Author Topic: Artemis  (Read 107487 times)

Offline RearAdmiralZill

  • CA Mod
  • Salutes: 144
    • [MM]
    • 31 
    • 44
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Artemis
« Reply #135 on: December 16, 2013, 11:31:14 pm »
I haven't read any of this past like, I don't know page 3?

Burst in Arty. Unless you tweak that, you'll just ruin the gun.


Offline Ruairi

  • Member
  • Salutes: 6
    • [ƤƦ]
    • 39 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Artemis
« Reply #136 on: December 22, 2013, 11:56:33 am »
From examining the other light weapon gun arcs and comparing them to the Artemis. As said by others before, I reckon by decreasing the vertical arcs of the Artemis it would balance the gun, as flying under/above trifecta Junkers (+ other builds which use similar tactics) would become viable, as the captains would have to monitor the ship altitude closely to effectively engage.
 

Offline Sammy B. T.

  • Member
  • Salutes: 154
    • [Duck]
    • 23 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Artemis
« Reply #137 on: December 22, 2013, 01:43:47 pm »
Flying above a artemis junker already is viable.

Offline Sylas Firehammer

  • Member
  • Salutes: 2
    • [Duck]
    • 11
    • View Profile
Re: Artemis
« Reply #138 on: December 22, 2013, 02:03:24 pm »
Yeah Sammy's quite right. That's an easy way to counter tri-Artemis and is already the counter you can see right now, and it works very well.

Offline The Djinn

  • Community Ambassador
  • Salutes: 19
    • [CA]
    • 25 
    • 41
    • 36 
    • View Profile
Re: Artemis
« Reply #139 on: December 22, 2013, 02:04:35 pm »
Flying above a artemis junker already is viable.

I believe Rauairi was suggesting decreasing its lower arc as well, so that flying below an Artemis Junker becomes equally viable. Which might be the least painful suggestion for the Artemis as a whole while helping to decrease the annoyance caused by a skybox-hugging Artemis ship.

The counter is fine...but since the counter TO the counter is so easy (gain max altitude and stay high), opening up another even minor weakness might be appropriate.

Offline Mr. Ace Rimmer

  • Member
  • Salutes: 31
    • [OVW]
    • 11
    • View Profile
Re: Artemis
« Reply #140 on: December 22, 2013, 04:55:37 pm »
Flying above a artemis junker already is viable.

Except wouldn't a good Tri-fecta Artemis pilot always be playing to the map height advantage in combat, such as rising to the height ceiling if necessary to maintain their advantage thus destroying the idea of flying in from above the set-up?

Offline Tropo

  • Member
  • Salutes: 31
    • [SAC]
    • 45 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Artemis
« Reply #141 on: December 22, 2013, 05:34:34 pm »
lumbker jack with merc is the way to beat artmis now please stop complaining about everything if you complain then leave the game

Offline The Djinn

  • Community Ambassador
  • Salutes: 19
    • [CA]
    • 25 
    • 41
    • 36 
    • View Profile
Re: Artemis
« Reply #142 on: December 22, 2013, 07:19:34 pm »
lumbker jack with merc is the way to beat artmis now please stop complaining about everything if you complain then leave the game

That's a little harsh there, Tropo. At least some of us are trying to have a legitimate discussion here.

I'm not complaining about the gun (I haven't had the same issues with it that some people seem to have had), but I'm also not confident in saying that MUSE hit the balance nail perfectly on the head. It's at least worth discussing, I feel.

Just my opinion, o'course. Your's may (and appears to) vary.  :D

Offline Crafeksterty

  • Member
  • Salutes: 73
    • [GwTh]
    • 17 
    • 28
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Artemis
« Reply #143 on: December 22, 2013, 07:22:51 pm »
Flying above a artemis junker already is viable.

Except wouldn't a good Tri-fecta Artemis pilot always be playing to the map height advantage in combat, such as rising to the height ceiling if necessary to maintain their advantage thus destroying the idea of flying in from above the set-up?

