Guns Of Icarus Online
Main => Gameplay => Topic started by: redria on April 19, 2014, 05:05:30 pm
-
Recent mentions of Overwatch being hyper-aggressive got me thinking: what are we? What are we compared to other teams?
I have watched the Glowwater Thralls smash excellent teams, only to see them get soundly beat by the Mandarins. The Mandarins are good, but by the quality of the teams the scores should have been a little more even.
From this I have come up with 3 major categories to define the play-style of a team/ship. Keep in mind this is all theory and depends heavily on the skill and coordination of the players involved.
Major Categories
Aggressive Damage per Second [A]
The aggressive DPS play-style is focused around exceptionally fast kills where the team seeks to initiate the attack on an opponent. Ships will generally attempt to close distance to make their shots more accurate and increase the potential DPS. Ships often favor speed and firepower over durability and maneuverability, opting to try to get a kill too quickly to be killed themselves.
Reactive Damage per Second [R]
The reactive DPS play-style is focused around arranging an overwhelming quantity of focused, often multifaceted, DPS and waiting to see what an opponent will do before deploying that damage potential. Ships often favor durability and firepower over speed and maneuverability, opting to endure any surprise damage while reacting to new events by arranging their firepower. Ships often feature multifaceted DPS, with builds that maximize DPS for different ranges on the same ship.
Control [C]
The control play-style is focused around gaining control of an engagement and using this control to selectively destroy ships. Ships often favor speed and maneuverability over firepower, opting to be able to control the engage distance and angles over pure firepower. Ships will often feature disabling style weapons, preferring to disable select parts of an enemy ship to gain further control over the engagement.
Countering
While there are builds that mix between the major play-styles, the major play-styles themselves counter each other.
Aggressive DPS is best countered by Reactive DPS. A reactive team will have the greater durability to endure the initial rushing onslaught of an [A] team and, played properly, will be able to focus fire and destroy the [A] ships one by one.
Reactive DPS is best countered by Control. A control team can move and fight in positions and ranges that force the [R] team to constantly reevaluate how to react. [C] teams are better at splitting the engagement apart, which reduces the ability of an [R] team to focus fire as necessary.
Control is best countered by Aggressive DPS. An aggressive team will push inside a [C] teams desired range and can quickly destroy one of the [C] ships, forcing the other to leave a 2v1 engagement. The [A] team's strength in this fight is the ability to kill before the [C] team can gain control.
Notable Clan Styles
The Mandarins
The mandarins operate mostly within [R], slightly leaning towards [A]. They feature highly reactive builds, capable of quickly engaging in long or short ranges. They have high durability. This reactive capability along with well practiced skill allows them to react advantageously against almost any [A] team. Their tendency towards aggression also gives them a step of help against [C] teams. While they are best countered by a team that tries to take control and split the engagement, their aggression can catch a [C] team off guard and still give them the advantage.
Crimson Sky Riders
CsR operates almost entirely within [A]. Their preferred builds tend to feature a massive amount of DPS that can be focused on a single ship for absurdly quick kills. Their high skill level allows them to put themselves in positions where their DPS can win fights even against [R] ships. Due to their level of coordination, they also beat out most other [A] teams, out-damaging and out-maneuvering the opposing team.
Overwatch
Overwatch operates mostly within [C], with a slight leaning towards [A]. Overwatch features builds that allow them to close the distance and take control of engagements. They tend towards medium range disable and close range mayhem. Their ships tend to operate on a highly mobile level, preferring to move about and control the distance of the engagement and altitude of all ships over getting a quick kill. Their coordination and communication allows them to split or focus opponents as need be to regain control or take a kill where available.
Ships and Builds and where they Fall
Junker
Junkers, due to their low speed, high armor value, and the potential for asymmetry giving short and long range sides, tend to fall within the [R] play-style. With their excellent turning speed, they can quickly react to changes and flip to offer the optimal weapons for the range. The specific build of the ship causes it to tend toward either [C] or [A] as a bonus. Triple Artemis builds as the Gents have featured offer a greater degree of control, while the Hades-artemis-artemis (HAA) build is more neutral. The HAA build, however, has a greater potential to give your ship an aggressive edge if flown aggressively.
Alternatively, a junker featuring mines tends more towards the [C] play-style. Once mines begin to land, a junker can maneuver and continue to lay mines in such a way that they have taken a ship out of the fight. Mines are an excellent [C] weapon: allowing for slower kills, but allowing control over the engagement.
Pyramidion
Pyramidions, due to their high speed, decent durability, ease of repairs, and focused forward firepower, tend to fall within the [A] play-style. Pyramidions are good at closing distances quickly and engaging high-DPS combos. Most common among these combos is the Gatling-mortar combination, which allows for rapid destruction of an enemy ship at close quarters. A mid-range version of this is the hades-flak combo, which gives the same piercing-explosive combo at greater ranges. CsR features these 2 builds to focus down a ship from multiple ranges, giving them excellent aggressive DPS.
An alternative build is Hades-Artemis (HA). HA pyramidion falls between [C] and [A]. While it can be flown aggressively to deal solid DPS, it can also be used to gain control of an engagement.
Another build is carronade-flamethrower (CF). CF pyramidions fall within the [C] play-style, while still leaning towards [A]. It can be used to vertically separate enemy ships and force an opponent to lose their arcs. This combines well with the pyramidion's ability to ram, allowing you to knock off lateral arcs while dropping an enemy out of vertical arcs.
Pyramidions also have side guns, allowing them to outfit themselves for [R] style, but their greatest strengths tend away from this style.
Squid
Squids, due to their high maneuverability, high speed, and low firepower, almost entirely fall within [C]. Featured weapons of squids tend to be carronades, flamethrowers, mines, and tar. These weapons all allow a ship to gain control over an enemy ship, causing mayhem and taking players off their guns to help repair.
Squids also have the potential to be the greatest [A] ships. With the gatling-mortar combination a squid can outmaneuver an enemy ship and kill it quickly. This style is difficult for pilot, engineers, and gunners, making it rare. Most squids tend towards the [C] play-style.
Galleon
Galleons, due to high durability and high firepower, tend to fall within the [R] play-style. With the option of split sides similar to Junkers, a Galleon can reactively play close or long range with massive firepower to either side. Due to the low maneuverability of Galleons, they tend away from either [A] or [C] play-styles since they don't have the maneuverability or gun arcs to do much but react.
Spire
Spires are odd creatures, falling between [R] and [A] depending heavily on the chosen build and the quality of the crew. With 3 light and one heavy gun all with forward facing arcs, the spire is an excellent forward attacking ship. However, it has such low durability and speed that it has a hard time being aggressive and a hard time reacting. The highly focused firepower allows for some of the fastest kills in the game if the firepower can be focused properly. Whether this is between long range piercing and heavy flak, or close range piercing and kill power, a spire can quickly destroy other ships, but generally needs to get a jump on the enemy as their durability is too low to allow for any prolonged fighting. In general, the spire does not offer enough mobility and durability to play in [C].
