Aggressive | ||||
| | ||||
Control | - | -----+----- | - | Killing |
| | ||||
Passive |
Weapon | ( | CK Value | , | PA Value | ) |
Gatling | ( | 4 | , | 4 | ) |
Mortar | ( | 5 | , | 4 | ) |
Carronade | ( | -5 | , | 4 | ) |
Flamethrower | ( | -2 | , | 5 | ) |
Flare gun | ( | -4 | , | -4 | ) |
Harpoon | ( | -5 | , | -1 | ) |
Mine launcher | ( | -1 | , | 3 | ) |
Artemis | ( | -1 | , | -4 | ) |
Hades | ( | 3 | , | -3 | ) |
Mercury | ( | 1 | , | -4 | ) |
Banshee | ( | 2 | , | -2 | ) |
Light flak | ( | 5 | , | -3 | ) |
Heavy flak | ( | 5 | , | -3 | ) |
Lumberjack | ( | -3 | , | -5 | ) |
Heavy carronade | ( | -5 | , | 4 | ) |
Hwacha | ( | -1 | , | 1 | ) |
these values are based of what experience?Whatever felt right as I made the table. So basically the worst possible hard numbers. I'd love for people to refine them.
a gatling can be used to control with heavy clip, denying both engines and medium guns, while shredding hull also....
a carronade can do the opposite, it can both control and deny better than the gatling, but it can also shred hull if focused on this.
the flaregun is also not really either passive or agressive, it depends on how teams use the flares.
some teams use the flares to gain control of the area they position themselves in.
We as an example use flares purely to give our gunners the ability to aim better, meaning that we fire a flare and go in to attack, doesnt matter if the enemy sees us, we just need to be able to see them.
I agree that you can put the passive agressive values in to some extend, but everyone knows that if you play passive you will not get any kills, in every match there is a time where you have to focus, move and get kills by shifting your crew towards an agressive playstyle, no matter the ship or guns.
playstyle...
While weapons may be used outside of their intended purposes and manipulated by the play style of the team using them, the weapons themselves have certain intrinsic properties that defines how they should and shouldn't be used.
(https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SkjPy0xluB1rbtX7FfQNH4yilwf7O75__P7DHqRAd24/embed/oimg?id=1SkjPy0xluB1rbtX7FfQNH4yilwf7O75__P7DHqRAd24&oid=1609348631&zx=bs8iuzvjz1gw)
(http://i.imgur.com/wpQIhTM.png)Hmm. macmacnick certainly has the more professional looking and pretty graph. :P
I guess the way to think about the numbers is not an accounting of their ability but instead an accounting of their specialty. The higher the number, the more specialized the weapon is at its role.true. still I think some guns (hades comes to mind) have been proven equally effective at passive and aggressive usage. yet rating them at 0 would suggest they aren't good at either.