That is something im always concerned about. Fjords is my favourite map because of the fact that it has a really high hight ceiling.

Then you have the map Dunes with a questionable Ceiling...

Offline Mr. Ace Rimmer

  • Member
  • Salutes: 31
    • [OVW]
    • 11
    • View Profile
Re: Artemis
« Reply #144 on: December 22, 2013, 07:38:10 pm »
I'm kind of toying with the idea of suggesting reversing the gun arcs on the artemis so it fires up and not down. Keep it's damage as it is, give high reward to pilots who can use it, penalize those who get caught with their pants down.

Offline Zyem

  • Community Ambassador
  • Salutes: 10
    • [OVW]
    • 23 
    • 41
    • 32 
    • View Profile
Re: Artemis
« Reply #145 on: December 22, 2013, 07:55:09 pm »
That is something im always concerned about. Fjords is my favourite map because of the fact that it has a really high hight ceiling.

Then you have the map Dunes with a questionable Ceiling...
I don't profess to being a pilot of note, let alone a great pilot but this is exactly my experience when we faced this build flown by a captain that knew the guns arcs. They sat at the map height, completely negating the limited upward arcs. We got rushed, negating our lumberjack goldfish and taking out the balloon of one junker just meant getting shot to pieces by the other.

Ace's suggestion of reversing the arcs sounds good to me. As it stands, sitting at the map ceiling with triple artemis is very low risk. Lose your balloon? No problem, you have the maximum possible time to get it back up (especially when your other triple art junker just disabled/killed them as you descended). Having to hover close to the terrain to stop people flying under you means that if you lose your balloon, you're going to start taking hull damage, making a multitude of balloon popping builds viable.

Offline Tropo

  • Member
  • Salutes: 31
    • [SAC]
    • 45 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Artemis
« Reply #146 on: December 22, 2013, 08:59:43 pm »
i would have to make a good point here. nuffing or changing things too much will kill this game and i fly every ship well and my Favorite ship is spire with one Artemis

but i do and was doing it before it was meta 3 Artemis junker with lesmok but it can be beaten by so many ships and if i named all the builds that can beat it you would have problems agreeing that it was meta

now if you invert the arc then you will have a much bigger problem

mobula 4 art one merc and that would be way worst then any current merc Artemis builds that i have been running

if you are worried about the current game build e.g. omg all our guns are down this is no funn blah blah blah

i would suggest increasing light carronade, Gatling, mortar range back to what they where

and also increasing damage on the lumber jack dose by 25% and making the lumber jack worth more hp could also help

i think the biggest problem is people will join a game and stack with a arti junker and the other team might not even be able to shoot a lumber jack


Offline Mr. Ace Rimmer

  • Member
  • Salutes: 31
    • [OVW]
    • 11
    • View Profile
Re: Artemis
« Reply #147 on: December 22, 2013, 09:06:02 pm »
That's a good set of counter suggestions Tropo, and certainly in my opinion worth exploring.

Offline Byron Cavendish

  • Member
  • Salutes: 89
    • [TB]
    • 21 
    • 31
    • 45 
    • View Profile
    • The Brotherhood
Re: Artemis
« Reply #148 on: December 22, 2013, 11:11:39 pm »
You know, there's always talk about balance, and it usually equates to changing something negatively. Has anyone ever considered an overall better balance change? What if instead of reducing the artemis arcs, a lot of the existing gun arcs were improved? More options, more builds. To me that sounds a whole lot more interesting than just punishing yet another build so people feel comfortable gat/mortaring until the end of time.

;)

Offline Sammy B. T.

  • Member
  • Salutes: 154
    • [Duck]
    • 23 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Artemis
« Reply #149 on: December 23, 2013, 12:08:08 am »
If they're chilling at max height, move in low and block with your balloon on the approach.