Goldfish
Goldfish generally falls entirely within the [C] play-style. With the 3/4 heavy guns able to operate almost unsupported being heavily disabling guns, the goldfish is almost bound to use one and commit to disabling one (if not both) enemy ship. Oftentimes pilots select side guns that allow them to easily spread more chaos on the enemy ship, not necessarily ones that allow for faster kills. With their higher speed and maneuverability, the goldfish is excellent at closing distances and gaining control over an engagement, along with helping to disable a ship and remove it from the fight. In general the goldfish does not offer enough damage potential to play well in either [R] or [A].
Mobula
Mobulas tend to fall between [R] and [A] depending on their loadout. With 5 forward facing guns, pilots tend to select loadouts that are specific to a single range, allowing them to operate 3-4 guns at their desired range. If their are seeking long range engagements, their mobula generally operates within the [R] play-style, while close range engagements operate within the [A] play-style. Mobulas tend to be poor [C] ships simply due to their poor turning. Their excellent vertical mobility gives them the opportunity to gain some control, but they can easily be out-maneuvered if they try to play a [C] play-style.
Minor Categories
Formation Flying [F]
Formation flying is a feature of teams that tend to stay together. Regardless of whether the ships focus fire or split targets, some teams tend to stay together and work together.
Often teams feature this as a good tactic to be able to support each other should there be a need for it. Alternatively it is featured as boost towards additional DPS for faster kills. Formation flying is often used by [A] and [R] teams. [A] teams will use it to help them get additional DPS on a ship to gain a 2v1 advantage faster. [R] teams will use it to either eliminate the greater threat/easier kill quickly by flying close and focusing fire, or they use it to make sure that they can easily support each other.
Split Flying [ S]
Split flying is an alternative tactic that involves teams splitting up. This tends to be a feature of [C] teams, with use sometimes by [A] teams. [C] teams tend to prefer 1v1 engagements, trying to split their opponents to work individually. [C] teams often stay close to start an engagement, but will usually try to quickly move to split engagements, either by vertical or horizontal space. The alternative feature of [ S] is in surprise attacks. Teams can split their ships to keep attention on one while the other arranges for a surprise attack.
Revisiting Clans
The Mandarins
A final classification for the Mandarins would be RF-A, Reactive DPS formation flying, with aggressive tendencies. Their formation flying aids them in assisting each other in difficult situations.
Crimson Sky Riders
A final classification for CsR would be AF-S, Aggressive DPS formation flying, with occasional split flying tactics to gain an edge. They prefer the advanced DPS formation flying offers when you focus targets, but will split to initiate a surprise attack if the opportunity presents itself.
Overwatch
A final classification for OVW would be CS-F, Control tactics with a preference for splitting the engagement, along with occasional formation flying. We tend to fly together until an engagement starts to protect ourselves from surprises, but tendencies lean towards splitting up when an engagement starts.
Glowwater Thralls
I neglected the Thralls initially since they defy simple classification under the Major play-styles. They tend towards AS-C, Aggressive DPS builds flying split ship surprise tactics along with control capabilities. GwTh loves high strategy and arranging themselves for surprise attacks. The heavy feature of the surprise attack is the quick kill ability featured in [A] ships, combined with [C] style ships that protect the [A] ship as it engages. This style works well against both [A] and [C] style teams, but tends to fail against [R] teams because [R] teams specialize in reacting to sudden changes and surprises.
-
I really like this Post Red. Seriously, very interresting to think about.
Probably the best Gameplay Thread ive seen XD haha.
Feels like im gonna go back and forth on this very Topic because its a tought i love to think about when it comes to competetive gameplay.
And very true in most or all aspects.
Like, seriously. Loving this post. I have to admit. Loving this post very much. Super exemplamentory to me.
Being labeled feels crappy but as some of us (Glowwater Thralls) talked of your post a bit, we agreed on your theory.
All of a sudden i feel more... enlightened? On the different playstyles of the players in this game. Very cool. I salute (And i rarely think to salute).
EDIT: Would like to see more like, weapons in theory in terms of A R or C and what it usualy suits best with on what ship.
-
Crafeksterty is right. THis is a gem. A great classification. Ive used to use the standard range based definitions but that one lacks on several points. This one defines engagements much better.
Awesome work.
I think you missed something for control engagements.
The longrange engagements can be a control fight if you ships fits that style.
The dual LJ Galleon the gents used to fly is a great example for this. If you get the engagement on your preferred range you will most likely blend the enemys down and keep them down so they cant get their arcs on you.
But i understand if you rather call it reactive.
You should also mention that it can get quite hard for a team like the thralls if they cant unleash their slow and tactical approach.
CSR is also capable of super longrange fights with the dual mobula they used to fly on fjords or dunes against the gents for example.
Gents would be between R and C. They tend to wait for the enemy to get to them and try and react to the enemy and get the upper hand by disabling one of the enemies so they can force a 1n2 on them and then roll over the survivor with two ships aswell.
As alot of teams arent playing that often i tend to rather not classify them aswell but im sure we can work something out later.
-
This is a really thoughtful analysis from an unusual angle. It exposes a rock-paper-scissors balance that seems more emergent than designed. As for further research I would take a look at a traditional range based analysis and see how it compares or combines with the ARC classification system.
-
fascinating
-
Combat triangle, anyone?
-
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.
-
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. :)
-
Very interesting post.
-
meh, decided to make a combat-triangle style chart as I was bored and had nothing much to do.
-
Also, shouldn't there be for the minor styles, a 'Bait' designation, designed to lure one or more opponents into a trap waiting, such as a dual burst hwacha barrage from a galleon that has its allied squid doing the baiting? (more significant in 3v3 play, squid bait leads to a disable galleon for control, then squid switches into offensive control, or even reactive DPS.)
-
That is not so much a style as it is a specific tactic. The more specific a classification system goes, the less useful it is for broad observations and ease of access and you get just a list of everything.
I would say the three ranges (short, mid, and long) would be further minor styles. A merc/heavy flak spire and a gat/mort pyra would both be type A, however their play style differs tremondously.
Long range is characterized but low risk in beginning engagement but high risk once in engagement due to missing shots with low clip guns or getting rushed. Short range is the opposite, high risk in beginning engagement low risk once in engagement due to high dps nature of close range. Mid range is clearly the hybrid of the two.
For me, I had always classified by two metrics. Range and kill v disable. I like yours better
-
The Spire truly is a strange creature. My favourite Spire build does exactly what a Spire isn't meant to do. It works as a [C] ship and tends to work well alone.
I coat my Spire in mines and use those with Tar to split allied ships off from each other. The other weapons unleash their fury and the dust clears either with my own ship being annihilated or with my enemies confused and decimated.
