Guns Of Icarus Online
Info => Feedback and Suggestions => Topic started by: Letonator on October 10, 2013, 11:20:39 am
-
I love this game, few other games give me the chance to get on a flying ship and shoot the crap out of other flying ships. But I have a very serious problem.
I don't play this game to run around and hit stuff with hammers and wrenches and watch little bars go up. I want to shoot things in the most epic way possible. I consider myself pretty good at it, considering I'm skilled at calculating trajectories, movement speeds, and bullet drop well enough in engine, but in most games I'm yelled at to go Engineer even though I'm usually the only gunner on the team.
I'm not "going engineer". I'm gonna fix my guns when they break and maybe an engine if I'm standing right next to it, but my chief purpose is to man the guns. I have the ammo loadouts to make any projectile fire in the most devastating way possible, know the arcs and trajectories of prettymuch all the guns in the game, and know when I need to hop from one emplacement to the next quickly. But Engineers are just plain more useful, and can fire all the guns just fine with ammo restrictions. I'm just gonna say right now this feels pretty bullshit to me.
For the love of all that's holy, please make it so gunners are actually useful compared to engineers. I'm really sick and tired of the harassment I get for not being interested in switching my class to do something else, and I want to actually play games in the first place instead of getting yelled at by entire lobbies to go engineer or just leave. I want to shoot things, and for that I'm apparently the retarded idiot class of the game, which is wrong.
-
Fact of this issue is that there are very firm lines drawn for the sides that think gunners are less useful, and those like me who believe every ship is to have one. The topic of "making gunners useful" has been beat to death with no real solution, mostly because it's purely a matter of opinion.
I'm sorry you have to go through that to gun, as I'm sure you are proficient at it. It's more a community divide than an "issue" with gunners.
-
Not needing a gunner is a fallacy perpetuated mostly by people who don't even know why they'd be taking three engineers instead, and most of the time, especially in non-tournament games, you really end up not needing it. There's a pretty easy way to deal this, of course:
1) Tell the captain that you'd prefer to stay gunner, as that's what you enjoy.
2) If they continue to yell at you, find another lobby. Most pilots will accept a gunner on their ship.
Unless, of course, you're coming in as a 2nd gunner onto ships. Then I agree with those who have been telling you to switch to engineer, but that problem is even more easily solvable: Don't get on a ship that already has a gunner on it.
-
I wouldn't argue for two gunners one engineer, I'm not that psychotic, I just have had the problem lately that no matter what game I get into, it takes four or five tries to find a captain that doesn't mind having a gunner on their crew. It's really depressing and the harassment I receive makes me just want to quit the game. At this point, I would rather petition the company to do something than keep trying.
-
I want to shoot things in the most epic way possible. I consider myself pretty good at it, considering I'm skilled at calculating trajectories, movement speeds, and bullet drop well enough in engine...
Awesome. Find me and hop on my ship sometime: I can always use a proficient gunner unless I'm running a highly specific loadout tailored to have 3 engineers.
I'm gonna fix my guns when they break and maybe an engine if I'm standing right next to it, but my chief purpose is to man the guns.
Be a little careful of that. A gunner should be ready, willing, and able to run wherever he's needed in a pinch. Remember: your primary job is to shoot, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be ready to jump to the hull or the balloon in a tight spot. You're the last line of defense when things hit the fan, so if you're needed on repairs be ready to jump to them, even if it means abandoning your gun. Survival > a kill if it lets you keep fighting, as your allies could pick off that almost dead ship for you if they're around. Basically, even a gunner must learn when to fight and when to repair.
For the love of all that's holy, please make it so gunners are actually useful compared to engineers.
They are. It all depends on the loadout used: unless the captain has a very specific reason for running all engies (and if he does he should be able to explain WHY), a gunner with a pipe wrench or spanner is a great boon. There are a number of captains out there (most of them fairly skilled) who definitely understand and appreciate why a good gunner is helpful. Find us. Fly with us. Help us shoot down our enemies. :D
-
A lot of captains don't know how to best utilize a Gunner and/or have built their ship around a 3 engie crew. The gunner class really is just a novelty compared to an engie, but I prefer to have a gunner on all my ships. A lot of the time the captain will let you stay on your gun, they just want a third engie to help with emergency repairs.
I completely agree that gunners need a buff, or engineers get a gunning nerf of some sort, just so us who like to shoot stuff can focus on shooting stuff without having a captain froth at the mouth.
-
I completely agree that gunners need a buff, or engineers get a gunning nerf of some sort, just so us who like to shoot stuff can focus on shooting stuff without having a captain froth at the mouth.
And this is the divide I was talking about.
-
I completely agree that gunners need a buff, or engineers get a gunning nerf of some sort, just so us who like to shoot stuff can focus on shooting stuff without having a captain froth at the mouth.
And this is the divide I was talking about.
I wonder if it'll ever be fixed. A gunner can pretty much only shoot and maybe repair a little. A pilot pretty much only flies, though balloon repairs are common. Engineers can play every role by itself, albeit not as good as the intended class, though it makes up for it since it can both gun and fly without any real downsides. A gunner should never pilot, and a pilot should only ever gun on a Spire or Mobula.
-
An engineer should always be fixing/buffing things unless the opportunity to shoot an auxiliary gun presents itself.
This has been beaten to death though which is why I imagine Muse hasn't done anything to change it. If three engie crews would always beat a gunner/two engie crew, then yea there is an issue. But that doesn't happen.
-
I think every class is suited to 1 role but that does not mean it is restricted to that role,
in lots of cases engineers look more useful because there are lots of components to fix
you have to relise that a gunner has 3 different damage outputs,
that is why when you fly on a ship with a captain that reconisies the balance needed between damage and repair
there will be a gunner because there are more versatile,
For Example
a galleon with a hwacha you get your engineer's to take heavy for long range
a galleon with a hwacha you get your gunner to take heavy for long burst charged close
who is more useful now?
It is very situational but every class is useful in its own way and to maximize your chances its always best to have at least 1 gunner :D
You have not choose a weaker class just more a situational one. some of the best players in the game are gunner specific and i have never heard them been called useless when they are dominating across map on a lumberjack with different ammo types,
i hope this keeps your spirits up and renews you to prove you are not useless your 1 more reason why your team is going to win :D
-
I appreciate everyone's thoughts and opinions so far, we'll be covering this debate on the next Rob and Dan Show for sure, as it stands though I'll keep trying, but I feel at this point we might need game mechanics to step in and reinforce the idea that one gunner on a crew is going to make a major bonus to a solid ships crew and complement. Engineers are important and I want them to keep being important, but I don't want to be one, and I want a leg to stand on when I say I won't be the third engineer on a crew, I'm gonna be the one putting holes in the enemies hulls and balloons.
-
...but I feel at this point we might need game mechanics to step in and reinforce the idea that one gunner on a crew is going to make a major bonus to a solid ships crew and complement.
By what? Forcing a 2-engie, 1-gunner meta? That isn't a good solution, in the same way that League of Legends doesn't force a Support/Carry/Jungle Tank/Mid Assassin|Mage/Top Bruiser|Mage meta. Specifically enforcing crew types or team comps removes the ability to innovate, and the ability to have specific things. For example, there are some ships that I *do* want 3 engineers on, and having game mechanics step in means I can't do that.
Really you just have to find captains who want gunners. As this thread indicates, we *do* exist.
Engineers are important and I want them to keep being important, but I don't want to be one, and I want a leg to stand on when I say I won't be the third engineer on a crew, I'm gonna be the one putting holes in the enemies hulls and balloons.
Perhaps carry the pipe wrench, and mention to your captain that you're perfectly willing to assist with repairs when necessary. The pipe wrench is a great middle ground, and gives the gunner/pilot some serious repairing power. You're no engineer and you can't extinguish fires, but you're damn helpful in a pinch.
That being said: What would your suggested alterations be? I'm always curious. :D
-
I stand by the fact that this is a team work game and you should accomodate what works best for the guy that runs the ship for you, else you should pilot a ship yourself and get your crew to be whatever you want them to be.
If your captain wants 3 engineers, go engineer and don't argue too much about it. If you don't want to, then change lobby and find a captain that has a use for a gunner.
I mean, sorry, I don't want to sound blunt, but that's how it is, Gunners CAN be used and they have their advantages, there is no problem with the class mechanically, but some people just have specific strategies in mind hence why Engineers can be more useful to them.
Thankfully I always run ships with Heavy guns so at least one gunner is always an asset to me so I realy don't see this problem much. Few and far between are the times I will have to make a gunner go engineer, but honestly in public games I don't care much so I leave one gunner on my ship most of the time anyway.
PS: As expected lot's of Merry Men on a "Gunner is useless" argument :P
PS2: Just poking fun btw, this argument is so old x3
-
I don't play this game to run around and hit stuff with hammers and wrenches and watch little bars go up.
...I want a leg to stand on when I say I won't be the third engineer on a crew, I'm gonna be the one putting holes in the enemies hulls and balloons.
First off that's just selfish play. Sure, I'm not always in the mood to be main engineer but I'm *always* in the mood to be a team player and if that means playing a few matches as main engineer I'm glad to be part of a team and contribute something pretty meaningful.
Secondly, not trying to be condescending but you're a level one captain. You're relatively new to the game. You have to realize that bringing an extra two ammo types so that you can get an extra 10% dmg, or whatever buff it has is nowhere near worth the disaster of when you're gun goes down, or catches fire and you have to stand there waiting for an engineer to put your gun out.
The extra ammo types you bring as a gunner offer a marginal increase in efficiency in "putting holes in the enemy" in relation to the significant increase in flexibility you have as a gungineer.
Honestly you just need to captain more and actually try engineering. You can't have a grasp on ship dynamics or comment on how important it is that you shoot when you haven't spent any time learning about the other roles.
-
There is less debate about medium guns- those ships (galleon, goldfish, spire) pretty much always have a gunner, because you need projectile speed mods (incendiary/heatsink) to get around arming time restrictions at close range on the heavy flack and lumberjack, while heavy shotguns benefit a lot from switching between lochnagar/incendiary/heavy/charged, in order of usefulness. Hwachas also require a heavy clip at anything but point-blank range, though an engineer can easily just load vanilla rounds at close range with little loss, so they don't lose out as much by not having a gunner. A hwachafish is still fully viable with 3 engineers, but a blenderfish is hurt by not having a gunner.
That being said, most popular ships (ones with no medium guns) really don't need a gunner that much, because enough damage/range versatility is provided simply by being engineer and taking either a close-range (greased or incendiary) or a long-ranged (heavy or lesmok) tool, and then switching to vanilla ammo when the tool becomes less useful. Exceptions include rare weapons such as the artemis which only really benefits from burst, the banshee only really benefits from greased, etc.
Engineers simply bring more to the table, between buffing components (including weapons, giving the benefits of charged rounds), extinguishing, and repairing. In a close-range light-gun ship that's guaranteed to be taking lots of damage, a gunner simply can't keep up with repairs and their fancy ammo types are useless if the rest of the ship is broken.
p.s. we already have an epic thread about this. https://gunsoficarus.com/community/forum/index.php?topic=410
-
p.s. we already have an epic thread about this.
That we do, and it has done so many circles it might as well be a NASCAR race.
