I like seeing teams really identify with a singular playstyle, taking it to the extremes even if it puts them at risk in their matches.
The Thralls are so distinctive with their aggressive split formation, even if it leaves them open to getting brutally 2v1'ed.
Overwatch keeps rocking deep in control, with mixed results, but each match in Hephaestus has been close, showing both the potential and risk of trying control (Also, carrot pyramidion? Hilarious name.)
I would love to see TAW really click with reactive, because I think it is up their alley. I think reactive requires a little bit more knowledge and understanding of the map as a whole, which is why it worked so well for the Mandarins. They researched their maps and enemies pretty well, showing them where to set up the best reactive positions, how to move to maintain a reactive presence while being mobile, and giving them the opportunity to react appropriately by only being in places where they have the correct space to react appropriately. (In line with this, I think Duel at Dawn was their worst map because the enemy could spawn anywhere and come from any position, making reaction much more difficult on the map itself.) I think TAW could follow in their steps a bit here without being so hardline by delving a little bit deeper into map strategy prior to their match.
I like that certain play-styles lend themselves to certain ways of playing the game.
As I just mentioned, reactive works well with the highly prepared researching team.
Aggressive works well with a highly coordinated team. You can sort of see this by the plethora of double pyramidion combos we have seen in competitive. What better way to be aggressive without extensive practice than by taking aggressive ships with matching acceleration/speed/turning capabilities? Then, in the more rigidly practiced side of things, the Thralls take a blend of ships and use their coordination to make the timing work anyway.
Control is a little less definable, but probably works best with experienced creative pilots. You have to be good at communicating and good at coming up with creative ways to maintain control over an enemy while your ally does their own thing.
Overall, reactive is probably the hardest to run with a thrown together team. You have to have a good understanding of the map to truly be able to react appropriately.
Aggressive formation flying is probably the easiest to run with a thrown together team. Pilots don't necessarily need to have a good understanding of what the other tends towards, as the premise tends to be rather straightforward and just staying close to your ally will reap huge benefits.
Aggressive split flying is probably the most practice oriented play style. You have to understand the tendencies of your copilot intricately, and all timing must be near perfect. The rewards are obviously high, but it requires good practice.
Reactive necessarily requires practice, but probably requires more out-of-game theorizing than any other play style.
I've not seen anyone run pure control like Overwatch has, but my best characteristic for it would be that of all styles it most requires an open mic and fluid thinking. It worries less about pre-game planning and practice and more focuses on constant banter between pilots to ensure control is maintained and creative flying to retain and regain control when needed.
It's really interesting to me that the structure of clans themselves might lead to certain play styles. For instance, I would never expect to see Cake taking reactive or split formation aggressive. Even revamped and with more organization, they tend not to be players intending to research every corner of a map for positions, or practice a maneuver repeatedly to get it just right. This places them solidly in the aggressive formation/control style, which is where Spud sees Cake.
The Clamour is possibly working on their identity, but I would predict that, if they are as committed to elevating their play as previous Duck teams before them, they will end up gravitating towards reactive or aggressive split flying since these 2 areas draw from a higher level of commitment from a regular group of players.
Of all styles, I think Aggressive formation flying is the most limiting of the play styles. It has a low skill barrier to entry, which is why metamidions are so popular, and it has a high skill ceiling (exceptional pilots can be devastating) but the style itself somewhat limits a teams ability to defeat higher level tactics or chained control.
Reactive has probably a slightly lower skill ceiling than A-F, but with a higher strategic ceiling.
Aggressive split flying has a higher skill ceiling than both R and A-F, with a strategic ceiling probably similar to reactive.
Control, in my opinion (feel free to disagree/argue), probably has the highest skill ceiling, but also the highest skill barrier to entry, with a strategic ceiling higher than A-F, but lower than both R and A-S.
A-F is truly a gateway for teams to enter into competitive, allowing them to develop their skills and abilties (strategic and play) while being immediately competitive. Teams that begin competitive in other play styles face a higher barrier to entry and tend to have a harder time starting. Overwatch began in A-F, winning early competitions using gat-mortar paired with some more gat-mortar. It was only later on that we began to evolve. TAW, as a counter example, has skilled players but is struggling in a reactive play style. However, if they stick around and keep at it, I think TAW could turn some heads before too long.
The best part is that every style is valid. There are examples of successful teams running every style in recent days, pointing towards pretty freaking good balance in the game beyond the first layer of "the guns are balanced with each other and the ships are balanced with each other". Muse has (un?)intentionally created a system that developed these styles and simultaneously balanced them to allow each to succeed. And that's pretty cool.
Sorry for the wall of text. Just thoughts from behind the keyboard. ^.^