This is an excellent strategic post and is going on my Favourites :D
-
I'm glad everyone likes this post so much. ^.^
Tonight I'll try to post a first draft of how I'd classify each weapon for discussion.
In the meantime, since I have a hard time being neutral, what style/blend do you prefer (alone or in a team) and why?
I have a hard time writing this stuff because I love close range control over aggressive and reactive, and I can't even do it properly. I fly hybrid [A]-[C] because I'm impatient and not a tactician. I fly by the seat of my pants and make up for it by being aggressive. But I love control. I feel like true control requires the pilot to be on top of everything at once. Since you are playing for longer engagements, you have a much greater opportunity to make a mistake. Since other people fly with more killing power, your mistakes are punished with death much more often. I feel like while part of the reason that we don't see control in competitive as often is that the control ships may be slightly underpowered in the current meta, the other reason is that we just aren't good enough (myself included). Puppy Fur is the best control pilot I know, with Alistair Silas probably coming in second with his hwacha-fish. Simply put, I can't do what they do. I don't even know how they do it. I can't tell you how much I wish Alistair hadn't had DC problems against the gents so that we could have shown him off in competitive, and you all saw how well Puppy's squid did. It makes for more tense, more action packed matches as things are constantly happening, with ships always inches from a fatal mistake. I am far too impatient for reactive play, and pure aggressive play usually feels somewhat monotone to me. The control aspect of things is so vastly different and I love it. ^.^
-
I cant claim a preferred style. Due to my experience as a gent i am very used to longrange control engagements. Thats where i know the most and thats what i can do best.
However i also like good old reaction play.
The only thing where i dont feel to comfortable is closerange aggresive play. Take the beating like a man and then just outdps the enemy.
I am limited by the Cooldowns and numbers. I know i did everything correct but i still take alot of permahull damage.
Yes it is a great feeling when it works out and the enemy ships breaks apart but i always have the fact in mind that i did take alot of permahull damage and will probably not survive a similiar fight again.
In a control or reactive ship the hwacha or lumberjack will prevent the enemy from shooting at me so i know i got more time even with less permahull. It saves my ass.
I cant count the times anymore where the hwacha on the gents pagoda gave me the time i needed to rebuild the armor and saved us. Couldnt do such a thing with a aggresive dps ship.
I also know that it doesnt matter to much if the enemy is behind a cloud or way across the map. I know that we can hit him and wear him down slowly but surely. I also know that they wont reach us if they charge us straight. I can simply prevent him from doing it again.
For a aggresive dps build i first need to get in close to make things work.
Dont missunderstand me ...
I really like to watch those things. I felt the pain when a good CSR rush killed us and we couldnt do anything against their superior focus fire. Or the well executed split when one of their ships just played distraction and even if i expected it i couldnt do something just because our weapons werent in arc and they could pick us off.
Ive also felt the pain of a well prepared Thrall ambush.
Those are great things and i really like to see such things. Its just that i am not used to fly on such a ship.
-
My favourite Play style (as a pilot) is almost certainly [C]. I am a big sucker for old-fashioned naval tactics mixed with dogfights and other aeronautical nonsense.
I like steering my enemies into tight spots and I like having my enemies push me into similar situations so that I can try to counter and escape. If I fail to escape then I learn. It makes the chase so much more interesting and keeps the heat of battle alight with variety.
I am definitely not an Agressive DPS man, I just can't be bothered with waving a big cumbersome hammer - it's not my style. Thankfully, I am versed enough at Reactive play to out-think aggressive enemies for the most-part.
Of course, all of this means very little in competitive matches - I am a poor pilot against people who know what they're doing :P
-
My playstyle is for sure A-S. I've noticed that I'm really aggressive and often work best spilt engagement. And R is totally my counter, specially long range.
I'm sure others could pipe in about my playstyle.
Anddd.. I love it, it's a great way to categorise pilots and teams and even tactic while being reasonable flexible.
-
I like to think I am flexible enough to fly with any style, but I prefer the Reactive style. My most enjoyable moments in the game come from sticking my ship in very difficult situations and somehow pulling through. Aggressive and Control seems to be an all or nothing affairs. Either you dominate the game or spend the game being dominated. Reactive gives closer battles and cuts down on rage quits.
-
I definitely prefer the control-style of flying, heck my guns don't even have to be firing as long as I have control of the situation; If I'm being focused I have a smile on my face as my ally comes up from behind the distracted enemy and wrecks him. Anything that locks down or zones out the enemy makes me happy. Unfortunately this often requires an experienced and aggressive ally to make work well so playing with pubs isn't as fun and I lose a lot more when my ally doesn't take advantage of the, well, advantages I try to give them. If i'm forced to be aggressive than my ally isn't doing his job, and If i'm forced to play reactive then I haven't done my job correctly.
-
Some further thought food into it, and I expect these to be much more debated. Weapons can be "classified" just like ships, but it all depends on the way you fly them. A junker flown aggressively is completely different from a junker flown passively, even if the loadout is the same. Guns are completely different beasts depending on how they are used. My goal is to identify the classification of the weapon while pointing towards strengths it may have in other classes. Also, more generalizations about the classes, because it is fun. As always, feel free to discuss. :D
ARCs
[A] tends to be perfected by timing. Guns and ships are coordinated to deal the exact type of damage needed at the exact time it is needed. Everything is optimized for quick kills where everything fires in perfect coordination.
[R] tends to be perfected by gunner skill and coordination. Reactive depends on the ships and guns reacting to the situation properly and making every shot count. Coordination is necessary for the ships to be able to support each other when needed.
[C] tends to be perfected by piloting skill. Control ships tend to have much lower killing power and lower skill weapons. They depend on the pilot knowing exactly how to handle the ship to stay in control of the engagement.
Guns
Gatling - AR-C
The gatling gun shines as a DPS weapon, highlighted most often on [A] and [R] ships as an assistant to dealing rapid massive amount of damage. It depends on other weapons to deliver finishing blows, and so works best as a weapon on a ship with easy arcs to fire secondary weapons.
It has an additional point towards control due to incendiary ammo and component damage. The gatling gun can be loaded with incendiary ammo to cause chaos on another ship to increase your control over it, and it can be used to disable specific components, also assisting in control.
Mortar - AR
The natural mate to the gatling gun, the mortar shines as a DPS finishing weapon. It is a natural fit on [A] and [R] ships as a close range damage dealing weapon when properly supported. However, it does need piercing support, making it a poor choice for [C] ships. While it can damage components on its own, this ability is insufficient to gain proper control.
Carronade - C
The carronade is a pure control weapon. It rapidly shreds balloons, and can be combined with heavy clip to destroy individual components. It is a key weapon when playing with vertical control, allowing a ship to gain the high ground and maintain absolute control over the remainder of the engagement. However, it does not deal sufficient armor or hull damage to be appropriate as either an [A] or [R] weapon.
