Please Make Gunners Useful

[Thomas]

Personally I think that says more about the debate than anything else. That's a screen taken from past videos of the Cogs Tournament Finals. Meaning that these are high skill teams going for the gold. You'll notice that most of them opt out of taking a gunner. To put it another way, when it comes down to getting every advantage you can for the best chance of victory, they chose to get rid of the gunner.

Gunning does have some advantages over being an engineer, there's no doubt about it. But those advantages are minimal at best. And when you weigh the pros and cons of that last slot being an engineer or gunner, competitive teams often go with engineer.

So why do other people still require a gunner on their team? Maybe they feel they should have one just in case, or maybe it's just to help define the roles on the ship. Usually they just like having a gunner, as most of the time they'll be using one particular ammo type, switching to the other types relatively infrequently. Of course it all really comes down the ships and guns being used.


Either way, Muse seems to have plans in the works to address this.

[Imagine]

Look, there's arguments to be made from both sides, but using a screenshot for something... how many months ago from two teams that are(were) known to not use gunners, on the ships which may or may not arguably be able to get away with not using a gunner the best (because, btw, there is a gunner on the galleon) isn't going to give you much ground to stand on.

[HamsterIV]

I alternate between 3 engineers and 1 gunner 2 engineers depending on the build I am running. There is a place for gunners in this game but it is not as large as the place for engineers or even pilots.

The impression that gunners are useless comes from the fact that inexperienced gunners are useless. Unlike inexperienced engineers, whose actions are easy to observe and correct, it is hard to get a handle on what the gunner has done wrong and what he needs to do to fix it. Also the act of shooting in GOI is more different from most FPS's than the act of navigation. People who come in with experience with other FPS's tend to have a higher navigation ability than shooting ability which make them better engineers than gunners.

Gunners tend to occupy a mission critical roll. When they under perform they bring down the entire ship in a way that a 2nd or 3rd engineer can not do. It is safer when flying with random PUG's to favor engineers so that a poor gunner doesn't bring down the performance of the entire ship.

[Alistair MacBain]

I still say the problem are the guns not designed for 3 ammo types and not the gunner as class.
The most of the ships in your example were a pyra or a junker. Both of this ship can utilize a gat mortar very well and currently both guns dont need more than 1 ammo.

[RearAdmiralZill]

It's not really a matter of opinion, though.

I give you this thread, and any other "gunner is useless, please buff" thread as proof. I do not agree with your, nor any other person's opinion to buff x or change y mechanic to somehow make a gunner "better."

I build my ships to use a gunner. I train my gunners to use various ammo types, even on light weapons. This is my opinion.

I still say the problem are the guns not designed for 3 ammo types and not the gunner as class.
The most of the ships in your example were a pyra or a junker. Both of this ship can utilize a gat mortar very well and currently both guns dont need more than 1 ammo.

All light guns can benefit from 2-3 ammo types. A junker with different guns on its broadsides will benefit highly from a gunner vs an engineer, which forces a pilot to take the same guns (gat/mortar example) on each of his broadsides. That is the tradeoff one makes out of an opinion that it is better.

[Thomas]

*Four different teams. In the finals of a tournament. Time doesn't make a huge difference, as the game hasn't had any drastic changes (obviously we have new ships and maps, but the mechanics still work the same).


Here's some "Flotsam Dynasty"
http://www.twitch.tv/gunsoficarus/b/450831705

4/7 of the teams didn't bring a single gunner.

Here's some more Cogs (S2, week 2)
http://www.twitch.tv/qwerty2jam/b/433399131

4.5/7 teams didn't use a gunner. (One team had 1 gunner on ship, and 0 on the other)


I'm trying to find more recent tournaments, but it's not easy. You'll notice that these matches have some galleons without gunners as well.

Essentially the idea is that when high ranking teams (lots and lots of experience and practice) choose not to bring a gunner to some of the most important and difficult matches, you have to question how useful a gunner really is compared to an engineer in that last slot. You might argue back that "Hey, some of those ships do use gunners!", but if gunners can easily be replaced by engineers with almost no difference in performance at high competitive levels, and engineers -cannot- be replaced, what does that say about the gunner's overall usefulness?


Of course gunners still have their place and are great on certain builds and playstyles, but for the most part they're just as good as having a third engineer, and sometimes less so.

[RearAdmiralZill]

Fact of this issue is that there are very firm lines drawn for the sides that think gunners are less useful, and those like me who believe every ship is to have one. The topic of "making gunners useful" has been beat to death with no real solution, mostly because it's purely a matter of opinion.

It's more a community divide than an "issue" with gunners.

[Imagine]

I still think that it's mostly an illusion of gunners not being useful. I haven't really seen any tangible proof that 3 engineers > 2+1gunner.

I mean, do you really believe that if the Ducks were to suddenly start bringing a gunner on each ship every match they would suddenly not be in the upper level of competitive play consistently? I highly doubt it.

3 gunners being far superior than 2+1 is anecdotal at best, and straight up false at worst. Now, the more interesting conversation would be should a ship be able to function as well as it does with 3 rather than 2+1.

[Serenum]

It's not really a matter of opinion, though.

I give you this thread, and any other "gunner is useless, please buff" thread as proof. I do not agree with your, nor any other person's opinion to buff x or change y mechanic to somehow make a gunner "better."

I build my ships to use a gunner. I train my gunners to use various ammo types, even on light weapons. This is my opinion.

