Loading...
  OR  Zero-K Name:    Password:   

Artemis ruins air lategame

83 posts, 1800 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
Page of 5 (83 records)
sort

5 months ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel like air has very little place in the late game. Once a couple of artemis are built, it becomes essentially impossible to operate aircraft anywhere near the front line. Air player has no recourse against them short of building a silo, and then nuking them that way. Keeping planes under radar jamming of owl sorta helps, but the moment they are visible to the enemy artemis can decimate them in seconds, making any attempt at bombing it out a non-starter. It feels exceptionally backwards to have to counter a turret with another turret. IMO air needs some sort of long-range artillery-class unit. Future Wars has an interesting take on this with a bomber that launches a long-range anti-ground rocket rather than having to fly over the target. Something like that would allow the air player to support the front with a lot more impunity instead of essentially having to fac-switch once artemis becomes a thing. Another approach could be to have airplane factory be able to build suicide cruise missiles that can be sent on a one-way trip towards artemis (or other AA installations). They do not even need to be particularly cost-effective, anything is better than reclaiming the factory and just switching to ground war.

On another note, artemis could probably lose a bit of its AOE. Its current AOE allows it to hit 3-4 planes even if they are not clumped up, and since it 1-shots literally everything that flies. Due to unit AI it makes cost on every shot, and it feels extremely depressing to try diving onto enemy singu setup. If you have not scouted perfectly, a single artemis wipes out an arbitrary amount of bombers in 1-2 shots, and depleting it with gnats or even swifts does not work (as it simply refuses to fire at them). I'd argue artemis will not be substantially worse without its epic AOE, but it will make counterplay against it far more viable.

+6 / -0

5 months ago
Again, Licho survives up to 3 chainsaws, Revenant is basically unkillable atm, it even needs 3(!) artemis-shots to die. You are aware that without artemis, the game will be completely air-dominated?

quote:
Air player has no recourse against them short of building a silo, and then nuking them that way.


Classically the air-player switches to ground and keeps their own air as defensive forces.
+9 / -1
5 months ago
it costs 2,400 M and 80M per missile with a 20 sec stockpile time.

its pretty underwhelming for the investment when enemy air knows how to manipulate it.
+1 / -0
5 months ago
Anyhow what's wrong with silo? You can see missiles as a kind of air :-p. And the 1800 metal investment sounds lower than whatever enemy put into Artemis(es).

Not firing at swifts is a risk as you can scout it - easier to snipe it with silo.

Also if map is large enough, the value in Artemis to cover all front is rather large. And if map is small air should not be that powerful.
+0 / -1
5 months ago
I remember speccing a game where some player (i forget who) simply used krows to tank the artemis shots and that allowed the rest of his gunships to go through. He was pretty insane and i feel like any player who knows their stuff can counter it. Also its kinda the only thing that has the potential to keep air at bay.
+3 / -0

5 months ago
Ok, but at that point the artemis-owner could have just manually targeted the other gunships.
+1 / -0

5 months ago
Artemis is the only thing that really keeps air from dominating the game. The thing is, air is so mobile and can achieve such concentration of force so quickly, that the only solution other than Artemis to really control air is to spam a forest of Chainsaws which will rapidly become prohibitive in cost.

As DErankkatastrophe noted, late game air becomes a defensive force. Any breakthroughs that go past the Artemis umbrella quickly become wreckage as the Likhos come screaming in. DErankJummy managed to flatten me many times when he went defensive and I sorta forgot that he had a flock of bombers waiting for a breakthrough. Sounds crazy but when you don't see air for 10 minutes you sorta assume that its 'gone'.

Also, I don't think that asking the team to build silo to counter Artemis is anything wierd or unreasonable. It's a fairly straightforward counter.
+7 / -1

5 months ago
A funny thing you can do with krow is sponge those missiles. 80 metal per shot, and a krow can safely eat 9 of them.

IMO krow is underrated, and this is one of its uses.
+4 / -0

5 months ago
Again, Artemis should be on holdfire and targeted manually in most cases... Lichos around being the exeption because they come in so fast.
+1 / -0


5 months ago
My general take on this sort of air interaction is here: http://zero-k.info/Forum/Post/256192#256192

Most of what I would say about Artemis can be derived from it. Not everything though, as there are versions of Artemis that would clearly be too good under my post above. For example, if Artemis had 8k health then it would be too hard to counter with other means. So it isn't as if I'm saying that an interaction like Artemis is automatically fine.

I have heard about Artemis being a problem in quite a while, but it is worth keeping an eye on as there could be a trend. Air has been viable surprisingly late into large games for a while now. So it isn't like Artemis is tracking air coming into viability. Funnelweb prevalence seems to have been increasing and there are a few relatively new large maps with a lot of metal. Still, three Artemis seems like a lot and surely happens quite late. Air having a great game up until the enemy team is forced to make three Artemis sounds fine. At that point is is probably time for a heavy strider or something.

Some example games would be good.
+2 / -1
@[GBC]HeadHunter is probably reffering to Multiplayer B1739267 24 on StormSiege_v3 or was it Multiplayer B1739313 31 on Nuclear_Winter_v1

where he just suicided an owl, and in some space behind (about lance range), willingly, a flock of clumped ravens into the well-known range of an artemis
+0 / -0

5 months ago
Well I'm not referring to either of those games specifically, DErankAdminmojjj. I messed up the micro in both of them, and paid the price. But again, I am an air noob and admit that. I do not go complaining about unit viability after making my own mistakes, I'm grown up enough to take responsibility for them. The concern I have is that artemis in its current form is not making the game better due to lack of effective counterplay, thats it.