Flamethrower - C
The (current) flamethrower is also pure control. With the ability to hit every component it passes through (and even multiple ships at once), along with the chance to set fire stacks on everything it hits, the flamethrower slowly takes control away from an enemy as they are forced to leave guns to maintain their ship. However, it currently does not deal enough pure damage to qualify as either an [A] or [R] weapon.
Flare gun - C
The flare gun is a control weapon. The hit damage with 10 stacks of fire are reminiscent of the flamethrower: low damage and high chaos. This alone points it towards being control. However, the primary use of the gun is the ability to light up clouds, which does 2 things. First, it alerts you to the presence of enemies. This is critical in controlling an engagement. Not knowing where an enemy is can quickly lose the control. Second, it pushes the enemy towards where you want them to be. An ambushing team is less likely to attack through a flared area to avoid being spotted. This means that with flares you can (in theory) funnel the enemy into a location of your choosing for the engagement.
Harpoon - C
The (broken) harpoon is pure control. With low damage it does not fit either [A] or [R]. It can be used to pull the enemy into a position more favorable for yourself and less favorable for the enemy.
Mine launcher - C
The mine launcher is a control weapon. While it deals large quantities of damage, the most important factor of the mines is that they alter the location and momentum of the enemy. This allows a ship to take absolute control over an enemy, knocking off their arcs and preventing them from taking part in a fight.
Artemis - CR
The artemis, with its slow turn speed and high disable power, is good for controlling fights through key disables and for assisting in reactive dps. Less effective in aggressive builds due to its less than optimal explosive damage, it offers respectable power for reactive builds that intend to deploy more guns at once.
Hades - AR-C
The hades is a wonderful mix of DPS and control, offering the desired piercing damage along with the potential for fires and balloon damage. The piercing damage is effective for both [A] and [R] builds, and the fires help give control.
Mercury - ??? (CR)
The mercury is confusing beast. My best bet would be to classify it as control and reactive, though that is mostly based on gut feeling. The disabling ability of the gun along with the long range accuracy make it a good weapon for setting up reaction traps and controlling fights through disables of key components.
Banshee - ??? (C-AR)
I honestly don't know the home territory of the banshee yet. My best guess is as a harassment killing weapon, such as a gat-banshee squid. This would fit in as a C-AR style weapon I guess, though the explosive damage indicates it should be used as a DPS weapon. The fire it can cause is definitely [C] style with a hand towards actual damage potential.
Light flak - AR
DPS kill oriented weapon. The light flak's only purpose is to deliver explosive damage for killing blows. It currently fits as a mid-range finishing weapon on [A] and [R] ships.
Heavy flak - AR
DPS kill oriented weapon. The heavy flak's only purpose is to deliver explosive damage for killing blows. It currently fits as a mid/long-range finishing weapon on [A] and [R] ships.
Lumberjack - C-R
A control based weapon for popping balloons, the lumberjack has the unique property of having several times more ammo per clip than is needed to pop a balloon. This allows it to continue dealing damage even after its primary function has been served, making it a respectable reactive weapon: react to the opponent and retake control.
Heavy carronade - C
Similar to its light sibling, the heavy carronade it built for control. While it has hull shredding potential, well used carronades will help maintain constant control of close range vertical gameplay.
Hwacha - C-AR
The hwacha is a control weapon with a taste for damage. The primary function of the hwacha is to disable the components of an enemy ship. Proper use will take all physical control and power from an enemy, giving you the opportunity to position yourself as desired for a continuation of the fight. Additionally, the explosive damage potential of the gun allows you to deal killing blows at opportune moments.
-
Flare gun is mostly used by reactive ships with extra gun slots, such as galleon, spire or mobula, or by pyramidions where the pilot is going easy on tools and the main engi has too much free time.
I would also say the hwacha is a universalist weapon which can perform in pretty much any role, leaning slightly towards C and A, but also quite capable as R. However it suffers from slow projectile speed making it easy to dodge at long range.
Same goes for lumberjack/hades, they're 2 sides of the same coin- can deal tons of damage and perform in any role, but only at a certain range.
-
Flare gun is mostly used by reactive ships with extra gun slots, such as galleon, spire or mobula, or by pyramidions where the pilot is going easy on tools and the main engi has too much free time.
I would also say the hwacha is a universalist weapon which can perform in pretty much any role, leaning slightly towards C and A, but also quite capable as R. However it suffers from slow projectile speed making it easy to dodge at long range.
Same goes for lumberjack/hades, they're 2 sides of the same coin- can deal tons of damage and perform in any role, but only at a certain range.
Extra gun slots on a spire? Not if you use it to it's full potential.
-
Hey, Flares work excellently on a hwachafish (or on a lumberfish with a decent ally to support and a decent Lumberjack gunner), but always, always bring heatsink for the flares. Extra control is beautiful.
-
Going by both the original post the recently posted weapons list, my play style (at least going by my standard build) Is built around an AC combo of Banshees, Light Carronades, and a singular Howitzer.
The Howitzer is good for setting up close in engagements when used correctly on the approach, singling out dangerous weapons allowing you to get in more or less unaccosted, it can also be used to deter enemy vessels from a distance or support an allied ship.
The Carronade is more or less obvious in its use, disabling components and taking out their balloon forces them to prioritize either keeping their ship afloat or being able to deal damage and hopefully taking out the Carronade that's keeping them down, either choice is a valid option, if the carronade is out of action it gives you a few moments of breathing room to either strike back or link up with an ally, however prioritizing the balloon hands you survivability because you're not sliding around on the ground taking damage, giving your ally time to move in and assist you.
The Banshee, with its radial fire setting can be used as a reactive weapon, a control weapon, or a DPS weapon, it's reactive in the way that you can use it to force crew members off guns when you find your self under attack, however coupled with its impressive firing speed it can deal a decent amount of damage against an unshielded hull making it a decent DPS weapon. If we look at it's fire starting ability however it can be used to take control of the field, throwing both explosive damage and setting down fire stacks is an effective way to disable a ship, with multiple components taking damage from both damage types they'd have to prioritize either making sure they can stay afloat or again, deal damage.
That might all be a grave misconception, it also reveals how I play but than again that's no secret either.
-
Heavy flak - AR
While a HFlak is kill oriented i wouldnt call it an A weapon.
Thats just due to the fact which ships can utilize it.
That are Spires and Galleons. Not gonna count the fish as a viable option with a flak.
Those ships arent a DPS ships imo. You lean more towards a R style of game. See what the enemy does and pick him of on longrange.
-
I think if this system lacks anywhere it is in [R].
I'm not really sure how to distinguish weapons and ships between [A] and [R] except the way they are flown, and even that doesn't answer everything. I guess the main distinction is whether you seek to engage the enemy in a location of their choosing or your choosing, which doesn't necessarily divide the 2 classes appropriately.
