Burst ammo, oh no. Artemis, why you so good?

[RearAdmiralZill]

Ahoy all. Hope you're ready for me Awkm 

First, lemme give you the stats I'm interested in:

Burst stats:
+20% clip size, -15% rof, +50% aoe

Arty Stats:
Arcs: 10 up, 35 down, 65 across
Clip: 4

Hwacha Stats:
Arcs: 20 up/down, 30 across
Clip: 20

Now lets be serious. Fellow rocket lovers, we all know Burst ammo is the go-to these days for these lovely guns. It adds ammo cause, yea I don't really know why either. The rate of fire gets a hit cause, there has to be a downside somewhere right? And the stat we all love, 50% aoe. We just want to watch the world explode. My main targets here are Burst ammo and Artemis combined. Hwacha is in here cause these changes will effect it too, which frankly it can handle it. Banshee would also take a "hit," but a majority of people like greased in there anyway, and I dont feel these changes would all of a sudden break it. If you use burst ammo for something else, let me know!

Burst ammo is the easy button for rockets. Can't aim? Buff that aoe and you get to be a pro at disabling all the things. Here's the problem, its too much. Artemis in particular, which when put in groups of 2 or god forbid 3, disables all the important things on a boat in one clip, easy. One aint too bad, but can still break a good deal.

My proposed burst changes: 0%-10% clip size, -15% rof, 25%-30%-35% aoe

Again, why does it give more ammo? Hwacha doesn't need the help. Want more damage? Use a different ammo for that kill, or buff it with that hammer. Arty, sorry man but you lose one shot before reload. That's still two disables worth on heavy guns if you aim well. If you're worried about the kill potential, these aren't supposed to be great kill guns. They will still do the job, just a touch slower. 10% max if you insist. Shouldn't give the Artemis an extra shot, and give the the Hwacha 2 vs 4.

Aoe, well hear me out. Hwacha gets 20 rockets. Spray and pray, it will still do what's needed, and require you to miss less. Artemis gunners will have to aim better. The rocket goes straight anyway, sooooooo. I wouldn't mind the heavy hand and change of 25% to test, see how it goes. Not worth taking? Aight 35% max. I don't want to make it worthless. But I want the change to have a feel.

My proposed Artemis change: Arc: 35 across

Why on Earth does the Artemis have such good horizontal arcs? This is a long range sniping gun by design. That 65 across is only second to the Flare. Like really. 35 is the same arc as the Hades, the second best arcs for a long range weapon. Might as well start there. Incoming Mobula changes will help so you can still keep that double Arty going. I just want the ability to flank and dodge your fire, cause right now, nope.

Like these ideas? Let me know! Don't? Tell me why, and tell me what else we can try, cause you will not convince me that current Burst and Artemis stats (and Hwacha a tad by association) aren't a bane to every other build and idea right now.

[Dementio]

I don't mind any of these changes, with two exceptions:

The difference in AoE is difficult to notice and if the gain is not high enough, then why bring it in the first place, except that the next best ammo for pure Artemis sniping is probably the normal ammo type, then you might as well go with the little gain in AoE. Hwacha doesn't really change with any nerf to burst ammo, it can still do its job with even Charged rounds, you might get one less accidental engine disable, which is again not something anybody would really notice.

The Mobula guns arcs will be reverted to 45 degrees for the top ones and 35 for the bottom ones. With a nerf to Artemis gun arcs, you will end up with the same issue as the previous Mobula gun arc nerf: Mobulas with pretty much only bottom deck double Artemis with a Gatling/Mine and a Flare on top wings. I swear, I am the only pilot in competitive that doesn't always put double Artemis on the bottom deck or another long range gun like the Flak and Banshee and then the second Artemis on top deck, for long range Mobula-ing.
What I could deal with a lot better than a nerf to the horizontal arcs to less than 50 degrees is a nerf to the downwards arcs. Increasing the top arcs would just invalidate Carronades even more so that can't happen and Lumberjack too would end up with some more problems. But forcing the Mobula to be more on level with enemy ships by going down would open up a lot more options for said enemy ships, especially in close range, maybe even Lumberjack Spires. It would also encourage the use of other long range guns in synergy with the Hades' great vertical arcs, like Banshees and Flaks. That, plus the pretty much guaranteed nerf in vertical acceleration to the Mobula would make sniping Mobulas a lot more risky, without invalidating any builds again.

