Guns Of Icarus Online
Main => Gameplay => Topic started by: Squidslinger Gilder on November 24, 2013, 04:36:24 pm
-
The last time this gun was buffed it was a major disabler but even with multiple arts hitting, you really couldn't kill the target without armor penetration which engineers could repair through. Me, I was fine with that but I remember people having insane length matches just shooting each other and never killing.
The weapon right now is fine on turning and disabling but the dmg output...I dunno if something got changed but triple art junks are far too effective and theres not a lot of counter options, especially on open maps like Dunes.
Curious is this intended?
-
The last time this gun was buffed it was a major disabler but even with multiple arts hitting, you really couldn't kill the target without armor penetration which engineers could repair through. Me, I was fine with that but I remember people having insane length matches just shooting each other and never killing.
The weapon right now is fine on turning and disabling but the dmg output...I dunno if something got changed but triple art junks are far too effective and theres not a lot of counter options, especially on open maps like Dunes.
Curious is this intended?
Artemis/Merc/Artemis mobula is counter. Watch it happen in like any of the Gent practices.
-
ie. countering art with more art?
-
I'd say it's exploiting the art's inability to aim up by bringing a ship with better vertical speed.
-
Good luck if you are going against mobula with Artemises. I'm a bit cuirous how come this is in Dev app Testing section?
-
Cause I'm more interested in seeing if there has been a change than arguing with Artholics about whether it is OP or not. I don't want to see it nerfed into oblivion like it was before but I'm seeing it getting abused more and more. I know when that happens, it usually means the offending weapon is going to next be getting a heavy nerf which isn't necessary.
-
ie. countering art with more art?
Yep =P
And then you just stack more artemis on top and explode.
-
Considering how Zill murdered Muse with Artemis spam I wouldn't be surprised if it got badly nerfed either way XD
There is a few ways to nerf/balance artemis without making it too underpowered. Increasing reload time, reducing horizontal arc to prevent triple art on junkers and mobulas.
-
They received a damage buff before the release to make them more viable to actually down a ship, which I do agree with. However, I believe the component modifier is being a pain again, throwing the balance of yet another gun out of tune. We experienced the same issue with mercury spam in the earlier builds. Basically the high component helps strip the armor so that boosted explosive can work its magic. (or in the merc's case the component was the major contributor to the hull damage while it pierced armor)
On the Mobula note, it's difficult to knock that whole ship offline due to how wide the ship is before they can drop that perfect shot to end your artemis spam and keep it down.. The vert is just a bonus :)
-
Cause I'm more interested in seeing if there has been a change than arguing with Artholics about whether it is OP or not. I don't want to see it nerfed into oblivion like it was before but I'm seeing it getting abused more and more. I know when that happens, it usually means the offending weapon is going to next be getting a heavy nerf which isn't necessary.
While I agree with that sentiment, I moved this to Gameplay just to get more opinion on it. I hope people do keep the subject on topic and just give proper feedback.
Considering how Zill murdered Muse with Artemis spam I wouldn't be surprised if it got badly nerfed either way XD
There is a few ways to nerf/balance artemis without making it too underpowered. Increasing reload time, reducing horizontal arc to prevent triple art on junkers and mobulas.
Har har. We had three total in that match. I wouldn't call that a total spam of them given a Junker can do that on its own. I haven't run into a game with a Junker like Gilder describes that I couldn't beat with abusing their total lack of upward arcs or getting in their face to exploit their slowish turn rate.
-
I use an Artemis heavily and have had the Artemis used one me heavily. The operate just like any other disabler and thus have similar counters such as responsive teammate and avoiding situations where that can be done. Remember, these guns can't look up and are somewhat dodge-able with rapid vertical movement. Also they do have horrible finishing kill abilities as well as having them wait for "raspberries" (armor break) means losing out on their disable properties.
-
Good luck if you are going against mobula with Artemises. I'm a bit cuirous how come this is in Dev app Testing section?
I'm not really a fan of a mobula with trifecta artemis. The way that you have to engineer a mobula generally means that unless you're taking zero hits, quite often you'll only be able to have one, maybe two artemis going at a time. I'd say it's much easier to pull off on a junker (or spire), but both of those ships have their own issues (namely how quickly you can disable everything on a junker and the general paper construction of a spire).
Not that I don't think that Artemis is pretty strong at the moment, just saying all the ships that can get the three artemis loadouts have definitive weaknesses.
-
Pretty sure that it was debated in last Fridays fireside chat and that they are happy with it for the moment but might consider looking at it again in the future.
-
I think a decent counter for a triple Art Junker in a 3v3 is a double Merc Pyra and have the ship be parked just outside of the Artemis's range. The Junker will have a tough time trying to get in range as ships cannot move sideways.
For brawlers, they'll have to rely on tactics and terrain. One example is have a ship be bait, have it go to right forward side of the map where it can easily hide behind terrain if endangered, draw both long range ships' attention as much as possible. The other ship will have to go to the left side of the map, which will be ideally at both enemy ships' rear. Additionally, this other ship can also hug the ground to avoid the chances of being seen and rise up quickly to overwhelm one of the ship. The first ship can join battle when the ambush ship is engaging. Of course, this requires good co-ordination and is a little situational.
-
I'd say it's exploiting the art's inability to aim up by bringing a ship with better vertical speed.
Yea, but the other ship can raise up with you since the usual tactic with the arti is to get above the enemy too. What I see is the same issue that we have been seeing with a lot of guns here and there (IE Merc) where you have one gun and it is perfectly fine, but having two or more, it becomes broken.
-
That's when you drop and use your balloon to soak up the artemi fire (assuming you're at the height ceiling in your description) and exploit their other weakness up close, which is slower turn rates.
They also changed the hit-boxes for guns to make them easier/properly be hit for disable's sake. That's probably making a difference too.
-
I am HamsterIV and I am a Artiholic. After the gat was nerfed I was lost and confused. I was loosing and I didn't know why. Then I heard a sickeningly sweet voice in the back of my head "Why not the Artemis?" it said. "You can shut down another ship from across the map. If your gunner can't shoot strait there are two more on the ship, odds are one of your crew can shoot. What does it matter that the other ship won't be able to retaliate?" In my desperation and madness I listened to that silvered tongue succubus and made the Artemis my go to weapon for teaching new crew.
The thing is a bit OP especially since you can stack them on any ship that has a 90 degree gun overlap. It has a decent clip size and no shot drop so new people can be effective with it after almost no training. I hate to say it, but this gun probably needs an arming time. It is just too good at both long range and short range fighting. Especially since by the time the enemy gets to short range fighting their engines are so badly damaged they can't use speed to take advantage of the Artemis' poor turn rate.
-
God don't even kid like that. Light Flak is useless enough with it's arming time, and the Hades pumps out enough damage to overcome that downfall.
-
God don't even kid like that. Light Flak is useless enough with it's arming time, and the Hades pumps out enough damage to overcome that downfall.
light flak works very well in tandem with a hades, i find it more effective than running double hades.
personally i think the Artemis is fine as it is, but i wouldn't complain if it were to have a no aoe before arming time nerf.
-
Part of the light flack's uselessness comes from the aim jitter combined with arming time. It doesn't work at long ranges due to the jitter and it doesn't work at close ranges due to the arming time. The Artemis has no aim jitter or arming time so it is effective at all ranges. Going from Awkm's history, if one tool is too good in too many situations, he removes its usefulness in one of those situations to make the other tools more desirable.
-
Well the flak is destined for a new thread eventually so we'll leave that alone.
I like where the artemis is, and it hasn't proven to me that it is OP.
Perhaps it is a different reason that makes people point at the artemis and say OP? Does it disable too many things at once?
-
I really love the Artemis for the turn horizontal turn limit and range. The Artemis makes quadfectas viable. Things happen too fast in a brawl for the setup required to quadfecta, and the other long range guns have crappy horizontal turn limits. Trifecta/Quadfecta is the real OP aspect, Artemis just helps to enable it.
-
Part of the light flack's uselessness comes from the aim jitter combined with arming time. It doesn't work at long ranges due to the jitter and it doesn't work at close ranges due to the arming time. The Artemis has no aim jitter or arming time so it is effective at all ranges. Going from Awkm's history, if one tool is too good in too many situations, he removes its usefulness in one of those situations to make the other tools more desirable.
heavy clip,
incendiary rounds,
charged or burst for midrange
that is all
-
On another note, Artemis trifecta has been available for ages with roughly the same disable and kill potential that has today. It has not suddenly become op, people have just started using it and their opponents haven't heard of hydrogen or cloud cover.
-
Requiring 3 ammo types to use a gun efficiently makes it the realm of gunners, and not the sort of thing you can pack 3-4 of and get the entire crew shooting. The Arty only needs burst regardless of range so it is usable by the engineers and even the pilot.
I think the Artemis' dammage has been going up and down for each patch. The latest one giving it an uptick. The weakening of gat and the uptick to damage makes the Artemis stronger overall. I don't want it to get nerfed, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did.
-
On another note, Artemis trifecta has been available for ages with roughly the same disable and kill potential that has today.
"Field Gun and Artemis: New projectile expansion mechanic"
From the 1.3.3 Release notes.
That and only that is making it so much used. It can be easily used on longranges with burst to snipe several components. And you can hit alot easier with it. Even the hull of a ship.
-
They also changed the hit-boxes for guns to make them easier/properly be hit for disable's sake. That's probably making a difference too.
@Hamster: I will admit that burst is a pretty "duh" ammo when using the Artemis. That's not a reason to nerf them though. That would be a reason to look at burst ammo.
-
A triple Artemis comes at a major disadvantage with its low killing power. Even as a perma hull destroyer, it is relatively sub par. This makes it great for the one on one but once you throw in teammates into the mix you begin running into issues as it is too slow to the kill.
