Author Topic: Major and Minor Playstyles  (Read 41961 times)

Offline redria

  • Member
  • Salutes: 136
    • [OVW]
    • 16 
    • 31
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Major and Minor Playstyles
« Reply #30 on: April 24, 2014, 03:26:12 pm »
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.

Offline redria

  • Member
  • Salutes: 136
    • [OVW]
    • 16 
    • 31
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Major and Minor Playstyles
« Reply #31 on: April 24, 2014, 04:21:42 pm »
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

Offline Skrimskraw

  • Member
  • Salutes: 159
    • [GwTh]
    • 21 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Major and Minor Playstyles
« Reply #32 on: June 14, 2014, 06:11:48 pm »
bump to front page

Offline redria

  • Member
  • Salutes: 136
    • [OVW]
    • 16 
    • 31
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Major and Minor Playstyles
« Reply #33 on: June 14, 2014, 06:40:51 pm »
bump to front page
:D

The weapons thread sorta failed, but I really like how this turned out. :)

Offline Melon McCrabernathy

  • Member
  • Salutes: 19
    • [Cake]
    • 34 
    • 25
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Major and Minor Playstyles
« Reply #34 on: June 19, 2014, 04:48:34 am »
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?

Offline Spud Nick

  • Member
  • Salutes: 130
    • [✦✦45]
    • 40 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Major and Minor Playstyles
« Reply #35 on: June 19, 2014, 05:57:32 am »
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.

Offline Melon McCrabernathy

  • Member
  • Salutes: 19
    • [Cake]
    • 34 
    • 25
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Major and Minor Playstyles
« Reply #36 on: June 19, 2014, 07:28:36 am »
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

Offline Alistair MacBain

  • Member
  • Salutes: 23
    • [GwTh]
    • 22 
    • 45
    • 19 
    • View Profile
Re: Major and Minor Playstyles
« Reply #37 on: June 19, 2014, 07:52:14 am »
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.

Offline Spud Nick

  • Member
  • Salutes: 130
    • [✦✦45]
    • 40 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Major and Minor Playstyles
« Reply #38 on: June 19, 2014, 10:10:53 am »
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.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2014, 10:12:45 am by Spud Nick »

Offline redria

  • Member
  • Salutes: 136
    • [OVW]
    • 16 
    • 31
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Major and Minor Playstyles
« Reply #39 on: June 20, 2014, 04:02:12 pm »
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. ^.^

Offline Nithanil

  • Member
  • Salutes: 0
    • [BLS]
    • 14 
    • 14
    • 23 
    • View Profile
Re: Major and Minor Playstyles
« Reply #40 on: June 20, 2014, 04:30:57 pm »
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.. ;-)
« Last Edit: June 20, 2014, 04:37:12 pm by Nithanil »

Offline Spud Nick

  • Member
  • Salutes: 130
    • [✦✦45]
    • 40 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Major and Minor Playstyles
« Reply #41 on: June 20, 2014, 04:47:52 pm »
I think we can also categorize piloting style as aggressive or reactive, witch is very interesting when looking at control builds.

Offline Nithanil

  • Member
  • Salutes: 0
    • [BLS]
    • 14 
    • 14
    • 23 
    • View Profile
Re: Major and Minor Playstyles
« Reply #42 on: June 20, 2014, 04:51:57 pm »
Ah this game is always interesting, but.. definitely ^^ this

Offline obliviondoll

  • Member
  • Salutes: 26
    • [BSky]
    • 7
    • View Profile
    • obliviondoll's blog (barely-maintained)
Re: Major and Minor Playstyles
« Reply #43 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.

Offline macmacnick

  • Community Ambassador
  • Salutes: 121
    • [Clan]
    • 16 
    • 35
    • 19 
    • View Profile
    • Steam Profile: Macmacnick
Re: Major and Minor Playstyles
« Reply #44 on: July 06, 2014, 01:24:41 am »
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...?