Artemis

[Crafeksterty]

Also Read my Lumberjack cheat sheet guide if you wanna counter with that.

Recently, i found myself mostly complaining on maps. I usualy fly spire, and whenever Dunes is up, and that i still dont want to give up spire just yett. Im always mad that i just HAVE to switch builds. Gosh darn it, i want more good maps yo!

The only map with obvious flanks or paths that tell you "OI! You can fly thru here!" Is Canyons. That is the only map with intentionaly placed paths and flights.
If you have seen us thralls fly, we actualy utilised paths in Fjords and duel. Those paths arent exactly obvious to lower levels. Which is (again) a good way to counter any build or most builds. Just good ol flanking.

[Ruairi]

Let's be honest here Sammy, no skilled Junker pilot who knows enough to get a trifecta Artemis set up and to try and stay as high as reasonably possible is going to be silly enough to just let you move in underneath them.... He/She is going to keep their Junker guns in line and on target, which means you're in for an uphill battle if you aren't counter sniping... xD

[Sammy B. T.]

You're forgetting a major weakness of a Junker and that is the lack of control it has over the range of its engagement. As Junkers have to fight on their sides, in order to advance or fall back with guns in arc they have to move diagonally. Even if done perfectly this will still be slower than a ship going straight at the correct pursuit angle. A junker can evade enemy ships but it certainly can't outrun them especially if keeping guns in arc.

[Ruairi]

Um... I don't think the Junker has much lacking in terms over what range it chooses to engage with... (Unless it is ambushed/caught off guard) Besides by the time the Junker has run out of room to back pedal, I'm sure the gat/mortar side will of come swinging around or some other suitable counter which will more or less result in the other ships demise... xD ( P.s. I know you'll probably have some kind of exception to this, but I'd rather not nit pick)

However let's not get off topic, the Artemis certainly could use some light tuning. And I reckon the simplest form would be to reduce it's downward vertical arc, allowing certain weapons to effectively fire upwards... (Assuming the Junker or any ship using the Artemis in quantity is smart enough to operate where the Artemis is capable of hitting on its upward arc)

P.s.s. The other alternative as others have suggested would be the tuning of other weapons gun arcs, although this would require a much greater amount of effort and testing...

[Sammy B. T.]

Of course the junker lacks range control simply because it can't back pedal but instead diagonally moves forwards or backwards. This is a significant constraint on the ability for a junker to move forwards or backwards as they can't simply go forwards and backwards while keeping guns on.

In a thread where people are discussing whether a gun or build is over powered, claims that it is not over powered aren't off topic. The gun is balanced, "tuning it" would be an imbalance to the gun.

[The Djinn]

In a thread where people are discussing whether a gun or build is over powered, claims that it is not over powered aren't off topic.

Entirely true.

The gun is balanced, "tuning it" would be an imbalance to the gun.

I would say the issue is more complex than this:

Is the gun relatively balanced in high-level play against opponents who are prepared and aware of existing options for counterplay against the Artemis? I would say yes, this is the case. But unfortunately this isn't the entirety of the issue.

Is the gun relatively balanced in all levels of play such that any given ship crewed by an average crew has a decent chance at victory? I would say the answer to this is a no: when matched against players who have not mastered the art of counterplaying the Artemis, I think the gun is to effective for the amount of skill required to get basically functionality out of the gun. In other words the skill ceiling is fine (when mastered the gun is powerful, but opponents with equal mastery can outplay it), but the skill floor is to low (e.g. the gun is too easy to use for the devastation it can wreck on unorganized or relatively inexperienced teams, even when used by inexperienced players).

So I don't think it needs a nerf so much as it needs some tuning to make it a little easier for less experienced players to handle. This could be a reduction in its ability to aim downward (preserving damage, missile speed, and horizontal arc at the expense of requiring more careful piloting for full effectiveness), reducing horizontal arc (requiring more piloting skill to achieve the desired trifecta), turning speed (requiring more awareness of ship movements from the gunners), or even reducing the splash radius (rewarding precision shots over blanket damage).

All of these changes are, of course, purely hypothetical. The idea is not to take raw power away from the gun, but instead raise the amount of skill needed to reliably get the full effect from the weapon. Tweaking the missile speed/gun arcs/turning speed all accomplish this without significantly reducing the guns deadliness in skill hands.

Would it be a nerf? Yes, ultimately. But a relatively small one and, if the gun can be tweaked to require a bit more skill to use effectively, then perhaps that effective use could receive an equally small buff in exchange.

A NOTE TO SKILLED ARTEMIS USERS: I am not saying the gun is easy to use, nor disparaging the skills that you definitely have with firing the weapon and positioning your ship to take advantage of the gun's power. I am, however, saying that it is one of the guns in Guns of Icarus that is the easiest to get powerful, hard-to-counter results with at low levels of play, which means that the skill floor is to low for a gun that also has such a high skill ceiling. Something like the Gatling is easy to use...but doesn't really have the same level of mastery. Something like the Lumberjack is hard to use...and amazing when mastered. The Artemis currently just has the best of both worlds, which I think is where the issue lies (in my mind).

