Author Topic: Major and Minor Playstyles  (Read 22684 times)

Offline Solidusbucket

  • Member
  • Salutes: 90
    • [SkBo]
    • 29 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Major and Minor Playstyles
« Reply #60 on: February 20, 2017, 12:07:05 am »
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.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2017, 12:09:03 am by Solidusbucket »

Offline DrTentacles

  • Member
  • Salutes: 30
    • [GSR]
    • 19 
    • 25
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Major and Minor Playstyles
« Reply #61 on: February 20, 2017, 08:49:49 pm »
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.

Offline Dementio

  • Member
  • Salutes: 134
    • [Rydr]
    • 43 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Major and Minor Playstyles
« Reply #62 on: February 22, 2017, 01:53:03 am »
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.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2017, 02:03:13 am by Dementio »

Offline Huskarr

  • Member
  • Salutes: 29
    • [Rydr]
    • 31 
    • 45
    • 41 
    • View Profile
Re: Major and Minor Playstyles
« Reply #63 on: February 22, 2017, 07:31:58 am »
I am interested. Gimme please.

Offline redria

  • Member
  • Salutes: 131
    • [OVW]
    • 16 
    • 31
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Major and Minor Playstyles
« Reply #64 on: February 26, 2017, 08:53:34 pm »
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)

Offline Duaner.

  • Member
  • Salutes: 1
    • [ACCR]
    • 4
    • View Profile
Re: Major and Minor Playstyles
« Reply #65 on: November 29, 2017, 05:49:38 am »
THIS IS TRUE OF ANY GAME OR COMPETITION.
DO YOU PEOPLE NOT REALIZE HOW MUCH OF A GEM THIS IS??!???!!!!!
Wow. Just wow.

Offline SteamBrains

  • CA Mod
  • Salutes: 6
    • [ALTO]
    • 43 
    • 42
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Major and Minor Playstyles
« Reply #66 on: December 01, 2017, 11:49:07 am »
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.