-
I don't play this game to run around and hit stuff with hammers and wrenches and watch little bars go up.
...I want a leg to stand on when I say I won't be the third engineer on a crew, I'm gonna be the one putting holes in the enemies hulls and balloons.
First off that's just selfish play. Sure, I'm not always in the mood to be main engineer but I'm *always* in the mood to be a team player and if that means playing a few matches as main engineer I'm glad to be part of a team and contribute something pretty meaningful.
Secondly, not trying to be condescending but you're a level one captain. You're relatively new to the game. You have to realize that bringing an extra two ammo types so that you can get an extra 10% dmg, or whatever buff it has is nowhere near worth the disaster of when you're gun goes down, or catches fire and you have to stand there waiting for an engineer to put your gun out.
The extra ammo types you bring as a gunner offer a marginal increase in efficiency in "putting holes in the enemy" in relation to the significant increase in flexibility you have as a gungineer.
Honestly you just need to captain more and actually try engineering. You can't have a grasp on ship dynamics or comment on how important it is that you shoot when you haven't spent any time learning about the other roles.
I mean, if we're going to go that route, I could easily say maybe you should try flying something else than a pyra and realize that various ammo types do actually make a difference.
-
Have to agree with echo. The additional repair capabilities is in many cases better than the slightly better ammo a gunner can bring.
There are certain guns u want a gunner but not many. Lumberjack and hades ... maybe a hflak
Not many guns can really utilize a gunner ...
Mostly a engineer is way better. Deal with it or find another lobby. Easy thing.
-
Letting a captain know you are an excellent shot is more than saying you are an excellent shot in lobby. I have ran into far too many people with an over inflated sense of their own skills to trust the success of the ship to their idle boasts. If the captain doesn't know you, you are going to have to convince them that you can be trusted in a mission critical roll. It is easier to do this by being a team player and following instructions than insisting you are right from the get go. Show that you can make difficult shots as an engineer and your captain will be more open to putting you in a position where your shots matter. If they don't you can always pimp out your abilities to the other captains in the lobby.
-
Take a step back from everything that's going on here and get out of the circular arguments going on. Between people saying that the gunner class is indeed harder to utilize and less useful than the engineer and others saying just find a captain that doesn't mind taking a gunner, I think the point is made that we need some kind of subtle game mechanic tweaks to make the gunner class more useful in the long run.
What will it take? I honestly have no idea, people are right in that I'm a level one in everything else, I suck at flying and engineering quite literally makes me doze off, I just gun. Maybe we need subtle mathmatical differences in place that make it unreasonable to have engineers using guns, maybe reload and firing differences, maybe something that I just can't fathom in all my years of game review. I wouldn't agree with the bruteforce selection of two engineers and a gunner though, a captain should be allowed to pick his crew and instruct them. We need to make gunners viable, not required.
This has, more than anything though, been incredibly insightful on the community and how it functions. I understand there are good people and good captains who know how important a good gunner CAN be, but it seems that kind of person is going to be few and far between, and overall it makes me less interested in the game. No one should be harassed because of their class or spec choices, even if it's viewed as a little selfish that he won't switch classes just for the sake of the situation. I can understand if there's a plethora of gunners and there just isn't space for them on a crew, but when captain after captain yells at me to go engineer or leave, I just start to not give a damn and write the game and community off as moot.
-
I think we need more tools for the gunner, stuff that isn't ammo..
For example, giving the buff hammer to the gunner..
Although then engineers would stop having ammo and have 3 engineer tools and the buff hammer in the gunner slot, so yes that's a pretty bad example.
Maybe a gun specific buff tool, or something you use while shooting the gun.
--------------
It has too be an equipable tool/item though, since that's what Muse is going for with the classes. No passive skills or limitations.
-
I can understand if there's a plethora of gunners and there just isn't space for them on a crew, but when captain after captain yells at me to go engineer or leave, I just start to not give a damn and write the game and community off as moot.
I mean, we obviously can't force you to like the game, if you're not enjoying it well, then you shouldn't be stuck doing so, but quite obviously there's enough people who have spoken here saying they ok or like gunners on their ships here. If you're write off the entire community for being crap because a few in game don't... well...
/shrug
Seems just a little shortsighted. Dunno what I can really say to that.
-
I think we need more tools for the gunner, stuff that isn't ammo..
For example, giving the buff hammer to the gunner..
Although then engineers would stop having ammo and have 3 engineer tools and the buff hammer in the gunner slot, so yes that's a pretty bad example.
Maybe a gun specific buff tool, or something you use while shooting the gun.
--------------
It has too be an equipable tool/item though, since that's what Muse is going for with the classes. No passive skills or limitations.
While you're right in how the classes model works and that any changes should be done with tools, there'e a very big drawback to doing that which makes it difficult to implement correctly.
The drawback is that any tool that will give the gunner an advantage, is going to be pretty much mandatory to bring, otherwise, the new tool is useless.
So what actually happens is that technically, the gunner gets a passive upgrade while taking away one tool slot.
Another problem is that the engineer will be able to use that tool as well thereby negating the advantage.
So while giving a the gunner a new tool sounds like the right thing to do, it's actually lot more complicated.
EDIT: And while I know Muse doesn't want to give classes passive bonuses, it might be the most straight forward way to do it.
P.S. Okay I started writing a long postscript and decided it needed it's own post.
-
But if most people think there is a problem with gunners, then they should get looked at..
I mean no one is doubting the usefulness of engineers or pilots..
@shadowsteel
Yeah, that's what I mean.
Engineers will grab anything that's even remotely useful..
And if it becomes a must have item, then gunners have less room for ammo. But at least the have a new tool that could be used in an interesting way..
-
but when captain after captain yells at me to go engineer or leave
Given the fact we are in a sale right now where there are a lot of new players that are also new to the community, I can say that this isn't the norm.
The unfortunate part is that if we give everyone freedom, which we should, then opinions will be formed and we have this argument. Some will tell you (and apparently yell) that gunners are worthless and they have no place on their boat. Others like myself will welcome you with open arms and know your worth on a crew.
I cannot agree to any gameplay changes to something I don't believe is broken. On one end you have those who set their ships up to be best with three engies (which some believe is every boat). The other has more varied styles that benefit highly from a gunner's use of ammo (or generally think a gunner is better, like myself). Any real advantage is all opinionated, so trying to balance opinion will just break things. This is why all we really have to say is find those captains that appreciate gunners and friend them.
-
I can understand if there's a plethora of gunners and there just isn't space for them on a crew, but when captain after captain yells at me to go engineer or leave, I just start to not give a damn and write the game and community off as moot.
I mean, we obviously can't force you to like the game, if you're not enjoying it well, then you shouldn't be stuck doing so, but quite obviously there's enough people who have spoken here saying they ok or like gunners on their ships here. If you're write off the entire community for being crap because a few in game don't... well...
/shrug
Seems just a little shortsighted. Dunno what I can really say to that.
Going through the harassment to try and find the decent captains in this community hasn't been worth it yet. Maybe if I find a few more and get a regular retinue going it might start to be, but overall I walk away from the game every day just feeling like a piece of crap. I have to put up with a lot of BS in my day-to-day, I play games to get away from that and have fun.
-
but when captain after captain yells at me to go engineer or leave
Given the fact we are in a sale right now where there are a lot of new players that are also new to the community, I can say that this isn't the norm.
The unfortunate part is that if we give everyone freedom, which we should, then opinions will be formed and we have this argument. Some will tell you (and apparently yell) that gunners are worthless and they have no place on their boat. Others like myself will welcome you with open arms and know your worth on a crew.
I cannot agree to any gameplay changes to something I don't believe is broken. On one end you have those who set their ships up to be best with three engies (which some believe is every boat). The other has more varied styles that benefit highly from a gunner's use of ammo (or generally think a gunner is better, like myself). Any real advantage is all opinionated, so trying to balance opinion will just break things. This is why all we really have to say is find those captains that appreciate gunners and friend them.
I appreciate that you feel this is just player choice happening, but let's look at the math.
Some captains appreciate a crew of three engineers.
Some captains appreciate a crew of two engineers, and one gunner.
Let's say there's a balance of both, that leaves very few slots for gunners at all in the first place, and I feel the imbalance in design speaks for itself. I'm not trying to be disrespectful, I just think it's a glaring gap in game design.
-
Can you hit an enemy ship balloon with a lumberjack at 2000m while under lateral movement?
Yes - Welcome aboard
No - I'll take another engineer
Can you place a mine with pinpoint accuracy predicting a ship's course and also adjusting for pilot evasion tool the enemy captain might employ to avoid the mine which is what I demand of every gunner I put on a mine launcher?
Yes - Go lesmok, whatever, and incendiary and welcome aboard
No - Do you have a good awareness and the ability to listen as I teach you?
Yes - Ok come on and take...
No - Thank you for your interest, please return to the lowbie matches from wench you spawned
Are you a powder monkey quick joining?
Yes - I'm not moving the ship till you quit and rejoin as a swabbie. Usually ends in monkey shooting rocks and buildings out of boredom.
No - Ok, take the armor piercing gun and go nuts
Moral of the stories...unless you are godlike with a weapon and are able to bend the rules of space and time to deal with GOIO lag/etc...go engineer.
-
Thanks, Gilder, for making everyone feel so welcome.
/eyeroll
-
The problem isn't that gunners aren't useful, the problem is that the general population THINK that gunners aren't useful. For those of you who say they are awesome, myself included, how can we show that they are very much viable to the general population? If we can't then maybe they do need a change so this kind of harassment doesn't keep occurring.
Also, what would make 2 gunners on a ship viable? If we can solve that question then we can basically eliminate the problem since 2 gunners + 1 engineer OR 2 engineers + 1 gunner will be welcome.
-
Also, what would make 2 gunners on a ship viable? If we can solve that question then we can basically eliminate the problem since 2 gunners + 1 engineer OR 2 engineers + 1 gunner will be welcome.
Like pilots, there just isn't room for two. If you tried to make gunners into a class that you can take two of, you'd end up with a watered down engie anyway.
I think of gunners as pilots for their guns.
-
Also, what would make 2 gunners on a ship viable? If we can solve that question then we can basically eliminate the problem since 2 gunners + 1 engineer OR 2 engineers + 1 gunner will be welcome.
Like pilots, there just isn't room for two. If you tried to make gunners into a class that you can take two of, you'd end up with a watered down engie anyway.
Doesn't that mean we have watered down gunners right now?
-
Also, what would make 2 gunners on a ship viable? If we can solve that question then we can basically eliminate the problem since 2 gunners + 1 engineer OR 2 engineers + 1 gunner will be welcome.
Like pilots, there just isn't room for two. If you tried to make gunners into a class that you can take two of, you'd end up with a watered down engie anyway.
Doesn't that mean we have watered down gunners right now?
While I don't agree that the gunner is or isn't watered down, nor am I sure what that means, I do agree that this automatic requirement of two engineers on any good crew is a partial pigeon hole, or at least seems like it. Why is the engineer so perfect that we need him so heavily compared to other classes? This sounds really facetious reading it back to myself, but I think these are important questions to ask.
-
Too watered, thus you get an engineer with a buff hammer claiming to rule the world, lol.
