59 replies to this topic

[The6thMessenger]

Is there even any good reason to NOT Artemis large launchers? Aside from not enough tonnage or slots? Larger launchers, like LRM20 and SRM6 are kind of garbage without it.

Kiran Yagami, on 22 March 2017 - 05:17 AM, said:

The problem is PGI's burning desire to make launchers garbage without Artemis. SRM 6s without Artemis aren't usable. You get too many missed missiles, which just makes them heavy SRM 4s. SRM 4s had their spread nerfed just this patch in order to force Artemis. SRM 2s aren't used at all. LRMs are much the same way, only people actually use LRM 5s. The difference between having Artemis and not having it is too great. That doesn't mean Artemis is too good, because neither weapon is over-performing. It means launchers without Artemis are garbage. Fix that. Don't break the part that works.

Hows about Artemis increases Missile cooldown by 6.6666%? Like SRM6 shoots at 3.75s while SRM6A shoots at 4.00s?

That way, No-Artemis is for quick-shooting missiles, and Artemis can stay in it's balanced pedestal.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 23 March 2017 - 03:27 PM.

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

That'd just make artemis useless. Its already enough that you have to pay an extra ton and slot for every launcher.

[Snazzy Dragon]

To put it bluntly, this is one of the dumbest suggestions I've read in a long while and it would significantly hurt the brawling niche even more than it's already hurting.

[The6thMessenger]

Dakota1000, on 22 March 2017 - 01:15 AM, said:

That'd just make artemis useless. Its already enough that you have to pay an extra ton and slot for every launcher.

Not necessarily, a lot of ammo efficiency, coupled with missiles able to isolate a single component.

Besides, couldn't Artemis and No-artemis be useful at their own right?

[Snazzy Dragon]

The6thMessenger, on 22 March 2017 - 01:20 AM, said:

Besides, couldn't Artemis and No-artemis be useful at their own right?

It was, but PGI keeps increasing SRM heat and spread

[The6thMessenger]

Snazzy Dragon, on 22 March 2017 - 01:21 AM, said:

It was, but PGI keeps increasing SRM heat and spread

Arty doesn't increase heat. What does that have to do with it?

[Clownwarlord]

No

Why?

- Artemis really only useful for SRM6s, and maybe SRM4s now after recent change.
- Artemis already has one extra ton.
- Artemis already has one extra slot.
- Artemis already cost more for change from regular launcher to Artemis launchers.
- Artemis also has a higher cost per launcher on top of cost for the change to use Artemis launchers.

So no.

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

The6thMessenger, on 22 March 2017 - 01:20 AM, said:

Not necessarily, a lot of ammo efficiency, coupled with missiles able to isolate a single component.

Besides, couldn't Artemis and No-artemis be useful at their own right?

No artemis is already useful in light mechs setup for super high blasts such as the Jenner IIC 6SRM6 build or on the Oxide with SRM4 boating. CSRM4 was fine before the nerf and now IS has the same spread as it so they should be viable, CSRM4 after the nerf will be hurt a little but still useful for the lower weight.

Artemis is great in mechs that pack on SRMs as their only means of firepower or as their main form of damage in the assault and heavy class. Artemis works great for Griffins, Atlases, Mad Dogs, Timber Wolves, and the like.

Out of all the weapon types flying around your head in battle, do you really believe that missile class weapons are the ones that need a nerf?

[The6thMessenger]

Dakota1000, on 22 March 2017 - 01:35 AM, said:

Out of all the weapon types flying around your head in battle, do you really believe that missile class weapons are the ones that need a nerf?

Not really, no. But considering the "No Artemis" being the base, Arty is the only thing i could change.

It could probably have +15% SRM range to offset a -10% CD. It could be just a tweak.

[Thorqemada]

Imho, the right Artemis implementation in a Computergame would be, that you lock on a Mech as Target and pull the trigger für your SRM.
Everytime the Artemis System notices that your to hit Chance surpasses a presett threshold (something between 50% and 80% or even 90% as you like it) the Missiles will be fired and hit the Mech with the amount of Missiles that fit or surpass the threshold value spread in a random pattern all over the enemy Mech with the most Missiles hit where your reticule aims.

You need to lock on a target so the comnputer knows what target you want to shot and can calculate the to hit chance.
The more SRM you fire at once the more it lowers the presett to hit threshold so that boating is not advantageous and the reason for that is that the Artemis computing power and targetting systems have a maximum amount of SRM they can handle b4 losing effectiveness.
You can dumbfire your Missiles via a modeswitch.

