Guns Of Icarus Online
Main => Gameplay => Topic started by: N-Sunderland on April 14, 2013, 03:39:51 pm
-
Is the Artemis Rocket Launcher underpowered? Or is it just fine? I think it's useless myself. What about you guys?
Discuss.
-
It's a great combo to have in a long range Merc build:
With Lesmok it can just about keep up in most long range engagements.
If it devolves into close range fighting it can still be used effectively, even better so with Greased rounds.
Problems:
It has a low damage output, however on permahull it still does a decent job
-It can't kill as fast as a GatFlak combination
It requires more aim adjustment than other weapons, especially horizontally. Therefore, difficult for newer players to use at speed (in Squid).
In essence, it only really helps out in a Long Range Junker load out- by itself it doesn't shine, and other loadouts are simply more effective at closer ranges.
-
I'm in love with pretty much all weapons other than the standard things... i.e. hwacha and light-flak, carronade, merc, etc. are avoided by me for the most part. On my Pyra, I take gat/art front. I've noticed that the Artemis is usually able to keep the damage up if it has Greased, but otherwise, it only succeeds at disabling systems(Using burst makes its AoE insane for this). The Flak just plain outclasses it within effective range. Otherwise, the Art's range is its only better quality. If it had a higher magazine, or a faster firing speed, that would help it out a lot. I think that the damage is in a good place as is, but it feels too much like a support weapon without some sort of extra 'drill'-like feature, as in, constant pressure from it will cause problems.
-
It doesn't quite shoot where you aim it if you're shooting really low or high, too (though that may be patched already). It's accurate but it doesn't travel fast enough to really make its longer range that much more useful than a flak with heavy clip. Mercs are already deadly as it is, though, I don't think making an effective sniping gat/flak combo would help matters.
-
I don't think making an effective sniping gat/flak combo would help matters.
Agreed. Careful balancing would be needed, but as of now, I feel that it only has a small niche application- an explosive merc substitute. I've done dual Artemis front on a Pyramidion with greased ammo, and that wasn't very effective compared to the second match's dual flak front.
-
Artemis are the best component snipes, but they require high level of skill to use effectively. but they are a little weird to use cause most of the single barrel weps are on the right side of your screen, while the artemis are on the left. :P
-
The Artemis still seems like a poor substitute for a Merc. Although it does more to hurt the components, you are less likely to hit, far less likely to hit what you wanted, and lacking in the armor damage of the merc.
-
I'm in agreement with everything above. It's the poor mans merc, less damage, not as accurate but does a wider spread and heads more shots per clip.
In a game that had some kind of resource mechanic to upkeep, I could see how this would fit in as a cheaper cost effective weapon, but as it stands it's usefullness is very niche, and can be outclassed by a merc in all but a very few and rare circumstances.
A good example would be having it on the side of a goldfish for longer range support on maps like canyon or duel at dawn. Faster shots, closer range, good to snap off if the opportunity presents itself.
-
It's a harder weapon to use than the usual light-weapon combinations, but it's an interesting alternative on a Junker or Pyra build. Probably not one for a PUG, but something I'll sometimes use with a crew that I know can use it - for a Artemis-Whirlwind combination.
-
The only situation I've seen it used well is the side of a junker in combo with a gatling gun, and even there I'm not sure the role wouldn't be better served by a flak or banshee.
-
If it's on thean upper-rear mount of the Junker it works because that's the engineer's mount - there's not really that much to choose from between the flak and the artemis, sometimes a change is as good as a rest.
-
Is the artemis the missile sling or the rocket launcher? I use neither.
-
Missle sling... I dont use it much, but as a supporting role, I've used a merc/artemis pyra to good effect. not that good if there is not an aggressor ship to play the mid field
-
I don't know. I've flown my Merc/Atry topside pyra and destroyed at long range. I've even killed meta pyra's that charged me by shining in full reverse and sniping out their guns. Compared to the double merc ships I've flown they kill a lot faster cause of the Arty hull damage. But I do agree you need someone who can aim it.
-
I haven't found a good use for it on any of my builds. It feels like a poor man's hwacha as opposed to a poor man's merc. The merc is meant for armor stripping and component shattering at long range, where as the artimis and hwacha both do AOE/shatter damage which is good for disabling guns and finishing off ships after the armor has been stripped. The thing is the hwacha does it so much better that if you want a ship to function as a weapon/engine breaker you almost always go with a hwachafish.
-
On the front mount of a Junker, it works well for chases in that you can disable enemy engines. That said, you do have to be a bit of a surgeon to make that work.
-
I think it'd make an excellent long-to-medium range pursuit weapon in tandem with the Mercury for the Pyramidion. Compared to most all of the other small weapons (besides the merc.) it has the range and accuracy to pose as the "flack" after the merc takes down the armor. If anything, it's good at disabling at range because unlike the merc. it has shatter damage and AoE, and with the Hwatcha at range you'll only get a few hits with it's spread. All in all I'd consider mostly a long-distance disabler that handles itself decently at closer ranges.
-
I wish it still was homing. I can't use it at all anymore.
-
I wish it still was homing. I can't use it at all anymore.
Do you want it to be OP again?
-
A tiny bit of homing could be cool. Make them a bit more viable at range but not advantaging them close or against fast ships. Actually it would make a half decent anti-sniping option which would be nice to have at range.
-
homing would be really weird in this universe. the people are flying airships that run on prop engines and are held in the sky by cloth baloons, but have sufficent tech to have homing capabilities on their missles? it just does not work. i still say that the artemis is effective at rapid component destruction but requires a really top tier gunner to do it. the MAIN problem lies not with the damage but aiming and flight characteristics. although granted damage could probably be tweaked as well but that is how a system of imperfect balance works damage values will always need to be tweaked on everything forever :P. making it slightly easier to shoot i think would be fine. only ever so slightly though.
I've noticed a tendency of people wanting to compact the difficulty of gunning almost to a point where a powder monkey can be effective with any and all guns you put on the ship right away (usually stemming from pilots with blinders on). this should never happen, having 1/3rd of the game offer no payoff for increasing your skill level is silly.
-
homing would be really weird in this universe. the people are flying airships that run on prop engines and are held in the sky by cloth baloons, but have sufficent tech to have homing capabilities on their missles? it just does not work. i still say that the artemis is effective at rapid component destruction but requires a really top tier gunner to do it. the MAIN problem lies not with the damage but aiming and flight characteristics. although granted damage could probably be tweaked as well but that is how a system of imperfect balance works damage values will always need to be tweaked on everything forever :P. making it slightly easier to shoot i think would be fine. only ever so slightly though.
I've noticed a tendency of people wanting to compact the difficulty of gunning almost to a point where a powder monkey can be effective with any and all guns you put on the ship right away (usually stemming from pilots with blinders on). this should never happen, having 1/3rd of the game offer no payoff for increasing your skill level is silly.
Well, that was WWII technology with the V1 flying bombs, just say "BLAME CHALADON" or something.
They already do low enough damage that a kill is a long time. So yes, it would be a noob weapon for some people with homing. But the damage is lower than before, if I remember right. It would also be used to set up that trifecta more easily. But a howitzer/field gun will still usually be stronger than an artimis.
-
The V1 wasn't a homing weapon. It went where it was instructed to go before taking off. It was not able to detect or react to changes in the targets movement vector.
-
Once upon a time, pigeon-guided bombs were considered and tested.
Sadly, they were ineffective.
The Artemis needs more love by boosting its unique features- not just its damage. What makes the Artemis special? If there isn't anything really special, then what could be added to it?
I'd say that, because its the longest range explosive light-gun, it should perhaps get buffs to make it a better choice for longer ranges. As of now, the Flak still wins out at nearly every range. Perhaps if the Artemis' explosive AoE was larger?
-
Once upon a time, pigeon-guided bombs were considered and tested.
Sadly, they were ineffective.
