Suggestion: crew joining during matches

[obliviondoll]

If someone is silent, completely uncommunicative, and doesn't know what the chat function is, or can't read it, then you have no right to call them a troll.

Maybe a friend who speaks English gave someone a copy of the game when there hasn't been a translation into any language that person speaks. So they have the game, in English, and have relied on a friend to help them learn how to navigate the menus. They know maybe a few of the basics of the game, and they know how to set up their loadout, but they can't speak because nobody will understand them, and they not only can't read the chat, but have been told to ignore it because it won't help anyway.

So you get someone who can't communicate, won't communicate no matter how hard you try, but who STILL WANTS TO PLAY.

What are you going to do? Call them a troll and rant and rave and refuse to start when you literally have nothing at all you can do to fix the problem? Or just get on with it and deal with the fact that this player might be hard to work with?

What about a guy who's been injured, has trouble typing, but can operate a couple of keys at a time, and can handle a mouse. He might not be capable of speaking coherently, and he can't type fast enough to be worth trying. So you get nothing again. Maybe he'll take your advice, maybe he won't. Maybe he'll take the - perfectly reasonable - stance that anything you say is just a guideline/suggestion/advice, and not set in stone.

What about someone who's simply new to the game and doesn't speak English. They don't necessarily know where the chat window is, or whether it's important to look at. They don't know what all these people are talking about. They decide that because they can't read that scrolling text in the corner, it's not important.

Someone who does communicate, yeah, they might be a troll, or just that stupid. Someone who doesn't, you're best off NOT assuming the worst. People who have legitimate reason not to communicate have the right to play too, and being rude to them isn't helping. All that does is raise your blood pressure and get you needlessly upset, and maybe get a few of the less serious players in your random public lobby a bit annoyed while you're at it. You're hurting yourself, you're slowing the game down, and you're raging over something that you have no control over.

[BlackenedPies]

It's true that people might not see chats, but it's hard to miss a private message. Chat windows are a common feature in games and most new players will recognize it immediately. If someone starts speaking to you in a foreign language then your first response is probably that you don't speak that language. If you're playing on a US server, the players most likely speak English.

There are a million reasons why someone might not communicate, but the most likely and common one is that they just want to play the game and they don't want someone telling them what to do. In my experience, these players are usually young and novice.

What usually happens for me is that players see a level 10 captain and want to join my ship. I explain what their role will be but they just want to play. I make it clear that I will delay the match as long as necessary, and they either comply, leave, or watch me stall the match. Often times these are the players telling me to ready up.

One thing that makes them start communicating nearly immediately is threatening to report them. When you threaten to report someone, you will get a response back. Of course it's an idle threat, but it proves that the player can communicate and is choosing not to. I can only think of a few times when I have threatened and received no answer, and those players usually left.

Really I just need a designation for my ship saying BE PREPARED TO BRING A SPECIFIC LOADOUT OR DO NOT JOIN THIS SHIP PLEASE. Unfortunately, that doesn't fit as a ship name.

There are a few rules that should be common knowledge for all players:
the captain slot is for the person who will fly the ship
ships need at least two engineers
if you don't want to do what the captain asks, please join a different ship

[obliviondoll]

Really I just need a designation for my ship saying BE PREPARED TO BRING A SPECIFIC LOADOUT OR DO NOT JOIN THIS SHIP PLEASE. Unfortunately, that doesn't fit as a ship name.

Have you tried "OBEY YOUR CAPTAIN" to see if that works? If not, I'm sure "OBEY CAPTAIN" will. Good luck on having everyone follow the ship name though. You aren't always going to get cooperative crew members.

There are a few rules that should be common knowledge for all players:
the captain slot is for the person who will fly the ship
ships need at least two engineers
if you don't want to do what the captain asks, please join a different ship

1. Earlier today, I got to see a non-captain pilot on a Squid. I thought it was crazy, but it worked, because the engineering captain had a better view of the ship itself AND could more easily afford to bring up the map and work out tactics with our friendly ship than he would have while trying to pilot in a dense and hazard-filled map with the placement of the helm, which he found awkward (and as an inexperienced Squid pilot thus far, I'm inclined to agree with him).

2. I've captained on a Junker and a Galleon and been quite successful with 2 gunners. More than once for each ship. I've also had luck as a second gunner on a Galleon in one match, and as an engineer on a Junker with 2 gunners.

