Main > General Discussion
Fellow Ex-Gunners Of Icarus Lend Me Your Ears!
Helmic:
--- Quote from: RearAdmiralZill on April 05, 2013, 11:02:40 am ---I had a screenshot of the win, though knowing my luck i deleted it during cleanup.
I know what you meant, but basing it off singular matches isnt an accurate way to show, in this case, gunners arent useful.
I dont base our victory entirely on the fact we had gunners, but it did help in the grand strategy that resulted in a win. That round we had a blenderfish and my pyra, which had a carronade and flak on front. For the blender, i can only assume he had heavy for "long" range and charged/loch for up close. Then for me, my gunner was on front carronade with heavy for "long" range and greased for the quick dps. I forget his third ammo, but i let him choose for himself.
--- End quote ---
The issue isn't that gunners aren't at all useful, the issue is that they're less useful than a gungineer on many ships. In the example you gave, the only ship running three engineers is a Galleon, arguably THE ship that benefits from at least one gunner. That those competing in the Cogs are having so much success rolling three engineers as the norm rather than as some specialty build is indicative of a problem with the current meta, not having a gunner should be a much more distinct disadvantage than merely not being able to hit for an extra 25% damage for these few seconds while losing out on a LOT of repair ability and overall damage from improved uptime and buffs. That they are currently so prevalent in the meta and beating ships that do run gunners rather than struggling to keep up is not a good thing. Gunners don't have to be a lot worse than gungineers to fall into disuse.
RearAdmiralZill:
--- Quote from: Helmic on April 05, 2013, 02:22:18 pm ---
--- Quote from: RearAdmiralZill on April 05, 2013, 11:02:40 am ---I had a screenshot of the win, though knowing my luck i deleted it during cleanup.
I know what you meant, but basing it off singular matches isnt an accurate way to show, in this case, gunners arent useful.
I dont base our victory entirely on the fact we had gunners, but it did help in the grand strategy that resulted in a win. That round we had a blenderfish and my pyra, which had a carronade and flak on front. For the blender, i can only assume he had heavy for "long" range and charged/loch for up close. Then for me, my gunner was on front carronade with heavy for "long" range and greased for the quick dps. I forget his third ammo, but i let him choose for himself.
--- End quote ---
The issue isn't that gunners aren't at all useful, the issue is that they're less useful than a gungineer on many ships. In the example you gave, the only ship running three engineers is a Galleon, arguably THE ship that benefits from at least one gunner. That those competing in the Cogs are having so much success rolling three engineers as the norm rather than as some specialty build is indicative of a problem with the current meta, not having a gunner should be a much more distinct disadvantage than merely not being able to hit for an extra 25% damage for these few seconds while losing out on a LOT of repair ability and overall damage from improved uptime and buffs. That they are currently so prevalent in the meta and beating ships that do run gunners rather than struggling to keep up is not a good thing. Gunners don't have to be a lot worse than gungineers to fall into disuse.
--- End quote ---
Im not here to pick your loadouts for you or anyone else here. If you want to run 3 engineer's, be my guest. However, you cannot base the entirety of gunner's success/usefulness on certain matches that happen to sway in the favor of the team that went all engie. There are way more variables involved there that can sway wins one way or another.
I personally cant stand using gungineers. I tried it. I dont want him off the gun buffing. I want him on the gun, with ammo loaded, and firing on the enemy im pointing him at. Under that mindset, a gunner fills the role better.
That extra 25% damage over a few seconds can mean the difference between a kill or not. A kill is worth more to me than surviving a little longer, only to die because he's still shooting and my 3 engies are repairing or buffing things.
Squash:
What 25%?
RearAdmiralZill:
--- Quote from: Squash on April 05, 2013, 04:15:12 pm ---What 25%?
--- End quote ---
It was his example. Im assuming he meant charged rounds in a gun that uses them well.
Pickle:
The extra damage (whatever percentage) comes purely from having a second gun firing, over a gun not firing.
One ammunition optimised, buffed gun is less efficient than two guns firing at base damage.
(ok, the Goldfish is a possible exception)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version