Info > Feedback and Suggestions

Gunner Passives

<< < (5/6) > >>

Wundsalz:
Currently there are just too many ship builds which run best without any gunners at all. A lot of guns/positions only require a single ammo type to be  efficiently executed and in those cases an engineer is the natural pick. Not only can the damage output be maximized (with a buff hammer) but the ship is also granted some extra repair power.
Hence I like the idea of passive gunning boosters which can be put into ammo slots - something similar attractive as the buff hammer, gunners de-facto don't have access to. Those gunner gadgets might also come along with negative side effects (something like ammobox: +x% clips, but -y% turn rate due to the additional mass which has to be accelerated or experimental bearing oil: increases turn rate by x%, but adds a chance ignite if the weapons gets damaged). This way the gunners role would rather be diversified than outright buffed.
I general I believe gunners need to be made more viable - somehow. It'd be nice to see people thinking about whether to bring one or two gunners rather than one or none like we do quite often right now.

Caprontos:
Another idea.. that maybe bad but... what if a gunner could take either 1 engineer tool and 3 ammo OR 2 tools and 2 ammo's (if they pick a second engineer tool the third ammo slot is blocked)..

This way you can opt to have two gunners who have two ammo types and two tools... Then 1 engineer two gunners (or three gunners maybe on some ships).. etc could all be more viable.. because you do not lose all your repair power but you still gain that extra ammo..

(some actual play tests would need to be done to see how true this is.. but thinking about it from what I know from the game it sounds like it would go aways in opening up what class combo is best for what ship and load-out)...

It would make gunner more of a hybrid/versatile class though and less of a strict path, which may or may not be something they want to do.. (I don't think it makes them any more versatile then an engineer though).

I maybe over looking some major issue why this is just a bad idea (and I can't imagine it hasn't be suggested before.. perhaps with some reason why it won't work?)..

I assume there are issues that need to be consider with this idea if it were considered.. but I can't think of much atm.. (it is late and I am tired)..

Thomas:
https://gunsoficarus.com/community/forum/index.php/topic,3022.0.html

Reminds me of my 'gungineer' role idea. Essentially the same thing (1 pilot, 2 engi, 2 gunner tools). I think the biggest complaint with it is that it would more or less phase out the gunner role. A few guns will benefit from 2 ammo types, but very few benefit from 3 ammo types. The only one I know of that consistently benefits from 3 ammo types consistently in the same match is the Mine Launcher.

redria:
Correct me if you think I am wrong, but...
Classically, a trained swordsman would beat an untrained peasant holding a sword 99 times out of 100. A trained archer is going to make a better shot than someone with no experience shooting a bow. This all changed with the introduction of guns. You can train and get better with guns, but for the most part, it's point and shoot. Guns offered a much greater equalizer between forces.

Let's take a look at our classes. Each class can take 1 tool from the others, and 3 of their own. This gives 2 possibilities:
1. There is only room on the ship for each person to take a total of 5 tools. This seems unlikely. Given the infinite ammo we have, along with how useful certain things would be to have realistically, captains would make room for a few extra tools and ammo types.
2. Each person is only trained in how to use 5 tools.

Here is why I like option 2.
Trained pilots know how to use 3 different piloting tools. They can shoot a gun, and repair things in a pinch, but what they know how to do best is pilot.
Trained engineers can use 3 engineering tools. They also know how to use a specific type of ammo. They can take the wheel and lumber around because they have no training, and they can take a gun and shoot it pretty effectively, but what they know how to do best is repair.
Trained gunners know how to use 3 types of ammo. They can take the wheel and steer around, and they can repair something in a pinch, but what they know how to do best is use a variety of ammo.

Piloting a ship takes skill. Truly piloting requires the deft use of tools and requires a pilot. Flying a weapons platform can allow you to take a different class, but in that case you are a stationary weapons platform, not a mobile craft. Piloting practically requires a pilot.
Repairing a ship takes knowledge. Repairing something complex requires knowledge of how it works and goes together. Someone without that training is almost as likely to damage it as they are to fix it. Repairing practically requires an engineer.
Shooting a gun takes... a trigger. There is a level of skill involved, but my premise is that guns are an equalizer. A gunner is more versatile because he can use more ammo types, but an engineer can shoot just about as well and can also repair.
Just going by in universe logic, I would argue that gunners should be the least used class. It is an opportunity position to add versatility to your guns with the large tradeoff of being nearly useless everywhere else.

In keeping with this idea, I would argue that gunners should get a slight boost to accuracy somehow. Whether that is through the rangefinder, a lessening in recoil, or a lessening in spread. But realistically, you would not leave port with more dedicated gunners than engineers who are willing (and happy) to take a gun.

TLDR: Pilots need training, engineers need schooling, and guns are easy to shoot. Multiple gunners should never be worth more than multiple engineers.

Thomas:
xD I'd be careful with that. A lot of real life arms enthusiasts would not appreciate it.

I will say that shooting a gun is a lot more than just pulling a trigger, even in the real life equivalent of standing at a shooting range. Personally I never shoot a gun, and I know I'd be terri-bad at it. No practice or training. Then you start getting into heavy weaponry, automatic and sniper rifles, and things get even more complicated. What about mortars and rockets? More and more training and practice just to get close to being good.

Now of course this is a game, and there's a lot of simplifying of all the roles. Flying an airship would be a nightmare to work all the controls and fighting the natural elements (wind, high and low pressure systems, etc). Engineering would be a lot more complicated than smacking something with a tool. As for gunners, you have to know how all the weapons work, be able to load up the ammo rapidly, and account for the motion of the ship, wind speeds, and the motion of the enemy; among a number of other things.

Essentially it's unfair to say that gunners are less important because shooting a gun is easy, while the other roles are difficult (or at least more difficult).

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page