3. There are very rare situations where disobeying a captain is a good idea. I've had a drunk captain who armed his ship with flak on the front, and lined the front gun up for a clean shot on an enemy ship that had its armour down and one of our friendly ships with a gatling gun trained on the target. When I manned the gun and opened fire, he told me off for shooting from too far away, and got upset that I was giving away our position. I explained that the gun has an arming range and isn't effective up close, and that it was only dealing full damage while firing from longer range. He responded with, "you're a level 1 gunner, you don't know what you're talking about. I'm level 8 captain, I've been playing this game for over a year. You do what I say and you'll see I'm right". When a level 7 engineer joined the conversation, and pointed out that the engineer was his lowest-level role, and that our captain was ALSO a level 1 gunner like me, he finally backed down - NOT by letting me keep shooting at range, but by switching to Carronades for the next match to suit how he wanted to play. It worked out rather well, actually.

In general, what you've listed are good GUIDELINES that most crews should follow, but they aren't RULES that should be set in stone, and there are exceptions where other options will be viable - sometimes MORE viable. For the majority of situations, yes, the captain will be the pilot, and yes, the ship will benefit from a second engineer more than a second gunner, and yes, the captain will usually be in a better position to manage the crew than anyone else on board. But that isn't always the case, and exceptions do need to be considered in some (admittedly rare) circumstances.

[sparklerfish]

I've never seen a match delayed because a captain was requesting a terrible loadout and the crew disagreed, only because crew refused to listen to their captains.  I absolutely think the captain has the right to choose their crew's loadouts and delay the match until the crew comply.  There is a reason they are the CAPTAIN and they are the ones who decide when the ship is ready.  They are the ones planning the ship build and the strategy.  Being captain is by far the most challenging role and if a crew member wants to disregard others and do whatever they want, they should go captain their own ship and tell the crew "bring whatever you want", or find a level 1 captain who hasn't learned yet that loadouts matter.  Yes, it's a game, and yes, we want to have fun, but a huge part of that fun is being able to cooperate and do what is best for the entire team to succeed rather than "this is my loadout and screw you for wanting to succeed."

[DJ Tipz N Trix]

I would like to say that I have seen captains requesting terrible loadouts and holding up lobbies.

[obliviondoll]

I've never seen a match delayed because a captain was requesting a terrible loadout and the crew disagreed, only because crew refused to listen to their captains.

I'm quite happy to say that the former situation is very rare, but I have seen it, and I've seen it more than once.

I'll agree that players not listening to a captain's reasonable request is more common though.

Of course, I will also point out that in every single case of a lobby being held up while the captain was making a reasonable request, there's only been ONE crew member refusing to play along. I haven't yet seen a situation where even two crew members have disagreed with a captain who made sensible requests.

It would be nice to see something like this to help speed the process up in those rare instances where it IS the captain causing the problem.

[BlackenedPies]

I could never non pilot captain a squid, kerosene and hydrogen are too important. I'm not sure how a engi squid pilot would work because there aren't any repairs near the helm, and I'm not sure what you mean by having a better view of the ship- anyone flying would have the same view. Engineer pilots are only really viable on a galleon or spire.

2 gunners is never a viable strategy except against bad/inexperienced opponents. Most guns only need one ammo and there's a reason why competitive teams almost always fly with 3 engineers. A buff engineer is much more useful than a gunner in most circumstances. Ships need engineers not gunners.

I'm talking about obeying the captain when they give loadouts. If you don't want to bring the loadout, then don't join. The captain has the ability to not start the match until you do.
Captains can make bad requests like loading the wrong ammo or dedicating crew labor to the wrong components, but if you know better then you should inform the captain (like you rightfully did).

If a captain told me to do something wrong I would first explain why it's wrong (if it required an immediate action then I would first do the right thing before explaining). If they insist on doing the wrong thing, then either call them something in your vocabulary and do what they want, or disobey and piss them off. It's your call. I'm not trying to discuss captains making bad requests, I'm discussing captains making perfectly reasonable requests.

You're lucky, sometimes I get all 3 crew members refusing to play along.

Sparklerfish is right.

[obliviondoll]

I could never non pilot captain a squid, kerosene and hydrogen are too important.

Non-pilot Captain NOT taking the helm with a pilot who can focus on piloting. You seem to have missed the point. The Captain isn't the pilot because he's NOT A PILOT. He's sitting up top in the middle of the ship with the better viewpoint, and doesn't have to wait for a moment he isn't focusing on his ship's manoeuvres before he can take a look at the map and work on strategising with his fellow Captain(s). He's an Engineer because he's in a position where having an Engineer is more usful than having a guy standing half the ship away from the helm and still being a Pilot.

I'm not sure how a engi squid pilot would work because there aren't any repairs near the helm, and I'm not sure what you mean by having a better view of the ship- anyone flying would have the same view. Engineer pilots are only really viable on a galleon or spire.

Which is exactly why I said Engineer CAPTAIN and not Engineer PILOT. Clearly.