[Byron Cavendish]

That brings up an entirely different issue though: is this a casual game played competitively, or a competitive game played casually? You cannot have both (although I know they want to), and the answer determines this issue, and many others.

I have always been under the believe that in this game not all ships are created, and not all guns are created equal. This game is not, and should not, be trying to balance all weapons to the same level. Some ships and some guns are harder to use, and yield better results. The squid and the lumberjack are the most dramatic examples; in the hands of the most skilled they yield the best results, but new players beware.

I think there would be a great travesty if we lost these nuances to builds. You simply cannot create equal balance in this game while having such dramatic differences in ships and guns. And how boring would that be if we did?

So to reply to your post, should we be balancing this game around the low skill level of new players? Because that would get silly fast.

[The Djinn]

Those are some very good points, Byron, and they hint at what (I feel) is a much better discussion to be having than "is the Artemis overpowered." I have a response in mind, but you'll have to wait until later tonight, as I'm trying this from my phone during my dinner break.

[Crafeksterty]

Is the gun relatively balanced in all levels of play such that any given ship crewed by an average crew has a decent chance at victory? I would say the answer to this is a no:

Could not have said it better.

Byron, if you would put 2 junkers with tripple art versus 2 other junkers with tripple art... The game would be the biggest bore in every direction. And imbalanced to the point of the person that moves has a grand chance of being the person that loses.

Different build combinations even sniper (but no artemis) are still very varying and actualy play a balanced ish role.   Gat mort build versus another gat mort build very much depends on the position that the ships are in rather than simply getting hits in. 2 artemis junkers shooting each other will be in the highest possible position and the first one to disable wins. Then the game will only be better with the other 2 guns that arent artemis which atleast one of the junkers will resort to to combat the artemis. However the first junker is just gonna stay at their artemis side anyway.

It is a damn problem. The gun isnt anything too powerfull yett 3 of them coming from only 1 ship is alot. Not to mention 2 ships. Heck it even beats having mercury which should give a window for killing much easier. Then the junker is also very hard to hit from afar to its hull so a counter artemis is more difficult than you think.

Two spires with full art and a lumberjack should be more brutal and ive said that dozens of times. Spires with lumberjack and tri art can be too much. But it is more balanced than a junker because of the largeness of the spire and its squishyness. Basically a trade to being very tanky and hard to hit. Whie the junker trades away (in comparison) just a heavy gun.


In order to beat tri artemis, you need a good map, or counter for whatever build you have to win versus artemis build. If artemis can be with junkers on every map versus any build. Giving difficulties to the other team with any build on every map. There then is an imbalance.

Why choose something else?

[Alistair MacBain]

But thats just not true crafeksterty ...
One single merc can make the difference in a artemis fight.
We had this in many scrims between our teams.
A mobula with a 2x artemis+merc will make the difference at killing speed if you dont get the permanent disable on the enemy.

[Crafeksterty]

I said that the mercury should be giving a window to killing which is still true, but an artemis would disable a mercury.

As the mercury has to point at even or up at an artemis while the artemis has to point down or even at a mercury. The mercury is going to be disabled while the mercury rarely disabled light weapons. Lesmok does the trick and burst only makes the chance of light gun disabling with merc bit better.

but you said

A mobula with a 2x artemis+merc will make the difference at killing speed if you dont get the permanent disable on the enemy.

The tri art will be more likely to disable.  Tri art kills slow but the issue is that once disabled, its pretty much dead. While with the merc and 2 art build sacrifices a bit on disabling in comparison for the quicker killing power.

If you are lower, then your 2 art will miss. If you are higher the mercury will miss (also depends on distance). But you are on a mobula so leveling shouldnt be an issue.
However, constant hits with mercury versus a junker tri art is not always guranteed. But a mobula is much more likely to be hit. Etc etc.


I can only imagine disabling first by being higher, then leveling your self with the enemy for the merc to shoot. You know.. mobula power.

[The Djinn]

That brings up an entirely different issue though: is this a casual game played competitively, or a competitive game played casually? You cannot have both (although I know they want to), and the answer determines this issue, and many others.

You cannot have balance perfect for both, but you can indeed have a game that performs both admirably even when balancing for one specific level of skill. See League of Legends as an example: they attempt to balance for competitive play, but they will also address things that are turning out to be overpowered in lower levels of play by tweaking them to require more skill to use effectively.

Some ships and some guns are harder to use, and yield better results. The squid and the lumberjack are the most dramatic examples; in the hands of the most skilled they yield the best results, but new players beware.

Completely agreed. The issue I see is that the Artemis is not harder to use. It's hard to get perfect results with it, but let's compare -- a bad Lumberjack gunner is useless. A bad Squid pilot is a huge detriment to his team. A bad Artemis gunner is...still effective, because the gun is incredibly straightforward. It has a high mastery for precise, long-range shots...but it's way to ease to get good results with barely any skill or effort. That's the issue.