[Atruejedi]

Been saying this for a while ( derrrrp )

The Artemis isn't the problem; the choice ammo is. Burst is used for the AoE. Giving it an extra rocket makes it OP (well, not technically OP...) and does not incentivize using different ammos. The slower firing rate is fine. If it needs another nerf beyond removing the clip size bonus, if anything, make it turn the gun a tiny bit slower. That way, you're incentivized to not use it when at closer ranges.

[Naoura]

I've always wondered why Burst gave extra to the clip. It never made any sense, due to, lorewise, the rockets being over-packed with explosives in order to give it a more powerful warhead. I would definitely say a -15% clip size would work well to reward accuracy while still allowing for lenience on impact, but if you nerf the burst range to 25%, would a small boost to damage make it more viable? Something like 10-15%?

Smaller clip, the usual slower rate of fire, less fantastic burst radius, but more damaging inside said burst radius. That work well in hand with Jedi's suggestion on a buff to Charged, and then even more so on a back-track on the Loch changes. That way, Burst still gives the powerful radius and still makes it nice and viable, but it does mean you have to be more accurate. Meanwhile, Charged would provide significantly more damage, and perhaps a smaller AoE? More of a direct ammo type than an AoE type, but provides the same clip with a much, much slower fire speed.

I know this counteracts the other post that asked for an incen boost of roughly the same amount, but perhaps you could buff the fire rate. Incen rounds are only weapons treated with some form of incendiary chemicals or minerals, such as phosphorus, so the drop of the fire rate doesn't make as much sense. The rounds aren't any larger, just with a different warhead.

[RearAdmiralZill]

Thanks for the feedback! To address:

@Dementio: This is why I gave the aoe options. 50% is simply too much. I two shot heavy guns without even hitting it directly (so two firing at the same time, yea). Normal rounds can't do that (it damages it, but cant bust), so tweaking this is a must. I agree that finding the "sweet spot" is key else why even take burst after these changes. Artemis' inherent aoe may need reduction to sort this out too. I don't have those numbers though. And I'm not referring to the damage amount, just the aoe range when it explodes.

As for the arcs, i'm all for nerfing its down arcs too for the reasons you provide, but didn't think I could get away with suggesting nerfing them a whole lot combined with a horizontal nerf. My biggest reason for suggesting the nerf the horizonal arcs  is to avoid 3 Artemis firing at once. No other sniping weapon can do this, so I don't see a reason why it should be able to (yes, I'm looking at you Junker). If you throw enough shit at the wall, it'll stick. If we have to keep the horizontal up for the sake of mobula builds, I'd insist on that downward arc nerf as well. 20-25?

@Jedi: Then post in the Gameplay forums where that belongs . Artemis stats are fine except for their arcs in my opinion, and combined with burst it's just a nightmare. A gun rotation nerf to burst could work as you describe, but I think Artemis arc changes would be better.

@Naoura: I feel a clip reduction beyond removing the buff it gives now with all the other proposed changes would further make the ammo too "eh" to take. If we find the good spot for aoe range, a damage buff isn't necessary either. These guns do good damage already, and like you say, charged needs this role. Then you have to choose between more damage or better disable.

Id be more for reducing the rof to maybe 20% to slow the dps over lowering the ammo counts. That or slowing the projectiles some. Big explosive things tend to move slower than the smaller ammo if you want lore in there.

Keep it coming all! I hope for these specific changes to make it into the next patch cycle in some tested form to fix the issue at hand.

[Naoura]

@Zill

I can agree with that, and especially with the projectile speed. Over-packed charges would make it travel much slower. However, if you nerf the AoE alongside all of the other nerfs, I think it would really become eh.

With a clip drop and traversal drop, maybe just nerf the AoE by 10%? Instead of dropping it into the 30's range, keep it up in the 40's, making the shots a little bit more lenient while still requiring a gunner to lead the target a little more significantly. Punish wild shooting by a nerf in clip, make hits slightly more difficult with a slower traversal speed, and leave the rate of fire where it is. RoF is fine where it is in my opinion.

and the only reason I was saying to give a damage boost was in the event AoE dropped into the 20's range. Without the wider area to hit, what's the point? Small damage boost to increase the likelihood of a disable inside the otherwise smallish AoE would make it slightly more viable. But then again, that's what charged is supposed to do.

[Daft Loon]

I'd be happy to just see the clip size change removed, reducing the AOE kinda removes the entire point of burst especially on more marginal uses like banshee/hades/mine.
After that the main thing is changes to charged or artemis/hwacha to give a second useful ammo type that improves raw damage enough for people to bother with.

