147500.

[Sunny]

Arguments related to build capacity are also without merit. The standard of building several t1 factories and the prevalence of t1 engineers means build capacity at one's base is not a problem in high level games.

Man, that would do alot of good in my T2 tanks rebalance thread I present a nice Dunning-Kruger curve there also.
viewtopic.php?f=42&t=3087&start=10

I personally just fac-assist build like 30-40 engies with my 5-8 landspam facs in 1-2 minutes and I have my T3 fac's buildrate of 60 multiplied like 3-4 times for 1500-2000 mass and get an extra new shiney Brick in ~20 seconds when I can economically afford it.

We should probably consider founding an elitistic clan for people with brain together ^^
And yes, stomping with somehow offensively renamed ML in the end of the games should be a must.

[Epson]

My worry is what is UEF counter for this early game? Already as it stands on a small map (Isis) there is not much a UEF player can do against it. Forget cost look at build rate:

Monkeylord with Buildtime
ACU T2 Eng Suite/ACU T3 Eng Suite/ML: 900 6000 15750

UEF Counterswith Buildtime
Fact T2 Upg/T3/Percival:1600/8400/4800
ACU T2 Eng Suite/ACU T3/Ravager and Omni: 900/6000/1500/1800



Assuming you are both putting all your build power into the ML and the UEF into percies: ML takes a total of 21750 to construct. As UEF in the same time I will build 2.45 Percies. Ravagers with omni to use their full range against ML UEF can build 7 Ravagers. But ravagers are static.

No the ML isn't equal mass for mass vs percies but that is the only thing keeping it counterable, that the UEF player may put the effective mass difference into build power.

Even in it's current state it ends games if you build it first. I see no reason to decrease the cost. Decrease the cost AND SIGNIFICANTLY increase the build time in justifiable. But otherwise no.