-
Perhaps it is a different reason that makes people point at the artemis and say OP? Does it disable too many things at once?
Yes, yes it does. I personally think the shatter damage needs to be dropped a bit, two shots for large components and one for small components with the large aoe is a bit too much disabling power. With this you should still be able to disable what you want in a clip, but not in a single shot or two.
-
Well then something to ask is who here doesn't immediately toss burst ammo into them? Sure there are options but burst seems to be a rather cut and dry choice that could be making the Artemis better with no drawbacks.
-
Triple Artemis may not kill as quickly as other combos, but in a 1v1 it will eventually get the kill and keep your ship reasonably safe in the process. In a 2v2 encounter you can split your guns between two targets to reduce the enemy team's DPS while your ally focuses down a target. It is only the 2v1 against you that the Artemis strategy falls apart, but by that point you are pretty screwed no matter what strategy you try.
@Zill
I tried heat sink for the turn rate, but it is pretty situational. Mostly quick shots with the side gun on a fast moving Pyra.
-
Well then something to ask is who here doesn't immediately toss burst ammo into them? Sure there are options but burst seems to be a rather cut and dry choice that could be making the Artemis better with no drawbacks.
So lets look at burst ammo, More shots, more aoe, and a slight reduction in firing speed. I see nothing but perks since lower firing speed is alright because the enemy cannot shoot you anyhow because you blew their guns up.
-
In the world of spanner rebuilds the extra time between shots matters. Just because an artemis trifecta can beat you* doesn't mean it is op as there are plenty of counters. Vertical movement, long range disables, staying above arc, and allied help all come to mind.
Hit box size / the way aoe effects it could be something to look into, perhaps have a seperate direct hit vs aoe hit hit box where the aoe hitbox is similar to the old size.
* Edit, to clarify. You in this situation means general you, not a specific player.
-
I haven't been loosing to Artemis trifectas so much as I have been getting easy victories from them. They short circuit the Rusher < Brawler < Sniper < Rusher dynamic by being a sniper that can shut down both a rusher and brawler at range. There are too many situations where dumping a steady stream of Artemis shots into a target is viable
-
gatling gun and artemis combination does a decent job
-
we countered it yesterday with a mobula, you can see it in the stream of the sunday rumble.
-
I'll still point out that it could easily murder our Pyra teammate when theyy focused on him.
Yes 1on2 tri art junker does suck like any other build in 1on2. when you have another 3art junker backing you up. Assuming both junkers have enough time to dissable you you don't stand a chance. Spire, junker,goldfish and galleon are pretty much out against artemis gun line- unless you have guners that can reliably hit outside artemis range with merc, LJ and h.Flak spam.
Mobula IS a reasonable-to-good counter since the guns are spread out and engines are outside artemis line of sight from front, mobula has best vertical mobility (witch is waht you need agains armenis with severely limited upward arc of fire - heck going up with a pyramidion saved us from 3art junker against Mad Hatters a couple of weeks ago when our frond and engines were dissabled).
I do think Artemis is OP, but very little (i would a: increase maximum upwards angle by 5° decrease horizontal arc by 5°bo both sides, decrease AoE size and damage no more than 10%, and then I think it would be just fine - or b: more heavily penalise direct hit explosive damage component [up to 50%] keep same shatter damage on aoe component, and keeo pther changes the same as in option a)
EDIT: Squid Mobula against double max artemis junker could work well too. Spitting your ship verticaly so they come at diffirent heighs, so junkers cant switch targets immediately, should help. It's waht we used aginst entranched artemis gun line on fjords.
-
In the world of spanner rebuilds the extra time between shots matters. Just because an artemis trifecta can beat you* doesn't mean it is op as there are plenty of counters. Vertical movement, long range disables, staying above arc, and allied help all come to mind.
Hit box size / the way aoe effects it could be something to look into, perhaps have a seperate direct hit vs aoe hit hit box where the aoe hitbox is similar to the old size.
* Edit, to clarify. You in this situation means general you, not a specific player.
Yep. Certainly the trifecta arti is powerful, but op? No. As a heavy user of them on my team I can tell you it has glaring weaknesses. People have just gotten so used to short ranged brawling that they can't or don't want to believe other builds should be strong. The key to any successful team is to be aware of every build, and every builds counter. You can't just blindly rush a trifecta arti with brawl and hope to win. And it shouldn't be like that. Look at this last Sunday's Rumble. The Wolf Knights tried to charged the dug in Gents and failed. The Thralls thought outside the box, came up with a new mobula build, and schooled us. If a gun has a weakness (arti's vertical movement), you exploit it. That is how metas evolve.
-
On another note, Artemis trifecta has been available for ages with roughly the same disable and kill potential that has today. It has not suddenly become op, people have just started using it and their opponents haven't heard of hydrogen or cloud cover.
This. It has more to do with the fact that the game was recently balanced less around strong brawl builds, but instead making short, mid, and long range all have viable options. This is forcing brawl teams to re-think how they engage, something that can be initially very frustrating.
-
Yeah I think the emphasis of this thread was not to say it is Op but to say it could use some slight tuning. Why it was originally in the dev section.
It can be seen as OP if you don't know how to counter it or if your teammate is a dingus and doesn't coordinate with you. New players would probably tear their eyes out in anguish against it. What I don't want is their anguish and cries of OP leading to another dramatic nerfing which makes the gun useless.
Slight reduction in AOE with turning so it can't get Trifectas as easily would probably be a decent move. That or a tad less killing power and focus it more on disabling like it was the last time it was buffed.
-
Mobula's double gat + whatever explosive damage works well agains junkers. Single gat deals armor damage to junker too slow (jitter => gat misses more shots on junkers slim profile) and it takes a single gatling 2-3 clips to destroy armor. Double gat deals so much more damage that it only dakes 2x 1/2-3/4 gat clip to kill the same armor - i think junker's armor can last RELATIVELY close to galleon's armor against gatling). As a brawler you have to kill armor as fast as possible.
-
I have to be honest, while reading this, snipers have very little option in terms of weapons.
BUT NO ONE IS USING MERCS!
No one uses Mercs, or Lumberjacks properly anymore. Heavy flaks is something i havent seen in a long time even tho i love seing the heavy flak bust a ship into 2.
But there is a pattern to the other weapons.
Gats work best with Mortars
L.Flaks work best with Hadez
Mercs work best with Artemis. (All light guns)
Yet the Artemis can sort of work very well with gats or many other weapons because of its flexability.
I remember some time ago commenting on the Spire changes how tripple Art + LJ is going to wreck... which i dont see alot of. Im just giving out ideas, i want to see more guns being utilized as being OP and disect them to their not so OPness so we can find guns that are UP. If that ment anything.
-
Well I would like to use mercs with two artis on a junker, but the arcs dont work. Fix the arc on the merc, and sure we'll use it. Gents also use lumberjacks quite a lot, so did Paddling. But that gun takes actual skill and training to use, and many teams don't put that amount of work into it.
-
We wanted to bring a lumber spire to Paritan last sunday against gents but our LJ gunners were not awailable so we had to make do with a bit more simple heavy gun :P
-
Well I would like to use mercs with two artis on a junker, but the arcs dont work. Fix the arc on the merc, and sure we'll use it. Gents also use lumberjacks quite a lot, so did Paddling. But that gun takes actual skill and training to use, and many teams don't put that amount of work into it.
WAit, so just, fix the arc on the merc for your junker? Really? One ship is never enough to be effective with a merc, same goes for 3 artemis. You need 6 Artemis to be really devestating. But you only need 2 merc and 2 artemis (thats 2 junkers) to be just as devestating in regards to armor and focus.
You can use 2 artemis and a merc on one spire/Mobula. Have 2 of those ships with 1merc 2arts, you pretty much have a more hard hitting team.
The argument against those is pretty simple, they are easy to get hit with (spire atleast) But you still have a heavy weapon as an option. Dont always HAVE to use the heavy weapon, but the effect of it is alot. The mobula is as weak as the Spire in terms of health and armor and is more difficult to keep up, but you can still use vertical meneuvering to align your sniper shots. You only need 3 people, and from sniper perspective, no brawling ammount of repairing will take place.
Now, what i dont get is why are people trying to discuss the Artemis as oposed to the Hades?
Does anyone notice the power of the Hades?!
-
The Gents were using the Hades competitively before anyone else, and have never stopped using it. We implemented as soon as it went live and we were pioneering builds with it in the dev app. That being said, it's great at mid range brawling, but not sustained enough for sniping. Take my word on that. The Mad Hatters have used a triple arti junker/merc double arti mobula against us in practice. It actually works really well, but we want to stick to our junker and galleon. The only reason you saw two junkers on Sunday was because I had a sub co-captain.
-
Merc arcs are pretty lousy. Too easy for ships to close on a merc boat before the mercs can do enough dmg. You are also heavily limited with mobility while using them which isn't attractive to pilots. You can thank all the whiners who raged at Muse to get mercs nerfed into the ground.
-
Merc arcs are pretty lousy. Too easy for ships to close on a merc boat before the mercs can do enough dmg. You are also heavily limited with mobility while using them which isn't attractive to pilots. You can thank all the whiners who raged at Muse to get mercs nerfed into the ground.
Funny thing is, that nerf was not a single one of the changes proposed in the merc threads complaining. There was a lot of good discussion going on that could have solved the problem without touching anything about the weapon's handling but that was the route chosen seemingly out of thin air.
-
Like i said, 1 merc is not enough, it needs cooperation with another gun which actually makes the merc balanced. That AND it can disable heavy guns easily.
The Artemis still does the same job almost on the disabling department. But a better because of its AOE.
Also Gilder, do you even remember how the merc was effin OP? The complaint was not targeted at the weapon itself, it basically roflstomped people in pubs... by pubs.