That would be the correct implementation for a computergame instead of the spread change whch simply has nothing to do with the real value of the Artemis System (it prevents Misses!) (of Course you cant allow a 100% hit chance in a computergame and AMS may take down a few A-SRM too).

Edited by Thorqemada, 22 March 2017 - 01:44 AM.

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

The6thMessenger, on 22 March 2017 - 01:39 AM, said:

Not really, no. But considering the "No Artemis" being the base, Arty is the only thing i could change.

It could probably have +15% SRM range to offset a -10% CD. It could be just a tweak.

Really doubting people are looking for range all too much when using SRMs. Mostly you want high DPS light weapon for up close brawling if you are bringing SRMs. Not to mention 15% extra range only puts them to 310M range anyway at which point they instantly explode instead of falling off like other weapon types.

I'm just really doubting Artemis needs any other downsides. It *should* be objectively superior to non Artemis as you have to pay a ton and a slot for each launcher, thus it costs more to put into your mech.

[Kroete]

The6thMessenger, on 22 March 2017 - 01:06 AM, said:

Is there even any good reason to NOT Artemis large launchers? Aside from not enough tonnage?

Hows about Artemis increases Missile cooldown by 33.3333%? That way, no Artemis is for quick-shooting missiles?

For srm´s the wheigt and slots are balanced for the gain, you invest up to 100% (clan srm4) slots and tons for each launcher, even with the is srm6 you invest in 33% more wheigt and and 50% more slots for each launcher.

For lrms you need also los if you want to use artemis.

Please expain why its unbalanced and why do you want that change and how would it make balance better?

Edited by Kroete, 22 March 2017 - 01:55 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Dakota1000, on 22 March 2017 - 01:44 AM, said:

I'm just really doubting Artemis needs any other downsides. It *should* be objectively superior to non Artemis as you have to pay a ton and a slot for each launcher, thus it costs more to put into your mech.

Considering how no-artemis performs, it's not even a choice at all. Yes lights are okay with no-arty, but consider that they don't exactly have lots of tonnage to spare in the first place.

Kroete, on 22 March 2017 - 01:54 AM, said:

Please expain why its unbalanced and why do you want that change and how would it make balance better?

I never said that it's unbalanced. I just said that there's not really a good reason to not take artemis (if one can take it). Then here's the proposed way of doing this.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 22 March 2017 - 02:21 AM.

[El Bandito]

The6thMessenger, on 22 March 2017 - 01:06 AM, said:

Is there even any good reason to NOT Artemis large launchers? Aside from not enough tonnage?

Hows about Artemis increases Missile cooldown by 33.3333%? That way, no Artemis is for quick-shooting missiles?

Grats, you just won the worst idea of the week. LRMs and SRMs are as situational as is. Artemis doesn't even work unless you have LoS, and with LoS, you are risking enemy fire all the while trying to maintain lock.

The6thMessenger, on 22 March 2017 - 01:39 AM, said:

It could probably have +15% SRM range to offset a -10% CD. It could be just a tweak.

More range on SRMs doesn't solve much due to its expanding spread nature. And it might bring whole lot of balance issues.

Edited by El Bandito, 22 March 2017 - 03:34 AM.

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

The6thMessenger, on 22 March 2017 - 02:14 AM, said:

Considering how no-artemis performs, it's not even a choice at all. Yes lights are okay with no-arty, but consider that they don't exactly have lots of tonnage to spare in the first place.

Of course its obvious that you'd bring Artemis on the launchers *if you have the free tonnage*. That's like bringing an extra few heatsinks if you have free tonnage, or bringing ammo, or adding an extra laser, or litterally anything you add onto your mech to improve performance. You pay slots and tonnage, you get performance. You want SRMs that provide high damage but somewhat spread but still really low weight then get SRM6s with no artemis and have free tonnage to use on some lasers or whatever for extra damage. You want SRMs that have more ability to focus on a target then get some artemis.

You're pretty much having an arguement here similar to saying that a single heatsink should be equal to a double heatsink because you don't think the extra slots (and even worse in the real case here, with the extra tonnage) were enough of a cost to warrant any sort of performance boost over the non upgraded version.

[FupDup]

Dakota1000, on 22 March 2017 - 03:15 AM, said:

You're pretty much having an arguement here similar to saying that a single heatsink should be equal to a double heatsink because you don't think the extra slots (and even worse in the real case here, with the extra tonnage) were enough of a cost to warrant any sort of performance boost over the non upgraded version.