Thoughts? Am I crazy? Perhaps this classification system is appropriate for the way teams actually play, but not for the weapons and ships themselves? Some things, like mines, carronades, squids, and goldfish can be naturally qualified as [C] items, but a lot of the rest seem to depend entirely on the way they are used: the playstyle of the team itself.
In other words, the play-style of a weapon is more characterized by the play-style of the team using the weapon, rather than by the nature of the weapon itself. Because of this, attempting to identify the nature of the weapon serves no purpose as it does not take a broad enough view.
Looking at the overall theory here, I would think that perhaps there is a separate classification system for ships, and another for weapons, that would look deeper at the nature of the items in question as standalone pieces. Finally, there would be an overarching connection tying together the 3 classification systems identifying what classes mesh well together between the 3 major pivot points of battle: play-styles, ships, and guns.
Of course, there is the 4th category of crew loadout. For instance, drogue chute is an anti-control type tool. Moonshine is an aggressive DPS type tool. But perhaps there is a classification system inherent in the tools.
TL;DR: Games are science. Let's think too hard.
-
TL;DR: Games are science. Let's think too hard.
Noted.
You can not categorize weapons by the same way you categorize playstyles as the playstyles themselves are a result of different weapon combinations as well as ship combinations.
Weapons are either focused on destroying the enemy ship or disabling it and most guns are adequate in doing both in some way or an other. You could categorize them in a way by the time it takes for the gun to accomplish its primary role, but you would still end up with combined categories.
e.g.
Carronades can easily be classified as a Control weapon, but their short range means you will have to be agressive and get yourself close in to deal with whatever problems you are dealing with, so you end up with a Agressive Control weapon.
The Hades on the other hand, due to its projectile nature and lack of power to strip armor in one go by itself, is definately a Reactive weapon that doesn't promote overly agressive playstyle as you want to keep some distance, but it still lights things on fire, which gives it some controlling power, its primary fire damage while not too effective, is still good against balloons as well.
The only weapons I can think of being purely agressive are pure explosive guns like the light Mortar and Flak, whose only purpose is to finish the enemy ship as they don't do much damage to anything else other than a naked blimp. The Heavy Flak would probably be the Passive Agressive weapon I guess :P
Basically, Passive Control, Agressive Control and pure Agression weapons.
-
Hmm....
Basically, Passive Control, Agressive Control and pure Agression weapons.
I am sort of envisioning a quadrant style weapons classification from that. Basically, on the x-axis is control->killing, while on the y-axis is passive->aggressive. Each weapon would have their own data point on the quadrant.
| | Aggressive | | |
| | | | | |
| Control | - | -----+----- | - | Killing |
| | | | | |
| | Passive | | |
Using your examples..
Carronade would sit in the top left quadrant, a combination of control and aggressive. Heavy flak, with its arming time, would be somewhere in the bottom right quadrant, a combination of passive killing.
Artemis would be in the bottom half of the graph, definitively in the passive side of the graph, but close to the left/right center of the graph, probably slightly on the control side.
Intriguing? Totally wrong? Weapons are pretty linked to their range and their arcs, so a classification system is inherently going to reference the range. The passive and aggressive terms refer to whether you must move in aggressively to acquire range, or if you can play passively and still use the weapon to effect. Control vs killing relates to the particular use of a weapon.
We see similar themes to the play-style classification system, but the scaling and rating system is (kind of) completely different, allowing for much better classification of the inherent value of a weapon and its attributes, as opposed to how a team uses it.
I sort of like this idea. :D
-
| | Aggressive | | |
| | | | | |
| Control | - | -----+----- | - | Killing |
| | | | | |
| | Passive | | |
I for one welcome our new Axis quadrant overlords.
But yes, this seems like the best way to classify weapons.
-
We should really split this up at one point into a seperate post. MAybe even a thread in the guides part ^^
I really like that.
And that weapon classification is great.
-
| | Aggressive | | |
| | | | | |
| Control | - | -----+----- | - | Killing |
| | | | | |
| | Passive | | |
I for one welcome our new Axis quadrant overlords.
But yes, this seems like the best way to classify weapons.
Mwahaha.
Wait, we have a 3-point system, this would make a 4-point system... If we make a 5 point and a 6 point system for something and something else, we could have a 7-point system for ships that classifies ships by themselves! Great success!
But really, if people like this, we could give each weapon a rating from -1 to 1 (or -10 to 10 or -5 to 5 or whatever) for each category and make a graph of all the weapons. This would give us 2 systems, the major/minor play-styles and the weapons classifications. Remaining would be ships and possibly tools/ammos. Finally we could develop a "theory of everything" for guns of icarus. Because why not.
We should really split this up at one point into a seperate post. MAybe even a thread in the guides part ^^
I really like that.
And that weapon classification is great.
The Theory of Everything GoIO Board! Where all may come to contribute to our "research"!
But yeah, we could alter the thread name or split this to continue discussion on guns in a different space. It seemed fitting though since it is all related to classifying parts of the game and gameplay, even if it wasn't the end goal of my OP.
-
We should really split this up at one point into a seperate post. MAybe even a thread in the guides part ^^
New thread created specifically for weapons. Feel free to move there to discuss specifically weapons and how to classify them, or stay here if you wish to further discuss play-styles or push ideas for how to compare ships and/or tools/ammos.
https://gunsoficarus.com/community/forum/index.php/topic,3871.0.html (https://gunsoficarus.com/community/forum/index.php/topic,3871.0.html)
-
bump to front page
-
bump to front page
:D
The weapons thread sorta failed, but I really like how this turned out. :)
-
I was curious what kind of playstyles viewers of the Hephaestus challenge think have been exhibited by the teams participating, any thoughts from anyone and have there been any developments in the classifications?
-
It's hard to pin some of these teams down to just one style. Some of the teams don't use the same ship builds in every fight witch will change how they fly overall. I would say that you Melon are more of an aggressive pilot that favors control builds over high dps.
-
Yeah most teams in this tournament seem to be quite flexible with their playstyles which is an interesting change from previous ones. I like that teams can be a lot more unpredictable and bring out builds and playstyles that are more unorthodox, and I'd like to think that Cake has been sufficiently unpredictable so far :D
-
Most teams in the recent scene can pull of several playstyles but due to the recent tournaments all being single elimination there was barely a point for trying. You did not want to loose a single game cause it put you behind quite a bid.
Thats the benefit of the league system. One game out of 7 doesnt mean as much as one out of possible 3 in a standard bo3 tournament.
We see teams using their classic styles like rydr (aggresive, kill oriented) and ovw (control oriented) but we also see teams adapt and test out. Sadly i cant fully remember most games so i can just name a few.
-
Mad Hatters:
This team has changed it's pilots a number of times so It's hard to say what style they will take when they do compete.