Project Pigeon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pigeon), BF Skinner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bf_skinner) and the Bat Bomb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_(guided_bomb)) (not to be confused with the Bat Bomb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_bomb))..
-
The V1 wasn't a homing weapon. It went where it was instructed to go before taking off. It was not able to detect or react to changes in the targets movement vector.
Oh, true. It did have a guidance system though.
Then again, since when did WWI have hwachas? The heavy weapons are things you sit in, not things you move with your hands. It's not like this is super realistic to technology in WWI, and right now the Missile Sling just feels like an inaccurate field gun. Give it something special, at least.
-
Then again, since when did WWI have hwachas?
The Hwacha is a 14th century Korean weapon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwacha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwacha) and is the one of the first examples of a multiple launch rocket system.
-
The Hwacha is essentially the big daddy version of the Artemis, and as such they both have their roots in the Le Prieur rocket (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Prieur_rocket). The British had developed the Congreve rocket (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congreve_rocket) even earlier after experiences against Indian rocket artillery. There's nothing in the concept of solid-fuelled rockets that post-dates WW1. Take the existing rocket knowledge and build it up into a turret-based artillery piece.
The Artemis isn't a weak weapon as it is, but it's difficult to aim effectively if you're not used to it. It possibly suffers from the simplified ballistic model used in the game, which I think struggles to model the flight path of self-propelled projectiles.
-
The V1 wasn't a homing weapon. It went where it was instructed to go before taking off. It was not able to detect or react to changes in the targets movement vector.
Oh, true. It did have a guidance system though.
Then again, since when did WWI have hwachas? The heavy weapons are things you sit in, not things you move with your hands. It's not like this is super realistic to technology in WWI, and right now the Missile Sling just feels like an inaccurate field gun. Give it something special, at least.
Yeah, WWI is more of a general "idea" of what's going on, pretty sure WWI-era clothing didn't include all that many rotating gears either. That and all the countries are fictional. I could suspend disbelief over a homing rocket if that made it a more interesting weapon than it is now.
-
Never knew about the Le Prieur Rocket. Salute! Hubert PIckle for teaching me something new.
-
Never knew about the Le Prieur Rocket. Salute! Hubert PIckle for teaching me something new.
Something new for me too.. I knew there were rockets used before WW1 (Napoleonic) and after WW1, so I was sure that someone must have had the idea to try them during WW1.
-
Yeah, WWI is more of a general "idea" of what's going on, pretty sure WWI-era clothing didn't include all that many rotating gears either. That and all the countries are fictional. I could suspend disbelief over a homing rocket if that made it a more interesting weapon than it is now.
Dont get hung up on history, the cultures in this game developed these weapons from the ground up, this isnt a modified future, it is a self-contained universe. if these cultures had the tech for a homing missiles they would have to have computers (very small computers at that) because that is what a homing missile is, a self propelled explosive with a computer regulating where it goes inflight based on received data. the minute that exists in this universe the whole steam/diesel punk style of the universe now makes no sense.
you have to think of what these cultures would do with the tools and tech available to them. The only way i can see guidance working in this universe is cable guided rockets. you would first have to fire a small harpoon/dart over to the enemy ship that is trailing some kind of cable. rockets can then be clipped on to the cable and follow it to the target ship. However, this would not actually help the artemis be more effective in the role it seems to be meant for, component destruction, because you cannot change where you are aiming. Its just an example of the kind of systems we are dealing with here. they can be reasonably advanced, but they are constrained by the clunky tech of the universe.
-
As the game is steampunk, a lot of shit work that shouldn't work like airships with balloons that for some reason are sturdy as fuck and actually swat down biplanes like flies. There's no need for a heatseeking missile to need a computer so long it's got exposed gears on it somewhere. Spinning gears make it work. It doesn't even have to be attached to anything, if it's spinning something somewhere is working because of it. In Dwarf Fortress, the most realistic videogame portrayal of anything ever, gears power each other without even touching each other. They are remote-signalling gears made of nothing but rock and drunken dorf craftsmanship because dorfs. They found something or another that makes the missile go after ships, maybe it's got a magnet on it or some shit.
-
As the game is steampunk
Minor detail, but the game is firmly dieselpunk and not steampunk. As soon as you have airships/zeppelins it's heading to dieselpunk, as soon as you have heavier-than-air flight it's definitely dieselpunk.
As for unleashing the full narrative imperative of unspecified technologies, you can always have the handwavium in the guidance system attracted to the unobtanium on the target ship.
-
How about little hamsters inside each rocket, trained to guide the rocket towards the first airship it sees. The high pitch squeal the rockets make is not the hot gas escaping from the rocket engine, but the battle cry of your tiny rodent guidance system as he rides his missile to glory.
-
Minor detail, but the game is firmly dieselpunk and not steampunk. As soon as you have airships/zeppelins it's heading to dieselpunk, as soon as you have heavier-than-air flight it's definitely dieselpunk.
A quick google tells me Muse is right to use both steampunk and dieselpunk to describe GoI, as the world is in transition from steam to diesel since the shared war between the two genres, a WWI-like conflict, is indefinite. The open cockpit air plane designs are definitely reminiscent of Galileo's flying machines and while technically heavier than air they put a great focus on Victorian design rather than anything we associate heavily with the 20's. The world seems to be angsting over that transition as well given what I saw in the original GoI demo. Themes of both are abound, but that "transition" never really finishes and while there's all sorts of "new" stuff being made all the time it never really propels itself into our modern world no matter how much time passes.
Can certainly agree that homing missiles don't detract enough from the setting to warrant passing up a good mechanic. It's not like there's gilded robots walking the decks.
-
So what makes the Artemis unique? Low damage, large AOE range? If you can hit, you damage most/all the components on a ship a little bit? Makes it so that, at range, the Artemis is decent at disabiling, but close up the Flak's higher DPS is straight up better?
-
A word of support of the artemis. I find it very useful as the front gun of my Junker. It has fantastic turn arc and so as I fly in, a few accurate shots can disable enemy guns and as the gat flaks open up, the artemis can continue to compliment. As others have said, it also helps for pursuits.
-
Once upon a time, pigeon-guided bombs were considered and tested.
Sadly, they were ineffective.
If the next update doesn't strap pigeons to artemis rockets I'm ragequitting. And you all should too.
-
Once upon a time, pigeon-guided bombs were considered and tested.
Sadly, they were ineffective.
If the next update doesn't strap pigeons to artemis rockets I'm ragequitting. And you all should too.
The next update is going to bring a plethora of incredibly exciting things, but unfortunately that's not one of them :P
-
How many Artemis rockets does it take to destroy a component? Haven't been able to find a component HP chart yet.
Since it has AoE shatter, some explosive, and a pretty fantastic range, it could be paired with a merc for Jill damage outside of flak range.
-
After some thought on this matter, I believe that there are two things, that if both done, would change the Artemis from a support gun, to a main weapon.
Higher velocity rockets and larger area of effect for the shatter damage.
This would make it easier to destroy components, creating a weaker but more precise hwacha. A well gunned Artemis could then keep an enemy disabled and slowly achieve a kill allowing a less risky but slower kill than a flak and giving an alternate to the current meta.
At present this strategy is possible, but due to the level of difficulty and unreliability (due to jitter and ship momentum) not as viable as other strategies. The proposed changes would fix this.
-
Confirmed this morning that one or two shots, even not direct to the component, will knock a gun out. It's just a little hard to aim the thing from 1.5 km out without a sighting scope on it. Jitter on the Artemis is negligible even at that range.
-
You're right, in addition to my previous statements, I think the Artemis would benefit from a scope.
-
I personally love the Artemis on my Sui-Squid. With a half way competent gunner I can suppress Galleon and Junker broadsides almost indefinitely and then just sit on them and tear them apart. Also it's great for saving friendlies who are in a bad position, I can suppress Carronades that are forcing them down or Hwachas that are right on their butts crippling them.
