Please Make Gunners Useful

[Sammy B. T.]

We Ducks are pretty well known for being three engie focused. Ever since Squash begain piloting his Galleon as an engineer, I can't think of any Duck ships without three engineers. My Junker is all about the triple engineer. It gives me two buffs, two extinguisher and two mallet/spanner combos. Its damn fearsome. However, as someone who has spent a lot of time designing my ship, I know that the lack of gunners does restrict my choices for builds. Having a great diversity on my ship is not always optimal, ie a long range merc/artemis side paired with a closer range gat mortar side. I'll never use a gunner as the game stands but that is not because they are inherently under powered but instead my play style fits better with three engineers. I prefer to sacrifice the diversity a gunner could add to my ship for the various benefits my three engis give me.

BTW the real balance question is whats better, a Gunner, or a buff Gungineer.

[Richard LeMoon]

Having ammo types switch between damage types would make gunners a lot more diverse. The carronades, for example. Have some ammo types load 'slugs' instead of 'shot', and do component and piercing damage rather than balloon, as well as traveling further.

[Serenum]

Having ammo types switch between damage types would make gunners a lot more diverse. The carronades, for example. Have some ammo types load 'slugs' instead of 'shot', and do component and piercing damage rather than balloon, as well as traveling further.

I like this idea, I think it would work really well, even if it would be nightmareish to balance at the beginning.

[zlater75@hotmail.com]

I think i could understand from between the lines that pilot and engineer are as useful as gunners thanks to the one ammotype they can choose? Guns just need one by majority and so builds are made not with gunners in mind but engineers and pilot?

What about restricting that gunner feature in the other two classes? Like loch for captain, default for engineer? Would that make the gunner more useful?
That way maybe the guns that are ok with gunners and 3 ammotypes get used more?

[Echoez]

BTW the real balance question is whats better, a Gunner, or a buff Gungineer.

Been having such a discussion last night with Sunderland and it IS indeed true, if anything, as Sammy said, Gunners have a purpose and it's mostly a playstyle choice, but if you realy want to look at something, look at the buff hammer and how it affects various components, that's the primary reason people want to go three engineers and sacrifice diversity for a more specialized build, it's all about bringing 2 of these babies to keep everything running at over a 100% capacity, including your guns.

Then again the utility of the buff hammer has been OP since I started playing last May.

[DMaximus]

BTW the real balance question is whats better, a Gunner, or a buff Gungineer.

Been having such a discussion last night with Sunderland and it IS indeed true, if anything, as Sammy said, Gunners have a purpose and it's mostly a playstyle choice, but if you realy want to look at something, look at the buff hammer and how it affects various components, that's the primary reason people want to go three engineers and sacrifice diversity for a more specialized build, it's all about bringing 2 of these babies to keep everything running at over a 100% capacity, including your guns.

Then again the utility of the buff hammer has been OP since I started playing last May.

This is where I've ended up on the issue. I think if buff hammer gets a nerf to how much it increases weapon damage, we might see a decrease in 3-engi crews. At some point, something like buffed gat + heavy did/does about the same amount of damage as unbuffed gat with greased. The buff hammer can, to a certain extent, replace the utility of multiple ammo types on several guns. Nerfing the weapon damage increase of buff isn't a cure-all, but I think it would be a good start.

[Echoez]

If you ask me the damage buff it offers to weapons needs to go entirely and be replaced with something more 'creative' than just raw damage addition, this is something that is already covered by an ammo type and comes with corresponding weaknesses, no reason an engineer tool should be able offer you 66% of what Charged rounds can do without any actual penalty to the gun and it does so in combination with whatever ammo type you will bring.

[The Djinn]

If you ask me the damage buff it offers to weapons needs to go entirely and be replaced with something more 'creative' than just raw damage addition, this is something that is already covered by an ammo type and comes with corresponding weaknesses, no reason an engineer tool should be able offer you 66% of what Charged rounds can do without any actual penalty to the gun and it does so in combination with whatever ammo type you will bring.