-
Also Gilder, do you even remember how the merc was effin OP? The complaint was not targeted at the weapon itself, it basically roflstomped people in pubs... by pubs.
Your asking someone who flew in merc matches and won a tournament with mercs...yeah they were a bit powerful. Then they got nerfed and they were fine. Then they just kept getting nerfed into the state they're in now. This is what happens when people cry OP to Muse. Flames used to be the same way...now its taken most of a year for them to finally recover back to usable again.
Love Muse but man, some of their design changes, "improvements," are just infuriating.
-
The ease of use is what got the merc nerfed. While not over powered the Artemis has the same issue.
-
Outside of arc changes, did anything change on the merc
-
It lost a little projectile speed but it was mostly arc changes.
-
Distance too. Part of the reason the 1300+m achievements are loads of crap. Unless the enemy is sitting still and you have range maintained perfectly, can't take down ships that far out without Mercs being able to hit in the 2000+ range. Need a few hundred to a 1000m buffer for enemy ship movement and as well as wind displacement on some maps.
They adjusted the weapons and it is possible for guns to hit the range now...but its very borderline. No room for error. If you drift slightly, you don't get credit. Then doing it 25x...such a steaming load of bs.
-
They adjusted the weapons and it is possible for guns to hit the range now...but its very borderline. No room for error. If you drift slightly, you don't get credit. Then doing it 25x...such a steaming load of bs.
Completely agreed. I've been trying for that achievements with Spire/Galleons for a while now and, even with skilled Gunners, it's basically impossible.
Artemis has a max range of 1330m. Heavy Flak has a range of 1400m. Hades has a range of 1400m, but no one can reliably hit at that range. The only guns that can reliably kill at a greater range without running into huge issues from enemy movement and/or your own ship drifting are the Lumberjack + Mercury, which is a slow and unreliable kill at best.
And then, inevitably, a gunner misses a shot. Or an ally gets the kill. It's ridiculous.
-
Distance too. Part of the reason the 1300+m achievements are loads of crap. Unless the enemy is sitting still and you have range maintained perfectly, can't take down ships that far out without Mercs being able to hit in the 2000+ range. Need a few hundred to a 1000m buffer for enemy ship movement and as well as wind displacement on some maps.
They adjusted the weapons and it is possible for guns to hit the range now...but its very borderline. No room for error. If you drift slightly, you don't get credit. Then doing it 25x...such a steaming load of bs.
The achievement is bad and probably should be changed but in my opinion the merc is fine.
-
As a gent, that achievement took me over two months. I pity the poor souls who are on it.
-
As a gent, that achievement took me over two months. I pity the poor souls who are on it.
This is telling indeed. An experienced captain of the most famous sniping clan took 2 months of play to get one achievement? Insane.
I've had it for a month now, and I've been playing sniper Spires/Galleons. GeoRmr even flew with me on about a half-dozen sniper Spire games where we actively TRIED for that achievement in particular, and he's a damn good gunner. We got...exactly one kill. 1/25, in a month if flying. I understand it's supposed to be difficult, but... :-/
-
I'm at 1/25 too and that kill wasn't anything to do with trying for it...I just mined the heck out of someone during a CP battle and then ran off. When he tried to rise he triggered a pack of mines and exploded. I just happened to be past 1300m when he blew up.
-
Lol I thought this is Atremis thread, not achievments thread.
-
Lol I thought this is Atremis thread, not achievments thread.
This. Lets get back on topic, and move that achievement grief in a new thread please.
-
Arguably if the achievements are balanced then the game would be balanced but not really.
If you're trying to get kills instead of disables at long range, then you need to be using a Heavy Flak or even a Light Flak. The Artemis is a sniper disabler, not a sniper killer.
-
If a ship doesn't have an Artamis you'll die. This is my strong opinion. You are much more likely to lose a game if you don't have one. It's not fun flying anything besides Merc/Artamis or something of the sort or you end up with no components then death. Even if it didn't do enough output damage to kill, having no engines/weapons constantly shouldn't be so common.
-
If a ship doesn't have an Artamis you'll die. This is my strong opinion. You are much more likely to lose a game if you don't have one. It's not fun flying anything besides Merc/Artamis or something of the sort or you end up with no components then death. Even if it didn't do enough output damage to kill, having no engines/weapons constantly shouldn't be so common.
I'm sorry but that's a false, and pretty extreme thing to say.
Burst being the only viable ammo for it currently is the only thing i'd say is an issue.
-
I agree 1 artemis is not a problem. The main problem I have is that it's much too easy to get trifecta with that gun due to it's supperior horizontal arcs.
If you are going into a match where both teams have a lot Artemi, lesmok on at least 1 ship can be the diffirence ( remember being outranged yesterday on my Artemis in TSR in match 2 against Gents by their Artemi.
I'm quite frankly geting realy sick of this Artemis spam. It feels like those 1 or 2 weeks when Hwacha was ridicilusly OP and could clear literaly ALL the components except ballon in 1 barage on ANY ship regardles of ammo type loaded (hevy clip was the exception under 800m range, but even then it dissabled half of the ship)-rebuild times had been doubled in the same patch.
-
I find huge success with just merc/ artamis vs the trifecta... But, anything else stands no chance... Artamis stops other guns from shooting.
Burst ammo:
5 shots
no drop
decent reload
If they have one and you don't then your not likely to have weapons very long to even fire back. I feel the firepower vs components is a bit to much to handle in it's current state. But, that's how I feel so..
-
The problem I see with the Artemis is that it can be very powerful up close or far away. Something that all other sniper weapons can not do because of arming time or poor gun movement.
-
Heavy guns have slow turning rate in comparison to (most) light guns and narrower arcs than most light guns. The only other light sniping gun is merc that has limited arcs and turning speed - thus impractical in close range. The same thing that allows junkers to use 3 artemi at the same time makes it good at closerange.
People defend it that artemis lacks killing power. If you let enemy get into gatling range with all guns intact, then yes you are effed. But then you are doing something wrong. If you do septuple artemis build right, enemy won't get close to you without loosing all or most components [oustide armor and baloon]. If you keep enemy dissabled you don't need to kill him fast.
I question the balance of a weapon that you can take sextuple into 2v2 and win competitive matches as a rule.
-
It's always been a fun gun for me, and I do like seeing it used more. Although it is a bit rough to go against, especially if their captain is good. You're not really flying against their gunners, since the gun is one of the easiest to shoot. You could pull a kid off the street and toss him on it, and within five minutes he'll be picking up on how to aim for the guns and engines.
One of them being used generally isn't enough for a full ship disable, but if you get 2 or 3 you can usually keep a ship mostly pinned down and even kill it once that armor goes down. However, the gun does have a glaring weakness; that being it can't aim upwards for beans. This doesn't make a big impact at long range, but up close you have the choice of either popping their balloon, or flying above them (or both). Once you're out of their arcs, they're pretty much toast.
Now it could be difficult to approach these ships, and that's why you have to use terrain and clouds to your advantage, just like approaching any other sniping build. Frankly a spire with a lumberjack and field gun will take you out easier and faster than a triple artemis combo. (or even just a artemis/field gun, or possibly a hades/flak). Some of those guns do have arming times, but they also tend to have better arcs (the flak and hades have pretty good arcs for instance).
So fly low and soak up shots in your balloon, hydrogen up to their level or above them. As you get closer, they'll tend to have to go lower to keep hitting you while they try to back away. Once you're in gunnin' range, pop their balloon and kill them while they're defenseless, or just brawl 'em down in a heartbeat. You still have to worry about your guns going down, but once you're that close you can rebuild them and fire a few rounds before they're taken out again. They don't kill components as fast a field gun and such. It's not an easy fight, but it's not a hopeless one either.
-
Dual mrec was easy for good pilots to counter but got nerfed in the end. I feel like is thread is more about good pilots talking about counters rather than debating the gun it self.
-
speaking about achievments, i cannot seem to get that last kille with a harpoon attached to the enemy
-
Anything that allows a ship to kill EASILY on it's own has always been something I look down upon for this game specifically, which is why I disapprove of the power of the gat-mortar and why I feel sniping should be a support-only type thing. That said, is it easy for a single ship to kill an enemy with triple Artemis? For the record, I haven't tried the setup so I don't know myself, but if the answer is yes then I agree that the Artemis should be looked at. Have I had trouble myself with them? Well, I haven't been playing much lately but generally when i've run across an arty i don't have too much trouble staying above and counter disabling. The thing that worries me the most is NOT it's ability to lockdown an opponent indefinately, but rather triple artemis' ability to kill in a reasonable amount of time without help from a teammate.
Again I haven't gotten on the wrong end of a triple arty junker very often so maybe my opinion isn't quite so valid, but my point remains that if anything takes away from teamwork, it is not good for the game.
-
Any ship with a trifecta will be strong. Two gats and a mortar on a mobula is a lot more dangerous, or three hades on a mobula. Nothings really changed with the Artemis. Sure its annoying, and it disables, but it takes forever to whittle the hull down. There are a lot of weaknesses to the build. The only reason people are now noticing, or now complaining, is because not everyone and their mother are taking gat/mortar. This all happened as soon as the game was balanced to create viable threats at close, mid and long range. Any nerfs to the artemis will put us right back to cookie cutter meta gat/mortar.
The issue is really with the players. They've gotten so used to charging straight at ships with impunity for a close range brawl. You've got to get out of that mind set and adapt. There is plenty of competitive material from the last few weeks showing triple arti junkers being used, and many times of them being wrecked. Every time they were wrecked, it was due to smart teams doing smart things. And likewise, the artemis is working really well with the Gents because we stay immobile, we go high, and we use open lanes to shoot. We could change guns, and change tactics anytime and still succeed. It's about knowing what to do with your build, the issue isn't the gun itself.