It seems to be a tough weapon for alot of people to get used to firing, but once they get the hang of it the crippling potential is amazing.
-
Was the Artemis changed in the update? For some reason... it feels stronger now.
-
Was the Artemis changed in the update? For some reason... it feels stronger now.
- Artemis
-- Increase turn radius
-- Increased projectile speed to 750m/s from 640m/s
-- Increased zoom
-
1.2 turned the Artemis from doubtfully useful to arguably OP.
-
That's actually pretty fair. It got a lot easier to shoot with the faster speed, and because of its blast radius, you can lock someone's engines pretty handily.
-
Yup, it only takes a few shots to take out all their engines and guns. And it has no drop, 1750 metres of range, high AoE, and a fast projectile. Despite have two fifths of the shatter damage it's looking significantly better than the merc for mechanical component killing.
-
Don't forget the turn radius of a flare gun, so overlapping arcs is, in a word, simple.
-
According to Jace's numbers it's still 14° less than the flare in either direction, but the arc is still ridiculous. It's half the reason why the Junker is suddenly meta.
-
I think a projectile speed of 690-700m/s, and either lowering the radius or slowing the turn speed to compensate for the large arc would bring it back nicely.
-
I feel the artemis has gone from something that was deadly in the hands of a skilled gunner to something that may be a bit too good. Slowing it down a bit like suggested would really help. Make it like a lumberjack, damn effective but hard to use.
-
I think reducing the AoE might help balance it. Right now you can take two or three engines out in one or two shots, and get most if not all of the guns with the rest of the clip. Maybe they should also increase the reload time, since you're shooting in again in almost no time at all. Once you get two Artemises on you and your engines and guns are down, you're not going anywhere.
-
In the cogs today I was the primary engineer on the mighty Gotterdamrrungsungradngssrung (sp) We had an artemis on the side and with burst clips, I am fairly sure I was the main thing keeping the other team from firing at us. I remember shooting two shots that combined took down three heavy weapons on the enemy galleon.
I hat saying it but the gun might be too good.
-
With greased rounds and two guns in a bifecta, it acts like a pseudo-hwatcha with more reliable DPS
-
Burst is better. It gets a large AoE and can take out several components at once.
-
Spire's trifecta... Hwatcha and two Artemis... Flying EMP
-
"Remember back when there were these things called components, and they weren't all red? Not so any longer"
-
It takes one direct hit or two area hits to destroy a component (at least in Sandbox--don't know if component health is higher in the actual game). It's basically a Light Hwacha, except that it's far more surgical. The mass explosive damage isn't there.
So now that we all like it, do you think it's overpowered? My main gripe is getting hit in the face with an Artemis volley then having my engines destroyed.
-
I'm starting to see people replace the flak with it... so... it looks like the meta is shifting.
-
I'm starting to see people replace the flak with it... so... it looks like the meta is shifting.
Some might say that's OP, but it makes the repair game a lot better than "Eng camp the hull." Gat/flak is still deadly, but a well-placed Artemis can do some great surgery on an enemy ship.
-
I dunno if you can call a gun OP just because cogs level players can wreck with it. The majority of people I've seen using it are hopeless with it. They maybe hit 3 shots out of ten.
-
I'm with ofiach, in random play the Gatling/flak was still more reliable killing power than any combination with the Artemis. But in the hands of practiced person it was a wrecking ball weapon that kept my ship locked down.
-
I'm still on the fence about the Artemis.
The thing that strikes me as funny about this whole debate, is that the Artemis is no more powerful now then it ever was. Though the projectile speed was buffed, and it's certainly easier to be accurate with, it was just as crippling in 1.14 as it is now.
Basically before, the general consensus was that it was underpowered, and though I agreed to a certain extent, it was still good enough for me to bring it into two Cogs matches prior to 1.2 .
Now with the less than 20% boost in projectile speed and an increased gun arc (which to be fair was always large) the general consensus now is that it is overpowered.
So, I suppose if public opinion were to be counted on as reliable, the way to bring the gun back into balance would simply be to decrease the gun arc and weapon speed to some point in between when it was underpowered and overpowered.
Though I have to wonder whether it's that the gun is overpowered, or people are just discovering for the first time that the gun was good to begin with. Quite frankly I enjoy seeing more light guns being used as viable weapons in combat, and I think it's pretty awesome for another weapon to be just as threatening to see in combat as a light flak albeit for a totally different reason.
-
Though I have to wonder whether it's that the gun is overpowered, or people are just discovering for the first time that the gun was good to begin with.
Almost certainly the former. Yah give something even the smallest buff and people are gonna hop on it with a fresh perspective.
-
I have no strong OPinion of wealth the Artemis is OP... but my new favorite build is a Artemis trifecta junker.
Anyway here are some possibly accurate (everything is just based on numbers I was given) numbers about the Artemis.
When I think of the difference between medium guns and light guns I compare one medium gun vs 2 light guns (goldfish/pyra).
Hwacha half power/Light Flak/Artimis:
DPS
PARTS: 134.4/ 31.6/ 179.3
HULL: 25.3/ 112/ 38.4
BALLOON: 9.8/ 20/ 15.6
ARMOR: 10.6/ 24/ 16.8
Add to this that Artemis is easier to shoot and has far greater range.
double Artemis squid would be more effective then a hwacha fish!!!
-
double Artemis squid would be more effective then a hwacha fish!!!
That pretty much sums it up. It's like a hwacha with way, way less reload.
-
I have been a proponent of the gun for a while now. I think because of the added arc and projectile speed though, its more accessible/easier to use and therefore people are seeing how great it always has been.
-
I have been a proponent of the gun for a while now. I think because of the added arc and projectile speed though, its more accessible/easier to use and therefore people are seeing how great it always has been.
I disagree. I think that while it's become easier to use, the more important reason for its sudden rise in popularity is how easy it's become to use it in conjunction with other guns. You couldn't stick it on a Pyra too comfortably before, since the arc wasn't wide enough to get a good trifecta often enough. Same goes for the Junker. With the increase in arc it's stupidly easy to get a trifecta, and so you can now use it alongside gat/flak or whatever you want. Losing the odd engine from 1500 metres away isn't too much of a problem, but if you lose your engines while gatflak is distracting your main engi, you're in serious trouble. The arc makes all the difference.
-
While a higher arc and faster speed do make it easier to use, it also increases the capabilities of those that can use it effectively as well. As Sunderland said, the increased arc makes it a scary primary AND secondary weapon, it can be place on any slot and be a terror. I've seen it wreck shit off of the ass of a Galleon. The increase projectile speed means no amount of dodging is going to save you and makes lesmok a joke, you go burst for a humongous AoE that can disable whatever part of the ship you're facing. Mind you it also does respectable hull damage, so you can pair it with a gatling to make a terrifyingly efficient disable/kill machine. At least with the flak it was only ever effective alongside a gatling reducing its use to the Pyramidion and Junker and the odd Squid with a lot of balls.
The projectile speed in particular is worth mentioning again, that's NOT just lowering the skill floor for the weapon. No matter how accurate you are a gunner, there are shots you simply cannot land because the enemy ship moved while the projectile was in transit, they moved in a way you could not have predicted. It's why even Phoebe can't always win every match ever just by being on a Lumberjack. What this means for the Artemis is that what used to take a specific circumstance (the pilot has lined up a great shot) can now be done all the time without fail given moderate skill (disabling the enemy's engines while going fast laterally).
This is just for higher skilled players. In everyone else's hands, it's gone from horribly inaccurate to a reliable hitter. It's dangerously close to completely overtaking the Hwacha and it just utterly outclasses the flamethrower which already was having a hard time dealing with chemspray. A disabler/killer that turns fast, hits far, and does it all in record time? The only thing the flamethrower has going for it now over the Artemis is its ability to kill the balloon and that alone isn't enough to justify its use.
