Main > Gameplay
Guns of Icarus and the Law of Diminishing Returns
Frogger:
--- Quote from: Dementio on May 19, 2014, 07:52:32 am ---The usefullness of a ship with double merc, double carronade, double triple whatever, all depends on somebodies preference, crew skill (including pilot), enemy and the engagement itself. Every combination has its advantages and disatvanges and depends on a lot of factors.
--- End quote ---
I would really like to agree with this (and maybe I would just a little, in certain situations) but I think it's very easily demonstrated both mathematically and empirically that there is a certain range of really effective loadouts and playstyles, and the further you venture outside this range the less effective your play will be. There are, every now and then, some players who through great skill can expand this range, but it is a process both slow and fraught with peril and failure.
--- Quote from: Dementio on May 19, 2014, 07:52:32 am ---Nothing fails in this game, if executed correctly, no matter the opponent.
--- End quote ---
You don't actually believe this, do you? :) I mean, I suppose an elite squadron of all-flare death commando Squids could conceivably beat a full Ryder team, but only if Hillerton, Geo, Medic and co. simultaneously undergo brain aneurysms that leave them incapable of higher motor function. To me, if something fails 99 times out of 100, it might as well fail all 100. I don't think that this is a helpful generalization, nor one that contributes to a deeper understanding of the game.
--- Quote from: Dementio on May 19, 2014, 07:52:32 am ---This thread has no reason to exist.
--- End quote ---
Why not? It's a thoughtful gameplay-related contribution by one of Icarus' most experienced and winningest competitive pilots. If I were you, I'd be reading it if only to get inside the guy's head and figure out how to better to play against him. That'd be reason enough for me.
--- Quote from: Dementio on May 19, 2014, 07:52:32 am ---My conclusion: It doesn't matter wether you have 5 artemis or 2 and a hades, combined with gat mortar on the other side on junker. Both builds can work and fail likewise.
--- End quote ---
I guess? But like I said, I think it'd be pretty easy to show, through a combination of math, intuition, and competitive results, that one build will give you more value for the money, all other things being equal. Perhaps not specifically triple artemis vs art-hades, though I'd argue that too if it came down to it, but seriously arguing that a 5 art junker is a good idea in a majority of situations? It's not even remotely helpful.
Captain Smollett:
Well, since people are discussing the optimization of the Paddling's build, it seems appropriate for me to chime in here.
Regarding dodging heavy flak shots - Generally this was not possible as nearly every ship set up for a flak kill had either no balloon or a severely damaged balloon thus making any attempt at dodging much less effective.
Regarding flak at close range - While we had a strict philosophy of all ships being able to operate independently of one another we never lost sight of the fact that we were a team. We had very rigorous techniques in place to deal with charging opponents including what we termed "blocking". In the advent of opponents attempting to make it within arm time, I would take my pyramidion and block the highest priority target. This would almost always lead to an armor break and even within arm time a charged buff heavy flak can destroy all or most of the permahull of most GOI ships resulting in a kill.
Secondly let us not forget that the Galleon has an alternate side. In situations where putting in long range damage wasn't preferable Squash had an innate and nearly perfect ability to understand when to switch sides. His port side housed a hwacha and carronade giving plenty of disable, armor strip and explosive for his opponent to contend with. Since Squash brought his hwacha to bear so effectively, having a second hwacha would be redundant and reflect the idea of diminishing returns being discussed in this thread.
When we needed long range killing, we had it, when we needed short range disable, we had that as well.
Dementio:
--- Quote from: Frogger on May 19, 2014, 03:00:56 pm ---
--- Quote from: Dementio on May 19, 2014, 07:52:32 am ---Nothing fails in this game, if executed correctly, no matter the opponent.
--- End quote ---
You don't actually believe this, do you? :) I mean, I suppose an elite squadron of all-flare death commando Squids could conceivably beat a full Ryder team, but only if Hillerton, Geo, Medic and co. simultaneously undergo brain aneurysms that leave them incapable of higher motor function. To me, if something fails 99 times out of 100, it might as well fail all 100. I don't think that this is a helpful generalization, nor one that contributes to a deeper understanding of the game.
--- End quote ---
I have to admit, I haven't thought that far. But if executed right, it might even work.
Many team mostly bring only chem spray, so the extra fire stacks could prove fatal (a very slow flamethrower). And then there is the lag that many always experience combined with the extra fps drop from the immense amount of flares.
And then there is the squids manouverbility and it's easy use of tar (however easy tar actually is to use now), with 2 engineers being able to tank it while the gunner shoots all the flares.
Multiply that with 2 and you have the most annyoing enemy in GoIO history, so annoying in fact that you might just surrender because there is no way to win (in the worst case scenario).
That build is effective in some way and has potentional to win against a full Rydr team.
--- Quote from: Frogger on May 19, 2014, 03:00:56 pm ---
--- Quote from: Dementio on May 19, 2014, 07:52:32 am ---This thread has no reason to exist.