The reason two engies are required is because I don't think there are enough guns on any one boat to warrant the need for 6 ammo types (or a build that would). You get diminishing returns at that point and the repair of a second engie is undoubtedly better than any potential damage a second gunner could add.
-
Well it maybe wasnt the nicest way of telling but thats the point. There is not much difference between a decent and a good gunner when using midrange to closerange weapon. Every Idiot can point that and hit the enemy. Doesnt take much more to know where to aim each gun.
Whats truly a hard thing is aiming a medium gun at a distance of 2000m where everything is much harder.
The only gun thats hard to hit at closer ranges is the minelauncher and a good player can utilize that one pretty well if he can place the mine right in front of the enemy.
Way to many ppl overerstimate what more ammo types can do.
I can go on a gatling as engineer with heavy clip and switch to normal rounds when pretty close and do nearly the same as a gunner. He just has greased rounds for closerange. But what i can bring is a faster rebuild of my gun and an extinguisher.
Same goes for most light guns. Even a hwacha can be utilized good enough by a engineer.
Lets go through guns ...
A heavy carronade, a heavy flak and a lumberjack are the medium guns that can be utilized well by gunners. A hwacha is ok but mostly not the mainweapon so you probably have an engineer doing well enough on it ...
So light guns we have.
A minelauncher is better with a gunner cause he has loch, lesmok and any other closerange ammo which can turn.
A hades is also better in the hands of a gunner cause he has lesmok for higher ranges and can switch to his closerange ammo when the enemy is near.
What we have left for gunners?
Nothing that is awesome just some that are ok.
I can maybe think of a gunner at a banshee cause u get heavy clip and greased so you get a better longrange but as the banshee isnt ur mainweapon cause u just deal permahulldmg and add some firestacks you will mostly have a engineer at that gun.
Mortar? Can finish an unarmored hull even with lesmok in one clip so no gunner needed.
A flak? Due to the decreased spread u dont need heavy anymore so u can go with charged. And it still deals explosive only but it will never instagib a hull within one clip ...
What do we have left?
A flamer which isnt a mainweapon so you wont use a gunner on it.
A artemis which is still quite ok at highranges even without lesmok.
A merc which doesnt need lesmok so u can go charged.
A gatling which i mentioned above ...
Ok you can utilize a gunner at a light carronade thats ok on a squid but there is no other ship thats build around such closequarter fights so you probably wont have a certain setup especially for the carronade on any other ship. But still a squid is so fragile i rather have a engineer on it.
And i hope no one will take flare or harpoon as a argument.
So all in all. Most guns are just not designed for gunners.
And i hope no one will mention flare or harpoon for a gunner ...
Oh and the two gunner thingy ...
The only ship that may profit from this is a galleon which can utilize it for the flak lj combo on the bottom deck but hey you can still have 2 engineers cause you dont hardly need a pilot as squash taught us.
-
Great, so we know WHY 2 gunners aren't viable. Now how do you MAKE 2 gunners viable, while still keeping engineers not "watered down."
-
Too watered, thus you get an engineer with a buff hammer claiming to rule the world, lol.
The reason two engies are required is because I don't think there are enough guns on any one boat to warrant the need for 6 ammo types (or a build that would). You get diminishing returns at that point and the repair of a second engie is undoubtedly better than any potential damage a second gunner could add.
That's a very good point.
In my personal opinion as someone who's reviewed games as his day job, I'd say the devs need to find a method to balance the math of having two gunners and having two engies with equal diminishing returns compared to each other, if each class played their strengths at equal skill levels. I know that you can't just say that, come up with equations, and implement. It involves player ability, who knows their tools and abilities best, but I think that's what the game should be vs who brought more engineers.
At that point, if we find balance in that singular scenario, every other problem that stems from people claiming gunners suck or engineers are overpowered will instantly solve themselves. Again this is 100% my opinion as a game reviewer and no way based in game experience at this point, but having viewed other game development cycles, it feels like the right direction to move towards.
-
Wow. Just got ninja'd by 7 posts... well here goes nothing.
I don't think gunners are useless right now. They provide diversity to the weapons on your ship. They help change variables in battle that were previously taking you down.
That being said, there is a certain imbalance, but I think it's actually the engineer that is the problem.
The way the tools are set up is that any class (gunner, engi, pilot) can perform any role (gunning, repairing, flying) with the right tools. The number of tools your class allows, increases your performance at that role (which makes the Spyglass the odd one out and why I think there should be a Gneral tool slot...).
But what it comes down to is, engis and gunners take the Spyglass for the Pilot tool, and most gunners take Pipe Wrench for repair because they're not going to be able to use anything else.
The Engineer still has that versatility of having all of the ammo types be useful for whatever guns they're ship has.
-
Because balloon and hull needs to be kept in best condition at all times.. It's hard to do without two engineers..
The problem is not so much that gunners aren't at all useful..
It's that they can be skipped without dire consequences, and some captains will, which means there won't be as much room for gunners compared to engineers..
Usually one type of ammo is enough for the job.
While you can't say the same about the engineering tools.
-
Usually one type of ammo is enough for the job.
While you can't say the same about the engineering tools.
Just like how I said 6 ammo gives diminishing returns, 9 tools can as well, thanks to cooldowns.
-
Gunners vs Engineer discussion.
(http://www.yankeegunnuts.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Here_we_go_again.jpg)
-
NO MAKE IT STOP! D;
-
No you dont get the same diminishing return from 9 tools you get from 6 ammo types.
9 tools are way better cause you dont have to run around and ext fires or help rebuild
you can rather switch to tankmode with 3 spanners on the hull or sth similiar.
-
And then lose the ability to shoot back, and eventually die because you cannot out-repair death.
-
No you dont get the same diminishing return from 9 tools you get from 6 ammo types.
9 tools are way better cause you dont have to run around and ext fires or help rebuild
you can rather switch to tankmode with 3 spanners on the hull or sth similiar.
Which takes one tool from each person only, in situations which do not occur as frequently as ammo switching would.
-
Well that fulltankmode is ur emergency button to get time till your ally comes close.
And still a third engi can shoot back aswell.
-
Maybe if longrange engagements were more viable we'd see more focus on gunners..
-
With less efficiency possibility than if a gunner was shooting back.
-
And still a third engi can shoot back aswell.
With less ammo at his disposal, and your tools are worthless while on a gun.
Maybe if longrange engagements were more viable we'd see more focus on gunners..
This argument has lasted way longer than the changes to long range gameplay ;p
-
I don't see how any of this solves the how to make 2 gunners viable problem. Unless you guys have completely tossed that idea out.
-
As i already stated the less ammo is just a valid argument on some guns.
5 guns can be utilized way better by gunners thats true.
We could say 7 guns are ok with a gunner.
But the rest just doesnt get much from a gunner so i rather have another engineer on my ship.
Before you make 2 gunners viable you would have to make 1 gunner viable.
Thats at least for me still a thing. You currently dont need a gunner on many ships.
Lets take the good old metamidion.
You have a gat mortar combination.
The mortars job is to instagib the permahull when the armor is down which he can do even with lesmok rounds. So you dont need a gunner for this gun.
Leaving us with the gatling. It needs heavy clip at longer ranges to hit constantly. This leaves us with a closerange and i mean rly closerange ammo type.
And for me it doesnt matter what ammo type a gunner could add at this point cause i can still use normal rounds as gunner, get a clip of 60 bullets and still do my job getting the armor of the enemy down. I can stay at my gun the whole time, extinguish a fire i may get on it, rebuild it faster as an engineer with my spanner.
Or i could use a buffsetup, still getting and extinguisher in it and still having the same good rebuild/repair as a gunner would have. But with a higher dmg even at longer ranges cause of my buffkit and a decent closerange.
So yes a gunner is useless on certain ships. Just accept it.
-
I think the OP is missing a large part of the game which is tragic since he claims to be a game reviewer. Guns of Icarus is actually two games the Captain game and the Crew game.
The Captain game is where the macro decisions are made:
What ship should I bring?
What should my crew take?
Where do I position my self?
Should I burn the balloon in hopes of saving the hull?
The Crew game is where the micro decisions are made:
Do I fix the balloon or hull first?
Extinguish or Mallet?
Leave the hull to get engines or stay?
Do I aim for a component or hull?
Should I wait for hull armor to drop or shoot now?
Sadly as a crew member this means your decisions in the lobby don't matter beyond "Am I going to listen to my captain or not?" This is why GOI isn't for every one. You have to accept the team focused nature of the game to get the most out of it. Even as a captain you need to fly to the limits of your crew and your team.
To focus on what you as an individual want to do regardless of the needs of the rest of the crew will result in poor performance, bad feelings, and ultimately a negative experience.
-
Before you make 2 gunners viable you would have to make 1 gunner viable.
Thats at least for me still a thing. You currently dont need a gunner on many ships.
Lets take the good old metamidion.
You have a gat mortar combination.
So yes a gunner is useless on certain ships. Just accept it.
Grats, you've got one build for one ship which three engineers can... kindof be beneficial (though quite frankly I still question that as do you really need three engineer tools to fix pretty much a single gun). However, that ship and gun loadout is just one in the vast arsenal of the game.
As you yourself so aptly put it: Yes, a gunner is only (semi)useless on certain ships with certain guns. Just accept it.
-
So yes a gunner is useless on certain ships. Just accept it.
I thought the point of the thread was that it's unacceptable?
There aren't any ships or builds where an engineer is useless..
-
Well your problem is you dont want to accept this and want a gunner on any ship. Others say it is ok how it is and explain it.
-
Yeah, I think you guys have missed the point. We're trying to make gunners less of a stigma to the general population. It's already established that 1 gunner can be useful but isn't always needed. I think that if there is a way to make 2 gunners useful, that will solve the problem of people getting harassed for wanting to play the gunner class.
-
Well your problem is you dont want to accept this and want a gunner on any ship. Others say it is ok how it is and explain it.
Yes, that is the problem we are discussing in the thread..
And yes, others have stated their opinions on the matter.
Why do you feel the need to point that out?
-
@ Nidh
While it is possible to make 2 gunners viable it would probably involve upsetting the balance of the game so much that the engineer class would be come trivial. The way the ships are setup one engineer can't cover all areas in a reasonable time. So either all the ships have to be redesigned to that one engineer can do all engineering tasks or the value of some engineering tasks have to be lessened to the point that it can be safely ignored. I would love to see a third option, I just can't think of it.
-
@ Nidh
While it is possible to make 2 gunners viable it would probably involve upsetting the balance of the game so much that the engineer class would be come trivial.
Maybe, maybe not. But just because you or I can't think of a solution that doesn't upset the balance, doesn't mean there isn't someone creative who might think of something more fitting and less-balance altering.
Sorry, didn't see your edit in time Hamster, but yes I would love to hear more ideas about solving the problem, rather than people pointing out what the problem is.
-
Muse already plans to implement some new mechanics for the gunner class (and potentially, but not necessarily, for engi too) which will help solidify its role.
Please, let's not argue about this anymore.
(though I'm surprised that the buff hammer's hardly been mentioned. In my experience that's the biggest asset of the gungineer vs. the gunner)
-
The point of this thread wasn't to make 2 gunners viable, I don't think that's something that needs to happen. The point was to show that 3 engies is not always > 2 engies 1 gunner.