With any ship, any build, look at it's weaknesses. An artemis can't shoot up, and it needs time to target areas. If it's just hitting the balloon or hull it's really doing nothing. You need to use terrain, or different elevations. Go high, take a mobula. Stay out of 1330 meters, take a lumberjack. Go fast with a squid, take a carronade. There are proven easy ways of defeating this build, and it's up to each player to make his wins happen. Lamenting over the fact that you can't just shrug off artemises as you charge in a straight line at them isn't going to help.
-
I don't think it kills very easily on it's own, especially with needing all three firing to be close to effective. It takes a while for the actual kill, although you can keep them pretty well disabled (at least on the parts you can see. If they position themselves well, they can usually keep up some guns and engines).
If you do get unlucky enough to get fully disabled by a triple arty, you'll notice it's difficult to avoid their shots; since you have no engines. However, you can always start dropping your ship altitude, often forcing them to chase you down. Then just try to rise rapidly past them. Even if you can't completely avoid them, you can avoid a lot of the damage for a little bit, giving your crew time to fix things up a little. Best case scenario is you manage to rise past them, and your team has had enough time to fix your guns or engines.
-
I agree 1 artemis is not a problem. The main problem I have is that it's much too easy to get trifecta with that gun due to it's supperior horizontal arcs.
If you are going into a match where both teams have a lot Artemi, lesmok on at least 1 ship can be the diffirence ( remember being outranged yesterday on my Artemis in TSR in match 2 against Gents by their Artemi.
I'm quite frankly geting realy sick of this Artemis spam. It feels like those 1 or 2 weeks when Hwacha was ridicilusly OP and could clear literaly ALL the components except ballon in 1 barage on ANY ship regardles of ammo type loaded (hevy clip was the exception under 800m range, but even then it dissabled half of the ship)-rebuild times had been doubled in the same patch.
Exactly why this thread exists. Because of people who are and will get tired of it. Not that there isn't counters for it, but if veteran players are fed up with having to deal with it then newer players are even worse off. They are the ones it is being used against more often and they don't have the knowledge about counters. They'll be the most vocal and then were right back to ultra nerfed art. Something I really want to avoid.
-
If I were to make a few possible suggestions, based mainly off my distaste of burst being the preferred/sensible ammo type for the Artemis:
1) Increase jitter slightly to make heavy clip useful for surgical shots on engines and specific guns at range or,
2) decrease rate of fire slightly to make greased a possibility or,
3) reduce turning speed further to bring it more in line with the Merc's reduced arcs without sacrificing its ability to gain trifectas. Gaining and holding a trifecta would take more time due to the slower arcs, and would become especially restrictive at closer ranges just like the Merc (and without bringing arming times into it). The time commitment getting a vector would make heatsink more attractive and possibly greased to quickly unleash a salvo so you can hop off to attend other matters.
The second suggestion may be a little heavy handed (or too slight to matter) but the third seems quite reasonable unless I'm overlooking something. The first suggestion would make extreme long range disabling much trickier and give that territory back over to the Merc.
Or alternatively make burst reduce turning speed? Or do less AoE damage?
-
Any ship with a trifecta will be strong. Two gats and a mortar on a mobula is a lot more dangerous, or three hades on a mobula. Nothings really changed with the Artemis. Sure its annoying, and it disables, but it takes forever to whittle the hull down. There are a lot of weaknesses to the build. The only reason people are now noticing, or now complaining, is because not everyone and their mother are taking gat/mortar. This all happened as soon as the game was balanced to create viable threats at close, mid and long range. Any nerfs to the artemis will put us right back to cookie cutter meta gat/mortar.
The issue is really with the players. They've gotten so used to charging straight at ships with impunity for a close range brawl. You've got to get out of that mind set and adapt. There is plenty of competitive material from the last few weeks showing triple arti junkers being used, and many times of them being wrecked. Every time they were wrecked, it was due to smart teams doing smart things. And likewise, the artemis is working really well with the Gents because we stay immobile, we go high, and we use open lanes to shoot. We could change guns, and change tactics anytime and still succeed. It's about knowing what to do with your build, the issue isn't the gun itself.
With any ship, any build, look at it's weaknesses. An artemis can't shoot up, and it needs time to target areas. If it's just hitting the balloon or hull it's really doing nothing. You need to use terrain, or different elevations. Go high, take a mobula. Stay out of 1330 meters, take a lumberjack. Go fast with a squid, take a carronade. There are proven easy ways of defeating this build, and it's up to each player to make his wins happen. Lamenting over the fact that you can't just shrug off artemises as you charge in a straight line at them isn't going to help.
How am I supposed to go up and above the triple art junker when you are camping at the flight celing? Literaly the only way we could get any kills on you was by ramming you to death. and we used EVERY bit of cover the Fjords provides to try and get close to you.
The only reason we managed to "wreck" (as you expresed yourself) your build in TSR16 becouse you weren't camping at flight ceeling. You need expert LJ gunners to hit targets hiding behind cover at LJ's max range, and our both Gunners have been absent last 2 weekends. Artemis on the other side is so easy that even I hit 4/5 shots on moving targets.
I'm also sick of getting advice to snipe, to deal with the crap like this. I hate playing sniping matches. I hate repairing, I hate piloting, and I hate gunning in sniper matches. As if sniping wasn't entrenced in the meta enough.
Mobula needs to use it's everical maneuverability to keep out of enemy arcs, becouse it's slow and can't turn very well. If enemy is at the bottom of the map and is sporting carrorades or at the top of the map and sporting LJ or Artemis you can't break arcs verticaly, and then you are forced to either merc with 2 mercs or are huge tasty target. Squid has great horizontal maneuverability, but is somewaht lacking in vertical maneuverability + carrorade puts you into artemis arcs of fire. Squid has as hard time killing anyone alone as has triple art junker. Squid can be a distraction, but in high level play unless you force the OTHER junker to deal with something else, the other junker can gat artemis the squid easily enough (or carrorade artemis - squids have poor armor, you can blast thru their armor realy realy fast - heatsink is invaluable whaen it comes to dealing with squids). Dealing with entrencehd sextuple art build is possible, but enything we have had come up with so far is a soft cunter as opposed to a hard counter. It's a hard uphill struggle.
-
Okay but again, that's not a gun issue, that's a tactics issue. Sure the triple arti's were great at suppression (which is what they are supposed to do), but the double lumberjacks also did massive work. Either way, we're playing to the strengths of our build and strategy. The previous week you guys destroyed us with a pyra/mobula and it was absolutely brilliant because you used tactics and terrain to your build.
I understand it's frustrating, it's meant to be. That isn't a fluke. We could have done that all day, and wouldn't have killed you. We always try to bait a team into engagements we create. Any team will be successful when they determine the engagement.
-
If you look at the Thralls/ Gent games in the last Sunday rumble you will see how effectively they use elevation to completely render the trip artemis useless. It was a very close game that Thralls could have won. If you have a blenderfish or even carronade pyramidion, as soon as you are on top of that junker its the end. I can only guess the Thralls had 2 people on that front carronade all the time at the rate it got rebuilt on Sunday and they were very effective at forcing both Gentlemen boats down splitting the fire whilst one recovered from the balloon disable.
On a separate point both Mattisamo and Chrinus have said the mobula is a good counter, and it truly is. The merc on the top means any attritional war will be won by the mobula since the extra piercing is nice. As Chrinus said and I will reiterate, the fact that the mobula is so spaced out, with components a long way from each; whilst being irritating to fix is invaluable against trip artemis where gunners on the attacking side have to hone in on the guns precisely and they will not be getting multiple component kills with one shot even with the artemis hit box getting bigger the greater the distance that the rocket travels. Mattisamo has is perfected, the question is what can take out the mobula? We saw Sac get ruined by that double gattling on a head on charge. It wins at long and short range. This is the question we should be asking :D how to kill Mattisamo :D
-
Ah how the meta shifts. Mark our words, this is evolution. Perhaps in a few months the carronade squid will be the answer to the mobula meta?
-
Again pyra/mobula worked only becouse you weren't camping at the flight ceeling (or in te case of dunes becouse we had spit spawn -with pyra spawning behind you- at begining and prevented you from getting too entrenced AND you werent camping at flight ceeling all of the time) - We used terain much more than last week (mobula spent most of the time in the wide open tarain).
I'm not saying you are good aecouse of the guns you use, but gun's balance should be looked in tandem with available tactics. If we want the game to ever to become a recognised esport, balance should be considered at competitive level (casual gameplay should be considered as well, but in this case.
Long range teams, by the very nature of their builds force brawling centered builds to engage on the terms of the long range teams. In cluttered maps like Paritan you can sneak close to long range teams, but on open maps where you have several km or coverless space you can't sneak up on enemy close enough to be able to engage them before at least one of your primary set of guns is dissabled (ussualy both). - In other words you are telling me to go sniping on open maps - witch I have allready stated I hate (allong with [almost] entire clan of ours).
As for double lumbber build, I've seen MM completrely lock down double lumber gallen and hwachafish with merely 1 merc and 3 artemi (on 2 pyras - one with broadside artemi and one with merc artemis front) - and subsiquantly kill - in Season 1 Invitational Tournament on Paritan against Pollaris (and they had much much better LJ gunners than we had last sunday - Pollaris might not be playing a lot of competitive matches, but they still play a lot, their skill with LJ is still devastating).
-
I never said you need to snipe. I offered multiple suggestions to counters, you could really wreck our day with a carro squid for example. And yes strategies are map dependent, certain builds will do better than others on certain maps. That's always been the case in e-sports. You gotta play the map. You recognize that fjords favors sniping, well ya, don't be surprised that we are a lot harder to beat on that map. That's like saying I wanna beat Russia but man I hate how their winters kill my troops, winters need balancing, too op. My team always struggles on Dawn, we accept that as a fact of nature.