--- End quote ---
Why not? It's a thoughtful gameplay-related contribution by one of Icarus' most experienced and winningest competitive pilots. If I were you, I'd be reading it if only to get inside the guy's head and figure out how to better to play against him. That'd be reason enough for me.
--- End quote ---
Personally I don't care about such things too much, but that might be because I am not that competitive active, even if given the chance.
--- Quote from: Frogger on May 19, 2014, 03:00:56 pm ---
--- Quote from: Dementio on May 19, 2014, 07:52:32 am ---My conclusion: It doesn't matter wether you have 5 artemis or 2 and a hades, combined with gat mortar on the other side on junker. Both builds can work and fail likewise.
--- End quote ---
I guess? But like I said, I think it'd be pretty easy to show, through a combination of math, intuition, and competitive results, that one build will give you more value for the money, all other things being equal. Perhaps not specifically triple artemis vs art-hades, though I'd argue that too if it came down to it, but seriously arguing that a 5 art junker is a good idea in a majority of situations? It's not even remotely helpful.
--- End quote ---
I am not saying that a 5 art junker is a good idea in a majority of situations. Compared to the "Meta"-Junker it is a good choice in other situations. I don't wanna read into specific builds too much, but I will do it for this case.
You Ducks said that because of your loadout you like to circle in a specific direction (the map paritan has been used as an example), having your long range side pointing inside and the short range side pointed outside to the edge of the map in case somebody decides to come up there.
If your enemy would know about this, it could be used against you (and constant backwarding is usually not what most people do). Your enemy would know what you are doing and can either guess where you are or even just wait for you where they are. You would have been predictable.
A 5 Art Junker wouldn't have to deal with this issue and can fly around however it likes, always having an artemis pointed at something.
This is the general advantage that symmetrical Junkers have, of course. Assymetrical Junkers have to sacriface this kind of advantage to gain another advantage.
In a way the Goldfish is the same as a symmetrical Junker. It usually performs only in it's designed range and is almost helpless outside of it.
I feel like as if your main point is "the more variability the ship has to offer, the faster and safer the kill".
While this is true, you don't always need it. I just want to point out that having a specific gun or damage type more than once, is not as always bad as it is made out to be in this thread.
A double carronade pyra will kill you eventually. Another gun instead of the second carronade is only an option if you wanna speed the process of killing up or ensure its success.
Same for Lumberjack. The heavy flak/hwacha would only finish the ordeal much quicker.
A full explosive ship will need an ally to help out with piercing damage.
One advantage of this would be that your ally wouldn't necessarily need to have 2 people shooting (1 for gat and somebody to finish with mortar). If teamwork and such is right and bla bla bla.
And no, I don't recommend triple quadra mortar/flak since that is just silly.
--- Quote from: Sammy B. T. on May 08, 2014, 09:35:19 am ---As a long time user of the artemis, nothing angers me more than excessive artemis. It is a great weapon and while effective in competent hands, it is godly in veteran hands. But if sacrifice piercing just so you can fit a bit more shatter in there then you are being quite foolish. It fails in the same way a quad hwacha Galleon fails, its not enough to take down components if you can't kill them.
--- End quote ---
Quad Hwacha Galleon wouldn't necessarily fail either. No matter from which side the enemy comes from, you have 2 hwachas ready to disable him with. Only 1 gunner is needed who can actually shoot all 4 of those, leaving 2 engis to tank or 1 to even help out with the side gun. This would lead to an eventual kill or ultra disable so your ally will never have to worry about a 2v1 scenario and can comfortably kill his own opponent.
If you happen to have the same gun/damge type twice, all you need to rely on is that everything plays out like it needs to.
(5art junker: Enemy will not get close. Full explosive ship: Ally can destroy hull armor. 4 Hwacha Galleon: Enemy does not disable you.)
Success depends on a lot of factors. (Back to personal preference stuff) Some believe that they need 1v1 ability on their ship in every possible range and scenario, while others use their ally to gain such variability. The former being (e.g.) the Ducks (Double Meta Junker), the latter being (e.g.) the Rydr (Short range Metamidion and Medium range Metamidion).
Is my point clear now? And to renew my previous statement: Nothing has to fail, ever. In contrast, this thread started with: This fails.
Omniraptor:
--- Quote ---But if executed right, it might even work.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---so annoying in fact that you might just surrender
--- End quote ---
lol, exploiting bugs in the game engine to make the game unplayable for everyone is not the same as winning, roughly equivalent to flipping the board in chess. i think everyone would agree on that.
Smollett, did you pre-fire the heavy flak to get a faster armor break? That's what elevates it over the hwacha in terms of killing power imo. The hwacha seems like it has lots more utility for fighting ships other than pyramidion, and a buffed heavy-clip hwacha can one-clip most ships if timed correctly. However the timing is much more sensitive, so you lose out on pre-firing and raw dps.
Captain Smollett:
I can't remember prefiring ever being necessary.
Gunnery was usually so good that armor breaks happened in one clip of focus fire.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version