The Art of Warfare:
I think a reactive style would be best for this team. Seems like they are still trying to find there place.
Glowwater Thralls:
Always! a close range Aggressive team that will use a DPS ship with a disabling (control) ship
Sacrilege:
SAC are one of the few teams that will change how they fly depending on what map they are on. Most of the pilots fall into the reactive style of play but will use aggressive dps builds if they are on a small map.
DeadPool’s Army:
Aggressive DPS builds with a bit of control.
Zill’s Merry Men:
They used to be more aggressive using a control ship with a dps ship but mostly they have been reactive using longer range builds.
Overwatch:
Always Control, always disable, always fun.
Black Flight Squadron:
Reactive until they fix the squid! right Gilder ^.^
Museosaurs:
Reactive.
Cake:
Aggressive flying with control builds... And fire...
The Clamour:
We have seen them use both aggressive dps builds and reactive builds.
Sky Invading Rhinos:
Reactive style with aggressive dps builds. Sometimes with a little bit of control but not a dedicated disabling ship.
Rydr:
Aggressive dps builds.
Holy Roman Army:
Mostly reactive style from what I have seen but I know both these clans also like to fly aggressive dps builds with a little bit of control.
-
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. ^.^
-
Haven't been around for a while, and reading this thread has been interesting.. been catching up on the competitive scene of these days and couldn't agree more with what's been said.
Still as I'm addicted to my control squid.. might have some issues these days.. ;-)
-
I think we can also categorize piloting style as aggressive or reactive, witch is very interesting when looking at control builds.
-
Ah this game is always interesting, but.. definitely ^^ this
-
So I'm new here (and haven't even played outside the tutorials yet!), but wow.
This discussion is great. The 3-point system is a good basic strategic overview, but the smaller the scale you're looking at, the more complex the model needs to become.
For team-wide tactics, the three classifications listed in the OP work as basic definitions. Aggressive, Reactive (not Passive) and Control are clearly-defined playstyles that can be broken down and defined easily on a team-based level. Fortunately, my relative new-ness to the game doesn't hurt, since the same basic principles apply across most team-based games.
Aggressive play is about pushing at the enemy in order to direct your strongest attacks into them urgently.
Reactive play is about watching your enemy's moves and responding in a way that lets you present your own strengths.
Control is about manipulating the enemy's weaknesses first, and playing to your strengths as a secondary concern.
Aggressive and Reactive play in a larger strategic sense are very different approaches to the same basic DPS role - maximise your strength first, aim for enemy's weaknesses second. On a strategic level, Control has to be reactive by its very nature, because it's playing to the enemy's weaknesses instead of your own strengths.
The reason I say "Passive" seems inaccurate to me is because it implies a lack of attention that Reactive play doesn't allow. It's the same kind of indirect implication that could be taken if you referred to an aggressive team as being "Impatient" instead. Being passive is an implied weakness, like impatience, even when neither of those things is necessarily a disadvantage in the right context.
----------
As for the 4-point system, I think that applies quite nicely to ships and their loadouts. The weapons a ship carries define its place on the kiling/control axis, while its other basic stats will place it along the aggressive/reactive portion. In the OP, the Spire was described as being unsuited to Control, but also not very well suited to the other roles. My immediate thought was that it would be completely at home working as part of a Control strategy, because of its predisposition towards the "floating turret" role. It provides area control and denial by the nature of its build. It's not fast enough to be an Aggressive Control ship like most, but many loadouts will operate as a solid Reactive Control ship.
There's an apparent contradiction with the Control role here though. I said earlier that on the strategic level, Control is reactive by nature, but looking at individual ships, most of the best Control ships tend towards the aggressive end of the spectrum. That highlights the differences you see when viewing fights on a different scale. Looking at this team level, the Control strategy of who attacks which enemy and when needs to be reactive, shifting based on the enemies you face and their actions. But when you zoom in to an individual ship performing those actions, the behaviour is aggressive, anticipating enemy actions and moving to prevent them while exploiting any weaknesses that present themselves.
----------
When you zoom in again, to an even closer view, it's time to start analysing individual weapons, and also to look at the crew on board your ship. At this point, you add an extra axis to the pattern.
Aggressive/Reactive determines whether the crew member's role involves acting first or waiting for something to happen. Pilots will usually be Aggressive, while Engineers will usually be Reactive, and Gunners could fall into either category depending on the weapon(s) and ammo type(s) used. A Reactive pilot or an Aggressive Engineer will probably work on the right ship, but for a generalisation, that seems to be the way I'd tilt them based on my (limited) knowledge of the game.
Killing/Control is relevant for all characters. Does your Pilot focus on evading enemy fire first, or on ramming enemies and bringing the guns to bear? Does your Gunner man the weapons with Shatter and Fire damage to disable guns and/or engines, or just go for Piercing then Explosive (or aim for the balloon) right from the start? When both are taking hits, do your Engineers patch up your guns or engines/balloon/hull first?
I'm leaning towards a "mobile/fixed" definition for the final axis. Obviously, weapons would seem to be fixed, but if a ship has more weapon systems than available crew, the functionality of those weapons moves with the crew, essentially making them a form of mobile asset. A Goldfish with only one side weapon in use at a time could treat those two turrets as a single "mobile" turret instead. Likewise, their ability to move implies that crew are mobile, but it seems plausible for a Pilot or Gunner to stand in one place on the ship and never move, or move only a negligible amount to repair things in easy reach.
-
So, am I going to have to make yet another chart...? Or am I going to be making a quadrant chart with each team in it...?
-
I love charts... they're so pretty.
-
Maenad Ryders: Reactive, Aggressive
Skyborne: Aggressive, Reactive
Team Predators: Aggressive, Control
Clan Clan: Reactive, Control
-
Maenad Ryders: Reactive, Aggressive
Skyborne: Aggressive, Reactive
Team Predators: Aggressive, Control
Clan Clan: Reactive, Control
That necro...
Also, Skyborne are Reactive Control. They fly aggressive-reactive builds reactively but if you watch what they do in a typical engagement its more control than anything Control isnt disable, its just being able to chose who the enemy team focuses (Hint, disable guns help you do this) In addition to that, it may be more accurate to put Control before Reactive on clan clan and possibly other teams to indicate their more dominant style out of the two.
However, if control is only indicated by ships and weapons that can disable or control their range then you are mostly right.
-
Skyborne tend to favor the Mobula over other ships. The weapons they choose are often focused more on kill power than disable. That is why I have classified them as aggressive , reactive. Teams that use control builds will use disabling weapons to put one ship out of the fight so they can focus fire on the other target. Control builds also have the ability to split up teams to create 1v1 engagements.
Maenad Ryders have aggressive pilots but favor more reactive builds. Recent matches have shown that they are more reactive than aggressive in there play style. Knowing how each of the pilots fly I think that the reactive style would suit them best. Ryders have some of the best gunners in the game witch allows them to use high skill weapons and ships that need a lot of teamwork.