2 gunners is never a viable strategy except against bad/inexperienced opponents. Most guns only need one ammo and there's a reason why competitive teams almost always fly with 3 engineers. A buff engineer is much more useful than a gunner in most circumstances. Ships need engineers not gunners.

Think of which guns can benefit from multiple ammo types. Gatling (Lesmok/Greased/Incendiary), Flamethrower (Lesmok/Burst), Hwacha (Heavy Clip/Burst). I just listed the first 3 that came to mind, and HEY LOOK I JUST LOADED UP A GOLDFISH. One gunner with Lesmok/Greased/Burst to cover side guns and the other with Heavy Clip/Burst/whatever focusing on the Hwacha, both with Wrench for repairs and a good Spanner/Mallet/Chemspray Engi, and you're golden.

I'm talking about obeying the captain when they give loadouts. If you don't want to bring the loadout, then don't join. The captain has the ability to not start the match until you do.
Captains can make bad requests like loading the wrong ammo or dedicating crew labor to the wrong components, but if you know better then you should inform the captain (like you rightfully did).

You should inform the Captain. And I did. And sometimes, they don't listen, and keep holding up the game. By your logic, the Captain is right to insist that I do something stupid, WITHOUT needing to explain the reason why he's insisting on that, and you're saying that I'M the one holding up the game by not obeying an instruction that cannot possibly have a constructive and valid explanation. Even if I was told to bring Lochnagar to load into Flamerthrowers and Gatling Guns on a ship with no other weapons, I am willing to do that if the Captain is willing to explain the reason for their request. I'll even accept "because LOL" as a reason - not a GOOD reason, but if the Captain just wants a stupid laugh, I'm cool with that.

If a captain told me to do something wrong I would first explain why it's wrong (if it required an immediate action then I would first do the right thing before explaining). If they insist on doing the wrong thing, then either call them something in your vocabulary and do what they want, or disobey and piss them off. It's your call. I'm not trying to discuss captains making bad requests, I'm discussing captains making perfectly reasonable requests.

This thread is proposing a solution to the problem of Captains making STUPID requests, NOT the non-problem of Captains making reasonable requests. You say you never see Captains making requests like that. As proven by DJ Tips N Trix, I'm not the only one who has, even though it is a rare occurence in my experience. You've clearly been luckier than me. That personal experience doesn't negate the fact that this situation CAN happen, and DOES happen. It's pretty much entirely unreasonable to expect an entire crew of a ship to all agree that their Captain is an idiot while the Captain is being reasonable and explaining their position. A Captain being an idiot is a far more likely occurence. A bad Captain being bad should have at least a moderate-to-slim chance of being pushed into the match without getting his way. Just like a bad non-Captain being bad should be stalled from getting into the game.

You're lucky, sometimes I get all 3 crew members refusing to play along.

Sparklerfish is right.

I've seen times where you get one or two players not communicating at all, and one player ACTIVELY refusing to play along. I've seen times where you get one player not playing along and one player saying they should be allowed to refuse the request (usually providing reasons why, whether valid and reasonable or not). I've seen NO instance of an entire crew saying "nope, we're doing what we want, and we don't care" while the Captain is being reasonable.

I'm NOT including Captains who demand "use this loadout" in a gruff manner and refuse to consider explanations from their crew about the loadout being used. Even if you're right, THAT ISN'T REASONABLE BEHAVIOUR. You should be ASKING your crew to change, EXPLAINING why you want the change requested, and COUNTERING any reasons being given for dissent.

[Richard LeMoon]

You should be ASKING your crew to change, EXPLAINING why you want the change requested, and COUNTERING any reasons being given for dissent.

-Lobbies of Icarus, 2014.

Also the reason why I will be leaving a lot of Queues of Icarus lobbies. If someone won't change on my ship, I will instantly leave. No explaining. No COUNTERING. No time for that. My ship. My rules.

[obliviondoll]

You should be ASKING your crew to change, EXPLAINING why you want the change requested, and COUNTERING any reasons being given for dissent.

-Lobbies of Icarus, 2014.

Also the reason why I will be leaving a lot of Queues of Icarus lobbies. If someone won't change on my ship, I will instantly leave. No explaining. No COUNTERING. No time for that. My ship. My rules.

Quick explanation. Give it a minute or two, and if they don't follow instructions, leave. Or at least try explaining if the player asks (politely) for a reason why you want that loadout.

If someone says, "No, that's a stupid loadout, why would you want that?" then sure, move on if you don't want to deal with it. But if they say, "I'm not sure what the benefit of that could be over what I'm using. Can you explain how I should be using it?" then you're clearly looking at someone who wants to understand and be a helpful crew member. Would you still leave a ship with a crew member asking that question? Or would you be a bit more patient and willing to talk things over?