For the artemis what do people think about swapping its vertical arcs - 35 up, 10 down? It gives targets more cover on most maps, gets the mobulas closer to the ground at the start of fights and makes mixing in some banshee and light flak more important.

[Naoura]

Reversing the arc would be interesting... it would make more sense on a missile sling, of course, but might make the Mob a little stronger. Lower to the ground, harder to hit it's balloon, but more susceptible to hull damaging. It'd certainly upset the triple art Junker, due to the weakness of the Junker's balloon.

And now to see the rise of the Triple Banshee Junker. Our rocket-trails will blot out the sun.

[MightyKeb]

Thanks for the feedback! To address:



As for the arcs, i'm all for nerfing its down arcs too for the reasons you provide, but didn't think I could get away with suggesting nerfing them a whole lot combined with a horizontal nerf. My biggest reason for suggesting the nerf the horizonal arcs  is to avoid 3 Artemis firing at once. No other sniping weapon can do this, so I don't see a reason why it should be able to (yes, I'm looking at you Junker). If you throw enough shit at the wall, it'll stick. If we have to keep the horizontal up for the sake of mobula builds, I'd insist on that downward arc nerf as well. 20-25?

Here's the thing though. Mobula isn't the only reason the sideways arcs should be kept. Artemis is one of the few long range guns that hasn't had it's versatility destroyed with arming times. Which is why you'll also have to consider how it does in close range too. The fact of the matter is, Artemis is the only remaining -close- range light disable gun in the game atm. Carronade and Gatling used to be good substitutes, but since the carronade/heavy clip nerfs, while they are still usable on a case-by-case basis, they're unreliable at best. Unless the sideways arcs are brought down to hades-level, triple art junkers will continue to be a thing - it'll just destroy the hades-double artemis, which is ways better than triple art by the way because of The Law of Diminishing Returns.

It will also destroy, as I've mentioned a moment ago - brawling artemis builds. The sideways arcs are the only thing that give it the edge over other brawling weapons, while it's horrible turning speed is much, much more abusable in a brawling scenario, as shown here: https://youtu.be/JycEviYCl-0?t=148

Here, being the pilot of St.Glaswegian Kiss, I'm going up agains't a metamidion and a gat-art pyramidion. How I got into the position to make such an approach is irrelevant, but notice how as soon as the artemis starts firing on my direction, I hit full speed moonshine because I know I can glide past it's turning speed to get free damage on his ally and eventually make a kill with the help of my ally, who's also running gat-art, who is instead prepared for the engagement and has his guns aiming in the correct direction from the start. I die a bit early, but only because I tried ramming at the end. The point being that artemis becomes poorer at reacting to surprises the closer you get. While I understand your concerns regarding Artemis' abuse on ranged builds, nerfing the sideways arcs will not only change very little about how they're used at ranges (since big arcs don't matter very much at ranged combat, see: merc) but it will also hand the whole close-range combat meta to Hwachas and especially hwachafishes when all close range disabling options are erased from this game.


I hope I've made my point clear. I personally don't have many problems with artemis spam but I'm glad there's still some semblance of discussion left on these forums.

[RearAdmiralZill]

Revised, proposed burst changes: 0% clip size (ie. same as normal), -15% rof, 35% - 40% aoe, -5%-10%-15% reduced projectile speed.

Given the conversion and feedback these are where i think we're at for testing. I'll give leeway on the aoe hit and add reduced projectile speed but at the lowest levels of any ammo, both to not make the hit too hard + not make it some weird arming ammo sensation. I like the idea of making accuracy a big deal with the changes to compensate for the increased "boom" potential.

@Daft: Im not certain a vertical arc inversion would fit for the Artemis, plus cause all kinds of weird issues like Naoura describes with the hit to a junker vs a mobula in a way I don't think is needed. This is mostly tied to the fact the rocket flies straight instead of the sniping projectiles that fall at range too. Id test it out  of sheer curiosity but that's about all right now.

@MightyKeb: Exactly, Artemis doesn't have arming, which I'd never suggest for this weapon. However, this is a huge advantage in itself for its class of weaponry. Long range guns by design also have smaller arcs for (my opinion) their power over said ranges. So you have to turn your ship to get arcs more often. This makes the most sense to me given I haven't suggested any changes to its core values. These guns shouldn't brawl easily, just like every other weapon with its power-over-range can't. I'd argue it's still way better because of the lack of arming, which is fine. Sure the gun is "bad" with surprises, but it can react better than any other long range weapon because the arcs allow it to. The burst changes are what will really effect the devastation at range, and the close range nerf + spam nerf via arcs. I don't think they will suddenly be useless for disables up close with this, but the pilot will have to do something.