I think there would be a great travesty if we lost these nuances to builds.

I would argue that changing a gun slightly to require greater skill is, in fact, increasing nuances, as the guns become ever so slightly more specialized, which increases the varying differences between them. My suggestion of decreasing the vertical arc of the gun isn't ruining the gun or ruining builds...it's merely putting more emphasis on the captain and crews ability to position the ships, which allows skilled players to still snipe + disable while making the gun harder to use in the hands of those of lesser skill.

So to reply to your post, should we be balancing this game around the low skill level of new players? Because that would get silly fast.

We're not balancing around that, no. But one of the important aspects of game balance is to make sure that power isn't freely and easily accessible. The Merc has restrictive arcs. The Lumberjack and Heavy Flak require high skill to hit with. The Carronade is close range and requires distance closing versus other long-range weapons. The Hwacha has an incredibly long reload time. And so on.

The Artemis...has bad upper arcs. There is no other real downside to the gun, and that downside is easily negated by flying high. I don't think the gun is overpowered...I just think that power is way too easy to access. We're NOT balancing for newer players: we're making sure that skilled players require skill to use guns to their full effect. The Artemis is just too easy to use effectively compared to other guns. It's damage and range and disabling power are fine...the amount of each of those things that it is capable of inflicting with a relative minimum of effort is currently to high, and I'm trying to find ways to increase the skill required to use the Artemis.

I don't think it's a bad thing that a weapon that excels at zone control and disabling at long range, enables safe positioning via disabling components and weapons, and is still moderately effective at close range be tweaked to need better pilot/gunner communication and/or better altitude control to use. In fact, I think it will only serve to distinguish the truly skilled Artemis gunners + captains from the others.

[Omniraptor]

So, let's review the artemis. It does a small amount of explosive damage, enough threaten junkers and spires, but other ships can take a few hits. Nobody seems to be worrying about that part overmuch.

The problem is the shatter damage, which simply killls components in 2 or 3 hits. The shots are easy to land because of the wide burst radius, and even easier since muse added in the projectile expansion mechanic and made light gun hitboxes bigger. Naturally, the artemis is most effective on ships that have components clustered together, most notably junker lower decks, pyramidion engines, galleon broadsides, spires  in general, and possibly squid engines.

Now, how to counter it- You could always fight fire with fire, and take more artemises. The mobula is very good at this, because unlike a junker the 3 guns are very spread out, so you can't hit two guns with one rocket. A three-artemis junker WILL get outsniped by a merc/art/art mobula. This approach is good because none of those guns require much skill. I would probably take this ship if I wanted to make sure I would win in a long-range slugfest against a junker with a pub crew, but it would be boring as hell for me as a captain.

The other approach is to disable their artemises indirectly by popping their balloon. A lumberjack+merc spire (or maybe galleon) would probably do the trick, but it requires skilled gunning and coordinated crew- if the enemy goes for your lumberjack, you take out their guns with your merc.

 The third and probably my favorite approach is by using the good old blenderfish- you get to rob them of the satisfaction of breaking your front gun by doing it youself with lochnagar, then the second you come in range you rebuild then gun and pop their balloon with one shot.

[Alistair MacBain]

The thing is crafeksterty that you may take perfect hitrates into account but you will not get those against a mobula.
And the killing power of the mobula will make a difference if you cant get the perfect disable on it.
And the hitboxes on a mobula are much harder to find than on a junker.
I saw that many times in our training that we lost a kill just because of one or two missing shots on the merc. And if the enemy pilot avoids some shots you will not get this disable.
You can beat a artemis junker with a sniper mobula.
ITs not that you dont have a chance. And the increase in killing speed cause of the piercing dmg of the merc will make a difference.
And dont forget the longer range of the merc. You can get 2-4 hits of the merc in the enemy before you get in artemis range.

[Ruairi]

The funny thing about all this is that whether it be an Artemis Junker or Sniper Mobula, or Sniper spire albeit less common, etc. the power of the Artemis is brought to bear quite severely on whoever opposes these builds. Either through slow painful deaths or overwhelming firepower usually very unforgiving.

Now although these builds can be beaten, it will often require the use of similar builds or attempting to exploit the weaknesses of the guns. (As mentioned previously) The later option isn't always possible, especially when the Artemis totting builds are crewed by experienced users and piloted well with the use of good team coordination. The bottom line is it will be an uphill battle most of the time (or sniper fest if both teams employ similar strategies), especially when the map layout is somewhat unforgiving. (Almost sounds competitive )

As said before and re-highlighting what I've said previously something has to give. I'd prefer seeing a slight vertical angle adjustment over tampering with damage output. (A slight reduction to the area of effect of Artemis shots would also be nice so some ships which have more clustered components aren't so severely punished, but I'm not getting my hopes up....)