Fine then.
You want your English lesson to be public, go right ahead.
Here's the paragraph you seem to need me to dissect for you.
Let the Gunner* change ammo types ANY TIME DURING THE RELOAD. Every time a gun is reloaded - EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. Manned or unmanned, manned by someone with the current ammo type or not - the gun should load standard ammo. When a Gunner selects an ammo type, a timer is begun. When the reload OR that timer completes - whichever comes first - the new ammo type is locked in. Abandoning the weapon or switchng to a new ammo type will reset the timer.
*Gunner as in "player manning the gun and loading ammo", not necessarily a player with the Gunner class selected
Point 1:
"Gunner*"
"
*Gunner as in "player manning the gun and loading ammo", not necessarily a player with the Gunner class selected"
The * after the word indicates to check the subscript labeled with the same character. This clarifies that in the context of this paragraph, the word "Gunner" is not referrring to the role, but to anyone manning a gun on the ship.
That negates this argument:
In another note, all classes are equal, the only thing different is how many slots they have. So no exclusive functions for each class.
Because the above quote is working on the (clearly disproven) assumption that I meant these changes to only apply to the Gunner class, and not to all players.
Point 2:
"Let the Gunner change ammo types ANY TIME DURING THE RELOAD." - when taken as a standalone phrase, this could also be used in a description of how the current system works. In context, while it conveys that this aspect is the same as how the system always worked, it doesn't tell the whole story for either system, so it shouldn't be viewed on its own as an explanation of the system. Because this sentence doesn't give YOU new information, as a person with basic understanding of the English language, you should move on.
Point 3:
"Every time a gun is reloaded the gun should load standard ammo." - there was an insert in this sentence, but it doesn't affect the meaning of the sentence, being purely for emphasis. Saying that the gun loads standard ammo suggests that this is what will happen BY DEFAULT IF THE PLAYER DOESN'T ACT. This is a deviation from the current mechanics, and in this paragraph, is the first deviation I've referenced. The emphatic insert was because this is where I begin to propose changes. It isn't saying that standard ammo will be loaded no matter what, it's saying this will be the default setting selected whenever a reload occurs. If I had been explicitly proposing a removal of ammo types, assuming this was the only result for a reload would make sense. If it were a standalone sentence, it might also be reasonable to assume that. Within the context of the rest of the paragraph, and of my overall proposal, that assumption is completely senseless and demonstrates not a normal and understandable ignorance based on confusion, but WILLFUL and DELIBERATE ignorance.
Point 4:
"When a Gunner selects an ammo type, a timer is begun." - once again, it's possible to look at this sentence as a standalone sentence and find plausible grounds for a misunderstanding. The timer being referenced could be assumed to be the normal reload timer. The sentence following this one negates that assumption, but it isn't the only reason why the assumption is out of place in context. The entire framework of the paragraph implies that everything after the first sentence is me discussing NEW mechanics, not rehashing those which already exist. Reloading a gun is a concept which already exists in most modern games, and one which almost all gamers, and in particular those who have played GoIO, are familiar with. It doesn't need defining in generic terms like this, so assuming this is a reference to that timer betrays a lack of basic reading comprehension or further willful ignorance.
Point 5:
"When the reload OR that timer completes the new ammo type is locked in." - as mentioned, this negates any possible idea of the previous sentence referring to the reload timer, by specifically referencing this timer as being a separate timer running concurrently with the reload. It defines that BOTH timers are able to apply the effect of locking in the select ammo type, where the current mechanics only have one condition under which that will happen. This is also the point at which the already-negated-by-logic stupid assumption about point 3 is explicitly negated by the explanation that an alternative ammo type may be locked in, replacing the default setting of standard ammo.
Point 6:
"whichever comes first" - this is an insert to the sentence from point 5. It further clarifies that you don't need to remain on the gun until the reload completes if you simply man the gun for the shorter ammo lock-in timer. I didn't explicitly state this timer to be shorter than the reload timer, but everything about the proposal has implied such, so stating it outright would have been redundant, although I'm starting to suspect a little redundancy might be worth having if you people really are struggling this much with basic English.
Point 7:
"Abandoning the weapon or switchng to a new ammo type will reset the timer." - here, we have 2 interesting things. Firstly, a basic typo on the word "switching" - NOBODY CARES, MOVING ON. The actually interesting part is that this is the only point where I will actually concede to not being 100% clear. Even here, I was accurate in what I said, but there is room - even taking this sentence in context - for confusion. Everything else about the paragraph upto this point implies the correct meaning, but there is enough uncertainty for someone who isn't paying attention to maybe misunderstand at this stage. To be truly clear, it should have read "Abandoning the weapon
before the selected ammo type is locked in or switching..." instead. Even without that clarification, it should be perfectly reasonable for someone who actually paid attention and understood basic English while reading it to realise that was the intent behind the suggestion.
If English is a second (or later) language for you, AND you were distracted by something else at the time, I'm willing to concede to the possibility that the last sentence in this paragraph could have led to a flawed understanding of my proposal. If you only have one of those as an excuse, I don't believe that is sufficient to explain the continued misunderstanding. Since both of you have gone back and tried to defend your mistakes, one by quoting me and the other by claiming to have re-read it, the only option I can see to explain your confusion at this stage in proceedings is that you're intentionally forcing yourself to misunderstand what I wrote to try and make yourselves feel better about the initial misunderstanding.
Also, including an off-topic aside along with an on-topic post ISN'T derailing the thread. Including an off-topic request for a side topic to be taken to PMs is MOST DEFINITELY NOT derailing the thread. This post, in spite of my intent to finish with an on-topic point, has enough off-topic to probably qualify as helping you two in your efforts to derail the thread. At this point, however, you've both made it clear you want me to clarify where you went wrong in public, so I'm happy to oblige. After this post, I will be happy to leave this whole incident in the past, or to continue the discussion (whether with counter-arguments or apologies on your part) in PM. Any further discussion of this particular off-topic rant in the thread will be disregarded or responded to with PMs.
And now that all that silliness is done with, lets move on and get back to the reason we're here...
--
My opinion on the buff hammer is to just make it not buff damage of guns, and instead make the buff an anti-snip buff(be that, an hp buff or a new buff that mitigates some % of the damage). Let ammo increase damage - let engineer tools repair/protect the ship.
That's the best gunner fix idea I've heard ever.
Did you also think it was the best idea you'd heard ever when I proposed it in the OP? Because that one of the alternatives to part of my proposed fix.
Another, also less ideal, but possibly slightly more viable alternative, would be to buff all weapons to deal more damage (at least half the buff currently given by the buff hammer), and to make the buff tool provide guns with additional HP instead of a damage increase. While not as bad as nerfing the buff hammer, I still favour changing the mechanics of weapon buffs.
As you can tell, while I think the idea has merit, I don't personally think of this as the "best" Gunner fix. I also don't think the change to HP buff would be a complete fix for the problem on its own. It would definitely be a good step in the right direction, however, and seems like something that should be comparatively easy to implement when balancing it against the rest of my proposal (or many of the other solutions offered in the past).