This seems pretty reasonable to me. The question is what it would bring. We can't mess with damage or reload times without stepping on the toes of ammo types, which basically leaves us with durability buffs, turn rate buffs (which might make sense), or increased gun arcs (which might also make sense). The latter two would fit with the general theme of granting extra mobility that we see the buff tool bring to the Balloon and Engines, and might also allow some interesting options on whips that ALMOST have a ton of firing angles: with such a Buff Tool you might be able to get a forward-facing Spire trifecta or even quad, for example.

[The Sky Wolf]

Just make all ammo-type drawbacks 15-20% less harsh on gunners.

they should be able to bring the 3 types of ammo, and have slightly less restrictions than someone who isn't specializing in the gunning field, while engineers and pilots have to deal with the current basic restrictions.

[Echoez]

Just make all ammo-type drawbacks 15-20% less harsh on gunners.

they should be able to bring the 3 types of ammo, and have slightly less restrictions than someone who isn't specializing in the gunning field, while engineers and pilots have to deal with the current basic restrictions.

Would completely break the class and many weapon/ammo combinations. Like having LJs with Lesmok and 6 ammo and a completely unaffected Heavy clip. blah blah, you get it. It would pretty much make gunners mandatory and OP.

[Kriegson]

This seems pretty reasonable to me. The question is what it would bring. We can't mess with damage or reload times without stepping on the toes of ammo types, which basically leaves us with durability buffs, turn rate buffs (which might make sense), or increased gun arcs (which might also make sense). The latter two would fit with the general theme of granting extra mobility that we see the buff tool bring to the Balloon and Engines, and might also allow some interesting options on whips that ALMOST have a ton of firing angles: with such a Buff Tool you might be able to get a forward-facing Spire trifecta or even quad, for example.

I arrived at pretty much the same conclusion a while back (Deleted the post in disgust due to elitism from a CA -_-) along with a few other niche, but useful supplementary items. I can't think of any "I would totally use this" items, but then the aim is "I might use this, compared to the other bits, the ship im on, etc etc"

[Sammy B. T.]

Just make all ammo-type drawbacks 15-20% less harsh on gunners.

they should be able to bring the 3 types of ammo, and have slightly less restrictions than someone who isn't specializing in the gunning field, while engineers and pilots have to deal with the current basic restrictions.

Would completely break the class and many weapon/ammo combinations. Like having LJs with Lesmok and 6 ammo and a completely unaffected Heavy clip. blah blah, you get it. It would pretty much make gunners mandatory and OP.

Heatsink op in that scenario.

[Prof. Giles Percy]

I haven't read this entire thread it's several pages so apologies if this has been brought up, but I think gunners are fine as is.

To make gunners more useful, I would suggest to make all other classes require a gun setup time I.E. Hold 'E' to mount gun and there be a 2-3 second delay, while gunners mount instantaneously.

[Kriegson]

I haven't read this entire thread it's several pages so apologies if this has been brought up, but I think gunners are fine as is.

To make gunners more useful, I would suggest to make all other classes require a gun setup time I.E. Hold 'E' to mount gun and there be a 2-3 second delay, while gunners mount instantaneously.

Oh I can't fathom the posterior pain that would induce. Better off sticking with tweaks to equipment imo.

[geggis]

[...] no reason an engineer tool should be able offer you 66% of what Charged rounds can do without any actual penalty to the gun and it does so in combination with whatever ammo type you will bring.

I'd say the penalty is requiring an engineer to peel off from whatever else they're doing (if there's a gunner) or dismounting their own gun (if they're a gungineer) to stand hitting the gun every 20-30 seconds for 10 seconds (don't know the exact figures) is penalty enough. More over, they've sacrificed some rebuilding/repairing power or the ability to extinguish to do this as well. I think there's plenty of penalities there. Sure you can prep a lot of components before engagements and preload ammo but during a fight all these things add up to make a tool that's pretty specific and fraught with danger if you mess your priorities up.

Edit: And yeah, I know you said 'to the gun' but it's all connected.