158
« on: June 30, 2014, 11:14:48 pm »
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.
Show Posts
