Author Topic: Artemis  (Read 129525 times)

Offline Sylas Firehammer

  • Member
  • Salutes: 2
    • [Duck]
    • 11
    • View Profile
Re: Artemis
« Reply #90 on: December 10, 2013, 02:23:21 pm »
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.

Offline The Djinn

  • Community Ambassador
  • Salutes: 19
    • [CA]
    • 25 
    • 41
    • 36 
    • View Profile
Re: Artemis
« Reply #91 on: December 10, 2013, 02:30:36 pm »
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?

Offline Thomas

  • Member
  • Salutes: 80
    • [SPQR]
    • 20 
    • 44
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Artemis
« Reply #92 on: December 10, 2013, 02:41:28 pm »
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.

Offline The Djinn

  • Community Ambassador
  • Salutes: 19
    • [CA]
    • 25 
    • 41
    • 36 
    • View Profile
Re: Artemis
« Reply #93 on: December 10, 2013, 02:46:17 pm »
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.

Offline Thomas

  • Member
  • Salutes: 80
    • [SPQR]
    • 20 
    • 44
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Artemis
« Reply #94 on: December 10, 2013, 02:52:33 pm »
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.

Offline Byron Cavendish

  • Member
  • Salutes: 89
    • [TB]
    • 21 
    • 31
    • 45 
    • View Profile
    • The Brotherhood
Re: Artemis
« Reply #95 on: December 10, 2013, 09:57:19 pm »
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.

Offline The Djinn

  • Community Ambassador
  • Salutes: 19
    • [CA]
    • 25 
    • 41
    • 36 
    • View Profile
Re: Artemis
« Reply #96 on: December 10, 2013, 10:13:19 pm »
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.

Offline Byron Cavendish

  • Member
  • Salutes: 89
    • [TB]
    • 21 
    • 31
    • 45 
    • View Profile
    • The Brotherhood
Re: Artemis
« Reply #97 on: December 10, 2013, 10:31:55 pm »
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.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2013, 10:46:01 pm by Byron Cavendish »

Offline Byron Cavendish

  • Member
  • Salutes: 89
    • [TB]
    • 21 
    • 31
    • 45 
    • View Profile
    • The Brotherhood
Re: Artemis
« Reply #98 on: December 10, 2013, 10:58:27 pm »
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.

Offline The Djinn

  • Community Ambassador
  • Salutes: 19
    • [CA]
    • 25 
    • 41
    • 36 
    • View Profile
Re: Artemis
« Reply #99 on: December 10, 2013, 11:05:20 pm »
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.  :)

Offline Byron Cavendish

  • Member
  • Salutes: 89
    • [TB]
    • 21 
    • 31
    • 45 
    • View Profile
    • The Brotherhood
Re: Artemis
« Reply #100 on: December 10, 2013, 11:19:41 pm »
lol I don't know how many more clouds the devs want to add to the fjords because of the Gents

Offline Coldcurse

  • Community Ambassador
  • Salutes: 164
    • [TFD]
    • 18 
    • 36
    • 42 
    • View Profile
Re: Artemis
« Reply #101 on: December 11, 2013, 02:20:00 am »
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

Offline Byron Cavendish

  • Member
  • Salutes: 89
    • [TB]
    • 21 
    • 31
    • 45 
    • View Profile
    • The Brotherhood
Re: Artemis
« Reply #102 on: December 11, 2013, 04:24:07 am »
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

Offline Squidslinger Gilder

  • Member
  • Salutes: 287
    • [TBB]
    • 31 
    • 34
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Artemis
« Reply #103 on: December 11, 2013, 05:04:20 am »

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.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2013, 05:08:25 am by Gilder Unfettered »

Offline geggis

  • Member
  • Salutes: 12
    • [VAL]
    • 13 
    • 17
    • 30 
    • View Profile
Re: Artemis
« Reply #104 on: December 11, 2013, 05:23:35 am »
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.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2013, 05:29:38 am by geggis »