Main > Gameplay

Major and Minor Playstyles

<< < (2/14) > >>

macmacnick:
Combat triangle, anyone?

Omniraptor:
I would agree long-range control is a thing. Personified mostly by the lumberjack and possibly artemis and sort of by the mercury.

The spire is capable of all 3 styles IMO.

redria:
Dangit. I was gonna add long range control for the galleon and forgot. Haha. I can get an edit in there at some point.

I agree the gents team (not mad hatters) tend to be CF-R. The triple artemis is certainly control oriented, and junkers are almost inherently reactive.

CsR certainly has the long range mobula builds they like, which are interesting to classify as a team. They probably lie between reactive and control as well.

Spire I haven't seen enough of to really have a solid grasp on where it should register. It can be flown a lot of different ways, and I haven't really seen a way that works consistently.

Really I just was thinking about it and trying to quantify what Overwatch takes with the way I fly. Because it could be classified as disable-heavy, but it isn't so much about disabling, just getting in a position where the enemy can't retaliate. And against really aggressive teams like CsR I'm often killed before I can get in a position I have control in, whereas against the Mandarins and several of the reactive teams I can (sometimes) get in and control an opponent. It is a much different style of flying from just killing, and I really enjoy it over just trying to get the faster kill.

Each style naturally lends itself to a different range set of weapons, but is not limited to that range.
Reactive tends to use longer range weapons to force an opponent to move in and engage at close quarters. A short range reactive build wouldn't have a strong incentive to make an opponent close the distance.
Aggressive tends towards closer range weapons as they give the fastest kills, but the hades is a wonderful weapon that offers a small amount of control (balloon fires are hell) along with good piercing.
Control tends towards closer range weapons since at close range you have much more opportunity to use altitude to help you control the engagement. However, things like the lumberjack can really give a team control if used right. Lumberfish is a wonderful example of a longer ranged control ship.

Overall this is all just food for thought. A lot of discussion goes on about long range vs short range, but there are different ways to play each. Aggressively played reactive ships are fun to watch, like the Mandarins. Aggressive teams always make for intense matches. Control teams can leave you scratching your head (Squishy? What?). I don't know that this is something to build teams and ships based off of, but it is interesting to consider.

Also, A-R-C.... ARCs? Like gun arcs, but ... yeah, you probably get it. Cool. :)

As far as classifying most teams, it probably doesn't matter. Teams often change ships and loadouts, so most teams don't fit one class. My examples were just highlighting some of the (in my opinion) best teams at each category to give examples. But you can certainly categorize specific ships and ship loadouts, which is interesting to see. :)

Dutch Vanya:
Very interesting post.

macmacnick:
meh, decided to make a combat-triangle style chart as I was bored and had nothing much to do.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page