Telling people, "do this" then ditching when they don't listen isn't helping you find good crew, isn't helping newer players learn so they can BECOME good crew, and isn't giving you a chance to potentially find out new things yourself (unless you intentionally try out new crew loadouts regularly to see how well they perform). You may be experienced, but the game is changed with every patch, and those changes adjust how the various weapons perform. That plus the occasional shift in meta should keep it open enough for players to mix things up a bit.

I do approve of the fact that you're willing to leave immediately instead of holding up the game though. "My ship, my rules" means that if the crew doesn't like it, you pack up and take the ship with you. That's cool.

EDIT: Just for the record, I've seen a level 10 engineer who was asked to bring Chemspray instead of an extinguisher and he said "No, chemspray sucks, the extinguisher is way better. Why would you even ask that?" and I've seen a level 1 everything playing as gunner who said "I was using lesmok for long range because I've been told the speed increase also translates to longer ranges. I assumed that would help on the Hwacha too. Does the reduced recoil on Heavy Clip make that much difference on a Hwacha?"

I've also seen a surprising number of level 1 engineers and gunners claiming "I've played the tutorials (sometimes when they haven't), I know how the game works" when they're arguing with level 7 and 8 and even 10+ captains trying to explain why burst ammo in a gatling gun is a bad idea. The number of high-level players willing to say "alright captain, but what's your reasoning?" is higher than I'd have expected as well.

In contrast to the rare overly-dictatorial captains and jaded bittervets, the majority of the community for this game is friendly and VERY open to listening to and learning from one another. New players who don't listen seem to have a tendency to change their ways fast, OR to disappear.

[BlackenedPies]

The captain is the person who is flying the ship. All experienced players recognize this. Engineers with repairs have a very limited view of situations, and likely have no time to look at the map or strategize. Under ideal circumstances where a squid engineer had no repairs, yes they would have a better view. While the captain has the hardest job, engineers have the most hectic job- especially on a squid. I can tell you from experience that an engineer that is repairing often has a very limited or no view of the situation. If the engineer has repairs, they can't see the situation and can't communicate effectively with the ally. It is always best to have the person flying the ship to be the captain.

In the same way, under ideal circumstances (ex not getting shot at), having 3 gunners would be best. If you're dealing with a challenge then you need at least 2 engineers. If gunners were useful on small guns (your gat example), then people would bring them. There is always an ideal ammo to use. I would much rather have a spanner mallet buff engi with heavy or greased on my gat than a gunner. On some small guns like the hades or mine launcher having 2 ammos is very useful, but still not necessary. If a pilot has control over every engagement, then there isn't a gun in the game that needs more than 1 ammo. The only reason that I don't fly with 3 engi when it would better to is because it can be hard to convince a gunner to switch. A gunner is more likely to switch ammo than class so I just don't bother.

On a heavy carro goldfish it's better to have a spanner mallet buff engi with heavy clip than the standard gunner loadout of heavy charged incendiary. On hwatchafish I like one engi with burst and the other heavy. I will have the main ammo engi bring spanner mallet buff depending on the presumed engagement range. With hwatcha gat flame, the gat should probably have greased and the flame lesmok (or greased, although I do like burst flame). Luckily, each engineer can carry a different ammo and can preload the guns.

A double gunner goldfish is a death sentence. Yes it would be useful to have lots of different ammo options, but it would be way more useful to have an engineer and the ideal ammo. A wrench buff chem engi on the balloon is very useful on a goldfish. Goldfish are a frontal attack ship so they can choose their engagement range- bring the ideal ammo for the presumed circumstances. Try flying double gunner against any competent captain, you'll see why it wont work. Although goldfish have a lot of health, they are fragile and can be difficult to repair in emergencies.

Again, unless you're not planning on taking damage then you need at least 2 engineers. I would love to have 2 gunners on a double lumberjack galleon but it's not feasible when facing a competent opponent. Ships need 2 engineers. If you're flying against me, you need 2 engineers. In my experience, the double gunner ship always loses.

Burst is the standard artemis ammo. If a captain wants me to bring lesmok then I know that they will try to be long range and are focusing on accuracy. Even if I think that based on the circumstances burst would be a much better choice, I'm still gonna bring lesmok.
If I'm crewing, I'm gonna try to give the ship the best chance at success. I don't run into captains that make bad requests, but of course they do exist. If a captain tells me to do something that will sabotage our chances of success, I will explain why to not do it. If a captain wants to deliberately sabotage their team, I will refuse. If they become unruly then I will leave.

You're misunderstanding me: if a captain wants you to do something stupid in a match, then do whatever you want. If a captain is sabotaging the success of the team then you should do the right thing. Piss him off and in the future maybe he will realize his error. If a captain wants you to bring a bad loadout then first tell him why it's wrong. If he doesn't budge then you should bring it or leave. Or you could tell the lobby and the lobby will make their arguments against the captain's decision.

