Artemis Rocket Launcher

[Moo]

I did notice it on my carronades though, and it adds more to the point of being over your enemy is an advantageous position.

Being over your enemy isn't an advantageous position when using carronades, as they now can hardly tilt downwards...

[RearAdmiralZill]

I did notice it on my carronades though, and it adds more to the point of being over your enemy is an advantageous position.

Being over your enemy isn't an advantageous position when using carronades, as they now can hardly tilt downwards...

I got it mixed up. Ill fix it. Thanks for catching it.

[Sakaron]

I like the change, but the turning speed, while putting the point of a long range weapon, really effects its ability to counteract the turning of the ship, requiring the ship to be steady when an arti is manned to be fired effectively

Which to me, really effects it usability, I think it is more a sniping weapon in a support airship then a versatile crippling weapon now. The Closer ranged alternative to me would be the banshee, which doesn't actually use shatter damage. The gat does.

[Ofiach]

Zill no offence taken.  I can understand some of the points you made but the big thing for me is, why bother?

I need to take a gunner to swap ammo types on a gun that disables components slowly? OR just go with gungineers to have the extra repair ability for "oh shit" situations and focus on slaughtering hulls. Not really a choice IMO.

Maybe it isn't a problem with the Artemis at all, maybe it's a problem with class usability?

Also since the gun can't look up baiting hwacha barrages into my balloon is no longer viable because I can't chute vent down and shoot up, once again I'll take a flak.

I'm not gonna lie I get very very touchy about nerfing a gun even worse than it was before it became OP because it just feels like reaction over thought and that snowballs fast.

Maybe I jumped the gun a bit and let the nerd rage take hold but can't the community as a whole get a reason for why the Artemis was slapped to (mostly) lower than pre 1.2 values? I mean at least it was a viable option to be disable your opponent while your friend killed him, now it's just plain better to go full hull smash.

Also Zill I have no clue how to do the separate quotes so mine isn't as pretty

[Queso]

After flying against some post patch Artemis, they are still tough to deal with but not instant stalemate games. They can really hold off a large weapon, which is an interesting role for them.

[RearAdmiralZill]

Zill no offence taken.  I can understand some of the points you made but the big thing for me is, why bother?

I need to take a gunner to swap ammo types on a gun that disables components slowly? OR just go with gungineers to have the extra repair ability for "oh shit" situations and focus on slaughtering hulls. Not really a choice IMO.

Maybe it isn't a problem with the Artemis at all, maybe it's a problem with class usability?

Also since the gun can't look up baiting hwacha barrages into my balloon is no longer viable because I can't chute vent down and shoot up, once again I'll take a flak.

I'm not gonna lie I get very very touchy about nerfing a gun even worse than it was before it became OP because it just feels like reaction over thought and that snowballs fast.

Maybe I jumped the gun a bit and let the nerd rage take hold but can't the community as a whole get a reason for why the Artemis was slapped to (mostly) lower than pre 1.2 values? I mean at least it was a viable option to be disable your opponent while your friend killed him, now it's just plain better to go full hull smash.

Also Zill I have no clue how to do the separate quotes so mine isn't as pretty

Oh don't get me started on arguing in a gunner's favor, lol. I've grown to simply hate the term "gungineer." It's been fought over to death in another thread and from what I can tell, has started to go in favor of a gunner and not a spare engineer, due to the use of multiple ammo types being more useful for a dedicated guy shooting things.

The damage on an artemis was not changed, save for the AOE which i'm assuming is just the radius of it, not the damage of it. (Maybe Eric could verify that). So the only thing effecting its dps is the reload time. If you are hitting your shots, the reload shouldn't effect this as much. That then leaves the remainder of the changes, that simply make it harder to shoot. The worst dps killer is of course, misses shots. With the decreased AOE, you have less room for error. It's more precise disabling than anything else. In a pinch, you can shoot a boat with no hull armor and kill a ship decently, but that's not the primary goal, like the flak.

The entire gat/flak mentality is what makes it so widely used. People want kills. They want them now. The strategy of disabling doesn't kill fast enough, and gets tossed out.

As it stands, the artemis is still a very good support weapon. If you are using it on a pyra front, think of a better compliment than gatling. Maybe 2 to double the disable? Merc and artemis for long/mid range support?

[MetaFive]

I'm a little confused as to why it's so heavily skewed to a downward aiming angle. Previously, it could be used to help fend off/halt an assault when your ship was already in a disadvantageous position or while making a low escape; for a gun whose main appeal over similar weapons is its ability to neuter an enemy's offense and allow a chance at recovery, not being able to aim up very far hurts it a lot and makes it a much, much less appealing option when put beside raw damage like a flak cannon. Is there some rationale I'm missing here?