Neech and myself have always been reactive pilots. We like to use ships that have long range and short range weapons. Our builds will often lack the damage that other reactive teams have because we favor the control style of play. Instead of having one kill ship and one disable ship we have two ships that can disable and kill.
-
Skyborne tend to favor the Mobula over other ships. The weapons they choose are often focused more on kill power than disable. That is why I have classified them as aggressive , reactive. Teams that use control builds will use disabling weapons to put one ship out of the fight so they can focus fire on the other target. Control builds also have the ability to split up teams to create 1v1 engagements.
I see. I was referring to the amount of control you could give to skyborne by taking something other than a squid/mob/galleon, but that doesnt fit redria's theory well.
But then again, Mobula is Aggressive-Reactive-Control.
-
Skyborne tend to favor the Mobula over other ships. The weapons they choose are often focused more on kill power than disable. That is why I have classified them as aggressive , reactive. Teams that use control builds will use disabling weapons to put one ship out of the fight so they can focus fire on the other target. Control builds also have the ability to split up teams to create 1v1 engagements.
I see. I was referring to the amount of control you could give to skyborne by taking something other than a squid/mob/galleon, but that doesnt fit redria's theory well.
But then again, Mobula is Aggressive-Reactive-Control.
Daniel noticed the same thing about the Mobula. It covers all 3 play styles. Hades Artemis has a reactive quality and can be used for control with all the fire and shatter damage. You can sit back and snipe in the Mobula or you can charge/ram and use close range guns to play more aggressive. The close range guns could ether be used for control (carronades) or for aggressive kill (gat flak)
-
Skyborne tend to favor the Mobula over other ships. The weapons they choose are often focused more on kill power than disable. That is why I have classified them as aggressive , reactive. Teams that use control builds will use disabling weapons to put one ship out of the fight so they can focus fire on the other target. Control builds also have the ability to split up teams to create 1v1 engagements.
I see. I was referring to the amount of control you could give to skyborne by taking something other than a squid/mob/galleon, but that doesnt fit redria's theory well.
But then again, Mobula is Aggressive-Reactive-Control.
Daniel noticed the same thing about the Mobula. It covers all 3 play styles. Hades Artemis has a reactive quality and can be used for control with all the fire and shatter damage. You can sit back and snipe in the Mobula or you can charge/ram and use close range guns to play more aggressive. The close range guns could ether be used for control (carronades) or for aggressive kill (gat flak)
And even so, when you're that close without control guns you still have your superior verticals against most ships and about junker level acceleration, whilst being able to decide what part of your ship (hull/balloon) the enemy can fire at with your vertical positioning aswell. I think this was redria's biggest error when he made this thread, his time seemed to be one where mobulas were treated like glass cannons and as such were focused on maximizing firepower. His comprehensive pyramidion guide has also provided one of the more brief descriptions of how to deal with different ships compared to the 6 other summaries, and it can almost be said that he downplayed Mobula's strength considering mobula's and pyra's places in higher levels at the moment.
-
The Might of the Mobula, overlooked by people blinded by the Meta of the old.
-
It's been a long time! You all remember the days when a carro-flame pyra could one-shot ram kill a mobula, right? In that time, mobulas were in fact too squishy.
:D
Where a ship stands inside ARC can change with balance changes. I would still tend to argue that mobulas should struggle most trying to live as control based on the challenge of maintaining suppressive fire while piloting around obstacles and repairing, but it is certainly a versatile ship.
-
Guns can add to the playstyle of ships and give it a new field of options. A Squid, while naturally being aggressive and control with its manouverbility flying around the enemy in close range can turn reactive when you give it a long range gun, which can still be used aggressively.
Having guns for multiple ranges allows for multiple playstyles. A Junker with long range guns can play reactive, but with its limited movement options it can only get so aggressive and can only demonstrate so much control. Forward facing ships profit more from multiple ranges, a long range Pyramidion can be reactive, but as Hillerton demonstrated, can very well be agressive, especially when a Mercury is involved, since it doesn't have arming time.
A Mobula with Hades, double Artemis and double Carro, with one Carro shooting incendiary rounds can be reactive, can easily control the engagement with disable power and its own mobility and can be flown as aggressively as the dear old Metamidion. Although that is cheating, only a handful of people fly actual aggressive ships nowadays, in competitive at least, most of them being Squids or SkBo's Gatling Mobula Wombo Combo.
And I am not saying long range means reactive, but it certainly allows for an easy execution for a reactive playstyle.
Mobulas can still be rammed to death. The difference to now and back then however was that people now are actually, believe it or not, dodging vertically. Sometimes at least.
-
People dodged vertically before, but the pyramidion was nimble enough and had enough armor that those dodges often weren't enough or weren't fast enough.
Don't get me wrong, people have improved a lot with mobulas, but the mobula was not just under appreciated at the time. I won't argue where the mobula is now, but I believe that when I was playing the mobula simply didn't hold up sufficiently in a variety of ranges. Sniper mobula had its time on Dunes, but then dunes is dunes. I wouldn't have brought it to any other map.
I think stamina also probably plays a part in this. Pyra's will use stamina for engaging. I suspect mobula pilots hold it for the dodges. This was not a thing in the old meta.
-
Aggressive/Control is a good play style too counter Mobulas. A gat/carro pyra or flamer/carro pyra would be a nice counter.
-
Using Carronades to counter a Mobula entirely depends on a map's height ceiling. Which is one of my main problems with the Mobulas. They are inordinately effective on maps with massive verticallity. And maps vertical space varies wildly.
-
Guns can also be countered with guns. I made the mine Mobula purely to counter the influx in Carronades. Reactive counters aggressive, but with Gatling and double Artemis I can still force the the engagement to start, switching to reactive once the enemy makes a move towards me.
Even before the Pyramidion nerf, the Pyramidion had a hard time catching a Mobula, even the Goldfish does and the Goldfish was always more nimble than the Pyramidion and never got a nerf.
I can only remember a handful of times where I ever had trouble with Carronades on a Pyramidion, only the Praetorian's (SPQR) double Pyramidion focus fire and that only on Paritan or the Centurion's (SPQR) double Carronade Pyramidion, because two Carronades wouldn't allow me to use hydrogen the second the balloon was rebuild, because it would instantly die again, but against only one Carronade, hydrogen once the balloon was rebuild on a Mobula will bring you right back up to a decent altitude, which is why I rarely if ever used a Blenderfish against other Mobulas.
-
Team Highwind: Reactive
Team Highwind primarily uses the Junker and the Galleon in the SCS. The weapons they bring have some control power but the builds they use tend to focus more on reactive DPS than disable/control. I think their style has been very reactive overall. They seem to favor this style over others and it shows with the builds they take and how they fly them.