If a captain wants a terrible loadout that would be detrimental to the team, then the lobby can protest and request that the captain join a different lobby. If the captain refuses then the lobby could make a new lobby. This is a potential problem, but in my experience it is not a real issue. It might happen but it's rare. If a captain is waiting on a loadout, then that crew member should just leave instead of making the lobby wait.

If a captain in my lobby wants a stupid laugh with his loadout, then I will protest. I would expect the other captains to do so as well and to try to get the captain to leave. If this happened every time captains want a stupid laugh, then there would be fewer attempts at stupid laughs. If a captain is disrupting a lobby and refusing to leave, make a new lobby.

I'm going to reiterate what I'm assuming all captains who have the problem I'm trying to explain go through.
A new crew member joins, I welcome them aboard and tell them what to bring and where to be.
I explain why they will be using the ammo and what they should be using the gun for.
I tell them that they need to bring the loadout or to please join a different ship.

There is no debating over the ammo, the crew member doesn't change their ammo according to the gun. They don't see what gun they will be using and suggest their preferred ammo, they just keep what ammo and tools they already have.
Yes I could just leave the lobby and try to find an open captain spot, but I would much rather stay in the lobby that I had already picked out and want to play in.

I have made odd requests before and had my crew have questioned them, but in the end I have never had a crew member who is questioning my decision not do what I asked. Part of the reason may be because of how much I have played the game. If I was a low level, players might be less inclined to listen.

At least a hundred times before have I given crew loadouts and had no one on the ship attempt to bring it or give any explanation to why not. I don't care about crew level. As long as they listen they are a good crew. Yesterday I had an excellent crew for many matches of a lvl 3 and 4 engi. They made mistakes but they listened and they learned and everyone had a good time.

[Hoja Lateralus]

Captain is leader of the ship - he makes decision (often really quick), he designs the ship and he takes the risks. If the captain on a spire tells me - we shoot and hope they die first - I do it. As a crew member I don't remember to disagree with captain regarding my equipment. Sometimes I tried to negotiate with different results. Sometimes, especially when I see captain is low lvl, I say things like "This is not going to work" and explain why. Captain has the freedom to listen to my advice or not. I have the freedom to stay on the ship or not. As simple as that. What Richard LeMoon is harsh, but understandable. If captain can't, even in such limited way, trust his crew - then the possibility of success drops rapidly.

I've also seen a surprising number of level 1 engineers and gunners claiming "I've played the tutorials (sometimes when they haven't), I know how the game works" when they're arguing with level 7 and 8 and even 10+ captains trying to explain why burst ammo in a gatling gun is a bad idea.

That's why I'd really like links to work in GOIO. Usually when I can't or don't want to explain things I go something like: "Trust me so, and if not you can check Wundsalz weapon/ship building guide".

[BlackenedPies]

That's a good point: the captain is free to decide their tactics. It's a learning experience to see what works and what doesn't. On a mobula or spire, shooting until you die is a viable tactic but could lead to disaster. Crews can and should advise their captains when necessary, but they should still do what the captain asks. If the shoot until you die leads to quick successions of death, the captain will probably revise their tactic. If you disobey, the captain could get angry and not know if his tactic would have worked or not.

If a captain is trying to deliberately sabotage their team then it's a different story. This is probably very rare. Rule of thumb: listen to the captain, suggest alternatives, do what they say.

A while back I joined during a match on a goldfish with an engi captain/pilot. It turned out that the captain was working with the other team to 2v1 our ally pyramidion. It was pretty pathetic because the pyra was still kicking their asses (but they probably lost in the end to the 2v1). If I could have done something I would, but the captain was just flying around and crashing into stuff. Later I got the opportunity to troll their galleon- I spammed V commands and didn't repair. It wasn't the right thing to do but it felt satisfying.

[obliviondoll]

The captain is the person who is flying the ship. All experienced players recognize this. Engineers with repairs have a very limited view of situations, and likely have no time to look at the map or strategize. Under ideal circumstances where a squid engineer had no repairs, yes they would have a better view. While the captain has the hardest job, engineers have the most hectic job- especially on a squid. I can tell you from experience that an engineer that is repairing often has a very limited or no view of the situation. If the engineer has repairs, they can't see the situation and can't communicate effectively with the ally. It is always best to have the person flying the ship to be the captain.

