Main > Gameplay

Major and Minor Playstyles

<< < (6/14) > >>

redria:
I think if this system lacks anywhere it is in [R].

I'm not really sure how to distinguish weapons and ships between [A] and [R] except the way they are flown, and even that doesn't answer everything. I guess the main distinction is whether you seek to engage the enemy in a location of their choosing or your choosing, which doesn't necessarily divide the 2 classes appropriately.

Thoughts? Am I crazy? Perhaps this classification system is appropriate for the way teams actually play, but not for the weapons and ships themselves? Some things, like mines, carronades, squids, and goldfish can be naturally qualified as [C] items, but a lot of the rest seem to depend entirely on the way they are used: the playstyle of the team itself.

In other words, the play-style of a weapon is more characterized by the play-style of the team using the weapon, rather than by the nature of the weapon itself. Because of this, attempting to identify the nature of the weapon serves no purpose as it does not take a broad enough view.

Looking at the overall theory here, I would think that perhaps there is a separate classification system for ships, and another for weapons, that would look deeper at the nature of the items in question as standalone pieces. Finally, there would be an overarching connection tying together the 3 classification systems identifying what classes mesh well together between the 3 major pivot points of battle: play-styles, ships, and guns.

Of course, there is the 4th category of crew loadout. For instance, drogue chute is an anti-control type tool. Moonshine is an aggressive DPS type tool. But perhaps there is a classification system inherent in the tools.

TL;DR: Games are science. Let's think too hard.

Echoez:

--- Quote from: redria on April 22, 2014, 12:27:56 pm ---TL;DR: Games are science. Let's think too hard.

--- End quote ---

Noted.

You can not categorize weapons by the same way you categorize playstyles as the playstyles themselves are a result of different weapon combinations as well as ship combinations.

Weapons are either focused on destroying the enemy ship or disabling it and most guns are adequate in doing both in some way or an other. You could categorize them in a way by the time it takes for the gun to accomplish its primary role, but you would still end up with combined categories.

e.g.

Carronades can easily be classified as a Control weapon, but their short range means you will have to be agressive and get yourself close in to deal with whatever problems you are dealing with, so you end up with a Agressive Control weapon.

The Hades on the other hand, due to its projectile nature and lack of power to strip armor in one go by itself, is definately a Reactive weapon that doesn't promote overly agressive playstyle as you want to keep some distance, but it still lights things on fire, which gives it some controlling power, its primary fire damage while not too effective, is still good against balloons as well.

The only weapons I can think of being purely agressive are pure explosive guns like the light Mortar and Flak, whose only purpose is to finish the enemy ship as they don't do much damage to anything else other than a naked blimp. The Heavy Flak would probably be the Passive Agressive weapon I guess :P

Basically, Passive Control, Agressive Control and pure Agression weapons.

redria:
Hmm....


--- Quote from: Echoez on April 24, 2014, 02:23:11 pm ---Basically, Passive Control, Agressive Control and pure Agression weapons.

--- End quote ---

I am sort of envisioning a quadrant style weapons classification from that. Basically, on the x-axis is control->killing, while on the y-axis is passive->aggressive. Each weapon would have their own data point on the quadrant.

Aggressive|Control------+------Killing|Passive
Using your examples..

Carronade would sit in the top left quadrant, a combination of control and aggressive. Heavy flak, with its arming time, would be somewhere in the bottom right quadrant, a combination of passive killing.
Artemis would be in the bottom half of the graph, definitively in the passive side of the graph, but close to the left/right center of the graph, probably slightly on the control side.

Intriguing? Totally wrong? Weapons are pretty linked to their range and their arcs, so a classification system is inherently going to reference the range. The passive and aggressive terms refer to whether you must move in aggressively to acquire range, or if you can play passively and still use the weapon to effect. Control vs killing relates to the particular use of a weapon.

We see similar themes to the play-style classification system, but the scaling and rating system is (kind of) completely different, allowing for much better classification of the inherent value of a weapon and its attributes, as opposed to how a team uses it.

I sort of like this idea. :D

Echoez:

--- Quote from: redria on April 24, 2014, 03:04:27 pm ---Aggressive|Control------+------Killing|Passive

--- End quote ---

I for one welcome our new Axis quadrant overlords.

But yes, this seems like the best way to classify weapons.

Alistair MacBain:
We should really split this up at one point into a seperate post. MAybe even a thread in the guides part ^^
I really like that.
And that weapon classification is great.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page