It's stepping on a lot of other weapon's toes at the moment. The flak did one thing and one thing only, kill the enemy when its armor is down. The Hwacha did one thing and that was disable, and maybe kill if a gatling came in (meaning you got roughly 3 guns' worth on the enemy at once). I don't think the artemis should be brought back entirely to where it was pre-patch and I'm very glad stuff other than flak/gatling is viable on light ships, but as effective as the weapon is right now this is what you'd expect out of a primary slot weapon, not what you'd get out of a backup slot.
-
This doesn't happen very often, Helmic, but I fully agree. Salute.
-
I disagree. I think that while it's become easier to use, the more important reason for its sudden rise in popularity is how easy it's become to use it in conjunction with other guns. You couldn't stick it on a Pyra too comfortably before, since the arc wasn't wide enough to get a good trifecta often enough. Same goes for the Junker. With the increase in arc it's stupidly easy to get a trifecta, and so you can now use it alongside gat/flak or whatever you want. Losing the odd engine from 1500 metres away isn't too much of a problem, but if you lose your engines while gatflak is distracting your main engi, you're in serious trouble. The arc makes all the difference.
.
Well, I'll have to disagree with your disagreement. I primarily used the Artemis as a trifecta weapon on the pyra prior to 1.2 though it certainly is easier to do now with the additional turn arc.
-
I disagree. I think that while it's become easier to use, the more important reason for its sudden rise in popularity is how easy it's become to use it in conjunction with other guns. You couldn't stick it on a Pyra too comfortably before, since the arc wasn't wide enough to get a good trifecta often enough. Same goes for the Junker. With the increase in arc it's stupidly easy to get a trifecta, and so you can now use it alongside gat/flak or whatever you want. Losing the odd engine from 1500 metres away isn't too much of a problem, but if you lose your engines while gatflak is distracting your main engi, you're in serious trouble. The arc makes all the difference.
.
Well, I'll have to disagree with your disagreement. I primarily used the Artemis as a trifecta weapon on the pyra prior to 1.2 though it certainly is easier to do now with the additional turn arc.
I'm pretty sure this is the point. Why buff it's arc more when it was already possible to get into a trifecta, albelt harder? That's the key, it was harder to do. Now you have the easier trifecta, plus the easier shots with the added speed of the projectile. 1.1.5, you had to use lesmok to get good shots in at max range, but that lowered the clip and turn speed, making it harder to kill multiple components since you didnt have added AOE. Now you just throw burst in and have fun shooting wildly, hitting longer shots and with up to 3 of them going at once.
I have no problem with guns becoming useful over meta. Heck, you all should know I actively try to break meta. But it's my belief that it was simply made too easy to use/get hits on certain components. This is why I suggested scaling back the buff in a way that still gives it the small "umph" it needed in 1.1.5.
-
This thing is stupidly deadly at long range, and ridiculously easy to hit with even at 1500+ metres. I had more trouble keeping a Galleon going against double Artemises than I did in Cogs against the Gentlemen.
-
While there are a couple of neutral messages and some in denial that the weapon is too powerful at this moment;- the vast majority of this thread seems to agree that the weapon has been overtuned.
There's been discussions about weapons but in none of them was there an almost unanimous vote between veterans players agreeing with a certain balance and we have 4 pages of higher profile players voicing their thoughts on this issue - it's obviously a very current and active subject; and not just something off the side that can be dealt with at a much later stage.
So as close as Muse is with the community and as forward as they've been in almost everything they do it both dissapoints me and suprises me that they have yet to really respond to or participate in this particular debate.
I took a squid - not even a junker - with an artemis on the front in some games;- and I've had some people literally pissed off about the weapon feeling they couldn't do anything against it and when you reach a certain point where a weapon starts really frustrating people it's just time to re-evaluate balance changes.
I don't get a kick out of people blaming a gun for my victories;- I want to be recognized for other things than a mistake in balancing.
Either way just wanted to participate and add my name to the list and put a quick question mark in here why there hasn't been a response yet from Eric.
-
There's been discussions about weapons but in none of them was there an almost unanimous vote between veterans players agreeing with a certain balance
Long before you came around to GoIO there was the howitzer mess. I met maybe one or two people in the entire playerbase who didn't think it was OP. That was a dark period in Guns of Icarus history... And now only players like me, Zill, Roy, and other beta guys remember it.
Anyways, I'd like to see Eric's perspective on the matter for sure. The gun's so, so overpowered. I just want them to wait until I'm done the gun destroys achievement before they nerf it :D
-
Howitzers OP? That's as far back as you go? I'm going all the way back to missile slings OP when they were heat seeking. Those things were unbeatable way way back in beta. It seems we've come full circle.
-
While there are a couple of neutral messages and some in denial that the weapon is too powerful at this moment;- the vast majority of this thread seems to agree that the weapon has been overtuned.
There's been discussions about weapons but in none of them was there an almost unanimous vote between veterans players agreeing with a certain balance and we have 4 pages of higher profile players voicing their thoughts on this issue - it's obviously a very current and active subject; and not just something off the side that can be dealt with at a much later stage.
So as close as Muse is with the community and as forward as they've been in almost everything they do it both dissapoints me and suprises me that they have yet to really respond to or participate in this particular debate.
I took a squid - not even a junker - with an artemis on the front in some games;- and I've had some people literally pissed off about the weapon feeling they couldn't do anything against it and when you reach a certain point where a weapon starts really frustrating people it's just time to re-evaluate balance changes.
I don't get a kick out of people blaming a gun for my victories;- I want to be recognized for other things than a mistake in balancing.
Either way just wanted to participate and add my name to the list and put a quick question mark in here why there hasn't been a response yet from Eric.
You have to remember that the Artemis hasn't been wreaking havoc for very long, and its possible there may be a counter that hasn't been discovered just yet. No reason to get worked up about Muse not commenting just yet.
I think the biggest problem with the Artemis is that there isn't a real vision of what it should be doing. As it works right now it's an all-around weapon that does everything very well except for outright killing (it doesn't need to be if the enemy's disabled) and armor piercing (thanks to the high arcs of both weapons its a snap to have it firing with one or two gatlings). There needs to be a better idea of what the gun should do before there's any more fiddling with it.
-
Howitzers OP? That's as far back as you go? I'm going all the way back to missile slings OP when they were heat seeking. Those things were unbeatable way way back in beta. It seems we've come full circle.
Nice try, but I was there for that. Howitzers just stick out in my mind way more.
-
You have to remember that the Artemis hasn't been wreaking havoc for very long, and its possible there may be a counter that hasn't been discovered just yet. No reason to get worked up about Muse not commenting just yet.
But there aren't any guns that can beat the Artemis. It destroys enemy guns before they have a chance to even come into range, and with its huge AoE with burst you can keep them down all day. The only reliable counter to the Artemis I've found after a good deal of playing is another Artemis.
-
You have to remember that the Artemis hasn't been wreaking havoc for very long, and its possible there may be a counter that hasn't been discovered just yet. No reason to get worked up about Muse not commenting just yet.
But there aren't any guns that can beat the Artemis. It destroys enemy guns before they have a chance to even come into range, and with its huge AoE with burst you can keep them down all day. The only reliable counter to the Artemis I've found after a good deal of playing is another Artemis.
I don't entirely disagree, but it's better to test it out for a day or two to see if anything does emerge. You have to give it a little time to see if the meta can react. It's not like Muse is intentionally letting everyone suffer because they hate us.
-
You have to remember that the Artemis hasn't been wreaking havoc for very long, and its possible there may be a counter that hasn't been discovered just yet. No reason to get worked up about Muse not commenting just yet.
But there aren't any guns that can beat the Artemis. It destroys enemy guns before they have a chance to even come into range, and with its huge AoE with burst you can keep them down all day. The only reliable counter to the Artemis I've found after a good deal of playing is another Artemis.