The captain is usually the person who is flying the ship. All experienced players recognise this. Engineers with repairs have a very limited view of the situation compared to a Captain on most ships. They likely (but not definitely) have no time to look at the map or strategise. By the same score, Pilots who are busy flying the ship (which is happening ALL THE TIME, not just while under fire) have no time to look at the map or strategise. While the Captain has the hardest job, Engineers have the most hectic job at the worst of times - especially on a Squid. If the Engineer has repairs, they can't see the situation quite as well as when they're not busy, but still better than a busy pilot can, and can't communicate as effectively with the ally. It is always usually best to have the person flying the ship to be the Captain.

Assuming a worst-case scenario at all times, the pilot MIGHT be more free to look around the ship SOME OF THE TIME. This means the fastest ship in the game is permanently in a position where it's taking enemy fire and unable to disengage for the entire duration of the battle, without exception or a moment's reprieve. While it's POSSIBLE that this might happen, it's far more likely that there will be downtime on a Squid - a ship heavily focused on hit-and-run attacks, with a reliance on mobility and agility over durability and firepower - for the engineer(s) than for the pilot. Regardless of whether or not the situation is ideal, the ideal situation for a Squid involves the pilot being busy ALL THE TIME. Only the absolute worst-case scenario for a Squid will have the Engineers busy as consistently as the Pilot.

In the same way, under ideal circumstances (ex not getting shot at), having 3 gunners would be best. If you're dealing with a challenge then you need at least 2 engineers. If gunners were useful on small guns (your gat example), then people would bring them. There is always an ideal ammo to use. I would much rather have a spanner mallet buff engi with heavy or greased on my gat than a gunner. On some small guns like the hades or mine launcher having 2 ammos is very useful, but still not necessary. If a pilot has control over every engagement, then there isn't a gun in the game that needs more than 1 ammo. The only reason that I don't fly with 3 engi when it would better to is because it can be hard to convince a gunner to switch. A gunner is more likely to switch ammo than class so I just don't bother.

If you know your ship will never be shot at, not just 3 Gunners, but 3 Gunners with buff hammers would be best. If you're dealing with a challenge then you need at least 2 Engineers, but one will frequently be manning a gun, and the other will frequently be on the Spyglass or unoccupied. Even if you know your ship will only be shot at intermittently, a Squid should still be moving around constantly, and manoeuvring most of that time. If Gunners weren't useful on Small Guns, then nobody would bring them on Junkers and Pyramidions. On some small guns, having 2 ammos is more useful than on others. Even when a ship can control every engagement, having the flexibility of multiple ammo types can be an advantage.

On a heavy carro goldfish it's better to have a spanner mallet buff engi with heavy clip than the standard gunner loadout of heavy charged incendiary. On hwatchafish I like one engi with burst and the other heavy. I will have the main ammo engi bring spanner mallet buff depending on the presumed engagement range. With hwatcha gat flame, the gat should probably have greased and the flame lesmok (or greased, although I do like burst flame). Luckily, each engineer can carry a different ammo and can preload the guns.

So you have 3 Engineers on your ship with Hwacha, Gatling and Flamethrower. One has Heavy Clip and another has Burst, leaving the remaining Engineer to bring Greased and Lesmok for the side guns. Somehow, this doesn't sound quite right to me. Can you see the flaw in your proposed logic?

A double gunner goldfish is a death sentence. Yes it would be useful to have lots of different ammo options, but it would be way more useful to have an engineer and the ideal ammo. A wrench buff chem engi on the balloon is very useful on a goldfish. Goldfish are a frontal attack ship so they can choose their engagement range- bring the ideal ammo for the presumed circumstances. Try flying double gunner against any competent captain, you'll see why it wont work. Although goldfish have a lot of health, they are fragile and can be difficult to repair in emergencies.

With a good Engineer, and Gunners willing to stop shooting and help with repairs, a double Gunner Goldfish can work out just fine. It won't necessarily perform BETTER than with two Engineers, but the slight edge in damage output can help to prevent the ship taking as much damage. I'm not talking about an improbable perfect situation where you never take hits, but a more realistic scenario where you manage to play to your strengths similarly well to how the other ship performs. Two Engineers means maybe faster repairs, and almost certainly more efficient firefighting. Two gunners means more effective damage output, and a greater variety of utility applications on weapons. You can cause more damage and set more fires with dual Gunners, but you can take more damage and extinguish/prevent more fires with dual Engineers. Do you want to be even more of a glass cannon, or add a little splash of tank into the mix?

Again, unless you're not planning on taking damage then you need at least 2 engineers. I would love to have 2 gunners on a double lumberjack galleon but it's not feasible when facing a competent opponent. Ships need 2 engineers. If you're flying against me, you need 2 engineers. In my experience, the double gunner ship always loses.