Also you guys have beat us like 3 rumbles in a row and we had to train super hard to beat you. It's not really in good taste to whine over one loss. Ever hear us whining about being beat? Super salty.
-
I'm not whining over 1 lost matchup. I'm complaining what brawly builds have very hard uphill battle allways against artemis. Everytime we did win it was very close and very hard fought battle what could very easily have gone either way (most of them 5-4 and I allways fellt very stressful & at least as much luck as skill, and even then I needed help with faster rebuild on hull to minimise permahull damage). For example 5-4 victory on Duel in TSR14 we won simply becouse The -G-ent's Pagoda poped our baloon right at the end allowing us to drop bellow it fast enough to get out of flak arcs and rebuild and get back in to the fight (I was literaly, thank gods the poped our ballon - 1 heavy flak clip would have probably hit as at the point where we dropped below guns arcs). And we did train hard agains your type of builds hard too (just find the crorect team in Ducks and you'll get same effect).
I didn't complain on forums becouse THAT would have been in bad taste. We have been complaining over our TS for a while now.
We did use A triple art junker in a competitive match once (1 single match not whole bo3), we had a hwacha-merc spire. It was agains The Bully Boys on Northeren Fjords - they had a double marc junker and a heavy flak- merc spire. It was relatively close 5-3 victory for us. It was the first time I was a gungeneer in a competitive match (since Claiming the Fjords tournament where i was on the prya's front flamer), and triple artemis junker felt like easy sailing - we couldn't get out of our sking and ended up in a mid-range brawl witch we could force becouse the were the blue team.
-
Well all I can say is any well organized team is gonna be tough. You're gonna be stressed, fatigued, that's just part of competition. I don't wanna sound arrogant but if we took instead a brawling build I think the results would be similar and you'd feel just as stressed. I really don't think that has anything to do with the gun. We'll train the hell out of any gun and make it work.
-
Not realy. Brawling builds destroy less components. The main focus is mow many spanner hits you can use before you have to switch to repairing with mallet. No matter wether you live of die, it's fast. If you get double focused, it's ussualy too fast to do anything about it - it's over before stress can acumulate. With artemis you have to ussualy deal with engines, hull and a gun (depending on the ship the amount of guns and engines can vary) - all of them gatting damage at the same time - non hull components constantly being down.
Wolfpack never let anyone have enough time to regroup and plan against their onsalught - for a while they were the best brawling team in the game. Agains snipers you can hide and plan. the fristrating part is when you execute plan as perfectly and the situation allows and you get dissabled and die despite of it, that's when frustration comes in.
-
Then the plan was flawed?
-
I think more maps need moving cloud cover. Dusts DM is a lot easier to close distance now that it uses the moving dust clouds, and I feel wide open maps like Fjords might benefit from some shifting clouds or some more terrain. Thoughts? Anyone else notice it getting markedly easier to sneak around Dusts?
I know that would make me feel like there are a lot more tactical options for going up against 3x Art.
-
Then the plan was flawed?
The flaw was probably the fact the sextuple artemis is unassailable if set on the height ceeling in the midle of open space with 1000m coverless space around them.
-
Thats your opinion. I have given feedback on my thoughts further up this thread which you ignored. If you know you are going up against 6 artemis, change your tactics?! No use making a plan fully aware of what the enemy have and then cry about the plan not working. I dont want to sound mean but that is exactly what you are doing. I would have assaulted us differently.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXTQeTBsPSM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbrLI59Uqws
Here's a couple videos of a standard pyra vs an arty junker in a king of the hill on labyrinth. You can see a few times where we start getting disabled and just fly above them to recover and retaliate.
In other situations where they're flying as high as they can, you can generally fly low down beneath. The closer the better of course. This forces them to start lowering themselves to get better shots on you. The gap closes and you can likely fly above them or at least be in range to start dealing damage and forcing them to repair.
One thought on the gun itself is that it might help to change the explosive damage type to something else. Possibly forcing the gun to be a pure disable, instead of a disable and a hull destroyer (I'll often pair my arty with a field gun for long range take downs. The piercing/explosive combo does wonders on top of the strong disables).
I really like the disable aspect of the gun, and would hate to see that go. I'm not so attached to it's destructive potential however.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXTQeTBsPSM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbrLI59Uqws
Here's a couple videos of a standard pyra vs an arty junker in a king of the hill on labyrinth. You can see a few times where we start getting disabled and just fly above them to recover and retaliate.
In other situations where they're flying as high as they can, you can generally fly low down beneath. The closer the better of course. This forces them to start lowering themselves to get better shots on you. The gap closes and you can likely fly above them or at least be in range to start dealing damage and forcing them to repair.
One thought on the gun itself is that it might help to change the explosive damage type to something else. Possibly forcing the gun to be a pure disable, instead of a disable and a hull destroyer (I'll often pair my arty with a field gun for long range take downs. The piercing/explosive combo does wonders on top of the strong disables).
I really like the disable aspect of the gun, and would hate to see that go. I'm not so attached to it's destructive potential however.
I think Thomas has brought up a good middle ground if there were to be a change. However I think that the Artemis is already in a good place. It's been being slowly rolled back in its power since probably around May. Being a Duck we have always done well because we adapt extremely rapidly to the patches, good or bad. We find a way to work with what we have either way. Even though I think the Artemis is in a good place right now, finding a way to work around it if you don't like it, or even if you do, will definitely help you.
-
Hm.
What if the Artemis's Disabling strength were given an arming time? It currently deals 70 Explosive on a direct hit, and 120 Shatter in an AoE.
If we gave it an arming distance of, say, 200m-250m than suddenly we have a clear way to combat an Artemis-using ship: get close enough to it and it can no longer disable you effectively. The Artemis is still a supremely effective weapon, but now it's one with a more immediately exploitable downside.
Thoughts?
-
I kind of like it being a close range disable as well. Without it, there isn't any decent close range disabling guns (of course the gatling gun and carronade can disable, but that takes a special effort and they're more effective for other things). Now if we did happen to have a close range disabling weapon, I'd be totally cool with letting it do it's thing at range only.
-
I kind of like it being a close range disable as well. Without it, there isn't any decent close range disabling guns (of course the gatling gun and carronade can disable, but that takes a special effort and they're more effective for other things). Now if we did happen to have a close range disabling weapon, I'd be totally cool with letting it do it's thing at range only.
The two solutions then would be the additional of a new weapon for close-range disabling (that does so better than the Flamethrower, with less of a middle ground), or switching the way the Artemis deals damage: make the Shatter AoE the primary damage, and adding in an explosive "charge" that primes after a set distance. If it doesn't prime, the missile shatters "harmlessly" on their ship, dealing only the shatter damage.
-
I could see that working really well. Letting it keep it's long range kill and disable, but removing it close range kill ability and keeping it's close range disable mostly intact.
-
At some point they gotta stop relying on arming times as an answer to everything. It's nerfed enough guns into unusable or highly unfavorable. It's a lazy bad answer to any balance issue.
-
At some point they gotta stop relying on arming times as an answer to everything. It's nerfed enough guns into unusable or highly unfavorable. It's a lazy bad answer to any balance issue.
Out of curiosity...why do you say this?
I personally find it one of the most elegant ways to give a long-range weapon an obvious weakness while still preserving its strength at range. I am interested, however, in hearing why you'd disagree.
-
In a few cases it makes sense, with the lumberjack and to an extent the heavy flak. Those weapons can be so absolutely devastating. The arming times are there for real balance issues. Likewise with the Hades, because it keeps it in the mid-range piercing niche, so it has a purpose. and also because it has fire damage to fall back on.
Now look at the light flak. Who uses it competitively? It looks great right? Except it has an arming time that absolutely destroys its intended use. Anyone who uses a gat is going to take a mortar instead. So what is the purpose of the arming time on this weapon, what does it serve to do, other than making mortar the only choice?
What purpose would an arming time have an Artemis? It's not like a heavy weapon where it can be too devastating at various ranges. The new hit boxes are already there to encourage you to use the Artemis at far ranges. And it's not like getting close to an Artemis makes it better. It makes it alot worse. It's really easy at close range to take away the trifecta, and the hit boxes will be back to normal for the artemis. Already being close to the trifecta side of an artemis junker is bad enough of a situation for an artemis junker. The risk is huge. It's not like you're going to kill the enemy quick. They can likely kill you quick, all you can do is pray your gunners can target their guns.
Again it seems like a player devised knee jerk reaction to a problem that isn't really a problem. If you guys ever fly artemis junkers you will find out it has A LOT of weaknesses. It seems strong at one thing: disabling, because it's meant to. Meanwhile it's taking you minutes to bring down hull armor. It is so easy to exploit the weaknesses of an artemis junker if you know how. This is along the lines of complaining galleons are op but you're just sitting in their broadside You're complaining about something working as intended.
And I want to reemphasize what I said earlier. Other than the new hitboxes, nothings changed on the Artemis! It's been like this forever, so where is this now coming from? Is it because everyone already got the merc nerfed, and this is the only light long range gun left to target? Or because brawling isn't so easy that you can't just blind charge out in the open waving a bright flag? Is that what everyone wants? To be able to use little tactics and just be able to go back to mind numbing charges of impunity against each other? Because obviously if we look at any situation in any game or even real life that has a suppressive long range weapon, it always makes sense to charge that position with impunity.
To me this is almost an issue of why even have long range weapons in this game if this community cannot understand their use or point. The artemis, the merc, the lumberjack and the heavy flak are all heavy hitting but slow weapons. They take time and training to use effectively, and even then quick kills are never going to happen. They are all slow methodical weapons. All you have to do is get in with a greased gat and mortar and we are dead in seconds.
So again is this a gun issue? Compare a single Artemis with burst vs. a greased gat. What is more threatening? What about a greased hades?