I don't entirely disagree, but it's better to test it out for a day or two to see if anything does emerge. You have to give it a little time to see if the meta can react. It's not like Muse is intentionally letting everyone suffer because they hate us.
We have given it time. It's been a week and there's nothing that can be done. The gun's just way too versatile to get countered. You can't come in with straight-out killing guns 'cause the Artemis will wipe them out. You can't attack with a disabling weapon as the Artemis is better at disabling than whatever you have. You can't get their balloon down since the Artemis will get your gun before it's in range. And if you have a lumberjack, the Artemis won't have trouble taking that out either.
-
I think the balance of explosive damage vs the Hwacha Puts the Artemis in its appropriate place with regards to outright kills, since it fires single projectiles.
To give an actual example of my own view of the Artemis and its slight OP, I get hit in the bow and my engines get destroyed. I think the AoE radius should be decreased to prevent it from functioning as powerfully as a Hwacha in terms of a disabling weapon. That would make the fly-by disabling more difficult, but still give a ship that's been stably positioned the chance to utilize its full potential. Alternately, it would require loading of burst to reclaim the power of the current AoE.
That's all pretty preemptive though. Once we start seeing all-Artemis ships being the meta (which I think we will come close to), it's a fair call to ask for change. If Muse is too proactive, the game gets into a balancing PIO where unnecessary changes are made. I think the playerbase, to include the more casual players, has to adapt first before an acute and accurate assessment can be made.
EDIT: Meaning I think just a week might be too fast. But then again, I've also abandoned most guns for the Artemis, so perhaps it's not.
-
When ever I evaluate balance in anything I play I always examine how efficient an item is over a broad spectrum of use, the artemis is now very much at the top of this list.
But say we couldn't fix the Artemis, for what ever reason, what would some alternatives be?
I'm thinking maybe weapons that destroy components should do almost nothing to the hull. Possibly introduce another damage type and resistance.
-
I only see one major issue with the Artemis: its ridiculous turning arc. I just don't see the reasoning behind a long range, accurate weapon similar in role to the Field Gun has an arc that rivals the Rocket Carousel. There's no reason for that to be the case, and making it comparable to (though not as bad as) the Mercury should put it in line with other weapons.
Its AoE radius is purportedly 5. Given it deals a whopping 120 Shatter, this would be another good place to tone the weapon back on. With these two changes, the Artemis will become far harder to use and solidify it as a long range support weapon without compromising its efficacy.
I haven't personally faced difficulty where I've seen it, but I'm inclined to believe that's just my luck of facing poor gunners. It isn't hard to see how it could potentially be problematic, even on paper.
-
(http://cache.ohinternet.com/images/thumb/2/2d/Trollface_HD.png/618px-Trollface_HD.png)
-
The artemis always had great turning arc and was a fantastic disabler in the hands of a skilled marksman (aiming) and pilot (lining up). I would wager that if they went back to the pre patch stats, there would still be people using it for asymmetrical junkers and whatnot. Pandora's box has been opened.
-
The artemis always had great turning arc and was a fantastic disabler in the hands of a skilled marksman (aiming) and pilot (lining up). I would wager that if they went back to the pre patch stats, there would still be people using it for asymmetrical junkers and whatnot. Pandora's box has been opened.
Hallelujah! Truth.
Arc was increased a tiny bit along with other things to bring it into the foreground. And now since it's a favorite and highly contested, everyone is going to hate me when I inevitably dial it back.
Reckoning approaches.
-
The fact that ONE Artemis can almost completely disable any ship at any range makes is OP. Agreed on reducing AoE.
Reckoning approaches.
I'm afraid
-
Well, if I could make the small request of not dialing it back too much please.
I never really used the carousel much in 1.14 but I loved that its buff brought another light weapon into the forefront and into frequent use. When it was nerfed shortly thereafter it became so weak we'd practically mock ships who took it as a primary weapon.
I love to see a diversity of ships and weapons all be valid and competitive and I think almost everyone's agrees, especially awkm, so please don't smite us for our seeming lack of gratitude (guys you have to admit we've been a little petulant, asking for months for the Artemis to be buffed only to complain intensely the moment awkm gives it a ever so slight boost in speed and turn arc).
-
Well, if I could make the small request of not dialing it back too much please.
I never really used the carousel much in 1.14 but I loved that its buff brought another light weapon into the forefront and into frequent use. When it was nerfed shortly thereafter it became so weak we'd practically mock ships who took it as a primary weapon.
I love to see a diversity of ships and weapons all be valid and competitive and I think almost everyone's agrees, especially awkm, so please don't smite us for our seeming lack of gratitude (guys you have to admit we've been a little petulant, asking for months for the Artemis to be buffed only to complain intensely the moment awkm gives it a ever so slight boost in speed and turn arc).
I strongly agree with this sentiment. The more 'real' options available at the higher levels of play, the better. I don't think anyone disagree's with that.
I do think the weapon may need a small nerf, but I'd wouldn't want to see it's range impacted. There aren't a lot of options for the sort of ranges the Artemis is able to work at. I would just reduce it's Hull damage to reinforce it's purpose as a disabling weapon.
-
I must insist that the best way to nerf the Artemis is first to reduce its firing arc. It's a long range disabling weapon; everyone agrees on that, so that's what it should be good at. It doesn't need to have a good firing arc to be good at long range, but it has it anyway, which makes it too useful at close range. Give it the Field Gun treatment and nerf down its arc and rotation speed.
Reducing AoE would mandate the use of burst rounds to get the most out of its large shatter DPS, and increase the skill required to make the best use of it.
Making these changes should put the Artemis in line with other weapons.
-
I must insist that the best way to nerf the Artemis is first to reduce its firing arc. It's a long range disabling weapon; everyone agrees on that, so that's what it should be good at. It doesn't need to have a good firing arc to be good at long range, but it has it anyway, which makes it too useful at close range. Give it the Field Gun treatment and nerf down its arc and rotation speed.
Reducing AoE would mandate the use of burst rounds to get the most out of its large shatter DPS, and increase the skill required to make the best use of it.
Making these changes should put the Artemis in line with other weapons.
Let's hang on here Nikolailev, doing all of those nerfs at the same time is a bad idea. I don't know if you've had the "Pleasure" of playing EA or SOE games but one of their biggest issues is TERRIBLE balance, because the buff underpowered things by a ridiculous amount then nerf overpowered things by a ridiculous amount. Basically what was OP last week becomes a completely useless and pointless build. (examples available upon request) Now reducing the arc OR slowing down it's rotation OR reducing its AOE are all good idea's but implement them one at a time and give it a week to see if it is a good balance. I mean all they did to make it suddenly viable was boost it's projectile speed, add some zoom, and make it have a slightly bigger arc.
I guess my point is this, they made 3 changes to make the artemis viable lets not do 3 changes and send it back into obscurity. Honestly as it is now it's still a debate for me to take the Artemis to keep myself safe or a flak cannon to get kills. It really depends on the reliability of my other captains and my current crew.
-
Let's hang on here Nikolailev, doing all of those nerfs at the same time is a bad idea. I don't know if you've had the "Pleasure" of playing EA or SOE games but one of their biggest issues is TERRIBLE balance, because the buff underpowered things by a ridiculous amount then nerf overpowered things by a ridiculous amount. Basically what was OP last week becomes a completely useless and pointless build. (examples available upon request) Now reducing the arc OR slowing down it's rotation OR reducing its AOE are all good idea's but implement them one at a time and give it a week to see if it is a good balance. I mean all they did to make it suddenly viable was boost it's projectile speed, add some zoom, and make it have a slightly bigger arc.
I guess my point is this, they made 3 changes to make the artemis viable lets not do 3 changes and send it back into obscurity. Honestly as it is now it's still a debate for me to take the Artemis to keep myself safe or a flak cannon to get kills. It really depends on the reliability of my other captains and my current crew.
