Info > Feedback and Suggestions
Double Gunner Meta: How bad would it be?
Kamoba:
The problem is not in the idea proposed, but in the problems a more balanced gunner would cause.
Also remember, triple engineer is very effective and preferred by more advanced players, but despite the advanced players being the most vocal on the forums, the advanced players are the vast minority of the actual player base.
Triple engineer is not over-used to the point gunners are redundant because the majority of the player base do not understand the mechanics.
Also there is the frame of mind to consider...
Many players take a gunner because they assume its needed for meta play, which is actually not the case.
But these are things that are very often overlooked when people discuss balance...
Player mentality believes every ship should have a gunner.
Intelligent thinking outside the box by competitive pilots is what gave birth to triple engineer. Yet despite BlackenedPies preaching triple gunner daily the word of its efficiency, the volume of players who read, understand and put into effect is much smaller than those who think they know the meta...
My opinion is not about Game balance as much as it is about Player balance...
If gunner becomes balanced in the way people ask for it, it'll sell the wrong idea to the mentality of the majority....
And lets face it...
The masses are asses.
MightyKeb:
--- Quote from: Kamoba on July 06, 2015, 11:02:21 am ---Also remember, triple engineer is very effective and preferred by more advanced players, but despite the advanced players being the most vocal on the forums, the advanced players are the vast minority of the actual player base.
--- End quote ---
And why does that matter? Advanced players are valued by the very simple fact that they explore the game to find what works best. It has been proved time and time again that triple engineers are the meta unless there's a gun that the gunner can utilize. The only reason I still run one gunner most of the time in pubs myself is because pubs tend to have as much gunners queue'd as engineers so I want to make sure they're playing the class they want if possible. This is balanced out by the fact that everyone else does this, so noone reigns supreme wih triple engis. In competitive matchups against other clans with good crew however, I'll most likely waste no time to give in to the engi meta.
Thing is, gunner exists as a class in this game in the end. So instead of forcing everyone to run triple engineer, the community tries to respect their presence. But why keep on following this false pub stigma that even one gunner is usually good on every ship, rather than make the class actually balanced?
--- Quote from: Kamoba on July 06, 2015, 11:02:21 am ---
Intelligent thinking outside the box by competitive pilots is what gave birth to triple engineer.
--- End quote ---
Yes, intelligent thinking. Who needs it anyway? Let's bow down to muse's terrible design choices instead of actually making the balance something worth the time this game's survived for so far.
I think the fact that gunners tend to be somewhat redundant and that engineer is the all around best class IS the wrong idea that muse's giving to the community right now thanks to their design choices. Earlier last month, I saw a guy who kept captaining as engineer simply because he believed that "Engineer is the best class because it can do literally anything." Is this the impression we want to give? I wouldnt know about you, but I would definitely make sure gunner as a class gathered some balls and stood up to it's engineer counterpart in terms of usefulness.
Kamoba:
Still you're looking at balancing the game and not the player base...
I like you keep a gunner on my ship in pub matches, most competitive builds I use benefit from gunners too, though sometimes I'll triple engi (mostly only with Gatling gun) to allow friends to level up their guns and help empty the gunners in the queue.
But like you said yourself there are as many gunners in the queue as there are engineers, this often causes double gunner ships and players "trolling" pilots to the points of pilots or a gunner leaving a lobby...
Now lets assume the gunner was changed to allow the above proposal...
Double gunner would not be the issue, triple gunner would be a major problem...
Getting a single engineer on any ship would be near impossible in pub matches, this would change the game mechanics, to what I think would lead to a much worse environment...
It would be like going "Hey cod 360 no scoper kids, you can now legitimately scream and shout at the pilots and have them called noobs for wanting an engineer!"
And that's bad because they're the bulk of the short term playerbase...
My views are very anti-gunner simply because of how many arsehole "gunner only" players I've had the displeasure to meet.... I see no benefits in "fixing" a game to fit their needs because of a style of playing advanced players use.
MightyKeb:
Yea, but think about it. Majority of the guns do better with buff engineer, so to an extent it would still be the better choice. Not much would change apart from the possibility for teams to explore double gunner builds and have them eventually integrate a bit into pub meta.
I will keep on attesting to the fact that the Captain/Pilot still has control of the ship both in loadout choice and in combat, and if they have any idea what they're doing then they'll know it better than their crew, and thus should be respected and obeyed whether if double gunner isnt their preference or if the engineer loadout is stronger. If you're doing your job right but lose anyway, it's the captain's fault. Noone else to blame. And if you dont like it you can always look for a captain who tolerates your powder monkey business.
Yes, there indeed is a potential for getting triple gunners in your crew but you can manage them simply by following the above philosophy. The only way you would be unable to is if the players youre getting are toxic, which in my experience tend to be 1/3 of the crew most of the time. Maaaaaybe 2/3. And even then, only those who know about the buff will start going gunner 24/7 to try it out. Remember the pyramidion nerf? Yea. Noone cared except the vets who actively view the forums.
The only ship I can reaaaallly justify triple gunners is on a Spire. But you would need gunner-compatible guns like H carro, hwacha, hades, mines etc for it to be able to outclass triple engis/double gunner one engi in the slightest.
We're not fixing the game to fit their "needs" Kamoba. We're fixing it because it really does suck. Advanced players dont just use triple engis for their viability, but also because the gunner's redundancy. If the competitive enviroment is full of balanced classes, ships and weapons, then pubs are too. If you balance something around pubs, advanced players will quickly find a way around it and make it less-than-viable. The problem with this is that newer players may find it hard to function with a GOI balanced around comp, and so they may have to "git gud" to start being effective. Which is PRECISELY what we want to represent. We want to make sure these players take the time and effort to learn the game from us or by playing, only then will they dedicate time and keep it alive. And if they can't? Well, then you can tell that they're part of the crowd that leaves after a week and leaves this game in the dusty corners of their libraries. So we have them filtered out from the start.
BlackenedPies:
--- Quote from: Kamoba ---Yet despite BlackenedPies preaching triple gunner daily the word of its efficiency, the volume of players who read, understand and put into effect is much smaller than those who think they know the meta...
--- End quote ---
Like I've always said, if you only need one tool then engineers are just a liability.
The only way to make double gunner work is if gunners have multiple tools. It won't be comparable to triple engi without other buffs that would skew balance. Having two tools would make double gunner "work" on on some builds.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version