-
Err... I thought it was about people getting harassed for wanting to play gunner, and that's because most people think the gunner is not very viable. My idea for the solution was to make 2 gunners just as viable as 2 engineers on a crew. I haven't seen any other solutions being presented.
-
Err... I thought it was about people getting harassed for wanting to play gunner, and that's because most people think the gunner is not very viable. My idea for the solution was to make 2 gunners just as viable as 2 engineers on a crew. I haven't seen any other solutions being presented.
...
Once again, get people to realize that 3 engies is not > 2 engie 1 gunner.
-
This pointless discussion needs to stop seriously.
Dear OP, you should seriously consider playing for your team and ship and cut out on the "But I want to do this!" attitude, just like in games like DotA or LoL you don't get to play the role you want all the time, you won't be able to play whatever you want on this game either, it's a team game and you have co-operate with your team, the captain of your ship and meet their needs.
Gunners have uses, Engineers have uses, play whatever you are asked to and enjoy the game, you will get to shoot and you will get to repair and who knows, you might even wanna fly at some point, then you might understand why I'm saying this right now.
If you can't accept that, no change to the gunner will make you like this game, I'm sorry.
To everyone else: Stop arguing cause it will never end, you are entitled to your opinions, but this discussion is seriously getting nowhere. Cut it out
-
Echoez, why do you come in here and tell us what to think and do, isn't that just a tad bit arrogant?
You're basically saying, don't question the Meta and I think this is pointless so you should all stop..
I don't even play as a gunner, so this is not some sort of personal crusade.
It's just the idea that the gunner should be viable and have something important/unique to contribute that I want to promote..
-
Echo's not saying that the meta shouldn't be questioned or anything. His point is that when you join somebody's ship, you should be prepared to do what they ask of you. If they ask you to switch to engi, then you should do so. If they ask you to switch to gunner, then you should also do it. I'm in favour of three engis myself, but if my captain wants a gunner (or even two), then that's fine. It's their choice.
And once again, changes to the gunner (as suggested by the OP) are already in the works.
-
Echoez, why do you come in here and tell us what to think and do, isn't that just a tad bit arrogant?
You're basically saying, don't question the Meta and I think this is pointless so you should all stop..
I don't even play as a gunner, so this is not some sort of personal crusade.
It's just the idea that the gunner should be viable and have something important to contribute that I want to promote..
I don't see any problem with the Gunner, they have a clear advantage over the engineer for the purposes that they can be used for thereby I don't see why this argument has any point what so ever.
Changes are on the way already since this debate has been discussed to DEATH already over a million times that it's very frustrating to even look at people going at it again.
I'm not saying don't question the Meta, the OP was complaining about harassment because he refused to go Engineer and insisted on staying Gunner, well I'm sorry but in this game, just like the other examples I brought (and sorry but I will have to repeat myself) you can't play whatever you want all the time, if the pilot wants a third engineer go engineer and if they want a gunner, stay gunner, the haressment is more of a result of the OP's stubborness to play what THEY want instead of complying to his captain's requests, not because he was a gunner per se.
Call me arrogant if you want, but I'm tired of this happening again and again when people just refuse to agree to disagree.
-
Come on Echoez, pointless arguments are the bread and butter of the internet. So long as we don't devolve in to flame wars I look at this as a net positive.
Here are some more ideas I don't think would work for introducing a 2nd gunner into the meta:
Make a new Ship:
One that can be repaired/extinguished by one engineer and have enough guns to support two gunners. This ship would be very hard to balance for and would either be OP or too much of a glass cannon.
Make pilots irrelevant:
If the new meta was 2 gunners 2 engineers, we could keep the current ship designs which still require two engineers while allowing for two gunners.
Buff the Gunner class:
Give the gunner class passive bonuses to reload or damage. Could lead to exploits where the two engineer meta is still better than two gunners if the gunner does the gun prep and the engineer still shoots or vise versa. It would lead to a higher skill ceiling with people who are able to exploit the meta having an even more significant advantage over those who don't understand it.
-
Come on Echoez, pointless arguments are the bread and butter of the internet. So long as we don't devolve in to flame wars I look at this as a net positive.
Here are some more ideas I don't think would work for introducing a 2nd gunner into the meta:
Make a new Ship:
One that can be repaired/extinguished by one engineer and have enough guns to support two gunners. This ship would be very hard to balance for and would either be OP or too much of a glass cannon.
Make pilots irrelevant:
If the new meta was 2 gunners 2 engineers, we could keep the current ship designs which still require two engineers while allowing for two gunners.
Buff the Gunner class:
Give the gunner class passive bonuses to reload or damage. Could lead to exploits where the two engineer meta is still better than two gunners if the gunner does the gun prep and the engineer still shoots or vise versa. It would lead to a higher skill ceiling with people who are able to exploit the meta having an even more significant advantage over those who don't understand it.
You want a suggestion? Here's a good one.
Make more Ammo types like Lochnagar, which is an ammo type that by itself, is mostly not a good choice for an Engineer, but a gunner that can afford multiple ammo types can take advantage of it much better, pretty much like the Engineer can make much better use of the Spanner and the Mallet.
-
Yeah, but you argue about the OP being selfish, yet you still demand everyone to stop this discussion based on your opinion and your annoyance of the topic..
In case you haven't noticed, there are a lot of new (myself included) and old players here, who want to discuss this..
If we're too annoying for you, there's nothing keeping you from saying "I respectfully disagree with you guys" and leave instead of demanding that everyone should stop posting because you don't think it will lead anywhere..
And what is there to agree to disagree?
The thread is based on the premise that the gunner is "useless" or less useful than the engineer, so I think the discussion should center about what can be done to improve the gunner..
If you disagree, no one is forcing you to participate.
-
Loghnagar requires an engineer following the gunner to clean up their mess. Having more specialized ammo won't make gunners any more useful if they still require the support of an engineer to use them effectively. You can still get engineers to swap out on guns as a means of trading ammo. I have gotten a 3 engineer manti-fish to work fantastically. One engineer buffs the front gun and hull, one engineer shoots heavy clip and does hull repair at close range, and the last engineer shoots burst at close range, and does hull repair at long range.
I guess my main point is implementing radical changes to the game dynamics will produce unforeseen consequences, that and arguing on the internet is fun.
-
Loghnagar requires an engineer following the gunner to clean up their mess. Having more specialized ammo won't make gunners any more useful if they still require the support of an engineer to use them effectively. You can still get engineers to swap out on guns as a means of trading ammo. I have gotten a 3 engineer manti-fish to work fantastically. One engineer buffs the front gun and hull, one engineer shoots heavy clip and does hull repair at close range, and the last engineer shoots burst at close range, and does hull repair at long range.
I guess my main point is implementing radical changes to the game dynamics will produce unforeseen consequences, that and arguing on the internet is fun.
It isn't something the engineer himself can use to great effect though and I don't mind the reliance on good crew teamwork to make a powerful ammo type work. This is the main idea, not everything has to damage your gun anyway.
Changing ammo types on the go with 3 engineers is not as effective as just having a guy focus on the gun on a Goldfish, plus your engineers would be better off using an ammo type that is useful for your sideguns, the example you present might work for the front gun but you are limiting the ammo usage on your side guns by a large margin, plus it's very demanding of the crew.
And what is there to agree to disagree?
The thread is based on the premise that the gunner is "useless" or less useful than the engineer, so I think the discussion should center about what can be done to improve the gunner..
That is entirely opnionated, there's many people that don't think the same and hence people that will disagree exist and they have a solid opinion on the matter, hence nothing will be achieved by barking at each other.
I personaly think the Gunner just needs more ammo types as I stated in my post earlier, nothing on the Gunner is broken at the moment, they bring versatility at the cost of possible specialization with extra firepower (Buff hammer comes to mind). Some people will prefer the versatility, some won't, that's the beauty of it. I can't see any way to make the Gunner more viable without making him mandatory.
-
Curious, what are thoughts on an all gunner chat (while on a gun)? That would make them more useful, as they could coordinate volleys and ammo types between ships. Though, that would make the captain a little less useful. That is if you have a captain that actually talks.
Other options would be to allow the gunners to fix their guns 10% faster than engineers, or to let them reload ammo types while leaving the gun without defaulting to basic ammo.
I guess those would be passive buffs, but really, there is no difference in class right now other than what you can carry. Captains already have one 'passive' skill the others don't, which is the ship to ship chat. I would support the right passive for each class. Other than the tools you can carry, and the Capchat, all the classes are a bit.... same-y.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/JCfrm5D.jpg)
Chill out guys, it's all good.
-
That is entirely opnionated, there's many people that don't think the same and hence people that will disagree exist and they have a solid opinion on the matter, hence nothing will be achieved by barking at each other.
I personaly think the Gunner just needs more ammo types as I stated in my post earlier, nothing on the Gunner is broken at the moment, they bring versatility at the cost of possible specialization with extra firepower (Buff hammer comes to mind). Some people will prefer the versatility, some won't, that's the beauty of it. I can't see any way to make the Gunner more viable without making him mandatory.
Yeah, but if we're going to discuss the premise itself, then as you said it will just go back and forth since you can't convince everyone.
----------------------------
The main problem is that you have to give the gunner something that the engineer won't just take for himself instead of ammo.
So what if we add something that is used while you're on a gun, that doesn't require reloading.
Maybe make lochnagar into something that isn't ammunition, but works best when combined with special ammunition.
(I'll just start throwing around crazy ideas)
- Lochnagar that isn't ammo
So you can activate lochnagar, but it damages the gun per second. Then you can combine it by loading the gun with an special ammo type that reduces damage taken.
(maybe some kind of overheat, overclock explanation to this)
- Tracers
Activate and you will fire a tracer round each 5nd shot. Useful for aiming.
(yes tracers usually are ammo, but you could make it a tracer muzzle or some kind of gadget)
- Flaregun
A pocket sized gun that fires flares, will keep ships nearby spotted automatically for X time.
Can cause fires, very long reload time.
- Scope
Use a scope with the weapon to get some form of aim assist and zoom in ability. Not something you attach to the weapon, but rather a gadget of sorts.
- Weapon specific buff tool
The buff could stack up to 5 times, but would disable the gun for 9-15 sec when you apply it, to keep you from doing it in-combat.
Firing the weapon would wear out the buff, but special ammo could make it last much longer. (which means it's pretty useless unless you bring both the tool and right ammo)
This also gives the gunner something to do while not in combat.
I really think the key is having things that become very useful when combined with ammo.
The engineer has mallet and spanner, you need both tools. Applying the same principle to ammo makes it more worthwhile with a class with more gunnery item slots.
-
I request this thread be locked because it's not going anywhere the other thread hasn't been. We really don't need two of these.
-
Seconded unless someone else proves otherwise.
-
No guys wait, I can explain
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwKj2NJMCzk
-
Wow Charon, greatest explanation ever. :P
-
There's no harm in discussing this, you don't have to look at the thread if you're not interested and why are you so easily provoked?
Stop derailing the thread, we were just getting back on track on the previous page..
Maybe if someone were to give feedback on the ideas I posted instead of messing around..
