I've made this post to try to collate all the ideas I've had since the ‘Call for Gunner Ammo Ideas’ thread:
https://gunsoficarus.com/community/forum/index.php/topic,4079.0.htmlAll though the initial purpose of that thread was enticing, my main problem with it is that awkm intends the new ammunition types to be a solution to the ‘an engineer is more favourable than a gunner’ problem. I hope to address why the addition of more ammo-types to the game is not a viable solution to this ‘problem’, and then repost Captain Smollett’s initial solution and justify why it is viable. The first section on gunners vs engineers is extremely verbose in order to address the issue of paradigm in the later section.
The gunner vs engineer ‘problem’ and why it exists.Firstly, one of the reasons why engineers tend to be more favoured than gunners is down to an imbalanced class overlap in what are intended polarised roles: The purpose of the engineer is to repair; engineers have access to 3 engineer tools in order to repair successfully. The purpose of the gunner is to shoot; gunners have access to 4 ammunition types in order to shoot successfully. Both of these classes possess the ability to perform secondary roles: The gunner is able to repair; gunners have access to 1 repair tool allowing them to repair suboptimally. The engineer is able to shoot; engineers have access to 2 ammunition types in order for them to shoot adequately.
The second and largest contributing factor is the role of the buff-hammer; buff hammers are an engineer tool that also increases damage output when shooting, and therefore to shoot more successfully. The equivalent ammunition type could be considered the damage increase of charged rounds. If we were to compare the buff hammer to charged rounds, charged rounds have a clear negative dps and clip size de-buff, the buff-hammer has no negatives. The buff-hammer is also able to be used simultaneously with an ammunition type while also being applicable to balloon, engines, and hull where charged rounds are not.
The gunners ‘buff-hammer’ equivalent could be considered heat-sink clip. Heat-sink clip can be compared to the engineer’s chem-spray; heat-sink clip allows gunners to repair more successfully by extinguishing and preventing fires. However, heat-sink clip does not ensure 100% fire protection (while chem-spray can) as it does not protect from fires while the gun is reloading, heat-sink clip cannot be used in conjunction with the equivalent engineer tool in order repair more effectively (the gunners only viable engineer tool is the pipewrench, engineers have access to two ammo types their choice + neutral ammo). Heat-sink also is unable to be applied to fires of more than eight stacks as the gunner is no longer able to mount the gun, where chem-spray can still be applied to the burning weapon. Chemical-spray is also capable of being applied to the balloon, engines, and hull, where heat-sink is not.
tl;dr
In short, the engineers ‘gunner tool’ is far better at gunning than the gunners ‘engineer tool’ is at repairing. Gunners also have access to 1 engineer tool, where engineers have access to 2 types of ammunition. Engineers can both repair and shoot more effectively than gunners.
Why the addition of more ammunition choices will not be an effective solution.Any additional ammo you add to the game can still be taken by engineers, and adding more variety will not change that fact. Engineers can still perform the other Repair/Buff tasks that gunners cannot do effectively, while the gunners advantage is far more niche. An engineer can use 50% of the 'gunner' benefit (2 ammo types out of a possible 4), while a gunner can only use only 33.3% of the 'engineer' benefit (1 repair tool out of a possible 3). It is also worth noting that every single engineer tool can be used to benefit each component on the ship (except for using a buff hammer on a flame-thrower, which is arguably neutral), where currently different ammunition choices have the possibility of being detrimental to particular weapons. Every single gun can be operated effectively with 2 types of ammunition; no component can be maintained by only 1 repair tool.
The solution to the ‘problem’.The first posed solution was to provide gunners with passive effects, however this would require a relatively large amount of game development and causes problems that awkm expressed concerning paradigm, the reload mechanic, and user interface.
My suggestion (inspired by Captain Smollet) is that instead of having literal 'passives' that are activated while mounted on a gun, to incorporate the effects into tools that would work in a similar manner to chem-spray and the buff hammer, being pre-applied before mounting the gun and requiring continuous re-application. This would not require a large developmental effort from muse (effects such as buff and fire resistance could be recycled and recolored along with tool animations) and would not cause problems with existing gameplay mechanics. It would also provide the gunner with more tasks to complete and by extension make gameplay as a gunner more interesting and dynamic. Another possibility (or beginning) would be to divide the existing engineer’s buff-hammer to be only effective on non-gun components and add a gunners buff-hammer that would only be effective on guns.
“Instead of making the engineers worse, make gunners more diverse.
Gunnery tools that stack effects would make gunners superior in so many instances.
A tool to make reloading go faster.
A tool to make the gun turn quicker and farther.
A tool to give longer zoom and range.
A tool to give an increase in rate of fire.
…
Giving a gunner the ability to stack effects would make them outclass engineers on guns. While engineers could still stack their buff to a gun, gunners could stack multiple tools. In very high team work related moments, perhaps the gunner could apply their tools to an engineers gun in the same way and engineer applies their tools to a gunners gun.”
~ Captain Smollet
Concerns about Paradigm.So far the only counter to the addition of gunner tools is that of paradigm. By design, Muse considers that each class has a selection of specific tools that function consistently with each other. The gunner has a choice of ammunition, each type of ammunition can be loaded into a gun to shoot more effectively. The engineer has a choice of tools, each tool is applied to components on the ship externally to repair them. The pilot has a choice of tools that are used when on the helm of the ship, (with the exception of the spyglass, and range-finder) to allow them to manoeuvre more effectively.
awkm suggests that gunner tools, other than ammunition, should not be added to the game because they break this design paradigm, expressing a desire to not add any more exceptions such as the spyglass and range-finder.
I observe that this game does not actually follow this design paradigm intended by Muse in its current state. Including the previously mentioned pilot tool exceptions, please consider that:
The engineer has access to the buff hammer; the buff hammer is capable of altering the damage output of guns allowing them to shoot more effectively, the buff hammer is also capable of altering the force applied from the engines and balloon allowing the ship to manoeuvre more effectively. Two things that expand beyond the scope of the engineers polarised role and should be exclusive to gunners and pilots respectively.
The Pilot has access to impact bumpers and drogue chute, two tools that are intended to negate damage, negation of damage being the quintessential basis of the engineer’s role.
The Gunner has access to heat-sink clip which is capable of both fire prevention and extinguish, neither of these properties directly apply to the gunners role but they do to the engineer.
The captain of the ship decides on the guns, not the gunner, and the ship itself not necessarily the pilot or engineer and never both.
I believe that by extending the gunner class to include externally applicable gunnery tools you do not create exception to the existing paradigm, only redefine a more clear and obvious one while simultaneously balancing and improving gameplay.