Any weapon that has a trifecta is scary. This is about the junker and mobula having great trifectas, that is all.
-
One other thing. Running a triple Artemis crew is hard, really hard. I think back on running a banshee/hades pyra and how simple it was with my conventional main engineer and gunner/buffgineer. It was brutal, effective and simple.
I wish you guys could understand how much intense training goes into making triple artemis work. It's a teeter totter of ignoring repairs (much like on a mobula) for maximum offense. My crews have pinpoint accuracy and run perfect reloads and buff cycles. There is constant communication of angles, locations, etc. I'm constantly running repairs and checking my rear for surprise attacks. It's a constant stress on our gunners as they mentally track guns and cycle them down. It's a lot of hard work, a lot harder than it seems, and a lot harder than other builds to work. My point is, we work really hard to pull it off, it's not simple and it's not easy so I get really annoyed that people want to nerf something based on high training or lack of tactics rather than the actual stats of one weapon.
-
I wish you guys could understand how much intense training goes into making triple artemis work. It's a teeter totter of ignoring repairs (much like on a mobula) for maximum offense. My crews have pinpoint accuracy and run perfect reloads and buff cycles. There is constant communication of angles, locations, etc. I'm constantly running repairs and checking my rear for surprise attacks. It's a constant stress on our gunners as they mentally track guns and cycle them down. It's a lot of hard work, a lot harder than it seems, and a lot harder than other builds to work. My point is, we work really hard to pull it off, it's not simple and it's not easy so I get really annoyed that people want to nerf something based on high training or lack of tactics rather than the actual stats of one weapon.
I do understand, actually. I don't really have an issue with the Artemis personally, although it's definitely a very strong weapon. I wouldn't mind seeing it lose a little bit of its power somewhere, but really I'd settle for more clouds/terrain on Fjords and Dunes (the only maps I think triple Artemis is a little too strong on, due to the lack of safe approaches in that open airspace).
My suggestions, however, are directed at those who do have a major issue with it, as well as those who don't. I'm offering up possible alternatives to see what people think of them, that's all. :)
-
lol I don't know how many more clouds the devs want to add to the fjords because of the Gents
-
lol I don't know how many more clouds the devs want to add to the fjords because of the Gents
the gents only need 1 cloud. that one at the spawn :P
-
Actually we stay in the spawns because they are the most likely to be clear of clouds and therefore the best are to shoot from
-
One thought on the gun itself is that it might help to change the explosive damage type to something else. Possibly forcing the gun to be a pure disable, instead of a disable and a hull destroyer (I'll often pair my arty with a field gun for long range take downs. The piercing/explosive combo does wonders on top of the strong disables).
I really like the disable aspect of the gun, and would hate to see that go. I'm not so attached to it's destructive potential however.
That is exactly what the Art was when it was buffed last. It was an awesome disabler but poor killer. Then people starting running Art matches and Muse took notice of how silly it was for the match to just go on forever with ships being forced to ram to get kills.
There was nothing wrong with this. It was a fantastic gun and then it got nerfed badly, forgotten. Now its back but with more killing power.
At some point they gotta stop relying on arming times as an answer to everything. It's nerfed enough guns into unusable or highly unfavorable. It's a lazy bad answer to any balance issue.
Byron...<3...so very much...<3.
I am so freaken sick of Muse's answer to everything being arming timers. Another reason why I'm a staunch advocate to a return to 1.1 GOIO. Before arming timers were added to heavy flak and you could fly around blasting the crap out of things. Made you be a real evasive flier with Goldfish back then capable of ripping you a new one.
-
I don't like the idea of adding an arming time simply because of the Art's parity with the Merc (long, no arm time), the Echidna's parity with the Hades -- as well as its bigger brother the Typhon -- (medium, arm time), and the Whirlwind's parity with the Scylla (short, no arm time). My issue with the Artemis isn't to do with its efficacy (having not been up against many triple Art Junkers, or Mobs for that matter), it's to do with only a single ammo type being particularly useful for it. I understand that not every weapon should be compatible with every ammo type -- that'd be silly -- but two or three viable choices would make the gun a lot more interesting. I sometimes roll with heatsink for the increased turning rate but that reduced range versus the increased AoE on burst is a killer.
Byron, what ammo do you get your crew to bring for the Arts?
Based on Byron's comments above, and one of Zill's comments from earlier on, I think burst might need looking at before touching the Art. I'd probably make burst reduce the turning rate of a weapon, this would hit the Artemis the hardest but:
a) open up other ammo types for it while not affecting other guns that much (by virtue that they have faster turning arcs anyway).
b) If other ammo types were to be used then burst shatter AoE wouldn't be quite as common and if burst was used then...
c) there would be more risk for the reward of increased AoE and increased clip size because...
c) close quarter combat and maintaining trifectas would be trickier, without diminishing the Art's power or adding arming times. And...
d) bring the Art closer in line with the Merc with reduced arc ability/agility.
-
Well there's always the option to give it no AOE damage. Make it need to hit components directly. They've even made it easier (slightly) to do so at range. While it's fun to pop on burst ammo and take out 2-3 engines on a squid with a few shots, giving it no AOE damage would make the burst useless on the gun (except for the extra ammo).
This would make it a little trickier to use for newer players, but at the same time it's one of the easiest guns to use as is. Reducing or removing it's ability to take out multiple components at a time makes the gunner have to choose -which- component to take out at a time. So it could still do damage and disable, but it'd take more skill to pull off effectively.
Just a thought. I'm still ok with the weapon as it is.
-
Well again, that's what its meant to do disable, its not doing much else. I don't really think the aoe is that big, even at max range, being the giver and receiver I've seen a lot of it. It's just that when 3-6 Artemis hit you, well ya you'll lose everything, which is the whole point.
-
Byron did you catch the question in my last post?
-
My gunner uses burst or lesmok, my two engies bring burst, and for many reasons. Touching ammo is really dangerous, it affects every gun. And I addressed the aoe in my earlier post.
-
People want to more clouds when there are so many already? .... ... ... Really bad idea, dont even give Muse that idea, the amount of clouds at the moment are ridiculous especially as beacon flare gun is buggy as heck.
On my sister junker to Byron since I dont have the hades and instead carronade downstairs I have 3 engi pilot junker with bottom engi with greased for the carro. Upstairs artemis are instructed to bring burst. So there is more killing power downstairs with increased rate of fire but still maintaining the disable power.
-
According to Wilson's notes Artemis has 130° horizontal arc (65 in both directions). That means that artemis has vertical arc second only to Beacon Flare gun and better arcs than ALL OTHER GUNS.
Flamer 120°; Carrorade 110°; Gatling 100°; Scyla 80°; Echidna 100°; Banshee 120°; Mercury 30°; Hades 70°; Gun arc <90° no trifecta on Pyra or Junker (you break Pyra's trifecta the easiest by dealing damage & going counter-clockwise around pyra). Artemis junker is te build that has the easiest time keeing trifecta - junker is 2nd toughest ship (a single gatling takes more than 2 up to 3 full clips clips to break junkers hull! - the reson brawling mobula can murder a junker is becouse 2 gatlings can murder junker's armor in 1/3 of the time with 2 gats), it has second best turning rate and you have to bonus of artemis having better horizonatal arcs than any other ship. Running tri- or quadfecta is always risky. Or at least untill the moment enemy is without things he can hurt you with.
So what if Artemis only works with 1 ammo type. That holds true for almost every light weapon.
Also: I have distinctly in my memory of used to having only 35 explosive damage a few months ago.
3-6 burst shots yes. That is 1 voley! from this build. You are instantly dissabled the moment you are in arc&range&outside cover. Besides you are on a junker. When enemy closes on you just turn on the brawly side and murder them becouse they can't fight back.
-
I don't think the artemis by itself is that overpowering. Of course when you start stacking them up it can get serious, although that's generally true with any weapon. The big thing about the artemis is that it's easy to use and works over a vast range. The only gun that covers a larger area is the flare gun, and that's not quite a killing tool.
If we don't want arming times or damage touched, why not just choke down the turning radius? The same thing happened to the field gun, which is still very effective at all ranges; it just takes a little more effort to use. Chop down the horizontal and a little vertical and you make it easier to approach a ship with these these while reducing their effective trifecta area.
-
I want to see 6 Scyla, 6 Gatling, 6 Banshee or 6 echidna build win in a competitive match (at least 1 of those doesen't work in this kind of trifecta). Anyone doing so will get mad props for it.
-
I've seen double versions of some of those that are more effective than a double artemis. Six Scyla would end your ship so fast you'd forget your name. Echidna might be able to pull that off as well, if a little slower. These guns hit pretty hard and can power through the armor even if they're not effective against it, especially with those kind of numbers. 6 gatling could also be pretty devastating. At that point your unable to keep your armor up let alone your components. 6 Banshee is similar to the other explosive weapons, just with a tad more fire added on.
The only reason most of these don't crop up is because it's easier to toss on two complimenting guns and kill the enemy in the same amount of time (and usually faster) than more guns of a single type.
The other reason they don't pop up in most builds is because they're not as easy to use. 6 mortar is devastating, but you have to get in range, try to get the angle just right and have your gunners hit their mark. If the enemy chooses to move, the slow moving shots have a harder time connecting. I could actually see the gatling gun being pretty effective if you can get in range and have sharp shooters on board.
What makes the artemis capable of being used in these quantities is it's easy of use. You can almost effortlessly line up your shots, disabling your opponent and slowly working them down (of course if you get 6 shooting the same target, it's not quite as slow). Since they're disabled, they're easier to keep hitting.
It's not the power of the gun, it's the ease of it's use. You take away it's trifecta (reduce turning arc) and it's still a good disabling weapon, but it becomes more difficult to use in all situations. It's essentially in the same boat as the field gun was.
