Author Topic: Axis-Quadrant Weapon Classification System  (Read 11784 times)

Offline redria

  • Member
  • Salutes: 136
    • [OVW]
    • 16 
    • 31
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Axis-Quadrant Weapon Classification System
« on: April 24, 2014, 04:16:01 pm »
In relation to the Major/Minor play-style thread here, and with much thanks to Echoez for the initial idea, I have a continuation of the development of GoIO classification theories.

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.

The first of these values is the intended purpose of a weapon: the primary value that a weapon adds to your ship. A weapon falls on a scale that ranges from Control to Killing.
A weapon tending towards control purposes will help to control the flow of a match. It can be used to disable parts, pop balloons, move enemies (or yourself) into a more favorable position, or control your view of the area itself. These weapons can assist in killing, but control is their primary strength.
A weapon tending towards killing purposes is a weapon that is optimized to deal armor and/or hull damage. These weapons are intended to help you kill an enemy as quickly as you can. They are less oriented towards altering the ability of a ship to fight back effectively, and more oriented towards killing a ship before it can fight back effectively.

The second of these values is the way in which a weapon affects the behavior of the ship it is on. A weapon falls on a scale that ranges from Passive to Aggressive.
A weapon tending towards passive play is a weapon that can take effect in a variety of circumstances. Longer range weapons tend to fall into this category as they may be deployed effectively while the ship is flown passively.
A weapon tending towards aggressive play is a weapon that has severe effectiveness limitations. Shorter range weapons tend to fall into this category as they must be moved forward until they have acquired range before they may be used effectively, requiring a ship to be flown aggressively.

Each weapon may be assigned a ranking defining what its core characteristics are in relation to these categories, allowing for a classification of all weapons based on their intended use. While weapons may be used creatively outside of this, it requires more advanced play-styles. Assigning a value between -5 and 5 to each weapon for each category, we can create a quadrant graph displaying the classification of a weapon in relation to all others.

Aggressive
|
Control-
-----+-----
-Killing
|
Passive

CK: Control vs Killing value
PA: Passive vs Aggressive value

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
)

Please note that this is a preliminary ranking of the weapons and their values. Please discuss if you feel a weapon belongs elsewhere, or if you feel the classification system is lacking or is inherently flawed. As we continue to build systems defining the planned/emergent behavior in GoIO, I want to make sure all theories and systems are optimal. If this system fails, then we can continue to look for the underlying features that relate the weapons together in a comparable way.

(Also, if someone wants to make a pretty graph picture to show what this actually looks like, that would be flippin' awesome. :D)

Offline N-Sunderland

  • Member
  • Salutes: 281
    • [Duck]
    • 15 
    • 45
    • 23 
    • View Profile
Re: Axis-Quadrant Weapon Classification System
« Reply #1 on: April 24, 2014, 04:49:52 pm »
Here's what it looks like on a graph (Google Drive isn't very nice about letting me label the points, though...)



(note: there are two points at both (-5,4) (light and heavy carro) and (5,-3) (light and heavy flak))
« Last Edit: April 24, 2014, 05:28:07 pm by N-Sunderland »

Offline Queso

  • Muse Games
  • Salutes: 126
    • [Muse]
    • 13
    • 25 
    • View Profile
Re: Axis-Quadrant Weapon Classification System
« Reply #2 on: April 24, 2014, 04:52:48 pm »
Your permissions aren't public on that image there Sunderland.

Offline N-Sunderland

  • Member
  • Salutes: 281
    • [Duck]
    • 15 
    • 45
    • 23 
    • View Profile
Re: Axis-Quadrant Weapon Classification System
« Reply #3 on: April 24, 2014, 04:56:40 pm »
Whoops, didn't know that affected embedding. Should be fixed now.

Offline macmacnick

  • Community Ambassador
  • Salutes: 121
    • [Clan]
    • 16 
    • 35
    • 19 
    • View Profile
    • Steam Profile: Macmacnick
Re: Axis-Quadrant Weapon Classification System
« Reply #4 on: April 24, 2014, 10:31:59 pm »
Aaannnnnd here's the solution to the graph issue: A sexy Barchart!

Isn't Copperplate a sexy font?


(Edit: added imgur embed)
« Last Edit: April 24, 2014, 10:33:33 pm by macmacnick »

Offline Skrimskraw

  • Member
  • Salutes: 160
    • [GwTh]
    • 21 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Axis-Quadrant Weapon Classification System
« Reply #5 on: April 25, 2014, 03:12:22 am »
these values are based of what experience?

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.

Offline redria

  • Member
  • Salutes: 136
    • [OVW]
    • 16 
    • 31
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Axis-Quadrant Weapon Classification System
« Reply #6 on: April 25, 2014, 10:09:55 am »
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.

It is impossible to define weapons by how people use them. A gatling gun on a pyramidion is completely different from a gatling gun on a junker is completely different from a gatling gun on a squid. How people use weapons is entirely related to their play-style, a topic for the other thread. I want to look at the inherent properties of a gun.

A gatling gun is an aggressive weapon because a ship must be moved aggressively in order for the gun to be effective. A ship sitting passively cannot effectively use the gun.
A lumberjack is a passive weapon because a ship may sit passively and still have its gun used effectively.
Passive-aggressive is at its core a different way to perceive short range vs long range. Short range weapons are inherently aggressive.