I appreciate all the continued feedback everyone.

[RearAdmiralZill]

Bumping to raise the awareness. Want to see what people think of my revised changes to burst ammo.

[Atruejedi]

Inverting the Artemis vertical arc is just... strange and unnecessary. The Artemis itself isn't the problem; the ubiquitous Burst ammo used in it is. Nerf the extra rocket and it becomes much less of a problem.

The Artemis having almost no ability to aim upwards is seriously its Achilles heel, makes using it and flying with it unique, and makes gameplay very interesting with it... for example, you KNOW if you see an Artemis Mob/Junker you HAVE to stay ABOVE him to have a chance; this is a GOOD thing because damaging the enemy balloon will HELP you. If the arcs were reversed, well, shit, damaging his balloon would just keep putting the Artemis-equipped enemy IN arc! Bad idea, bad idea.

Also, having crewed on MagicMetalMan's Gatling/Artemis Pyramidion... I can tell you it simply doesn't work (but he, of course, refuses to admit this ) because of the Artemis's lack of an upward firing arc. He wants to ram (it's his natural instinct!), but as soon as he gets too close, firing that Artemis effectively (or at all!) becomes very difficult.

Also, what would an upward-firing Artemis do to ships like the Spire? So weird. Do not want.

I stand by my proposed, overly simplistic suggestion to Burst ammo: just get rid of the extra clip size. I'm against reducing the projectile speed and the AoE if those nerfs are in addition to the clip size "reduction." Plus, remember: Muse is going to test Burst ammo in the Dev App with a universal 1 meter AoE effect on all weapons. So, patience!

[Daft Loon]

Revised, proposed burst changes: 0% clip size (ie. same as normal), -15% rof, 35% - 40% aoe, -5%-10%-15% reduced projectile speed.

Given the conversion and feedback these are where i think we're at for testing. I'll give leeway on the aoe hit and add reduced projectile speed but at the lowest levels of any ammo, both to not make the hit too hard + not make it some weird arming ammo sensation. I like the idea of making accuracy a big deal with the changes to compensate for the increased "boom" potential.

I wouldn't mid testing that, thinking about the Hwacha I'm actually on board with the speed reduction now, if Heavy clip also had its clip size reduction removed the hwacha would be in a good place again I think.

... for example, you KNOW if you see an Artemis Mob/Junker you HAVE to stay ABOVE him to have a chance...

This is pretty much why I thought of flipping the arcs, because since the carronades stopped being useful as attack from below weapons that's the strategy against every single ship, just about the only time being below someone is useful is when the plan is to hydrogen up past them before being seen.

What I want is for the Junker and Mobula to have some reason not to immediately rise to the height ceiling at the start of every game and only come down via Lumberjack.

Balloon damage will still be useful vs artemis too because if you drop low they have to follow to shoot you, at which point they are already close to the ground when you start popping them.

[SteamBrains]

The points you raised were very interesting! I agree with most of them, I'm definitely for the gun arc changes for Artemis. Ever since the mobula arcs were spread out the first time, it's been basically mandatory for Artemis on mobula. (but double banshee double flak for me ) I think nerfing the Artemis arcs would open up the door for some more variation in mobula builds. Which would be awesome. And yeah inverting the arcs would be weird. The only current upside to taking a mobula without Artemis is that it can take full potential of its balloon capabilities and skim low, then harass a ship while being able to use its gun arcs. The Artemis restricts it to being a high flying sniper platform, no problem with that, but if the arcs get restricted, people may start seeing some more interesting builds and tactics. The burst changes are very reasonable too, I like the most recent proposed change. The only thing I would also want to consider is to not nerf the Artemis arcs enough, so that they aren't viable on a spire. While I'm all for stopping (or just hindering) sniper mobs, that spire should be able to capitalize on Artemis. I didn't have too much of a problem with sniper Junkers too, I think their not too bad of offenders. I guess this reply kinda morphed into "nerf the Artemis" sorry :/ but I like those ideas!

[River Turtle]

Variable bonuses to AoE could make for a whole new tactic of play.  I'm just making up some numbers here, but say in a five round burst arty clip, the bonus to AoE is 30% for the first round, and increases 5% for each one after that until it resets at the next reload.  Depending on the range and desired style of the initial engagement, it might be worth it to fire off four rounds into a cliff beforehand in order to start the battle with the extra good round.
 
Or maybe it's regressive, making the shooter decide whether it's beneficial to fire the next rocket quickly, or if the extra AoE is worth the time of a reload.