Your principle is completely sound. However, it's just a matter of tweaking the nerfs so that it isn't too drastic. Reducing the firing arc by 20 degrees (major) and reducing the AoE by 1 (to 4, minor) wouldn't throw it off by much. And remember, it still retains its huge damage output, range, and accuracy. It wouldn't be a huge nerf.
It's also not a nerf to the weapon's primary role. It should be a good disabling weapon at range. These nerfs are geared at nerfing the secondary role it shouldn't have; close-in disabling. The awesome firing arc, turn speed and AoE make it good at that, and that's why it's overpowered. The Artemis should be weak at close range, but excellent afar.
I'm really not sure why it was an obscure weapon a few patches ago, because it was still awesome. I suspect it was a case of the metagame, because no one knew how good it was. I know I made use of it to good effect back then (even before the buffs it likely didn't need). Now that people are beginning to realize how great shatter is (again) it's becoming more and more common.
-
To be honest, I think the perfect way to nerf it without completely removing the buff it received would be to reduce the AoE by a few points. As of now, if the weapon has greased or burst attached to it, it becomes too effective. By reducing the AoE, it still has its damaging power, but it would require the gunner to actually aim for parts instead of simply spraying.
-
I have to agree with Cul, make it precision and see if that fixes the slight OPness. If it doesn't then start messing with other values.
Maybe even give the banshee the extra blast radius that the artemis lost :P
-
Nerf it. NERF IT BACK INTO THE DARKNESS FROM WHENCE IT CAME.
As discussed Its worse than the carousel in 1.14. Also its kinda like the manticore now only far far better.
BURN. IT. WITH. FIRE.
Sincerely, Moriarty.
-
You mean, burn it with the fire from an Artemis? Only then will the job truly be done.
-
The damn things are already breeding like tribbles, and you want ... escalation?
MADNESS!!
-
I like the idea of a smaller clip size... Two missiles per clip sounds good.
-
Then it's a howitzer with less scope and no drop.
-
I say keep the ammo it defines the gun, nerf the AOE and damage a bit. OR the AOE and Turn radius, It has very good turn radius for its power. The AOE and power allows it to deal a decent damage to multiple Components but being able to hit a wide angle of fire just hits the Overpowered mark I think
-
With a bit of skill, the artemis can quickly disable an enemy ship and pretty much keep it disabled as long as it wants to. While I understand this is quite annoying and hard to come back from, I'm not totally sure how this is different than the lumberjack. Or the carronade, for that matter. With a little bit of skill, a lumberjack ship can disable your balloon and most of your components, and pretty much keep it that way until you die. To a lesser degree, the same with the carronades. It's very annoying, and a captain or crew that doesn't know how to handle the situation will die every single time. There are ways to get out of a repair cycle versus lumberjack and carronade, and there are ways to get out of an artemis disable cycle. It's just not easy.
-
Then it's a howitzer with less scope and no drop.
Less range, no drop, different damage types and amounts and azimuth travel. So not really a howitzer. It can't shred hull.
-
There are ways to get out of a repair cycle versus lumberjack and carronade, and there are ways to get out of an artemis disable cycle. It's just not easy.
Agreed, mostly. The difference is however that while a lumberjack disable cycle is relatively easy to break, the disable from, say, a trifecting junker provides a long, vicious, hwatcha-like cycle with the added bonus of range and ease of use. It's just not fun: I played a fjords match between pairs of meta-junkers, it dragged on for forty painstaking minutes of destruction, turtling, rebuilding, repeat by both sides. I even got zuka to rage. I don't want to see the Artemis nerfed back into obscurity, the meta could use some tilling, but the aaaarrrrrrghhhh factor is simply to high: either lower the turning speed/clip size and make it a disabling merc, or lower the crazy AOE and projectile speed to add some skill in destroying components.
my two cents, pardon the text wall.
-
It's very annoying, and a captain or crew that doesn't know how to handle the situation will die every single time. There are ways to get out of a repair cycle versus lumberjack and carronade, and there are ways to get out of an artemis disable cycle. It's just not easy.
Fun story we (in a galleon) had two engines trying to fix a carronade long enough to have it shoot once at a parallel junker, we couldn't keep it up long enough to fire, the experience was eye opening and may and may or may not have contributed to my previous raging on this thread.
With a competent crew the 1v1 scenario might be 'solved' at the moment with art spam.
-
With a bit of skill, the artemis can quickly disable an enemy ship and pretty much keep it disabled as long as it wants to. While I understand this is quite annoying and hard to come back from, I'm not totally sure how this is different than the lumberjack. Or the carronade, for that matter. With a little bit of skill, a lumberjack ship can disable your balloon and most of your components, and pretty much keep it that way until you die. To a lesser degree, the same with the carronades. It's very annoying, and a captain or crew that doesn't know how to handle the situation will die every single time. There are ways to get out of a repair cycle versus lumberjack and carronade, and there are ways to get out of an artemis disable cycle. It's just not easy.
First, the guns you are trying to compare the artemis to, are heavy guns. They are meant to pack more "umph" than the light counterparts. The fact you have to compare them to make it seem ok is already a red flag.
Second, a lumberjack projectile has arc, and a very small turning radius, so its harder to shoot and hold someone down. And a heavy carronade has less than half the range of the artemis, so you already risk getting in close. Then you have to maintain that range, and out-maneuver your enemy.
With a competent gunner, artemis is simply too good. None of us want to see it get nerfed into oblivion. We just want it balanced.
-
I was one of many people who originally asked for the Artemis buff. I had very much wanted to see such an attractive, well designed and fun to shoot gun enter the meta. I even had envisioned it being able to engine lock a ship.
Unfortunately however it does just seem to be a bit too good. I can't remember the last match I played where a team without an Artemis beat a team who had one.
I don't think it's the high speed, large aoe, decent explosive damage, incredible turning radius individually that make the gun so good but the combination of all three.
The high speed and aoe make it so that not only is it incredibly easy to hit the enemy at range but once you do, you're more likely than not to break a component, and even if you miss, you have another 3 or or 4 shots to make up for it. Once in close range, even if the enemy were to get a gun or engine up, the reload cycle and firing speed make certain that it will be quickly taken back down again and that turn arc makes sure it almost always has a shot. Add in its explosive damage and some piercing damage from another gun and you can easily kill a ship that can't fight back.
Lastly there is the matter of ease of use. I was able to achieve all of these incredible results with a gunner who had played the game for less than 3 hours total before joining my ship.
I don't envy awkm's position here since this is clearly not an easy gun to balance, but if I were to try and fiddle with it I'd probably return its original gun arc, reduce the rocket speed in between 1.15 and 1.2 levels and either decrease aoe by 1 or decrease shatter damage.
-
I enjoy the wide gun arc and hope that does not get reduced in the next patch. Ever since the flamer nerf there was a need for a gun with a wide turning arc and decent disabling to enable the Squid Difecta. It did not need to be as long a range gun as the Artimis, but the squid needed something capable of holding wide sweet spot and putting the enemy on the defensive. I was personally for a wider turn arc on the mortar, but I can see how that would be OP in the hands of certain captains.
-
While I agree with you Hamster that the squid really benefits from a wide turning arc gun, I personally believe it really aught to be a close range weapon; that and the old arc of the Artemis is still quite large and more than capable of making the squid bifecta.
-
I think that the main reason that many people consider the Artemis OP now is how it's relatively easy to cripple all of a ship's components and KEEP them crippled. I don't see anything wrong with it being useful for precisely disabling components, but it's not much fun when you can keep everything disabled indefinitely. Basically, it should keep its ability to snipe components in the hands of a skilled gunner, but it shouldn't be able to permanently cripple them.
I think the best way to balance Artemis is to drastically increase its reload time. I'd also like to see its damage lowered a bit and its magazine increased by 1 - 3 shots. Basically let it do the same damage per magazine (or perhaps a little less), but over a longer period of time. It would give the enemy crew a little bit of time to react to the incoming damage. It would still be useful for sniping components, but not be overwhelming. It would also make it harder to kill a target with pure artemis launchers.