On a Galleon, I'm never going to try and argue that 2 Gunners is a good idea when you're facing actual combat. Not because the extra Gunner couldn't be useful, but because the parts that routinely need repairs and firefighting are too spread out for a single Engineer to handle effectively. On a Goldfish, even the longest routes from one part of the ship to another are comparatively easy to manage, and the worst-case scenario takes a secondary Gunner away from the role to help with repairs, which is no worse than having a second Engineer who's not manning the extra gun either.

Burst is the standard artemis ammo. If a captain wants me to bring lesmok then I know that they will try to be long range and are focusing on accuracy. Even if I think that based on the circumstances burst would be a much better choice, I'm still gonna bring lesmok.
If I'm crewing, I'm gonna try to give the ship the best chance at success. I don't run into captains that make bad requests, but of course they do exist. If a captain tells me to do something that will sabotage our chances of success, I will explain why to not do it. If a captain wants to deliberately sabotage their team, I will refuse. If they become unruly then I will leave.

If they become "unruly"? You mean like YOU DO when you don't get your own way as Captain? At least you're consistent about pushing for your way as Captain and leaving the ship when you're not Captain.

You're misunderstanding me: if a captain wants you to do something stupid in a match, then do whatever you want. If a captain is sabotaging the success of the team then you should do the right thing. Piss him off and in the future maybe he will realize his error. If a captain wants you to bring a bad loadout then first tell him why it's wrong. If he doesn't budge then you should bring it or leave. Or you could tell the lobby and the lobby will make their arguments against the captain's decision.

Ah. So what you're saying is that it's ok for a "good" Captain to be a jerk and push people around, but if they're "bad", then you should troll them and/or go against their wishes. And clearly, you must be the right person to define what's "good" and what's "bad", since you have more experience than everyone else, right?

Either apply your reasoning universally to ALL Captains, and to all non-Captains, or apply your reasoning ONLY to yourself and don't hold others to your standards. In an ideal world, every player would speak a common language, and every player would have a working mic, and nobody would need voice commands or even text chat. In an ideal world, there would be nobody embarrassed about their voice, accent, lack of experience speaking English, or injured in a manner that restricts communication. In an ideal world, when someone is wrong about something, another person explaining why they were wrong is all it would take to make them realise their mistake. Your "the Captain is always right when I'm Captain, but not when the Captain is an idiot" approach could potentially work in this ideal world. Of course, that would assume you're always right, but as an experienced player in a well-respected clan, this is probably not far from the truth.

If a captain wants a terrible loadout that would be detrimental to the team, then the lobby can protest and request that the captain join a different lobby. If the captain refuses then the lobby could make a new lobby. This is a potential problem, but in my experience it is not a real issue. It might happen but it's rare. If a captain is waiting on a loadout, then that crew member should just leave instead of making the lobby wait.

I've been in a lobby once where everyone except me and one other player was a high-level player with a lot of experience (10+ in at least 2 roles). People were playing to win, and trying their best. I was getting to a point of feeling competent with the game, and while I was still making mistakes, I didn't feel like I was holding the crew back on my ship. The other player around my level (I was 2 all around at the time, he was level 3 Gunner) had his Captain complain that he wasn't listening to reason in the previous match and trade places to put him on the crew of a more tightly-managed ship. He was asked (not told) to change his loadout, and he said "nope". He was asked to provide a good reason why not, and the only response was another "nope". EVERY SINGLE OTHER PLAYER IN THE LOBBY agreed to drop and create a new lobby without him. I was invited along, and another player filled that one remaining slot.

I've seen the same thing happen when it was a Captain being an idiot. I've also seen a group of players with experience levels ranging from level 1 everything to level 10+ in every role, where the lobby was laughing and joking and nobody was taking anything seriously. We had a Captain bring a Squid with 3 Flamethrowers, and on his Pilot loadout, he brought Lochnagar ammo, and kept kicking people off the guns to load it into them. When he left the helm, he ALWAYS left it at full throttle. It was ridiculous, but nobody cared, because it was HILARIOUS. I was Captaining a (mostly) sensible Junker build, but I spent more time ramming the enemy Galleon than shooting it, and my Gunner spent most of the match on the front-mounted Artemis than he did firing broadsides.

If a captain in my lobby wants a stupid laugh with his loadout, then I will protest. I would expect the other captains to do so as well and to try to get the captain to leave. If this happened every time captains want a stupid laugh, then there would be fewer attempts at stupid laughs. If a captain is disrupting a lobby and refusing to leave, make a new lobby.

If anyone - Captain or no - is disrupting a lobby, I agree, ask them to leave, and create a new lobby if they don't. If EVERYONE is having a stupid laugh, then I don't see the harm in playing along. If I'm in a very serious lobby and my Captain asks me to do something for a stupid laugh, I'll question whether that's appropriate for the lobby. And I'll do so publicly and get the rest of the lobby involved in the conversation because it's not only relevant to our ship. If it's a novice match, I'm less concerned. If it's a lobby where the teams are stacked and I'm on the side with all the clearly more experienced players, I'll probably play along as a form of handicap for the team.

