Guns of Icarus and the Law of Diminishing Returns

[Frogger]

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.

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.

Nothing fails in this game, if executed correctly, no matter the opponent.

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.

This thread has no reason to exist.

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.

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.

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]

Nothing fails in this game, if executed correctly, no matter the opponent.

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.

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.

This thread has no reason to exist.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

But if executed right, it might even work.

so annoying in fact that you might just surrender

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.

[redria]

For me it isn't so much diminishing returns as it is making things interesting.

Diversifying in damage type along with weapons makes the game more fun. If you are going to take 2 artemis, why not take a light flak or a banshee instead of your second artemis? It has the same damage type, but it makes your ship more interesting, and possibly more capable of destroying an enemy.

I think the biggest point here is that a team is going to take what they want to take regardless of what anyone else thinks. It doesn't have to be the best build. It doesn't have to be optimized. It doesn't necessarily have to work. Even in competitive, half the goal is to have fun.

My own personal example is that when I take carro-flamer pyramidion, I refuse to put carronade on the left and flamer on the right. It makes more sense that way, and is probably a better build. But I think it is prettier with carronade on the right, so I take that.

My point being, whether you believe there are diminishing returns or not, whether you think doubling down on a weapon is good or not, having a variety of weapons on your ship adds diversity. Incoherent diversity can be easy to fight, and well-meshed diversity can be OP. Either way, I personally think it makes things more interesting, which is always a good thing.

[Frogger]

In contrast, this thread started with: This fails.

If you are referring to Sam saying "It fails in the same way a quad hwacha Galleon fails..." (which are the only instances of the word "fail" in the OP) I don't think he meant that in a categorical sense, but rather "it comes up short in this particular way". Triple artemis obviously doesn't "fail" - plenty of teams have had some degree of success with it - but it does have glaring weaknesses, which was what Sam was trying to argue in a broader theoretical sense.

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).

lawl, you got me.

If you are going to take 2 artemis, why not take a light flak or a banshee instead of your second artemis?

The reasons we opted to stick with two artemises were as follows:

1) It becomes much more difficult to maintain the trifecta with the forward artemis with either a banshee or a flak. As it stands, the trifecta window (as viewed from the helm in first person) for the double artemis-hades setup is barely wider than the width of the ladder leading up to the turning engines, requiring constant attention from the pilot in order to track an even slightly moving target. Even with the more ample 65 degree horizontal traverse of the artemises, this meant that the pilot was constantly making micro-adjustments in azimuth in order to ensure that all three guns had arc at all times. The flak and the banshee, with traverses of 50 and 60 degrees respectively, became even tighter, with the flak in particular almost impossible to maintain in arc with the front artemis. One might argue that this could have been overcome through fancy flying; however, given the speed of kills we attained from the combined four artemis setup, we saw no real reason to sacrifice disable (which even with 4 artemises was not always quite ideal) for additional explosive.

2) The maximum effective range of the artemis (1330m with burst) was a much better fit with the hades than either the banshee or the pre-1.3.6 LF. Our hades gunners, with lesmok, could reliably hit and raspberry targets at the furthest end of the burst artemis range, whereas the limited range of the LF (875m pre-1.3.6 iirc) placed a serious constraint on its synergy with the rest of our build. The banshee, though numerically more in sync with a max range of 1170m, had a practical limitation, which could be somewhat mitigated by the use of heavy clip, but with an unacceptable accompanying drop in clip size (and therefore DPS). And even with heavy clip, it was tough to hit reliably. And on top of that, chemspray would completely negate its secondary effect. So it really wasn't worth it.

3) Given the limitations arising from 1 & 2, the flak and the banshee provided only a marginal increase in explosive DPS and little to no increase in secondary effect compared to the artemis, and did not warrant losing the very useful and reliable disable power (especially against ships with medium weapons). I can give you damage per clip / damage per 10 clip / shots to kill / time to kill figures for each weapon but at this point you're probably bored senseless anyway.

[As an aside, I'd like to say that if I were still playing competitively in a double junker setup, with the recent buff of the LF I'd definitely consider swapping an artemis for a LF on one of the junker left sides, but only situationally, and mostly likely only vs. pyra-heavy builds -- though I'm sure Sam and I would have a fine argument about this one]

My own personal example is that when I take carro-flamer pyramidion, I refuse to put carronade on the left and flamer on the right. It makes more sense that way, and is probably a better build. But I think it is prettier with carronade on the right, so I take that.

You know, I think you can really make an argument for either setup having real advantages, despite my earlier thoughts. Sorry redria, you're still a filthy tryhard

My point being, whether you believe there are diminishing returns or not, whether you think doubling down on a weapon is good or not, having a variety of weapons on your ship adds diversity. Incoherent diversity can be easy to fight, and well-meshed diversity can be OP. Either way, I personally think it makes things more interesting, which is always a good thing.

I agree!

[Frogger]

1) It becomes much more difficult to maintain the trifecta with the forward artemis with either a banshee or a flak. As it stands, the trifecta window (as viewed from the helm in first person) for the double artemis-hades setup is barely wider than the width of the ladder leading up to the turning engines, requiring constant attention from the pilot in order to track an even slightly moving target. Even with the more ample 65 degree horizontal traverse of the artemises, this meant that the pilot was constantly making micro-adjustments in azimuth in order to ensure that all three guns had arc at all times. The flak and the banshee, with traverses of 50 and 60 degrees respectively, became even tighter, with the flak in particular almost impossible to maintain in arc with the front artemi1) It becomes much more difficult to maintain the trifecta with the forward artemis with either a banshee or a flak. As it stands, the trifecta window (as viewed from the helm in first person) for the double artemis-hades setup is barely wider than the width of the ladder leading up to the turning engines, requiring constant attention from the pilot in order to track an even slightly moving target. Even with the more ample 65 degree horizontal traverse of the artemises, this meant that the pilot was constantly making micro-adjustments in azimuth in order to ensure that all three guns had arc at all times. The flak and the banshee, with traverses of 50 and 60 degrees respectively, became even tighter, with the flak in particular almost impossible to maintain in arc with the front artemis.

Actually, now that I've had a minute to think about it, this analysis is partially incorrect - let me make an addendum here.

If my thought experiment is running correctly this time, the limiting factor for the artemis-hades trifecta is the rightmost arc of the hades (which has a very narrow 35 degree horizontal traverse) and the leftmost arc of the front artemis. The rightmost arc of the top deck gun is not in itself a limiting factor for the entire trifecta, which I appear to be claiming above. That is to say, by time you'd be about to lose your flak/banshee-front artemis (fartemis?) overlap, you've already lost your hades-front artemis overlap 20 or 30 degrees ago. So by themselves, the reduced horizontal traverses of the LF and banshee wouldn't affect the trifecta as a whole. My mistake

The other two reasons I give, however, were still sufficient for us to dismiss using those weapons.