-
One of the major reasons why gunineers are preferred over gunners in many cases is their ability to bring a buff hammer. For a wide variety of weapons there is no need for using different ammo types that outweights the damage bonus a buff hammer provides. Hence reducing the buff hammers effect on weapons might help to make gunners more attractive. Alternatively one could grant gunners 2 engie equipment slots rather than 1. This would allow them to bring wrench+buff or could alternatively grant them some more repair power. I think bringing 2 additional ammo types is a rather minor boost compared to bringing 2 additional engineer equipments anyway.
-
Yeah but then you're making them more engineer instead of focusing on the gunnery aspect..
-
I still think the simplest change that makes sense, given that gunners are forced to bring wrench/mallet/spanner or risk being totally useless when anything breaks -- while engineers get an additional ammo choice (because they can gun under any circumstances) -- is to make standard/vanilla rounds an ammo type. This forces the engineer to tradeoff versatility for specialisation or vice versa (just like the gunner does with engineering tools) and makes the gunner's repertoire all the more valuable (like the engineer's). With regards to ammo preloading/abuse: introduce unattended ammo reloading (this is far more intuitive) and allow anyone to use whatever is preloaded (again, this is far more intuitive).
As it stands:
Gunner:
Repair/rebuild or buff or extinguish/spray. (And even choosing 'repair/rebuild' sacrifices one or the other, or both to some degree)
Standard ammo and 3x specialised ammo types.
Engineer:
Repair/rebuild and buff and extinguish/spray. (I know it's not quite this simple but you get the idea)
Standard ammo and 1x specialised ammo.
With the fix above it would be:
Gunner:
Repair/rebuild or buff or extinguish/spray.
Standard ammo and 3x specialised ammo types.
Engineer:
Repair/rebuild and buff and extinguish/spray.
Standard ammo or 1x specialised ammo.
And I think that would make a world of difference. This was originally suggested by Mr Mouse I believe.
Anyway, if Sunderland is right and Muse are working on a solution to all this then the above doesn't matter an awful lot until we know what they're doing, so I'll get me coat...
-
Yeah but adding an additional engineering slot is not really in "the spirit of the class"..
You're just making a Gungineer..
Although I like the idea of having to bring standard ammo. Thats a really good idea..
What if guns weren't loaded at all when you start the game. That makes ammunition so much more important, it also adds more awareness to what you load the guns with.
That way you could give the buff hammer to the gunner and that would force engineers to give up shooting all together to pick it.
Or you could give the gunner the chemspray, make it increase rate of fire and reduce the fire fighting effect. So the main purpose is to use it on guns.
-
Yeah but it's not in "the spirit of the class"..
You're just making a Gungineer..
Captains should take gunners for their gunnery.
Also, different types of ammo isn't terribly interesting...
I'm gonna quote what I wrote on the last page, because personally I feel that the gunner not only needs to be more viable but also more interesting.
What's not in the spirit of the class? And who's just making a gungineer? Not sure who you're talking to there!
Like the OP, I think engineering is as dull as dishwater compared to gunning so I get a bit ticked off having to go engineer 90% of the time. I'll do it, but it's nowhere near as fun as piloting or gunning for me hence why I do more piloting...
Edit: Yeah I thought it was a very elegant idea!
-
Wait, I thought you were talking about adding a 2nd engineer slot to the gunner.. My bad, I guess I confused it with the previous suggestion..
It's actually a fantastic idea, coupled with guns having 0 ammo loaded from the start.
I also edited my post quite a bit after I read that part..
-------
I also think it's hard to see what effect your ammo has.. While it's much more obvious what effect the engineer tools have.
Which in turn leads to a lot of people undervaluing and not understanding the worth of a gunner.
-
Yeah I just noticed and edited my post too :-S
-
Just had time to sit down and read through the posts from yesterday and this morning, and needless to say I'm blown away by the amount of clashing that's going on here. I won't bring up any new arguments but I will say that I'm not doing this out of selfishness, I'm trying to make the game enjoyable for myself (and I assume for others as well, hopefully). I'm not the only one that paid his cash to play this game, we all did, and it's important we make each class and player type viable and enjoyable.
That being said, I think it's clear those gunner changes coming need to be substantial, because as it is there's a lot of unhappiness and debate going on as evident by this thread. Some people are getting nasty about it, some are keeping it decent and civil. I would hope everyone can keep it friendly too because this is a game, we're all here to have fun, but this is also about some people who love the gunner class get harassed about it, and that removes the fun entirely.
There are a lot of good ideas in this thread already too, fantastic ideas that really breach some of the boundaries currently set in front of the gunner class. I don't want it to turn into a game of give it more engineer slots, because that solves jack shit for me. I want to make shooting the ever living crap out of things more viable. Keep up the good, positive thinking on how that can be accomplished.
Oh, and for people just hoping on the thread to say "No, screw you, get in line and do whatever your captain says"; Please reconsider how you're treating others. We're generating positive, helpful ideas here, not trying to break people down.
-
- Flaregun
A pocket sized gun that fires flares, will keep ships nearby spotted automatically for X time.
Can cause fires, very long reload time.
Yes! Sunderland's Portable Flare Gun.
-
Actually the "Get inline and obey the captain" is one of the things most of us will agree on. There is no time for democracy on a ship. Captaining is difficult enough without random variables like crewmen bringing the wrong equipment/going the wrong class.
If you truly must be gunner switch to spectate and ask all the captains of the lobby who wants/needs a gunner. Do not force your decision to be gunner upon a captain who is unwilling.
-
Actually the "Get inline and obey the captain" is one of the things most of us will agree on. There is no time for democracy on a ship. Captaining is difficult enough without random variables like crewmen bringing the wrong equipment/going the wrong class.
If you truly must be gunner switch to spectate and ask all the captains of the lobby who wants/needs a gunner. Do not force your decision to be gunner upon a captain who is unwilling.
That's actually a really good point, and I don't think I worded myself right at all.
I'm absolutely gonna do what the captain asks of me, I'll switch out ammo selections and use specific guns and even keep an eye on a part or two when I'm asked to get off the guns a moment. Absolutely. I've flown under Zill before and I think he can attest I can be reasonable.
I will not switch to engineer. If there's already one gunner then I'm more than happy to find another team or sideline myself. No questions asked. Maybe a captain wants multiple gunners and that's great and I would be even happier, but that never happens. The majority of the time it's either a captain already has a favorite gunner or just wants three engineers, and I'm getting yelled at again.
-
Although I like the idea of having to bring standard ammo. That's a really good idea.
I'd go the opposite way and say that it's a very poor idea, for the following reason: when you get on a gun that doesn't use your ammo type, the gun reloads. This means that "Normal" ammo is the default for a reason: if you don't know who is next on the gun and you aren't wielding the same ammo type, you default to Normal rounds so that gun is not user-specific for the next engagement. I feel that losing that removes the "normal" from Normal rounds, to the game's overall detriment.
All in all I have to agree with Hamster IV here: "Get in line and obey the Captain" may be a little harsh, but the reality is fairly close to that. If I have a guy who wants to play gunner then I'll damn well try to accommodate him, but if I feel my team will benefit most from a Pyramidion and my Pyramidion set-up prefers three Engineers to a 2-Engie\1-Gunner set-up, then yes I will request him to switch to Engineer and I will further expect him to trust that, as the captain and pilot of the ship, I know what my ship needs to stay alive and function at peak efficiency.
Overall, I think the Gunner is in a fine place: I use a Gunner on every ship in the game save for highly-specific Squid and Pyramidion loadouts (and maybe a Mobula loadout or two, merely because that ship is a bear to try to navigate and repair quickly). I want a gunner on every ship in the game save for those highly specific loadouts. Why? Because he has the tools to allow me to function at peak capacity with weapons that otherwise might not. For example: Heavy Clip + Burst makes a Hwacha devastating at almost any range, and an Engineer can't bring that sort of firepower to the table. So I don't think the Gunner needs much more than he has: he's already very strong on the right ships, and useless on next to no ships.
-
i have never desired a gunner on any ship i have ever piloted. i do not feel like any other feedback is necessary. do something to make them more useful than triple engi please.
-
This is currently like the American Government; no matter how many people want Gunners to have a welcomed place on all ships, those who think they are useless will NEVER accept the thought of them being more useful. Any change made will have them frothing at the mouth screaming 'GUNNERS OVERPOWERD'. That being said, the same goes for the opposite, leaving the Gunner as is will have us all yelling 'GUNNER UNDERPOWERD'.
We, as a community will continue to argue about this topic and gain no ground because we are humans; stubborn as hell. In fact, I've never seen someone change their opinion on this topic. Everyone may listen, but they've made up their minds and no valid argument will convince them otherwise.
(Note when I say 'they' I mean 'most everyone'.)
please continue these arguments, not because we'll possibly get somewhere, but because it's brought entertainment since the beginning.
-
This is currently like the American Government; no matter how many people want Gunners to have a welcomed place on all ships, those who think they are useless will NEVER accept the thought of them being more useful. Any change made will have them frothing at the mouth screaming 'GUNNERS OVERPOWERD'. That being said, the same goes for the opposite, leaving the Gunner as is will have us all yelling 'GUNNER UNDERPOWERD'.
We, as a community will continue to argue about this topic and gain no ground because we are humans; stubborn as hell. In fact, I've never seen someone change their opinion on this topic. Everyone may listen, but they've made up their minds and no valid argument will convince them otherwise.
(Note when I say 'they' I mean 'most everyone'.)
please continue these arguments, not because we'll possibly get somewhere, but because it's brought entertainment since the beginning.
You speak the truth dear sir, salutations to you :P
-
Who was it who mentioned that ammo types don't work together in the same way that engineering tools do? I can't seem to find the post, but I think they hit the nail on the head. Let's look at a light mortar, for example, which is a pretty popular gun to stick gunners on.
A gunner will take something like lesmok (for the range), greased (for the DPS), and heatsink (for fire prevention). This gives them some strong versatility, but...
An engineer can take lesmok, but then also have a buff hammer and chem spray. On paper this gives them the same abilities as the gunner (range, power and fire prevention), but the key difference is that all three of these can be acting at once. If I want to protect my gun from fire as a gunner, I can't do so at longer ranges because of heatsink's projectile speed reduction. Similar story with greased. The biggest draw of the gungineer is that they can stack all of their abilities together.
Of course, there are guns that work rather differently. The lumberjack, for example, pretty much requires a gunner (the one situation where I might disagree with that is on the lumberspire, due to how isolated the front gun is from engineers, and if the enemy gets close to your Spire, something's gone terribly wrong anyways). Still, I don't see arming time being a solution for most guns...
I guess we'll have to wait and see what Muse comes up with.
@Zenark: Actually most of the people who don't use gunners now have been asking for them to get buffed for a long time. What do you think the whole purpose of that massive thread was?
-
A gunner on a mortar? Really? If I used a Meta setup, I'd prefer my gunner on the gatling so he could keep firing and the engie on the mortar could do stuff while waiting for the enemy hull to go down.
And if the pro-engie side wanted a change, they'd be more open to the ideas we present instead of tearing them apart.
-
If you want to take a light gun designed for gunners use the hades and not the friggin mortar.
THe mortars job is instagib the permahull when the armor is dead. It can instagib the hull even with the 11 shots from lesmok loaded so you dont need anything else.