Gatling and carronade being on opposite sides of control and killing is part of their intended purpose. Your ship may use the gatling to destroy components. This is not wrong. But the primary intent of the gatling gun as a whole is to shred armor. By using it to destroy components you are reducing the effectiveness of the gun.
Similarly, the carronade can damage hull decently. But if you are using the carronade to damage the hull, then you are reducing the effectiveness of the gun.
Any gun can be used in any way and not be worthless, but each gun has something it does best, and I feel like that can be identified and located in this system.

Does that make sense?



Hmm. macmacnick certainly has the more professional looking and pretty graph. :P
However, I like the readability of the quadrant system. You can more easily see how 2 guns relate to each other. If the values are good, well-researched values (which they aren't yet) and the data points are in the right spot, you should theoretically be able to give the chart a quick glance and identify guns that mesh well together without knowing anything about the game. For instance, I tried to rate the gatling gun and mortar based off of their inherent properties, not based off of their common concurrence on ships. Looking at the values, they are pretty solidly unique in the aggressive killing quadrant, so it is sort of an emergent feature that the meta of the game is gat-mortar. Their properties mesh well together.
This system ignores damage types, which could cause confusion.
Something interesting: hades-banshee should actually be a more common combination if my values aren't too far off. They should mesh well together based off of intended purposes, and they have a mix of damage types.

Offline N-Sunderland

  • Member
  • Salutes: 281
    • [Duck]
    • 15 
    • 45
    • 23 
    • View Profile
Re: Axis-Quadrant Weapon Classification System
« Reply #7 on: April 25, 2014, 04:40:38 pm »
Attempt #2: This one has labels, though it's not the most beautiful thing out there (MS Excel 2003 isn't renowned for its ability to produce beautiful charts...).



"Carronade" and "Flak" correspond to both the light and heavy variants.


Offline Velvet

  • Member
  • Salutes: 45
    • [Gent]
    • 19 
    • 22
    • 41 
    • View Profile
Re: Axis-Quadrant Weapon Classification System
« Reply #8 on: April 25, 2014, 04:54:27 pm »
I agree that, as Skrimskraw suggested, it's impossible to define the breadth of possibilities that each gun can be used for on just 2 axis. That in mind, I'm not sure what the benefit is of such an attempt.

Yes, your 2 axis can just about make a comparison of guns being used in what you have decided is their optimal situational usage. However the best way to use a gun is not just to use it in the context is it optimised for. You're not getting sufficient leverage out of that gun slot if it excels in one situation and that situation only. A gatling should disable some components, an Artemis should deal disable as well as hull damage, a Hades should be the best hullstripper in the game whether it's on the side of a camping junker or the front of a charging pyra. In my opinion any resource on the optimal applications of guns needs to cover a broader scope than just their primary intended usage to be particularly helpful.

I'd contest that a gun should not count "passive" because it potentially supports passive tactics, or even because its usage in current meta is almost completely passive. For instance, the gatling+mortar combination is a ubiquitous feature of highly passive, long range junker builds as well as being found in more aggressive strategies. That gun combination can be used passively - against charging enemies; you don't need to move to bring your guns into range if they are already charging to get their own gatling close enough. Guns you've categorised as "passive", such as the Hades and Artemis can be used, no less effectively, in aggressive plays; a variety of teams have used strategies that demonstrate this to some effect.

In my opinion "aggressive play" involves attempting to catch your opponent off guard by rapid, normally risky and often unexpected or stealthy manoeuvres and engagements. Preferred engagement distance is not the most important element of what constitutes aggressive play. If you only have short range weapons, yes you'll be forced to be aggressive to get your weapons into optimal range, and short range weapons are potentially more useful for the most aggressive sorts of engagements. However if you have long or medium range weapons, you can use those aggressively, (although you'll still need to maintain a large engagement distance) and any short range weapons you have will now be a useful part of a passive strategy because they can be used to fend off prospective brawlers.

Offline Sammy B. T.

  • Member
  • Salutes: 154
    • [Duck]
    • 23 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Axis-Quadrant Weapon Classification System
« Reply #9 on: April 25, 2014, 05:33:50 pm »
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.

Offline Velvet

  • Member
  • Salutes: 45
    • [Gent]
    • 19 
    • 22
    • 41 
    • View Profile
Re: Axis-Quadrant Weapon Classification System
« Reply #10 on: April 25, 2014, 07:08:52 pm »
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.
no great solution comes to mind... except summarising their strengths in prose rather than graph form. although, allowing a gun to cover a range rather than a point on the scale might be a decent compromise.  Then you could acknowledge the broader applications of each weapon, eg. allowing gat to edge slightly into control and passive territory to acknowledge it has disable and defensive uses despite being most formidable as an aggressive, kill weapon. That would still make a nice pretty graph, too.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2014, 07:14:29 pm by Velvet »

Offline Sammy B. T.

  • Member
  • Salutes: 154
    • [Duck]
    • 23 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Axis-Quadrant Weapon Classification System
« Reply #11 on: April 25, 2014, 09:23:39 pm »
No because the rating has no bearing on how good something is at the job. These numbers reflect comparative advantage.