Sexy Cage Dancers: Aggressive, Reactive
This is a hard team to pin down. They are still new to the SCS and are still trying to find a team comp that works best for them. Because Grimick is an aggressive pilot, I think an aggressive team comp would suit them best. I labeled them Aggressive, reactive because of the ships they have brought in past events. They tend to bring one aggressive ship and one reactive ship. They also seem to favor kill power over disable power.
The Bards: Reactive, Control
This team has always been very reactive while playing in the SCS. Logicalia will often fly a Galleon and make good use of it's long range fire power. His ally will ether play body guard with a control ship, or support the Galleon with another reactive ship like a Junker or a Mobula. They seem to favor disable power over kill power with the builds they bring.
The Maenad Ryders: Reactive, Aggressive
The Maenad Ryders have used a reactive team comp for most of the matches they have played in the SCS. Skybox is a very aggressive pilot and Like most Ryder pilots he likes to ram. We saw Skybox take a Pyramidion in the last match of SCS #96. I think we will see the Maenad Ryders switch to an aggressive play style in the near future. Because this team is Reactive, Aggressive they have the option to play more aggressive if they bring a team comp that suits that play style.
Skyborne: Aggressive, Reactive
This team always has a Mobula in the team comp. They will often bring another Mobula to support it or they will use a control ship like a Goldfish or Squid to be the body Guard. Skyborne are more aggressive than other reactive teams. They will close distance and use short range weapons to secure the 5 kills needed for victory. This is why I have labeled them Aggressive, Reactive. They use reactive builds and fly them aggressively.
Potato Predators: Aggressive, Control
This team will always use a control ship and a aggressive ship. The control ship disables and distracts the enemy until the aggressive ship can get a kill. Sometimes they will bring more disable power instead of kill power so they can maintain control throughout the match.
-
I would like to reference this thread for my next youtube video. I'm not the greatest when it comes to classifying these terms and the builds that make them. Any updates and / or input would be helpful for me. I want the next video to be about different ship builds and their purpose / category. Also, does the community feel that these terms are still relevant? I have personally only heard them used a handful of times in the last two years and I was never really paying attention to the conversation.
-
They are, but the comp scene is on life support. But as a look at the "overall meta" of the game, it's one of the best I've still seen.
-
These terms can be one way to explain why something worked or didn't work so well. They are the options a team has when coming into the game. I personally see them as an after-the-fact analyzing tool, it can help break stuff down.
I would say that they have become less relevent, but not because they are irrelevant, rather because too many apply too often. A forward facing ship is naturally aggressive, because it has an easy time flying aggressively, but put a Hades/Artemis on it and now it is aggressive and passive, but Artemis also heavily weights into the control aspect. Your average Mobula can easily fit into all three playstyles. Goldfish and Squid can easily switch between aggressive and passive gameplay too if they have an ally that is able to compete in long range.
What's also to note is that teams at the time of this thread, people focused on one single strategy or used ships that are either the same or very similarto each other: Charges with double Pyra, camping with or slowly pushing with Junker/Galleon or double Junker, hardcore non-stop flanking or more a more vague example: engaging from safe distances with an Artemis on both Squid and Pyra, building up that poke damage, which is still the same base strategy on both ships.
As the competitive scene went on, teams started switching things out. For example: Pure double Metamidion worked well for a time, but you risk getting easily shut down, so double Pyramidion teams decided to have one Pyra be some form of support fire, either via disabling/slowing down their enemy's movement to give the kill ship as much advantage as possible or via helping breaking armor and hull from a much safer distance, a different angle, making it much for difficult to shut both ships down at the same time.
Some of the support Pyras turned into the Goldfish, Hwacha and Heavy Carronade. During that, Mobulas kept coming up, fully replacing either the kill or support ships. With five forward facing guns, the Mobula had enough options to fit the loadout of two different Pyramidions on its ship, massively increasing the available options a team has mid-game, mixing in all sort of playstyles. After the Metajunker made the Hades/double Art trifecta so famous, people quickly found it easily fits into the Mobula. At that point, the Mobula, as a single ship, had the ability to use the playstyle of two different ships, had the superior long range firepower from the Metajunker, is a forward facing ship so can easily switch between flying aggressively and passively and had the highest vertical mobility so one had almost no chance of beating it in brawling either.
And that's about it, really. Mobula > everything cometitive did before using the Mobula.
(tl;dr:) So I guess what I am trying to say here is: With the developement of the meta, the classification of major and minor playstyles has become difficult to apply since teams started bringing ship compositions that can easily change to a different playstyle, on the fly. The position of the gun on the ship (left or right, who shoots it) and ammo types further blur the lines between those playstyles, which are only made a bit more clear again by certain maps when put against very specialized teamcomps, which would then get countered by other specialized teamcomps, making this classification system a bit more relevant again.
Speaking of applying multiple playstyles at once, boy, do I have a treat for those that are actually somewhat interested in this kind of stuff.
-
I am interested. Gimme please.
-
I would say that they have become less relevent, but not because they are irrelevant, rather because too many apply too often. A forward facing ship is naturally aggressive, because it has an easy time flying aggressively, but put a Hades/Artemis on it and now it is aggressive and passive, but Artemis also heavily weights into the control aspect. Your average Mobula can easily fit into all three playstyles. Goldfish and Squid can easily switch between aggressive and passive gameplay too if they have an ally that is able to compete in long range.
What's also to note is that teams at the time of this thread, people focused on one single strategy or used ships that are either the same or very similarto each other: Charges with double Pyra, camping with or slowly pushing with Junker/Galleon or double Junker, hardcore non-stop flanking or more a more vague example: engaging from safe distances with an Artemis on both Squid and Pyra, building up that poke damage, which is still the same base strategy on both ships.
At the time I think I was mostly just trying to classify how teams tended to coordinate in-game rather than classify certain ships. Mobula is a great example of a class-breaker, but certain pilots will usually have certain tendencies. If I ever come back you know I'll be playing aggressive control just because I like having pilot power. Reactive is too gunner dependent.
Either way, Solidusbucket's video is on Youtube. It covers things pretty nicely. I still love seeing this thread mentioned. 8)
-
THIS IS TRUE OF ANY GAME OR COMPETITION.
DO YOU PEOPLE NOT REALIZE HOW MUCH OF A GEM THIS IS??!???!!!!!
Wow. Just wow.
-
Wow! This sure is getting quite the attention, rightfully so. Wonderful, well thought out analysis. I would probably toss mobula into the control playstyle as well. Usually armed with 2 Artemis, maybe a merc (but usually hades) offers fantastic long range control. The mobula often gets restricted to the long range side of things, which in my opinion is unfortunate, but it definatley excels at what its been put up to do. The high level mobula captains have been pushing the boundaries in amazing ways which I hope to see continue. (Double flak mob for life) I find all of this gameplay analysis fascinating, really fun to see how it pans out and evolves.