A Hades is designed for a gunner. It needs lesmok on longer ranges and you actually get sth when hes close. So you take greased to increase the piercing dmg to drop down the hull.
I still say rather than change gunner class you would have to adjust the guns itself. Most guns are just not designed for a gunner.
-
A gunner on a mortar? Really? If I used a Meta setup, I'd prefer my gunner on the gatling so he could keep firing and the engie on the mortar could do stuff while waiting for the enemy hull to go down.
Right. I agree 100%. I was just taking an example of a gun that a lot of people like putting a gunner on.
And if the pro-engie side wanted a change, they'd be more open to the ideas we present instead of tearing them apart.
Both sides of the argument seem to be putting in an equal amount of criticism. And as far as I can tell, most of the suggestions are being brought up by people in favour of engies.
But let's not argue over such an irrelevant point. It has no real bearing on the actual topic here.
-
And as far as I can tell, most of the suggestions are being brought up by people in favour of engies.
Because we who use gunners see no need to change them to make them "better" so we just look at you with a blank stare.
I'm pretty much done here though, much like the other thread.
-
Because we who use gunners see no need to change them to make them "better" so we just look at you with a blank stare.
Exactly. You're taking the stance of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" on this (a point of view which I see as perfectly fine even though I don't agree with it), which is why the vast majority of suggestions are coming from people who don't usually run gunners.
But once again, that isn't really important with regards to the actual topic here.
-
For only one crew slot a round, you could help a Captainless Gunner have a ship and crew to call his own.
Think of the Gunners
(http://cleverbirdbanter.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/terrified.jpg)
-
Although I like the idea of having to bring standard ammo. That's a really good idea.
I'd go the opposite way and say that it's a very poor idea, for the following reason: when you get on a gun that doesn't use your ammo type, the gun reloads. This means that "Normal" ammo is the default for a reason: if you don't know who is next on the gun and you aren't wielding the same ammo type, you default to Normal rounds so that gun is not user-specific for the next engagement. I feel that losing that removes the "normal" from Normal rounds, to the game's overall detriment.
Yeah, but that makes the guns the gunners territory, just like a gunner won't go around messing with the hull or engines. Well, he can to a limited amount, just like an engineer could use one type of bullet.
But why keep the mechanic where the gun reloads when you do not have the same bullets equipped?
I still think guns should start without any bullets at all, making the gunner more important as he can load the right bullets.
(the problem is if it forces gunners to do reloading instead of shooting...)
Who was it who mentioned that ammo types don't work together in the same way that engineering tools do? I can't seem to find the post, but I think they hit the nail on the head.
That's why I think gunners should have stuff that isn't ammo, gadgets and tricks you can use while shooting, like tracers, special shots, scope, etc.
Because if you have something that stacks, then all of a sudden having 3 gunnery item slots will be much more useful.
---------------
Zenark, using such an image as a joke, where is your heart? :/
-
Zenark you probably only meant that as a joke, but it could be seen as quite crude and distastefull. It won't get moderated this time, but please consider how your posts might affect people the next time you want to pull something humorous.
-
Yeah, but that makes the guns the gunners territory, just like a gunner won't go around messing with the hull or engines. Well, he can to a limited amount, just like an engineer could use one type of bullet.
Gunners do mess around with hulls and engines though: everyone pulls their own weight in both healing AND firepower, even if that weight isn't as much as the specialist in that area.
Making normal ammo a type removes the ability for Engineers to effectively use any gun that does not benefit from their special ammo, which severely limits loadouts and options for ships. I can't say that's a good thing, even if it does make Gunners a little more important. I'd rather (if we assume Gunners need a buff) give Gunners something extra rather than take away from not only the Engineer's options, but the Captain's viable options with ship loadout.
But why keep the mechanic where the gun reloads when you do not have the same bullets equipped?
For one thing, that makes the Gunner more important. Otherwise two Engineers could each take the most important ammo for a certain gun, and just juggle reloading times to always keep it filled with the most appropriate ammo. A good team on a smaller ship would have no trouble doing this.
-
For one thing, that makes the Gunner more important. Otherwise two Engineers could each take the most important ammo for a certain gun, and just juggle reloading times to always keep it filled with the most appropriate ammo. A good team on a smaller ship would have no trouble doing this.
Except that you can't call someone over everytime you need to reload.. Then you're gonna waste a ton of time..
Making normal ammo a type removes the ability for Engineers to effectively use any gun that does not benefit from their special ammo, which severely limits loadouts and options for ships. I can't say that's a good thing, even if it does make Gunners a little more important. I'd rather (if we assume Gunners need a buff) give Gunners something extra rather than take away from not only the Engineer's options, but the Captain's viable options with ship loadout.
Giving gunners something extra will have the same effect, but with added powercrawl.
If the meta changes and having a gunner makes you kill things more effectively, then loadouts will be limited the same way, since they won't be viable.
I don't see the difference between "Ok, we can't have engineers on these guns now because they are less effective" vs "we must have gunners on these guns no because they are much better"
-
I don't see the difference between "Ok, we can't have engineers on these guns now because they are less effective" vs "we must have gunners on these guns no because they are much better"
The different is the first is "this engineer is actually causing the gun to function not only below peak efficiency, but below normal efficiency" vs. "this engineer is fine on the gun, although a gunner would be much better."
-
They are both relatively the same thing..
"Normal efficiency" is definied by the meta.
-
They are both relatively the same thing..
"Normal efficiency" is definied by the meta.
Not really. The difference here is in player perception. Psychologically, players would rather see someone else do better with interaction A then see themselves actually make interaction A worse.
Basically, it isn't fun to only be able to use a gun when you know that the gun is actually weaker as a result of you using it. Players want to feel useful and, as a result, I'd much rather have the Gunner just be BETTER at gunning than the Engineer. Note that this means the Engineer stays at his current baseline of having normal ammo and a single option -- the Engineer in this situation sometimes isn't playing optimally, yes, but he's also not feeling useless by seeing his choice actively harm his teams firepower.
Small distinction in this discussion...but it makes a large distinction in how the player perceives the class during actual play.
I think you'll find this common in many class-based or option-based games, and the reverse (a player's choice making them actively worse than an unmodified choice) is rather rare except in games specifically designed around that.
-
Yes, but otherwise we'll have powercreep that will make engagements much shorter, due to increased firepower/accuracy/better gunnery..
Currently gunners are experiencing the same feeling of being a liability as you describe, when it comes to the survival of the ship.
With normal ammo the engineers are effectively using 2 types of ammo, that's like the gunner having two engineer slots..
So why do you insist that engineers should be so versatile at shooting?
-
Currently gunners are experiencing the same feeling of being a liability as you describe, when it comes to the survival of the ship.
Not really. They can take the Pipe Wrench, which, while not AS good at repairing or AS good as healing, is a very powerful middle-ground tool in its own right. A gunner with a pipe wrench is actually GOOD at repairing and healing parts...just not AS good an an Engineer because he lacks the flexibility to have the BEST option active.
Meanwhile, an Engineer who is running, say, Lesmok for a specific gun and finds himself stuck on a Gatling adds...literally nothing of value, while having a reduced clip size and rotation rate. Further, since that gun will NOT be loaded with Lesmok, he also has to reload it. That's why normal rounds are important: otherwise our theoretical 1-ammo engineer is punished TWICE. Once for being less efficient, and once for requiring MORE TIME to STILL be less efficient.
So why do you insist that engineers should be so versatile at shooting?
I mean, I'd settle for removing their ammo slot entirely and leaving them with normal around, but that also feels like a poor solution that's un-fun for everyone.
-
An engineer can still take normal ammo, why does he require both lesmok and normal?
If the gunner has to do with the pipewrench then an engineer can make do with normal ammo.
I agree what you're saying about perception.
But that's mostly because engineers are so spoiled with special ammo.
-
An engineer can still take normal ammo, why does he require both lesmok and normal?
He doesn't. The point is that you're stuck with one of two things: All engineers take normal ammo (boring), or ship loadouts MUST be built around either the gunner being on every gun (awkward, since you normally want your gunner in position to fire the most important gun you've got), OR designed so that a single engineer ammo type is optimal on ALL the remaining guns, since if there's a gun the engineer's ammo type DOESN'T work on you don't actually want to have that gun on the ship in the first place (unless the gunner can easily reach it). Both are restrictive to ship loadouts and to player fun, as people often like a variety.
-
I've been looking at the issue from a pure balance perspective, what you're saying about variety and fun is true.
But you're also pointing out how skewed the game is towards engineers.
You're basically saying engineers are so central to loadouts and gunnery that everything goes to hell if their ammo is limited..
-
You're basically saying engineers are so central to loadouts and gunnery that everything goes to hell if their ammo is limited..
I think so, yes. The ability of everyone to carry an ammo type and still use guns that DON'T require that ammo type is what allows a wide variety of guns to be used on a ship, in my opinion.
-
What if the gunners were the only ones that could change ammo types, and whatever ammo they loaded would stay until they changed it? Or it would take a lot longer for a non-gunner to switch ammo types. That would definitely make them an essential member of a crew.
I think the main issue here is not making gunners useful, as they already are, but rather to make them different. Once you are on a gun, there is really no difference in play other than two more ammo types to choose from.
The only class that has a unique ability is the captain.
-
That change would switch much as most experienced players preload their weapons so they have it loaded even before the fight starts. And for a mortar which is a pretty usual engineer weapon you only need one clip to instagib nearly every unarmored ship.
-
Problem is you don't want the gunners new role to be a gun reloader..
Because the engineers can still fire the weapons while the gunner has to go around reloading..
-
Interesting when playing with my friends we always have at least one gunner, sometimes two.
My understanding of the problem is quite different though, to me each class as an item slot in each area of expertise, and two additional in its own field.
The problem comes to that:
-To control the boat, just click on the helm.
-To use a gun, just click on the gun.
-To repair a piece of equipment, just click on.... *OUCH* no, you can't.
so the simple fix is to allow repair/rebuild by simply clicking on the piece of equipment. In that case your item slot in each field is only ever a bonus, not a requirement as it is for the engineering slot item currently...
(Just to be clear, that would be a slow repair/rebuild, maybe equal to the current in game worst repair and rebuild values.)
-
The problem comes to that:
-To control the boat, just click on the helm.
-To use a gun, just click on the gun.
-To repair a piece of equipment, just click on.... *OUCH* no, you can't.
That's actually fairly insightful. What if Engineering were based around, say, a single thing (like Gunning normal ammo, or a Pilot's ability to fly): Say a 100hp/5 second, 3 rebuild tool. Everyone gets this tool by default. Call it the Engineering Kit or something.
Then you get "modifications" that you can use. Everyone gets 1, Engineers get 3 (I'd switch Spyglass to an "everyone" tool here, and let people actually choose a piloting tool aside from that).
Fire Extinguisher: -70 repair per hit, -1 second cooldown, -1 rebuild, removes all fire stacks.
Chemical Treatment Kit: -60 repair per hit, -2 second cooldown, -1 rebuild, removes 3 fire stacks per use, prevents additional fire stacks for 30 seconds.
Quick Repair Kit: -60 repair per hit, -3 second cooldown, +2 rebuild.