EDIT: You could also make the Artemis slightly more inaccurate, so if you want to accurately snipe components from range you could be forced to use Heavy Clip.
-
While I agree with you Hamster that the squid really benefits from a wide turning arc gun, I personally believe it really aught to be a close range weapon; that and the old arc of the Artemis is still quite large and more than capable of making the squid bifecta.
If it's going to be a close range weapon, then it needs its maximum range to be reduced, possibly with the addition of a heavy arc. It's inherently problematic to allow a disabling weapon to be good at extreme range and close range simultaneously, because there's no counterplay against the weapon. It's why Heavy Flaks were a problem, and why they're not anymore.
I don't want them to necessarily receive an Arming Time, but they just don't need a wide arc to do what they do, so that needs to be nerfed.
It doesn't help that the AoE is so large. It doesn't take a lot of skill to make use of, this is another good avenue of approach when dealing with the weapon.
I think that the main reason that many people consider the Artemis OP now is how it's relatively easy to cripple all of a ship's components and KEEP them crippled. I don't see anything wrong with it being useful for precisely disabling components, but it's not much fun when you can keep everything disabled indefinitely. Basically, it should keep its ability to snipe components in the hands of a skilled gunner, but it shouldn't be able to permanently cripple them.
I think the best way to balance Artemis is to drastically increase its reload time. I'd also like to see its damage lowered a bit and its magazine increased by 1 - 3 shots. Basically let it do the same damage per magazine (or perhaps a little less), but over a longer period of time. It would give the enemy crew a little bit of time to react to the incoming damage. It would still be useful for sniping components, but not be overwhelming. It would also make it harder to kill a target with pure artemis launchers.
I think I'd rather see a slight damage decrease instead of a reload increase. The latter would push it more towards the Field Gun and that's something we ought to avoid. We could nerf its DPS by reducing its damage (this would also have the effect of requiring multiple hits on a component, thus further increasing the skill requirement).
Disabling weapons should have burst disable potential, or good sustained disabling. Not both.
-
I think that the main reason that many people consider the Artemis OP now is how it's relatively easy to cripple all of a ship's components and KEEP them crippled. I don't see anything wrong with it being useful for precisely disabling components, but it's not much fun when you can keep everything disabled indefinitely. Basically, it should keep its ability to snipe components in the hands of a skilled gunner, but it shouldn't be able to permanently cripple them.
I think the best way to balance Artemis is to drastically increase its reload time. I'd also like to see its damage lowered a bit and its magazine increased by 1 - 3 shots. Basically let it do the same damage per magazine (or perhaps a little less), but over a longer period of time. It would give the enemy crew a little bit of time to react to the incoming damage. It would still be useful for sniping components, but not be overwhelming. It would also make it harder to kill a target with pure artemis launchers.
I think I'd rather see a slight damage decrease instead of a reload increase. The latter would push it more towards the Field Gun and that's something we ought to avoid. We could nerf its DPS by reducing its damage (this would also have the effect of requiring multiple hits on a component, thus further increasing the skill requirement).
Disabling weapons should have burst disable potential, or good sustained disabling. Not both.
I agree that disabling weapons should pick between burst and constant disabling, but I don't think increasing reload time would make it too similar to the field gun. Basically, I'm suggesting the Artemis be useful for keeping a ship crippled (not necessarily disabled) by lowering its dps, and the point of increasing the reload time is to make it so that you can't keep everything offline 95% of the time (since that's no fun for anyone).
-
Hot fix applied:
-Artemis
--Decreased upward pitch angle (-35 to -10 degrees, skewed towards downwards aiming)
--Decreased rotation speeds (100 to 80 pitch, 120 to 30 yaw)
--Decreased zoom (3.5 to 2x)
--Slightly decreased muzzle speed (750 to 675m/s)
--Slightly decreased rate of fire (0.67 bullets per second to 0.625)
--Slightly decreased AoE (5 to 3.5m)
--Slightly decreased reload speed (5 to 7s)
-Light Carronade
--Changed pitch angles (-40 to 35 changed to -30 to 10, skewed towards upwards aiming)
-Heavy Carronade
--Changed pitch angles (-20 to 35 changed to -30 to 10, skewed towards upwards aiming)
Please point any suggestions or complaints (not theory crafting) in the Guns balance thread.
-
My job as an engi just got about twelve times easier.
-
the side to side angle is the same so it will not change some ship builds. I think this was a smart change.
-
I'm sorry but the gun is pointless now.
- 3 direct hits to cripple components. unless you're using charged.
- no more ranged use since it blows up at just beyond a grid square. (measured that on dunes)
- miss a component and you might as well be tickling the enemy ship.
- the gun doesn't shoot up, Period. if an enemy is level with your balloon hes too high for the arc
- moves too slow to really be viable in Close quarters.
- Slow rate of fire means it's extremely easy for a a gunner to hop off his gun and whack it with a mallet before you can put a follow up shot on his gun.
Farewell Artemis it has been a fun week! I know alot of work goes into balance and I don't mean to be a total dick.... but this is what everyone was afraid of and didn't want to happen! Back to gat flak all day every day.
-
I'm sorry but the gun is pointless now.
It certainly isn't.
- 3 direct hits to cripple components. unless you're using charged.
Probably because the AOE was reduced, and you missed. I used it last night on the junker and still killed components handily with burst, though not as easily, which is the point.
- no more ranged use since it blows up at just beyond a grid square. (measured that on dunes)
Haven't tested that, and could easily be fixed with a tweak to the actual range to make it longer again. That is an advantage to this gun and I could see giving that back to it to give it that edge over mid-range.
- miss a component and you might as well be tickling the enemy ship.
Same goes for howitzer once the armor is down. If the armor is down and you are hitting it with artemis, it will do good damage.
- the gun doesn't shoot up, Period. if an enemy is level with your balloon hes too high for the arc
I didn't notice this but never really paid attention. I did notice it on my carronades though, and it adds more to the point keeping a boat in an advantageous position. It's the pilot's job to know the limitations of his guns and to compensate for the guns he chooses.
- moves too slow to really be viable in Close quarters.
It was always meant to be a long/mid range gun. The arc is unchanged so it's just a level of gunner skill to keep it on target.
- Slow rate of fire means it's extremely easy for a a gunner to hop off his gun and whack it with a mallet before you can put a follow up shot on his gun.
Well this too is based on gunner skill to hit his targets. Damaging a gun lowers its effectiveness, and that gunner has to hop off to repair it, so hes not firing. You don't have to completely destroy something to lower its effectiveness to 0.
The reason people like gat flak, it its ease of use, and ability to get kills. Problem with it is, that's all it does. You're forgoing disable power for straight kill power. And if you aren't the first one firing, you have a problem. It's not overpowered. It does what it's meant to. But careful strategy can win over brute force all day long.
And don't take the separation of your post personally, I just wanted to keep my points tidy.
-
I did notice it on my carronades though, and it adds more to the point of being over your enemy is an advantageous position.
Being over your enemy isn't an advantageous position when using carronades, as they now can hardly tilt downwards...
-
I did notice it on my carronades though, and it adds more to the point of being over your enemy is an advantageous position.
Being over your enemy isn't an advantageous position when using carronades, as they now can hardly tilt downwards...
I got it mixed up. Ill fix it. Thanks for catching it.
-
I like the change, but the turning speed, while putting the point of a long range weapon, really effects its ability to counteract the turning of the ship, requiring the ship to be steady when an arti is manned to be fired effectively
Which to me, really effects it usability, I think it is more a sniping weapon in a support airship then a versatile crippling weapon now. The Closer ranged alternative to me would be the banshee, which doesn't actually use shatter damage. The gat does.