-
It's not the power of the gun, it's the ease of it's use. You take away it's trifecta (reduce turning arc) and it's still a good disabling weapon, but it becomes more difficult to use in all situations. It's essentially in the same boat as the field gun was.
Yeah, that was one of the reasons I suggested reducing its turning speed further, or (preferably for me) making burst rounds reduce turning speed: it doesn't do away with the ability to gain trifectas but does drastically reduce how easy they are to achieve and maintain. It also has the side effect of making close quarter combat trickier, especially with faster moving ships. This change would make heatsink a very desirable ammo to bring along too. I wouldn't like to change the turning arc limits but I think a turning rate tweak, whether it be to the gun itself or its predominant ammo type (burst), could open more options and create a little more risk with the weapon without diminishing its power. I wouldn't object to a little jitter for super long ranges either, just to open heavy clip up. Edit: Hmm, that might render Lesmok useless though, if that's a problem.
-
I want to see 6 Scyla, 6 Gatling, 6 Banshee or 6 echidna build win in a competitive match (at least 1 of those doesen't work in this kind of trifecta). Anyone doing so will get mad props for it.
Somebody say six banshees?
-
6 lumberjacks... a horrifying scene if your the enemy.
6 hwachas.... it's raining rockets, the light will clense you, dont even bother repairing that hull.
-
I'd just like to mention that if we destroy the arcs on this weapon, we throw the Mobula yet again into the same position as the old spire. She needs those defenses to survive long enough as it is. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but watch how far toned down it goes: if they cant bifect their sides at long range you kill the most competitively viable Mobula build.
-
I'm currently using a pyramidion with a front left gatling gun and a front right artemis.
it gives a really good support.
-
Well I'm not saying reduce the arcs down to field gun levels, just crank it down a tad. Make it a wee bit harder to get those trifectas lined up. Right now you have a massive area for even a pyramidion with full artemis. In theory you could actually get all 4 firing on the same target.
(Showing just how far the artemis can turn)
(http://i654.photobucket.com/albums/uu266/thbrown07/PyraArtemis.png)
Horizontally, there's not a single gun that comes close to the amount of area it covers. When you toss in the up and down angles, the only gun that beats it in the volume covered is the hades, but the lack of horizontal makes it really difficult for a trifecta on most ships.
-
I'd just like to mention that if we destroy the arcs on this weapon, we throw the Mobula yet again into the same position as the old spire. She needs those defenses to survive long enough as it is. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but watch how far toned down it goes: if they cant bifect their sides at long range you kill the most competitively viable Mobula build.
Thats because Muse needs to fix the ship, not fix the guns so that a terrible ship is usable. They said they were working on this.
-
Well they nerfed the mobula's bottom two arcs in the dev app when we were using three mercs on it. Then they nerfed the arcs on the merc anyway, so ya, there's that...
This is what I'm afraid of now with the artemis and all this whining, making another gun and/or ship un-usable, or un-competitive.
-
To be honest, I feel like the difficulties that teams opposing triple artemis junkers face are rather due to their own poor tactics rather than some inherent overpoweredness of the build. I may come to regret these words, of course. :)
The concern that I am detecting here is that on the PUG level, where anti-artemis tactics are less known, the slow, grinding, helpless deaths so frequently incurred by triple artemis builds cannot help but cause a lot of frustration for newer players. It's this fact that may be the eventual undoing of the artemis in its current state. I have no doubt that the Gents have fine-tuned the build to a high level of refinement (even simple things can be done well and taken to the next level; gat-mortar is another example), but it's also true that a moderately experienced pub captain can put three noobs with burst on those suckers and cause a lot of frustration, in a much different way than something like gat-mortar, where your armor just drops and you blow up without any prolonged maiming. That may be part of what's fueling the frustration here.
As awkm stated in his discussion of changing the reload dynamic, waiting is the worst for gameplay dynamics - and helplessly waiting for your ship to explode is likely the worst of the worst :)
-
The change of a single gun should not overtly affect the performance of any ship. If it's arc would be reduced, it depends on how drastic the change is. Right now it has 65/65 for left and right, and 10/35 for up and down (angles in degrees). The field gun has 15/15 for Left/right and 15/5 for up/down. That's a pretty big difference between the two.
Even if they cut the left/right in half, you'd still have a greater turning arc than the field gun.
For the mobula, the far right gun appears to be about 35 degrees off forward facing. Which means you'd need at least that much to point it forward, although you'd need a little more than that to hit things directly ahead of the ship (since the gun is off center). The bottom deck guns are angled just a tad less, maybe around 30 or so? So you'll have an easier time shooting forward and even scoring hits at enemies directly ahead.
Personally I think chopping it to somewhere around 45-35 for left and right, along with reducing the downward to 25-30. This still allows for the spread out mobula guns to hit a center forward target (and thus not really affecting it on this ship), but makes it harder on the junker. The junker side guns are 90 degrees from facing forward, and not centered with each other. While the front gun points directly forward. Around 35 it would be difficult to impossible to score a trifecta, but nearing 45 it's still difficult, but you generally hit the same ship. (You need something with more than 45 left/right degrees to get something approaching an effective trifecta)
At the very least getting 3 on a single target would be difficult on anything except a mobula, and that's probably fair considering the mobility weaknesses of the mobula (it actually has the best vertical acceleration of any ship, one of the best forward accelerations (average top speed), with an average turn speed and slow turning acceleration) and massive blind spot.
I'm sure there's a whole 'nother discussion about the weaknesses and strengths about each ship, but a single gun change shouldn't overtly reduce the effectiveness of any ship. Of course this idea is to reduce the ability to get this gun into a trifecta on most ships, making it easier to approach the ship / requiring more teamwork to use. There's plenty of other viable options that don't include carrying only artemis.
-------
Overall changing any gun is going to affect both the public games and the competitive scene, but allowing a weapon choice or combo to absolutely dominate in -either- of those is a bad thing. Making a little more difficult to use doesn't greatly affect the competitive play (I've done some 'silly' matches with high skilled clans and they've shown ability to use seemingly poor weapon choices to great affect), but should have a greater effect on the pub matches, where the greatest concern for this weapons abuse is.
-
You know, there's always talk about balance, and it usually equates to changing something negatively. Has anyone ever considered an overall better balance change? What if instead of reducing the artemis arcs, a lot of the existing gun arcs were improved? More options, more builds. To me that sounds a whole lot more interesting than just punishing yet another build so people feel comfortable gat/mortaring until the end of time.
-
Generally it's easier to change one gun at a time rather than a bunch at once. You could make other weapons more favorable to compensate for what appears to be an overpowered gun, but that's a quick way to run into more trouble. While it seems a lot of changes are negative, those are just the ones that are easier to remember.
The mortar used to be just about unusable unless you were scraping their paint, the rockets never used to set as much fire, the artemis wasn't all that great until the hitboxes were changed recently, the gatling gun and flaks have constantly been up and down as well. It's just easier to remember the massive outcry when a favorite weapon or weapon combo is reduced, than when something that is hardly used gets made useful.
Personally I don't feel the artemis is all the overpowered, but the more I look at it, the more it seems to go against the principle of risk and reward. It's a long range weapon that's effective at short range, with a great arc that gives it a large area of coverage. It even has a better turning radius than any close range gun, which just feels weird.
-
To be honest, I feel like the difficulties that teams opposing triple artemis junkers face are rather due to their own poor tactics rather than some inherent overpoweredness of the build. I may come to regret these words, of course. :)
The concern that I am detecting here is that on the PUG level, where anti-artemis tactics are less known, the slow, grinding, helpless deaths so frequently incurred by triple artemis builds cannot help but cause a lot of frustration for newer players. It's this fact that may be the eventual undoing of the artemis in its current state. I have no doubt that the Gents have fine-tuned the build to a high level of refinement (even simple things can be done well and taken to the next level; gat-mortar is another example), but it's also true that a moderately experienced pub captain can put three noobs with burst on those suckers and cause a lot of frustration, in a much different way than something like gat-mortar, where your armor just drops and you blow up without any prolonged maiming. That may be part of what's fueling the frustration here.
As awkm stated in his discussion of changing the reload dynamic, waiting is the worst for gameplay dynamics - and helplessly waiting for your ship to explode is likely the worst of the worst :)
Thank goodness you see sense here too. A lot of people here are trying to justify rash actions based on spur of the moment ideas without a real engagement with what is going on. Much easier to nerf what we cannot be bothered to try and understand than to actually work hard at something. It all comes down to tactics and if you are not prepared to adapt or be more ingenious then you will have to be content i guess.
-
Artemis
-
Artemis
Artemis?
-
Thank goodness you see sense here too. A lot of people here are trying to justify rash actions based on spur of the moment ideas without a real engagement with what is going on. Much easier to nerf what we cannot be bothered to try and understand than to actually work hard at something. It all comes down to tactics and if you are not prepared to adapt or be more ingenious then you will have to be content i guess.
This is like saying we need tri-artemis so very dissably, becouseyou'll luuse otherwise 1-1 in brawling range otherwise. And exactly the same as if I told you in respnse that you are are realy bad player becouse junker can't loose against metamidion in brawling.
-
Took me a while to get caught up with this thread but here's my takeaway:
To me I think there is an inherent problem with a weapon if a team can use 1 gun exclusively in competitive play and win. It just doesn't feel to me like it fits in the spirit of the game.
To that effect it would be nice to see the artemis changed in a way that doesn't stop its utility or usefulness but rather makes it so that single gun tactics aren't ideal and teams have to balance their attack with other weapons.
I think geggis' suggestion of slower turning rates is extremely interesting and something worth testing.