Overall, there have been suggestions to :
- Make a silo. Yes, this works if artemis is exposed. No, it does not work if it is covering the singu line in the back lines, making bomber dives essentially infeasible.
- Switch factory. duh.
- Feed likhos as tanks. This is cost-prohibitive and you never know if that would even achieve anything (in terms of shielding the main bomber swarm).
- Feed a krow to artemis to "disarm" it. This requires 4200 investment into the krow, and, assuming it can survive, reasonable buildpower to repair it. 9 Artemis rockets are 720 metal, which may sound significant, but the risk of losing the krow is also quite strong. In a realistic game the krow would be able to eat maybe 2-4 shots at a time to ensure it has enough HP to retreat to safety. This can be an interesting way to "steal" metal from the enemy, but does not appear to be an actual counterplay.
- A variant of the above idea is to use aspis to soak artemis shots. This is far more interesting, as a couple of aspis can keep artemis busy shooting at a parked revenant (unless the enemy switches to manual targeting, of course). This may not always work if artemis is in the back lines.

Overall, I think none of the proposed solutions are truly addressing the lack of counter play problem. A few observations to compare artemis to other turrets:
- It has best range of all turrets (except big bertha and friends)
- It has best DPS of all static turrets (except Starlight, but its close). And its not per cost, its best DPS of all statics, period.
- It has really good AoE for what it targets to kill
- It has decent rate of fire to act as a sort of high-end riot unit.
- Most other high-end turrets can be countered with impalers, swarms of little units, bombers, and a variety of other things. Artemis has effectively only two counters - silo and BB (as it is normally too far back for impalers to be useful). Artemis in the back lines has no counters short of feeding it likhos hoping to deplete its stockpile.

Bottom line is, if Artemis is supposed to be a win button vs air players, then so be it, I can live with that. If it is supposed to counter things like Likho and Revenant, then its too strong vs basic ravens and locust spam, and reducing its AOE may be a simple way to address that.
+0 / -0
quote:
A few observations to compare artemis to other turrets:

Note that if you compare aircraft stats with ground units using this methodology, they will appear just as absurd.

Unfortunately, this seems to be a large part of ZK's design for the concept of aircraft: strategically OP units (mainly due to their immense speed and alpha) that are only counterable with a special magical weapon type that is simultaneously useless against anything else.

I don't think this can change. ZK is a mature game and this aspect of its design is embedded way too deep.

---


The part with "simultaneously useless against anything else" suggests the counter for Artemis: it's a single point of failure, highly expensive device, that covers a huge area. It also can't run and it can't fight against land targts. Surely your ground units should be able to sneak, streak, or otherwise strike at it.

Scythes, or skuttles, or a mob of cloaked ravagers, whatever.

But of course you will counter that no, not in a 16v16 lobpot where the front is fully porced, the rear is porced, and artemis itself is porced, and some lob built a secondary artemis behind the first because they like building artemises in a row.

Well, there's your problem :P

+3 / -0


5 months ago
I'm quite curious what a lob pot without Artemis would look like...

AA is still fairly cost effective, so I don't really think people will switch to only making air.
+3 / -0

5 months ago
EErankAdminAnarchid, I have not seen Artemis in a 1v1 game ever. Unless both players are lobsters, naturally. It exists in lobpots, and the main thing it achieves there is to grief air players, as in lobpot there is always plenty of other AA available.

I am not arguing that AA in general is too good, the whole point of static AA is to keep air players honest. However, there are counterplay options. I can use likho to tank chainsaw hits thus covering other bombers. I can use micro to keep Hacksaw from 1-shotting a blob of bombers. I can use overwhelming numbers to clear out razors and flak. I can use thunderbird to disable any AA turret temporarily to let other bombers fly over it and do their thing. I can use owl to let my fighters remain in range of chainsaw (until they get spotted, and then I can simply retreat). What are my counterplay options vs artemis? The moment any plane gets in range of that thing, it is 100% scrap. To even scout where it is I need to sacrifice 2-3 swifts, then I need to build a silo, kill the damn thing and pray the enemy does not have a second artemis behind the first one. This effectively means that air can not be used to dive deep into enemy territory to perform bombing runs there, so air player is forced to just spam owls and thunderbirds, hoping the team will carry the day. Or fac switch, which is clearly something that can work, but feels sorta "wrong".
+1 / -0


5 months ago
If you really insist on having a scenario for defeating the FlyerDefeater9000 using aircraft, then i'm pretty sure a gnat swarm costing equal or less than the Artemis, missiles included, can do the job under optimal conditions*
+2 / -0

5 months ago
Add Licho the ability to shoot false thermal targets
+0 / -0
5 months ago
AA is super strong because it is soo layered. Rarely do we find an artemis alone. Mostly you have a chainsaw around the corner, some razors up front. Often some random emp turrets, flex aa by the millions (moderators, felons, juggle, ogre, etc), mobile aa (gremlins and vandals and stuff). Any bomber has to get through all this (which spots the planes and attrits them) before they even see the artemis. Return trip? Lolz. An impaler for AA makes a lot more sense than an Impaler for ground porc...
+2 / -0
5 months ago
How about a late game strider aircraft designed for anti anti aircraft duty? GIve it homing missiles with a stockpile that lock onto aa defenses? make it cost ~4-5k, make it slow as a krow with only likho hp but make it snipe aa.
+1 / -0
5 months ago
Artemis and AA in general is strong - too strong - because ground players want to counter air without playing air.
+1 / -1
Page of 5 (83 records)