Main > Gameplay

Axis-Quadrant Weapon Classification System

<< < (2/3) > >>

Skrimskraw:
these values are based of what experience?

a gatling can be used to control with heavy clip, denying both engines and medium guns, while shredding hull also.

a carronade can do the opposite, it can both control and deny better than the gatling, but it can also shred hull if focused on this.

the flaregun is also not really either passive or agressive, it depends on how teams use the flares.
some teams use the flares to gain control of the area they position themselves in.
We as an example use flares purely to give our gunners the ability to aim better, meaning that we fire a flare and go in to attack, doesnt matter if the enemy sees us, we just need to be able to see them.

I agree that you can put the passive agressive values in to some extend, but everyone knows that if you play passive you will not get any kills, in every match there is a time where you have to focus, move and get kills by shifting your crew towards an agressive playstyle, no matter the ship or guns.

redria:

--- Quote from: Skrimskraw on April 25, 2014, 03:12:22 am ---these values are based of what experience?
--- End quote ---
Whatever felt right as I made the table. So basically the worst possible hard numbers. I'd love for people to refine them.


--- Quote from: Skrimskraw on April 25, 2014, 03:12:22 am ---a gatling can be used to control with heavy clip, denying both engines and medium guns, while shredding hull also.

a carronade can do the opposite, it can both control and deny better than the gatling, but it can also shred hull if focused on this.

the flaregun is also not really either passive or agressive, it depends on how teams use the flares.
some teams use the flares to gain control of the area they position themselves in.
We as an example use flares purely to give our gunners the ability to aim better, meaning that we fire a flare and go in to attack, doesnt matter if the enemy sees us, we just need to be able to see them.

I agree that you can put the passive agressive values in to some extend, but everyone knows that if you play passive you will not get any kills, in every match there is a time where you have to focus, move and get kills by shifting your crew towards an agressive playstyle, no matter the ship or guns.

--- End quote ---
...

--- Quote from: Skrimskraw on April 25, 2014, 03:12:22 am ---playstyle

--- End quote ---
...

--- Quote from: redria on April 24, 2014, 04:16:01 pm ---While weapons may be used outside of their intended purposes and manipulated by the play style of the team using them, the weapons themselves have certain intrinsic properties that defines how they should and shouldn't be used.

--- End quote ---

It is impossible to define weapons by how people use them. A gatling gun on a pyramidion is completely different from a gatling gun on a junker is completely different from a gatling gun on a squid. How people use weapons is entirely related to their play-style, a topic for the other thread. I want to look at the inherent properties of a gun.

A gatling gun is an aggressive weapon because a ship must be moved aggressively in order for the gun to be effective. A ship sitting passively cannot effectively use the gun.
A lumberjack is a passive weapon because a ship may sit passively and still have its gun used effectively.
Passive-aggressive is at its core a different way to perceive short range vs long range. Short range weapons are inherently aggressive.

Gatling and carronade being on opposite sides of control and killing is part of their intended purpose. Your ship may use the gatling to destroy components. This is not wrong. But the primary intent of the gatling gun as a whole is to shred armor. By using it to destroy components you are reducing the effectiveness of the gun.
Similarly, the carronade can damage hull decently. But if you are using the carronade to damage the hull, then you are reducing the effectiveness of the gun.
Any gun can be used in any way and not be worthless, but each gun has something it does best, and I feel like that can be identified and located in this system.

Does that make sense?


--- Quote from: N-Sunderland on April 24, 2014, 04:49:52 pm ---

--- End quote ---

--- Quote from: macmacnick on April 24, 2014, 10:31:59 pm ---

--- End quote ---
Hmm. macmacnick certainly has the more professional looking and pretty graph. :P
However, I like the readability of the quadrant system. You can more easily see how 2 guns relate to each other. If the values are good, well-researched values (which they aren't yet) and the data points are in the right spot, you should theoretically be able to give the chart a quick glance and identify guns that mesh well together without knowing anything about the game. For instance, I tried to rate the gatling gun and mortar based off of their inherent properties, not based off of their common concurrence on ships. Looking at the values, they are pretty solidly unique in the aggressive killing quadrant, so it is sort of an emergent feature that the meta of the game is gat-mortar. Their properties mesh well together.
This system ignores damage types, which could cause confusion.
Something interesting: hades-banshee should actually be a more common combination if my values aren't too far off. They should mesh well together based off of intended purposes, and they have a mix of damage types.

N-Sunderland:
Attempt #2: This one has labels, though it's not the most beautiful thing out there (MS Excel 2003 isn't renowned for its ability to produce beautiful charts...).



"Carronade" and "Flak" correspond to both the light and heavy variants.

Velvet:
I agree that, as Skrimskraw suggested, it's impossible to define the breadth of possibilities that each gun can be used for on just 2 axis. That in mind, I'm not sure what the benefit is of such an attempt.

Yes, your 2 axis can just about make a comparison of guns being used in what you have decided is their optimal situational usage. However the best way to use a gun is not just to use it in the context is it optimised for. You're not getting sufficient leverage out of that gun slot if it excels in one situation and that situation only. A gatling should disable some components, an Artemis should deal disable as well as hull damage, a Hades should be the best hullstripper in the game whether it's on the side of a camping junker or the front of a charging pyra. In my opinion any resource on the optimal applications of guns needs to cover a broader scope than just their primary intended usage to be particularly helpful.

I'd contest that a gun should not count "passive" because it potentially supports passive tactics, or even because its usage in current meta is almost completely passive. For instance, the gatling+mortar combination is a ubiquitous feature of highly passive, long range junker builds as well as being found in more aggressive strategies. That gun combination can be used passively - against charging enemies; you don't need to move to bring your guns into range if they are already charging to get their own gatling close enough. Guns you've categorised as "passive", such as the Hades and Artemis can be used, no less effectively, in aggressive plays; a variety of teams have used strategies that demonstrate this to some effect.

In my opinion "aggressive play" involves attempting to catch your opponent off guard by rapid, normally risky and often unexpected or stealthy manoeuvres and engagements. Preferred engagement distance is not the most important element of what constitutes aggressive play. If you only have short range weapons, yes you'll be forced to be aggressive to get your weapons into optimal range, and short range weapons are potentially more useful for the most aggressive sorts of engagements. However if you have long or medium range weapons, you can use those aggressively, (although you'll still need to maintain a large engagement distance) and any short range weapons you have will now be a useful part of a passive strategy because they can be used to fend off prospective brawlers.

Sammy B. T.:
I guess the way to think about the numbers is not an accounting of their ability but instead an accounting of their specialty. The higher the number, the more specialized the weapon is at its role.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page