But, really, that's my only complaint so far. Seems reasonable enough at the present in all other regards, though I think it was fine before its buff and subsequent nerf- after all, we didn't get to see how it fared with the ship changes pre-buff, right?

Carronades not being able to point down as far, however, is a very, very good idea; a ship can still keep a balloon down, but now it's forced into a more vulnerable/less untouchable attack range that allows for some counterattack potential. Actually a pretty elegant solution to the how-do-you-recover-from-a-carronade issue.

[Captain Smollett]

Carronades not being able to point down as far, however, is a very, very good idea; a ship can still keep a balloon down, but now it's forced into a more vulnerable/less untouchable attack range that allows for some counterattack potential. Actually a pretty elegant solution to the how-do-you-recover-from-a-carronade issue.

Meta, you know I love you but I couldn't possibly disagree with you more on this. The whole entire utility of the carronade was to be able to keep a single ship locked down and unable to return fire without doing much to actually kill the ship.

There really was never a problem that needed a solution in the first place however, as I listed previously in this thread multiple solutions to extract a ship from a balloon lock. 

Now the carronade is essentially useless since any ship using it will just be blown up by the superior firepower of their opponent as they pathetically try to keep a balloon popped while getting shot in the face.

I really really don't understand the change, since I actually found carronades to be very well balanced, fun to play with and fun to play.against and overall lending a good amount of strategic depth which I feel we sadly lost to the nerf.

[MetaFive]

Meta, you know I love you but I couldn't possibly disagree with you more on this. The whole entire utility of the carronade was to be able to keep a single ship locked down and unable to return fire without doing much to actually kill the ship.

What you're talking about is an emergent use based on its ability to put the opponent out of a range where they can counterattack. A carronade is a weapon that's stuck in an odd design niche; it needs to- practically by definition- be able to keep an enemy ship's balloon disabled even through repair attempts and ultimately does seek to kill the enemy ship by running it into the ground.  it was problematic for the same reason that the Artemis was pre-nerf and the Mercury was pre-spillover-fix;  You don't want to be able to have a kill-strategy that wins with minimal chance for interaction by the enemy ship.

Not to say that it has only that use or that it should have only that use, mind, but that bit of definition needs to be taken into account. Even if you were using it primarly as a support weapon to force a ship out of engagement, it was still- if used as a dedicated offense- able to deny them the ability to engage until they broke on the proverbial rocks.

There really was never a problem that needed a solution in the first place however, as I listed previously in this thread multiple solutions to extract a ship from a balloon lock. 

There's some nebulous statements in this thread based on 'if the captain knows what he's doing' against a lumberjack but nothing specific and nothing posted by you on the matter. Are you sure you posted it in this thread? I don't see it...

[RearAdmiralZill]

He posted here and it goes till the end with me agreeing with him. Lets shift the carronade conversation over there to the GUNS thread and out of the artemis thread.

https://gunsoficarus.com/community/forum/index.php/topic,771.msg15372.html#msg15372

[MetaFive]

Lets shift the carronade conversation over there to the GUNS thread and out of the artemis thread.

Agreed. Apologies for my indiscretion.

So, yeah, my two cents on the Artemis is that I think the lack of upward arc hurts it. Yup.

[dragonmere]

Shot Speed. I know it was barely reduced. But thats all i want back. I can deal with the rest, but the drop in range, and the amount of lead you need to apply (with super slow turn speed), makes this weapon a poor choice.

[RearAdmiralZill]

Lets shift the carronade conversation over there to the GUNS thread and out of the artemis thread.

Agreed. Apologies for my indiscretion.

So, yeah, my two cents on the Artemis is that I think the lack of upward arc hurts it. Yup.

All good. While it is annoying to deal with now, I think the arc further hammers home that the artemis is meant to be a long-mid range gun and not short range.

Shot Speed. I know it was barely reduced. But thats all i want back. I can deal with the rest, but the drop in range, and the amount of lead you need to apply (with super slow turn speed), makes this weapon a poor choice.

An increase in the range could fix this. Then you still keep it harder to shoot yet get more effective range out of it. Toss in lesmok and go to town.

[Vetta]

All good. While it is annoying to deal with now, I think the arc further hammers home that the artemis is meant to be a long-mid range gun and not short range.

That would be true if they had not also nerfed the zoom?!
to me that does not look like a, we want it to be used mid to long range, type of change