I'm going to reiterate what I'm assuming all captains who have the problem I'm trying to explain go through.
A new crew member joins, I welcome them aboard and tell them what to bring and where to be.
I explain why they will be using the ammo and what they should be using the gun for.
I tell them that they need to bring the loadout or to please join a different ship.

See, this is fine. "PLEASE join a different ship" is fine. ASKING, not DEMANDING. EXPLAINING, not just dictating.

There is no debating over the ammo, the crew member doesn't change their ammo according to the gun. They don't see what gun they will be using and suggest their preferred ammo, they just keep what ammo and tools they already have.
Yes I could just leave the lobby and try to find an open captain spot, but I would much rather stay in the lobby that I had already picked out and want to play in.

And do you know the reason for the lack of communication? You say you'd much rather stay in the lobby you'd already picked out. Did you think that maybe so would the other person? What if they were in the lobby before you? But you're the Captain who's just joined, the guy who's been waiting for half an hour in the lobby he wants to be in should bow down to your whims, right?

I have made odd requests before and had my crew have questioned them, but in the end I have never had a crew member who is questioning my decision not do what I asked. Part of the reason may be because of how much I have played the game. If I was a low level, players might be less inclined to listen.

When I've been a Captain and have been dealing with a communicative crew, I've had crew who ended up using different loadouts from what I had originally proposed. In every case, they've explained their position and the reason for their preference, and I've considered their advice and made a decision. I've brought a very meta-looking Junker with Gat/Mortar broadsides and a Gunner has joined my crew and said "I'm a crack shot with a Hades, can you replace both Mortars with them?" and I decided to go along with it because our friendly ship was well suited to working with that alternative loadout.

At least a hundred times before have I given crew loadouts and had no one on the ship attempt to bring it or give any explanation to why not. I don't care about crew level. As long as they listen they are a good crew. Yesterday I had an excellent crew for many matches of a lvl 3 and 4 engi. They made mistakes but they listened and they learned and everyone had a good time.

That's great. Maybe name your ship "TALK TO ME" instead of "OBEY YOUR CAPTAIN" like I had previously suggested. I like a good crew who can work together without much communication being needed, but I sometimes prefer to have a more talkative crew.

[Hoja Lateralus]

To get more to topic: Muse will never agree to "one valid build" thing, whether it's 'captain = pilot' or '2 engineers AT LEAST'. Those MAY be the only valid builds - but players are free to choose and experiment.
And also - blah blah this will be fixed in matchmaking blah blah.

A double gunner goldfish is a death sentence. Yes it would be useful to have lots of different ammo options, but it would be way more useful to have an engineer and the ideal ammo. A wrench buff chem engi on the balloon is very useful on a goldfish. Goldfish are a frontal attack ship so they can choose their engagement range- bring the ideal ammo for the presumed circumstances. Try flying double gunner against any competent captain, you'll see why it wont work. Although goldfish have a lot of health, they are fragile and can be difficult to repair in emergencies.

With a good Engineer, and Gunners willing to stop shooting and help with repairs, a double Gunner Goldfish can work out just fine. It won't necessarily perform BETTER than with two Engineers, but the slight edge in damage output can help to prevent the ship taking as much damage. I'm not talking about an improbable perfect situation where you never take hits, but a more realistic scenario where you manage to play to your strengths similarly well to how the other ship performs. Two Engineers means maybe faster repairs, and almost certainly more efficient firefighting. Two gunners means more effective damage output, and a greater variety of utility applications on weapons. You can cause more damage and set more fires with dual Gunners, but you can take more damage and extinguish/prevent more fires with dual Engineers. Do you want to be even more of a glass cannon, or add a little splash of tank into the mix?

As a guy who mostly do engineering I call bull*t. People tend to forget that engineers can be good but can't do miracles - they are very limited by cooldowns, speed of their movement, and captain actions/speed of things happening around. Let me give you example: every time I go on squid with captain I don't know I ask him how much kerosene/moonshine he uses. Why? Because there are situations when captains use kerosene almost all the time and I as an engineer has to fix engines all the time which makes me unable to chem spay even the most important things, say hull, baloon and main engines. That's why sometimes when I know that captain do such a thing - I take extinguisher. Goldfish is especially good example because components are pretty far away from each other (when compare to, for instance, pyramidion) and trust me that one engineer isn't enough. You say "it could work, maybe not as good as 2 engineer, but good enough" - maybe when facing unexperienced enemy, only then.