Also never underestimate what a very small damage nerf will do. Lowering the shatter to 100 from 120 and the explosive ever so slightly down to 60 would still give it 1 hit kills on light weapons but would make it tougher to take out heavy weapons. This might serve to not only allow a LJ to be a reliable counter but also reduce the armor damage per hit from 45 per shot down to 38 per shot and hull damage from 110 per hit down to 94 per hit.
-
Took me a while to get caught up with this thread but here's my takeaway:
To me I think there is an inherent problem with a weapon if a team can use 1 gun exclusively in competitive play and win. It just doesn't feel to me like it fits in the spirit of the game.
To that effect it would be nice to see the artemis changed in a way that doesn't stop its utility or usefulness but rather makes it so that single gun tactics aren't ideal and teams have to balance their attack with other weapons.
I think geggis' suggestion of slower turning rates is extremely interesting and something worth testing.
Also never underestimate what a very small damage nerf will do. Lowering the shatter to 100 from 120 and the explosive ever so slightly down to 60 would still give it 1 hit kills on light weapons but would make it tougher to take out heavy weapons. This might serve to not only allow a LJ to be a reliable counter but also reduce the armor damage per hit from 45 per shot down to 38 per shot and hull damage from 110 per hit down to 94 per hit.
How dare you make a rational response that makes me see you as a human being and not a corkscrew with feathers!!
Seriously though...yep.
And with what Byron said...yeah this is why I posted this first in the dev app forum so we'd keep the convo between the devs and not have a big mess that leads to nerfing that isn't totally needed. But I'm sure they are getting plenty of e-mail feedback reports in on it as it is.
-
IF anything, i actually hope they dont touch the artemis too much. The arcs are great, and its purpose to disable is nice.
But i dont want less builds. Im quite build experimenty with ships constantly. And all i can say is that even mercury can win fights versus a trip-art-junk.
MY only complaint is the artemis ability to fire 5 degrees higher than the merc. That 5 degree extra is alot. Give it an up aim equalent to the mercuries down aim then you have a more obvious to read weapon.
The mercury shoots in an arc so even at mercs lowest aim, it can still shoot lower becase of its arc in range. But an artemis shoots straight so it cannot shoot up at all unless its being janked by the ship. I dont really want the artemis touched now. I just want a small nerf that tells pubs "Oh hey, that gun cant aim up. Maybe wanna play the vertical game?".
-
I think geggis' suggestion of slower turning rates is extremely interesting and something worth testing.
Thanks Smollett. I just think it would make gunners and pilots really have to work for those trifectas and vectors without hitting any of the gun's other attributes. A slower turning rate would really make you think twice about hopping off the gun and resetting its position once you'd got a lock on your target as well. That could be a really interesting dilemma on a disabling weapon. I'm really keen to see other ammo types being considered for the Artemis too -- burst by default is a bit dull. With this change heatsink would be very attractive and greased might be a possibility too if it can empty a clip faster while you've got that hard won lock (it would also allow you to hop off the gun sooner to attend other things).
Also never underestimate what a very small damage nerf will do. Lowering the shatter to 100 from 120 and the explosive ever so slightly down to 60 would still give it 1 hit kills on light weapons but would make it tougher to take out heavy weapons. This might serve to not only allow a LJ to be a reliable counter but also reduce the armor damage per hit from 45 per shot down to 38 per shot and hull damage from 110 per hit down to 94 per hit.
Yeah, this could make charged more desirable at the expense of burst's AoE too, opening up more options.
-
I was just remembering there is one tried and true alteration to the artemis that keeps its ability but stops it from being a noob toob.
In the past anytime the speed of the shot was lowered the gun generally got much less use due to the difficulty in landing long range shots. At high level play, experienced gunners can lead targets and make the shots but experienced pilots can dodge to some extent.
I also rather like the idea of reducing its upwards arc by 5 degrees since that will more or less strictly make it have to shoot on the level or downwards.
-
I haven't read any of this past like, I don't know page 3?
Burst in Arty. Unless you tweak that, you'll just ruin the gun.
-
From examining the other light weapon gun arcs and comparing them to the Artemis. As said by others before, I reckon by decreasing the vertical arcs of the Artemis it would balance the gun, as flying under/above trifecta Junkers (+ other builds which use similar tactics) would become viable, as the captains would have to monitor the ship altitude closely to effectively engage.
-
Flying above a artemis junker already is viable.
-
Yeah Sammy's quite right. That's an easy way to counter tri-Artemis and is already the counter you can see right now, and it works very well.
-
Flying above a artemis junker already is viable.
I believe Rauairi was suggesting decreasing its lower arc as well, so that flying below an Artemis Junker becomes equally viable. Which might be the least painful suggestion for the Artemis as a whole while helping to decrease the annoyance caused by a skybox-hugging Artemis ship.
The counter is fine...but since the counter TO the counter is so easy (gain max altitude and stay high), opening up another even minor weakness might be appropriate.
-
Flying above a artemis junker already is viable.
Except wouldn't a good Tri-fecta Artemis pilot always be playing to the map height advantage in combat, such as rising to the height ceiling if necessary to maintain their advantage thus destroying the idea of flying in from above the set-up?
-
lumbker jack with merc is the way to beat artmis now please stop complaining about everything if you complain then leave the game
-
lumbker jack with merc is the way to beat artmis now please stop complaining about everything if you complain then leave the game
That's a little harsh there, Tropo. At least some of us are trying to have a legitimate discussion here.
I'm not complaining about the gun (I haven't had the same issues with it that some people seem to have had), but I'm also not confident in saying that MUSE hit the balance nail perfectly on the head. It's at least worth discussing, I feel.
Just my opinion, o'course. Your's may (and appears to) vary. :D
-
Flying above a artemis junker already is viable.
Except wouldn't a good Tri-fecta Artemis pilot always be playing to the map height advantage in combat, such as rising to the height ceiling if necessary to maintain their advantage thus destroying the idea of flying in from above the set-up?
That is something im always concerned about. Fjords is my favourite map because of the fact that it has a really high hight ceiling.
Then you have the map Dunes with a questionable Ceiling...
-
I'm kind of toying with the idea of suggesting reversing the gun arcs on the artemis so it fires up and not down. Keep it's damage as it is, give high reward to pilots who can use it, penalize those who get caught with their pants down.
-
That is something im always concerned about. Fjords is my favourite map because of the fact that it has a really high hight ceiling.
Then you have the map Dunes with a questionable Ceiling...
I don't profess to being a pilot of note, let alone a great pilot but this is exactly my experience when we faced this build flown by a captain that knew the guns arcs. They sat at the map height, completely negating the limited upward arcs. We got rushed, negating our lumberjack goldfish and taking out the balloon of one junker just meant getting shot to pieces by the other.
Ace's suggestion of reversing the arcs sounds good to me. As it stands, sitting at the map ceiling with triple artemis is very low risk. Lose your balloon? No problem, you have the maximum possible time to get it back up (especially when your other triple art junker just disabled/killed them as you descended). Having to hover close to the terrain to stop people flying under you means that if you lose your balloon, you're going to start taking hull damage, making a multitude of balloon popping builds viable.
-
i would have to make a good point here. nuffing or changing things too much will kill this game and i fly every ship well and my Favorite ship is spire with one Artemis
but i do and was doing it before it was meta 3 Artemis junker with lesmok but it can be beaten by so many ships and if i named all the builds that can beat it you would have problems agreeing that it was meta
now if you invert the arc then you will have a much bigger problem
mobula 4 art one merc and that would be way worst then any current merc Artemis builds that i have been running
if you are worried about the current game build e.g. omg all our guns are down this is no funn blah blah blah
i would suggest increasing light carronade, Gatling, mortar range back to what they where
and also increasing damage on the lumber jack dose by 25% and making the lumber jack worth more hp could also help
i think the biggest problem is people will join a game and stack with a arti junker and the other team might not even be able to shoot a lumber jack
-
That's a good set of counter suggestions Tropo, and certainly in my opinion worth exploring.
-
You know, there's always talk about balance, and it usually equates to changing something negatively. Has anyone ever considered an overall better balance change? What if instead of reducing the artemis arcs, a lot of the existing gun arcs were improved? More options, more builds. To me that sounds a whole lot more interesting than just punishing yet another build so people feel comfortable gat/mortaring until the end of time.
;)
-
If they're chilling at max height, move in low and block with your balloon on the approach.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 :P )
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....)
-
I still blame burst rounds only.
-
A simple way to make the artemis less of a Point, shoot, and disable would be to decrease downwards arc, slow down the rockets, and increase spread by 5% to 20%, thus making it more frustrating to shoot at distance, at least without heavyclip.
-
A simple way to make the artemis less of a Point, shoot, and disable would be to decrease downwards arc, slow down the rockets, and increase spread by 5% to 20%, thus making it more frustrating to shoot at distance, at least without heavyclip.
I don't like the sound of spread on a gun that enables such long range. I understand that the overly overpowered and overused carousel gets spread, but not the artemis.
Otherwise I agree with this, forcing an artemis to lower altitude and more intense sniping sounds like it would enable more fancy dodging maneuvers and fancy ambushes by allies.
-
...that carousel is less of a problem than an artemis trifecta, as the artemis disables more quickly, while the banshee would take longer to disable due to disabling mainly with stacks of fire, as it causes mainly explosive damage; the only problem you would find with a banshee setup killing quickly is when encountering the Platform Birthday's banshee quadfecta.
-
How about giving it an minimum arming distance to its shatter?
-
How about giving it an minimum arming distance to its shatter?
That still won't solve the problem because its mostly used mid to long range.
-
There are some proposed changes already in the dev app. Feel free to join the dev app and give it a whirl. The dev app section is also a better place for suggesting changes.
-
Those interested in testing Artemis proposed changes. There are a series of blind tests (super duper scientific stuff) on dev app. I encourage everyone to get into dev app (ask keyvias@musegames.com for access) and get testing and post their feedback.
Thanks