-
Zill no offence taken. I can understand some of the points you made but the big thing for me is, why bother?
I need to take a gunner to swap ammo types on a gun that disables components slowly? OR just go with gungineers to have the extra repair ability for "oh shit" situations and focus on slaughtering hulls. Not really a choice IMO.
Maybe it isn't a problem with the Artemis at all, maybe it's a problem with class usability?
Also since the gun can't look up baiting hwacha barrages into my balloon is no longer viable because I can't chute vent down and shoot up, once again I'll take a flak.
I'm not gonna lie I get very very touchy about nerfing a gun even worse than it was before it became OP because it just feels like reaction over thought and that snowballs fast.
Maybe I jumped the gun a bit and let the nerd rage take hold but can't the community as a whole get a reason for why the Artemis was slapped to (mostly) lower than pre 1.2 values? I mean at least it was a viable option to be disable your opponent while your friend killed him, now it's just plain better to go full hull smash.
Also Zill I have no clue how to do the separate quotes so mine isn't as pretty :P
-
After flying against some post patch Artemis, they are still tough to deal with but not instant stalemate games. They can really hold off a large weapon, which is an interesting role for them.
-
Zill no offence taken. I can understand some of the points you made but the big thing for me is, why bother?
I need to take a gunner to swap ammo types on a gun that disables components slowly? OR just go with gungineers to have the extra repair ability for "oh shit" situations and focus on slaughtering hulls. Not really a choice IMO.
Maybe it isn't a problem with the Artemis at all, maybe it's a problem with class usability?
Also since the gun can't look up baiting hwacha barrages into my balloon is no longer viable because I can't chute vent down and shoot up, once again I'll take a flak.
I'm not gonna lie I get very very touchy about nerfing a gun even worse than it was before it became OP because it just feels like reaction over thought and that snowballs fast.
Maybe I jumped the gun a bit and let the nerd rage take hold but can't the community as a whole get a reason for why the Artemis was slapped to (mostly) lower than pre 1.2 values? I mean at least it was a viable option to be disable your opponent while your friend killed him, now it's just plain better to go full hull smash.
Also Zill I have no clue how to do the separate quotes so mine isn't as pretty :P
Oh don't get me started on arguing in a gunner's favor, lol. I've grown to simply hate the term "gungineer." It's been fought over to death in another thread and from what I can tell, has started to go in favor of a gunner and not a spare engineer, due to the use of multiple ammo types being more useful for a dedicated guy shooting things.
The damage on an artemis was not changed, save for the AOE which i'm assuming is just the radius of it, not the damage of it. (Maybe Eric could verify that). So the only thing effecting its dps is the reload time. If you are hitting your shots, the reload shouldn't effect this as much. That then leaves the remainder of the changes, that simply make it harder to shoot. The worst dps killer is of course, misses shots. With the decreased AOE, you have less room for error. It's more precise disabling than anything else. In a pinch, you can shoot a boat with no hull armor and kill a ship decently, but that's not the primary goal, like the flak.
The entire gat/flak mentality is what makes it so widely used. People want kills. They want them now. The strategy of disabling doesn't kill fast enough, and gets tossed out.
As it stands, the artemis is still a very good support weapon. If you are using it on a pyra front, think of a better compliment than gatling. Maybe 2 to double the disable? Merc and artemis for long/mid range support?
-
I'm a little confused as to why it's so heavily skewed to a downward aiming angle. Previously, it could be used to help fend off/halt an assault when your ship was already in a disadvantageous position or while making a low escape; for a gun whose main appeal over similar weapons is its ability to neuter an enemy's offense and allow a chance at recovery, not being able to aim up very far hurts it a lot and makes it a much, much less appealing option when put beside raw damage like a flak cannon. Is there some rationale I'm missing here?
But, really, that's my only complaint so far. Seems reasonable enough at the present in all other regards, though I think it was fine before its buff and subsequent nerf- after all, we didn't get to see how it fared with the ship changes pre-buff, right?
Carronades not being able to point down as far, however, is a very, very good idea; a ship can still keep a balloon down, but now it's forced into a more vulnerable/less untouchable attack range that allows for some counterattack potential. Actually a pretty elegant solution to the how-do-you-recover-from-a-carronade issue.
-
Carronades not being able to point down as far, however, is a very, very good idea; a ship can still keep a balloon down, but now it's forced into a more vulnerable/less untouchable attack range that allows for some counterattack potential. Actually a pretty elegant solution to the how-do-you-recover-from-a-carronade issue.
Meta, you know I love you but I couldn't possibly disagree with you more on this. The whole entire utility of the carronade was to be able to keep a single ship locked down and unable to return fire without doing much to actually kill the ship.
There really was never a problem that needed a solution in the first place however, as I listed previously in this thread multiple solutions to extract a ship from a balloon lock.
Now the carronade is essentially useless since any ship using it will just be blown up by the superior firepower of their opponent as they pathetically try to keep a balloon popped while getting shot in the face.
I really really don't understand the change, since I actually found carronades to be very well balanced, fun to play with and fun to play.against and overall lending a good amount of strategic depth which I feel we sadly lost to the nerf.
-
Meta, you know I love you but I couldn't possibly disagree with you more on this. The whole entire utility of the carronade was to be able to keep a single ship locked down and unable to return fire without doing much to actually kill the ship.
What you're talking about is an emergent use based on its ability to put the opponent out of a range where they can counterattack. A carronade is a weapon that's stuck in an odd design niche; it needs to- practically by definition- be able to keep an enemy ship's balloon disabled even through repair attempts and ultimately does seek to kill the enemy ship by running it into the ground. it was problematic for the same reason that the Artemis was pre-nerf and the Mercury was pre-spillover-fix; You don't want to be able to have a kill-strategy that wins with minimal chance for interaction by the enemy ship.
Not to say that it has only that use or that it should have only that use, mind, but that bit of definition needs to be taken into account. Even if you were using it primarly as a support weapon to force a ship out of engagement, it was still- if used as a dedicated offense- able to deny them the ability to engage until they broke on the proverbial rocks.
There really was never a problem that needed a solution in the first place however, as I listed previously in this thread multiple solutions to extract a ship from a balloon lock.
There's some nebulous statements in this thread based on 'if the captain knows what he's doing' against a lumberjack but nothing specific and nothing posted by you on the matter. Are you sure you posted it in this thread? I don't see it...
-
He posted here and it goes till the end with me agreeing with him. Lets shift the carronade conversation over there to the GUNS thread and out of the artemis thread.
https://gunsoficarus.com/community/forum/index.php/topic,771.msg15372.html#msg15372
-
Lets shift the carronade conversation over there to the GUNS thread and out of the artemis thread.
Agreed. Apologies for my indiscretion.
So, yeah, my two cents on the Artemis is that I think the lack of upward arc hurts it. Yup.
-
Shot Speed. I know it was barely reduced. But thats all i want back. I can deal with the rest, but the drop in range, and the amount of lead you need to apply (with super slow turn speed), makes this weapon a poor choice.
-
Lets shift the carronade conversation over there to the GUNS thread and out of the artemis thread.
Agreed. Apologies for my indiscretion.
So, yeah, my two cents on the Artemis is that I think the lack of upward arc hurts it. Yup.
All good. While it is annoying to deal with now, I think the arc further hammers home that the artemis is meant to be a long-mid range gun and not short range.
Shot Speed. I know it was barely reduced. But thats all i want back. I can deal with the rest, but the drop in range, and the amount of lead you need to apply (with super slow turn speed), makes this weapon a poor choice.
An increase in the range could fix this. Then you still keep it harder to shoot yet get more effective range out of it. Toss in lesmok and go to town.
-
All good. While it is annoying to deal with now, I think the arc further hammers home that the artemis is meant to be a long-mid range gun and not short range.
That would be true if they had not also nerfed the zoom?!
to me that does not look like a, we want it to be used mid to long range, type of change