You are not adressing my point though.
That being that everyone can fire a gun, but only an engineer can really do his job. You would be right if things like putting out fires and buffing components were available to everyone all the time and the engineer just could do it better by bringing the appropriate tool, but the game doesn't work like that.
If I want to put out a fire on a ship I NEED a fire extinguisher, if I want to shoot an enemy ship I DON'T need special ammo and expecially I DON'T need more then one kind, most of the times. While in every fight you can be assured that you are going to need a tool for rebuilding, one for repairing and something to put out fires because otherwise you are boned if you lack even one of these tools.
That is the problem.

What I'm saying is that there is no incentive in bringing a gunner along, it's just something you might want to do SOMETIMES, but most of the times there is no real reason if you are going for optimization.
As for threads like this popping up it doesn't mean that the issue isn't clear or that the situation is fine as it is. In fact it shows the opposite. If an issue is not dealt with then threads about it will keep on coming.
I'm not saying that gunners are useless, but I am saying that it's objectively the least useful class because of how the game is designed.

The flaw in the idea that to make a class viable you just need to give it more tools for their role is evident in the fact that on some ships even a PILOT is not all that useful. On a Galleon you're better off using ANOTHER engineer, arguably the same is true for the Spire.
Meanwhile no one EVER is going to say "no" to another engineer on board.

[RearAdmiralZill]

I dont address your "point" because i feel there is nothing to be addressed. I will always say no to 3-4 engies because it's diminished returns. Until 3-4 engie crews are always winning over a 1-1-2 crew, its simply a different style of play that exists, and nothing more.

An engie doing a gunner/pilot's job will always be less efficient. The only time it gets remotely close is a gunner/buff engie on a light gun, and that's still up in the air as to which is honestly better.

It is your opinion, not fact, that engies are the end-all-be-all of goio crews.

[zlater75@hotmail.com]

ship build and tactics.

[GeoRmr]

Okay, here's the deal:
I strongly feel that the classes are balanced and that the gunner role does not need 'buffing' in any way, despite all the nerfing muse has done to the different ammo types.

Gunners are extremely underrated simply because the advantage gained by carrying multiple munitions is subtle (but should never be overlooked), and down right general ignorance of their advantage on light weapons; I have already seen at least three individual posts in this thread claiming that only one ammo type is useful on the mortar! [particularly and especially on a metamidion].

I even run an extremely effective surprise/aggressive build that involves two gunners, a buff hammer, and rocket carousels - the varying ammo types allow you to put out preliminary disable at an unexpected range, followed by additional overwhelming disable and hull strip at mid range, and extremely fast direct damage at close range.
It destroys unprepared ships (most meta build ships) safely and quickly enough that a second engineer is not needed as long as the pilot is mindful of how they engage, and the gunners don't miss coordinate correctly [even against experienced captains].


<sub>A quick debunking: lesmok greased and burst rounds will all out perform each other situationally on the mortar, experiment and learn exactly when and what to use them against from moment to moment (the art of gunning). I guarantee their additional versatility will give you a killing and disabling advantage that by far outweighs the use of a third engineer, who (lets be honest) is only any use after all hell has gone down and you're waiting for an inevitable death or your ally to miraculously save you.

Don't forget to count your shells, count seconds, know your ability, and do some number crunching for maximum kill stealing ability efficiency:

How many lesmok shells does it take to kill a pyramidion? So what are you going to do with the other four? How long does it take the lesmok mortar to reach a target 1000 meters away? How long is your up-close ally going to take to strip their hull with that gun? Shouldn't you start shooting now then? Will you be able to hit that ship at that angle with jitter? Roughly how many shots are going to meet the mark? Should you ignore it, reload to burst and fire through the break once you've covered some ground? etc.

Chrome, I hope you appreciated the 11 out of 12 kills we 'secured' on red sepulchre. =P</sub>

[roder]

I don't think the point of balancing should be to show that 2engy-1gunner is as good as 3engies. That alone shows classes arent really balanced and it restricts the amount of variety in class combos.

The real balance is showing that 2gunners-1engy is as good as 2engy-1gunner.

[Thomas]

I don't think the point of balancing should be to show that 2engy-1gunner is as good as 3engies. That alone shows classes arent really balanced and it restricts the amount of variety in class combos.

The real balance is showing that 2gunners-1engy is as good as 2engy-1gunner.

I'd agree with the first part, but not the second. 2 eng-1gun being just as good as 3 eng shows a bit of an issue (the part I agree with), where I'd say that a more balanced bit would be 2 eng-1 gun being better than 3 eng at the very least.


Anyway, like I was told, Muse is planning some changes in the near to distant future. No idea what those will be, but Muse knows best; and I trust them to make a good call.

[Kriegson]

I don't think the point of balancing should be to show that 2engy-1gunner is as good as 3engies. That alone shows classes arent really balanced and it restricts the amount of variety in class combos.

The real balance is showing that 2gunners-1engy is as good as 2engy-1gunner.

Anyway, like I was told, Muse is planning some changes in the near to distant future. No idea what those will be, but Muse knows best; and I trust them to make a good call.

I hope so, it certainly seems like any kind of suggestion or implication that the current state of gunner could be improved is met with dismissive resistance by those who have already crunched the numbers and created their meta-playstyle.

"The gunner is fine" it is always said, the mere hint that it could be improved in versatility or some other means (not necessarily direct damage output) is either A:useless (Which it may be to them, but not others) or B:too upsetting to the game (Ie their pre-determined playstyle) and utterly detrimental (might have to consider changing their playstyle! Until of course they crunch the numbers again and find the new meta, so what's the issue again?)

At least in my most recent experience, and what this thread seems to likewise indicate =/