Major Damage Kit: +125 repair per hit, +4 second cooldown, -1 rebuild.
...and so forth. An Engineer has flexibility above and beyond the average (due to a better selection of tools for the specific situation), while the Gunner and Pilot have the average baseline of Engineer repairing and a SINGLE addition to give them more flexibility in a specific direction. This flexibility might even allow for 2 gunner crews being competent at repairing and better at gunning, while 2 engineer crews are better at repairing and competent at gunning.
-
But it would be really boring if the tools were just "buffs" instead of actual items..
That's why I don't really like the gunner having so much ammo and no actual tools or gadgets.
A scope, tracer muzzle, smoke screen bomb, flare gun, these are just a couple of things that could be added as gunnery items that would stack ontop of regular ammunition.
Don't forget that there's a huge difference between mallet/spanner and the wrench.
Engineers will still be as important even if gunners are given the same "baseline" It's will be like giving them a wrench and then having them choose spanner or mallet..
Since engineer is so situational, you need the main tools and be as effective as possible to deal with burst damage, a wrench and mallet isn't good enough even though it's better than just a wrench.
-
The problem comes to that:
-To control the boat, just click on the helm.
-To use a gun, just click on the gun.
-To repair a piece of equipment, just click on.... *OUCH* no, you can't.
That's actually fairly insightful.
That was my point earlier on with regards to the vanilla/standard ammo idea: engineers are inherently more useful because they can operate guns independently of their loadout, bring three engineering tools and one specialised ammo. Gunners have to bring spanner/wrench/mallett to even be able to repair and rebuild something, and whichever tool they choose sacrifices repair/rebuild power as well as the ability to buff and protect/extinguish.
I don't like the idea of gunners coming with some baseline engineering equipment because it's almost like giving them an extra 'secret' engineering slot. Yes, anyone can pilot, and yes, anyone can gun, but those activities don't require tools to operate like engineering does. To fly you spin the wheel and adjust the throttle. To gun you hold the thing and pull the trigger. Engineering is all about the tools hence why you need them to do the job. The point of the vanilla/standard ammo idea is to alter the value of the ammo slot for the engineer without taking it away. You make a standard ammo type and suddenly engineers have to start making the same trade-offs with gunning as gunners do with engineering. You can take the wrench as a gunner, you can take the standard ammo as an engineer. You take a more specialised tool/ammo type and you take all the pitfalls that come with them.
Gunner tools could be really interesting though. My guess would be that Muse would go down this route as it would really bolster the gunner's role and force the dilemma above for engineers without creating standard/vanilla rounds.
-
The idea is for everyone to be able to repair/rebuild by simply clicking.
It's the equivalent of normal ammunition for guns, or standard control to pilot.
If anyone can rebuild/repair, each person can decide what bonus they want. (repair/rebuild/improve/...)
-
As long as it's not a squid. The pilot will most likely accept you as a gunner.
If not and you really cant find any games and tons of pilots are screaming at you to go engi buffgineer is the next best thing as it gives you more of a reason to stay on the guns.
-
As long as it's not a squid. The pilot will most likely accept you as a gunner.
If not and you really cant find any games and tons of pilots are screaming at you to go engi buffgineer is the next best thing as it gives you more of a reason to stay on the guns.
Gunner are kind of a liability on a mobula, I'd rather have one on a squid to be honest.
-
As long as it's not a squid. The pilot will most likely accept you as a gunner.
If not and you really cant find any games and tons of pilots are screaming at you to go engi buffgineer is the next best thing as it gives you more of a reason to stay on the guns.
Gunner are kind of a liability on a mobula, I'd rather have one on a squid to be honest.
Huh ok... Every pilot I've seen so far has a "no gunner" policy on squids
*EDIT* wait no I'm thinking of the wrong ship... My bad :P
-
Gunner are kind of a liability on a mobula, I'd rather have one on a squid to be honest.
Eh, you'd be surprised. Really it depends on what gun you have up top. If it's a gatling then all you really need is heavy, so an engi would be better. But if you've got something that you may want more than one ammo on, like a carronade or mortar, then I really don't think a gunner would be a bad idea. As for survivability, usually one engi can hold down their assigned side without need of much assistance. And the gunner can always bring a spanner to help with rebuilding the vital systems.
-
Let me rephrase that. I don't want a gunner on my squid normally but I really don't want a gunner on my mobula ever.
-
And i dont want a gunner on a metamidion ...
-
I think the Mobula is the only ship I've liked having three engineers on, otherwise I like to have a gunner on all my ships.
-
I don't like the idea of gunners coming with some baseline engineering equipment because it's almost like giving them an extra 'secret' engineering slot.
Why would this be an issue? Assuming an Engineer takes the tool to make his repairing better (mallet equivalent) and the one to increase his repairing (spanner equivalent), he's left with a tool in the middle that isn't particularly useful to him except in very niche situations.
Meanwhile, having a "middle-of-the-road" tool as a default and being able to select a different tool for specialization drastically increases the effectiveness of the Gunner and Pilot as far as repairing and Engineering is concerned, without really making them step on the Engineer's toes all that much.
Gunner tools could be really interesting though. My guess would be that Muse would go down this route as it would really bolster the gunner's role and force the dilemma above for engineers without creating standard/vanilla rounds.
This would be cool, yes, but problematic for the following reason: it's almost always true that staying alive > killing power, as a ship that can stay alive will bring more killing power to bear over the course of a game. So unless we can tweak things so a 2-gunner ship isn't so easily torn apart when compared to a 2-engie ship, I think Engies will still dominate the class picks unless the Gunners tools make their damage output or part-breaking ability completely overpowered. My opinion though.
-
Giving the gunner a wrench aquivalent and a tool he can choose wont change much on certain ships.
The advantage the gunner gives is just no advantage on some guns.
This guns would need a change to make gunners useful.
I still dont want a gunner on a mortar neither on a gatling. So why should i bring a gunner on a metamidion?
I rather have an engineer who can shoot his gun and rotate around when needed.
-
So, if staying alive > killing power, then give the gunner something other than repairing that helps the ship survive..
- Smoke bombs: Removes all spotted targets for ship within the smoke.
- Tesla bombs: Disables any guns hit for x seconds.
-
I still dont want a gunner on a mortar neither on a gatling. So why should i bring a gunner on a metamidion?
Gatling I'll give you. Mortar benefits from greased, lesmok, and sometimes burst. Gunner may not be IDEAL, but he is still useful.
-
Mortar benefits in theory from this ammo type.
But a good player will probably just time his shots and instagib any ship besides galleon.
You dont need a gunner if a gun can instagib an unarmored hull if its paired with a gatling.
The Pyra just needs 1 full gatling clip and 2 mortars shots to loose its hull armor.
6 more shots and it is dead. So why should i bring a gunner on a mortar if i can kill an enemy without a gunner this fast?
-
6 more shots and it is dead. So why should i bring a gunner on a mortar if i can kill an enemy without a gunner this fast?
In this theoretical case? Greased for rapid killing, Lesmok for extended range against ships that don't allow you to engage at close range.
-
Maybe give gunners 4 ammo slots? :D BOOM! minds = BLOWN! :)
-
Maybe give gunners 4 ammo slots? :D BOOM! minds = BLOWN! :)
But your gunner typically stays on 1-2 guns...so he really doesn't need a fourth ammo type.
-
I just flew over a few pages of this thread, so I don't know if this has been proposed, but here it is:
How about making all types of ammo more extreme? If the different ammo types had stronger effects and flaws, carrying more of them would really make the offensive shine.
PS: I am of the opinion that sometimes, a good offense is the best defense. When piloting a galleon and splitting my behind halfway to get a good good angle, I am glad there's a gunner downstairs who fixes a gun and blows the flaming bug away instead of repairing consistently breaking components ad infinitum.
-
Gunners should have more tools other than ammo types.
-
I know I'm arriving to this discussion late, and also am too lazy to read through 10 pages, but I can hazard a guess of what's been said; since it's been brought up a lot.
When talking about the usefulness/uselessness of a gunner, you have to compare them to an engineer. (As the pilot is just shy of useless on anything but the helm)
The benefits of the gunner is that they can bring more ammo types.
The downside is that they can bring less engineer equipment/
Obviously the gunner is supposed to be more useful shooting a gun than an engineer, where the engineer is supposed to be more useful keeping the ship healthy.
However, when it comes to being on the gun, a variety of ammo types doesn't always prove to be a benefit. Certainly they can help if various situations, such as being on a gatling and using heavy clip for those longer range shots, and greased or such when things get close. Maybe then hopping onto the mortar and using burst or charged, or whatever really. The gunner has that variety, while the engineer does not.
In most situations, you don't see a huge benefit from a variety of ammo types. In the above situation, you would do just as well (relatively) by sticking with heavy clip at range, then using the default at close range. The TTK (time to kill) would be pretty close. And as each player can only shoot one gun at a time, you generally have each person assigned to a gun. So one can use heavy clip on the gat, and the other can use burst or such on the mortar. The difference between having a gunner and an engineer on the same gun diminishes even more.
So while the engineer can shoot just as well as the gunner in most situations, the gunner can never replace an engineer when it comes to keeping the ship afloat. The pipe wrench is ok, but can't compare with a spanner/mallet combo. And then they can't put out fires. And if they can put out fires, they can't rebuild or repair. And if they bring a buff hammer, they might as well sit in the corner when things start going critical.
This brings us to the main difference between the gunner and engineer. The engineer can benefit from using multiple tools at a time on various components, but the gunner can only use one type of ammo on a gun at a time. ie: engineer can rebuild with the spanner then slap it with a mallet, then start buffing it for good measure.
You can see it in a lot of competitive matches as well, where some teams don't even bother with having a gunner. In most matches, the gunner just acts a placeholder, someone who's supposed to be using the gun most of the time and not worry as much about fixing. It's a way for random players to help solidify their roles on the ship without having a lengthy discussion about who's going to do what, where competitive teams are organized enough to where they don't have to bother with it if they don't want to.
Long story short....
My suggestion to make the gunner more useful would actually be to undo some of the more recent changes. In the early days, gunners had items like heavy gauntlets and modified triggers, items you could use without reloading the gun. I'd either changing some of the current items, or adding new ones in that can be used in conjunction with the different ammo types. This would give gunners a definite edge over engineers when it comes to gunning, without diminishing the engineers ability to gun. They'd only be able to use two items max (an ammo and an aid).
Items could be like the old heavy gauntlets, or perhaps a modified scope to allow extra zoom, a small ammo box to give a little extra ammo (5% or so) on top of the ammo type addition/reduction, a small heatsink that reduces the chance of fire? Etc.
-
What if you could like, combine ammo types? <- crazy not serious suggestion but interesting thought
-
-snip-
Items could be like the old heavy gauntlets, or perhaps a modified scope to allow extra zoom, a small ammo box to give a little extra ammo (5% or so) on top of the ammo type addition/reduction, a small heatsink that reduces the chance of fire? Etc.
This ^
Aids and ammunition would be an amazing boon to the gunner as a class, and finally give them a proper reason to be used again. Some ships might actually benefit from 2 gunners and 1 engie if gunners were able to more efficiently/effectively use weapons in a significant way compared to engineers.