Not to derail too heavily here, but DHS in the engine don't have any drawback relative to SHS in the engine since they don't occupy any slots whatsoever. That's the reason that SHS are so useless. Grabbing the DHS upgrade instantly saves you 10 tons and 10 slots that would have been spent on external SHS.

Artemis actually has some kind of trade-off involved, while DHS really don't if you look at the whole picture of the construction system.

For the OP's concern in general, the easy solution is to make it so that a non-Artemis launcher is actually useful on its own merits, like the pre-nerf SRM4 was. Then it's actually a choice rather than a "tax."

[The6thMessenger]

Dakota1000, on 22 March 2017 - 03:15 AM, said:

You're pretty much having an arguement here similar to saying that a single heatsink should be equal to a double heatsink because you don't think the extra slots (and even worse in the real case here, with the extra tonnage) were enough of a cost to warrant any sort of performance boost over the non upgraded version.

No it's not. And i never said that Artemis should be equal to No-Artemis. I just said that it should be a (legitimate tactical) choice. Please stop strawmanning.

My argument would have been, you have the ability to switch between Single Heat Sink and Double Heat Sink, hows about make Single Heat Sink an actual choice. It's basically what PGI did, they increased SHS heat-capacity in contrast to DHS increased dissipation -- IIRC. It doesn't have to be equal, but it should offer something different to be a legitimate choice.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 22 March 2017 - 03:22 AM.

[Bohxim]

The6thMessenger, on 22 March 2017 - 03:21 AM, said:

No it's not. And i never said that Artemis should be equal to No-Artemis. I just said that it should be a (legitimate tactical) choice. Please stop strawmanning.

My argument would have been, you have the ability to switch between Single Heat Sink and Double Heat Sink, hows about make Single Heat Sink an actual choice. It's basically what PGI did, they increased SHS heat-capacity in contrast to DHS increased dissipation -- IIRC. It doesn't have to be equal, but it should offer something different to be a legitimate choice.

By this logic, non artemis srm weigh less, cost less and use less space vs the heavier, more expensive and larger artemis srm that fire in a tighter spread. Sounds like enough of a trade off for consideration if u ask me

[The6thMessenger]

Bohxim, on 22 March 2017 - 03:41 AM, said:

By this logic, non artemis srm weigh less, cost less and use less space vs the heavier, more expensive and larger artemis srm that fire in a tighter spread. Sounds like enough of a trade off for consideration if u ask me

But would you pick no-artemis over artemis when you can artemis?

Edited by The6thMessenger, 22 March 2017 - 03:46 AM.

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

The6thMessenger, on 22 March 2017 - 03:21 AM, said:

No it's not. And i never said that Artemis should be equal to No-Artemis. I just said that it should be a (legitimate tactical) choice. Please stop strawmanning.

My argument would have been, you have the ability to switch between Single Heat Sink and Double Heat Sink, hows about make Single Heat Sink an actual choice. It's basically what PGI did, they increased SHS heat-capacity in contrast to DHS increased dissipation -- IIRC. It doesn't have to be equal, but it should offer something different to be a legitimate choice.

You've really yet to state how the non Artemis versions of the launchers don't have any tactical use, so I started up a strawman in an attempt to get a look at your logic with the obvious total disconnect we have in opinions here.

So here's my points in plain text:

-Non Artemis launchers provide a low tonnage option for high damage alpha strikes at close range with spread that can be negated by going under 50m distance from enemy
-Non Artemis launchers provide light mechs with a high alpha frontloaded option
-Non Artemis launchers are able to be paired with stronger secondary weaponry or equipment due to their lighter weight and smaller size (examples such as the mauler with an AC20 and 2 SRM4 per side torso pop up)
-Artemis is literally just paying for a spread reduction quirk with tonnage and slots that increases in cost with the number of launchers you use

So at what point is non Artemis not a legitimate option for builds? Centurion with AC20 and non artemis SRMs rely on it, Jenner oxide and IICs rely on it, AC20 Brawler Mauler relies on it, SRM2 locust relies on it. ("it" refering to the non Artemis option)

I severely doubt that anyone would really bring Artemis if it called for lower DPS. IS ASRM6 only has 12.5% more DPS than a non artemis SRM4 but it weighs twice as much and takes up 3 time the amount of slots while having similar levels of spread.

SRM4s are already quite competitive with ASRM6.