I have an idea on how it could work too. Ammunition is used when you select the type on the gun. An aid could be used by selecting and "Activating" them while not on a gun. Effectively, they give you a buff towards X for an indefinite amount of time, if possible you could select them again or your wrench to turn them off (For binoculars for increased range for instance, which might become distracting while running around).
As for some ideas on aid items:
Heavy gauntlets (as mentioned)-
Increase accuracy but lower the speed in which you can turn the turret.
The ol girl's spirit-
Reduces the negative effects of damage on the weapon
Monoculars-
Zoom your vision and allow you to more easily spot enemies (hands free, but only while on turret) right click modifies zoom as normal, but at higher degrees.
hobnailed boots-
These savage boots allow you to batter your turrets into turning further than they normally can, but at the cost of some durability from abuse.
-
This awfulness is never going to end is it...
-
This awfulness is never going to end is it...
Never. IT IS ETERNAL.
Sadly.
-
After emailing them some suggestions, Muse took the time to respond (one of the reasons we love them so much). Part of the response was this:
"We have ideas for the gunner and engineer debate, which has always been hotly debated, but we are not ready to push the changes due to their complexity. They're going to be new mechanics so we need to test them thoroughly."
-Muse
-
This awfulness is never going to end is it...
Only when the Spire will be truly viable. :P
-
Only when the Spire will be truly viable. :P
To me Spire is a difficulty toggle. It's an expert-mode galleon xD
-
Fact of this issue is that there are very firm lines drawn for the sides that think gunners are less useful, and those like me who believe every ship is to have one. The topic of "making gunners useful" has been beat to death with no real solution, mostly because it's purely a matter of opinion.
I'm sorry you have to go through that to gun, as I'm sure you are proficient at it. It's more a community divide than an "issue" with gunners.
It's not really a matter of opinion, though.
When you are repairing, you HAVE to have the rigth tools, otherwise you just can't do some things, like putting out a fire, or rebuilding fast enough to survive sustained fire.
Meanwhile, most guns are prefectly ok with just one kind of special ammo, and even if you don't have the right kind of ammo, the gun can still fire and if the engineer is a good shot it won't really make much of a difference.
If we had to put gunning and engeneering on the same level then it would be something more along the lines of having to bring ammo for every gun and if you don't have the correct one then you can't shoot the gun.
Or vice versa, if engineering was like gunning it would be like having the option to buff/put out fires even without tools, just less efficently.
See what I mean?
-
(http://i654.photobucket.com/albums/uu266/thbrown07/EngineerVsGunner.jpg)
Personally I think that says more about the debate than anything else. That's a screen taken from past videos of the Cogs Tournament Finals. Meaning that these are high skill teams going for the gold. You'll notice that most of them opt out of taking a gunner. To put it another way, when it comes down to getting every advantage you can for the best chance of victory, they chose to get rid of the gunner.
Gunning does have some advantages over being an engineer, there's no doubt about it. But those advantages are minimal at best. And when you weigh the pros and cons of that last slot being an engineer or gunner, competitive teams often go with engineer.
So why do other people still require a gunner on their team? Maybe they feel they should have one just in case, or maybe it's just to help define the roles on the ship. Usually they just like having a gunner, as most of the time they'll be using one particular ammo type, switching to the other types relatively infrequently. Of course it all really comes down the ships and guns being used.
Either way, Muse seems to have plans in the works to address this.
-
Look, there's arguments to be made from both sides, but using a screenshot for something... how many months ago from two teams that are(were) known to not use gunners, on the ships which may or may not arguably be able to get away with not using a gunner the best (because, btw, there is a gunner on the galleon) isn't going to give you much ground to stand on.
-
I alternate between 3 engineers and 1 gunner 2 engineers depending on the build I am running. There is a place for gunners in this game but it is not as large as the place for engineers or even pilots.
The impression that gunners are useless comes from the fact that inexperienced gunners are useless. Unlike inexperienced engineers, whose actions are easy to observe and correct, it is hard to get a handle on what the gunner has done wrong and what he needs to do to fix it. Also the act of shooting in GOI is more different from most FPS's than the act of navigation. People who come in with experience with other FPS's tend to have a higher navigation ability than shooting ability which make them better engineers than gunners.
Gunners tend to occupy a mission critical roll. When they under perform they bring down the entire ship in a way that a 2nd or 3rd engineer can not do. It is safer when flying with random PUG's to favor engineers so that a poor gunner doesn't bring down the performance of the entire ship.
-
I still say the problem are the guns not designed for 3 ammo types and not the gunner as class.
The most of the ships in your example were a pyra or a junker. Both of this ship can utilize a gat mortar very well and currently both guns dont need more than 1 ammo.
-
It's not really a matter of opinion, though.
I give you this thread, and any other "gunner is useless, please buff" thread as proof. I do not agree with your, nor any other person's opinion to buff x or change y mechanic to somehow make a gunner "better."
I build my ships to use a gunner. I train my gunners to use various ammo types, even on light weapons. This is my opinion.
I still say the problem are the guns not designed for 3 ammo types and not the gunner as class.
The most of the ships in your example were a pyra or a junker. Both of this ship can utilize a gat mortar very well and currently both guns dont need more than 1 ammo.
All light guns can benefit from 2-3 ammo types. A junker with different guns on its broadsides will benefit highly from a gunner vs an engineer, which forces a pilot to take the same guns (gat/mortar example) on each of his broadsides. That is the tradeoff one makes out of an opinion that it is better.
-
*Four different teams. In the finals of a tournament. Time doesn't make a huge difference, as the game hasn't had any drastic changes (obviously we have new ships and maps, but the mechanics still work the same).
Here's some "Flotsam Dynasty"
http://www.twitch.tv/gunsoficarus/b/450831705
4/7 of the teams didn't bring a single gunner.
Here's some more Cogs (S2, week 2)
http://www.twitch.tv/qwerty2jam/b/433399131
4.5/7 teams didn't use a gunner. (One team had 1 gunner on ship, and 0 on the other)
I'm trying to find more recent tournaments, but it's not easy. You'll notice that these matches have some galleons without gunners as well.
Essentially the idea is that when high ranking teams (lots and lots of experience and practice) choose not to bring a gunner to some of the most important and difficult matches, you have to question how useful a gunner really is compared to an engineer in that last slot. You might argue back that "Hey, some of those ships do use gunners!", but if gunners can easily be replaced by engineers with almost no difference in performance at high competitive levels, and engineers -cannot- be replaced, what does that say about the gunner's overall usefulness?
Of course gunners still have their place and are great on certain builds and playstyles, but for the most part they're just as good as having a third engineer, and sometimes less so.
-
Fact of this issue is that there are very firm lines drawn for the sides that think gunners are less useful, and those like me who believe every ship is to have one. The topic of "making gunners useful" has been beat to death with no real solution, mostly because it's purely a matter of opinion.
It's more a community divide than an "issue" with gunners.
-
I still think that it's mostly an illusion of gunners not being useful. I haven't really seen any tangible proof that 3 engineers > 2+1gunner.
I mean, do you really believe that if the Ducks were to suddenly start bringing a gunner on each ship every match they would suddenly not be in the upper level of competitive play consistently? I highly doubt it.
3 gunners being far superior than 2+1 is anecdotal at best, and straight up false at worst. Now, the more interesting conversation would be should a ship be able to function as well as it does with 3 rather than 2+1.
-
It's not really a matter of opinion, though.
I give you this thread, and any other "gunner is useless, please buff" thread as proof. I do not agree with your, nor any other person's opinion to buff x or change y mechanic to somehow make a gunner "better."
I build my ships to use a gunner. I train my gunners to use various ammo types, even on light weapons. This is my opinion.
You are not adressing my point though.
That being that everyone can fire a gun, but only an engineer can really do his job. You would be right if things like putting out fires and buffing components were available to everyone all the time and the engineer just could do it better by bringing the appropriate tool, but the game doesn't work like that.
If I want to put out a fire on a ship I NEED a fire extinguisher, if I want to shoot an enemy ship I DON'T need special ammo and expecially I DON'T need more then one kind, most of the times. While in every fight you can be assured that you are going to need a tool for rebuilding, one for repairing and something to put out fires because otherwise you are boned if you lack even one of these tools.
That is the problem.
What I'm saying is that there is no incentive in bringing a gunner along, it's just something you might want to do SOMETIMES, but most of the times there is no real reason if you are going for optimization.
As for threads like this popping up it doesn't mean that the issue isn't clear or that the situation is fine as it is. In fact it shows the opposite. If an issue is not dealt with then threads about it will keep on coming.
I'm not saying that gunners are useless, but I am saying that it's objectively the least useful class because of how the game is designed.
The flaw in the idea that to make a class viable you just need to give it more tools for their role is evident in the fact that on some ships even a PILOT is not all that useful. On a Galleon you're better off using ANOTHER engineer, arguably the same is true for the Spire.
Meanwhile no one EVER is going to say "no" to another engineer on board.
-
I dont address your "point" because i feel there is nothing to be addressed. I will always say no to 3-4 engies because it's diminished returns. Until 3-4 engie crews are always winning over a 1-1-2 crew, its simply a different style of play that exists, and nothing more.
An engie doing a gunner/pilot's job will always be less efficient. The only time it gets remotely close is a gunner/buff engie on a light gun, and that's still up in the air as to which is honestly better.
It is your opinion, not fact, that engies are the end-all-be-all of goio crews.
-
ship build and tactics.
-
Okay, here's the deal:
I strongly feel that the classes are balanced and that the gunner role does not need 'buffing' in any way, despite all the nerfing muse has done to the different ammo types.
Gunners are extremely underrated simply because the advantage gained by carrying multiple munitions is subtle (but should never be overlooked), and down right general ignorance of their advantage on light weapons; I have already seen at least three individual posts in this thread claiming that only one ammo type is useful on the mortar! [particularly and especially on a metamidion].
I even run an extremely effective surprise/aggressive build that involves two gunners, a buff hammer, and rocket carousels - the varying ammo types allow you to put out preliminary disable at an unexpected range, followed by additional overwhelming disable and hull strip at mid range, and extremely fast direct damage at close range.
It destroys unprepared ships (most meta build ships) safely and quickly enough that a second engineer is not needed as long as the pilot is mindful of how they engage, and the gunners don't miss coordinate correctly [even against experienced captains].
A quick debunking: lesmok greased and burst rounds will all out perform each other situationally on the mortar, experiment and learn exactly when and what to use them against from moment to moment (the art of gunning). I guarantee their additional versatility will give you a killing and disabling advantage that by far outweighs the use of a third engineer, who (lets be honest) is only any use after all hell has gone down and you're waiting for an inevitable death or your ally to miraculously save you.
Don't forget to count your shells, count seconds, know your ability, and do some number crunching for maximum kill stealing ability efficiency:
How many lesmok shells does it take to kill a pyramidion? So what are you going to do with the other four? How long does it take the lesmok mortar to reach a target 1000 meters away? How long is your up-close ally going to take to strip their hull with that gun? Shouldn't you start shooting now then? Will you be able to hit that ship at that angle with jitter? Roughly how many shots are going to meet the mark? Should you ignore it, reload to burst and fire through the break once you've covered some ground? etc.
Chrome, I hope you appreciated the 11 out of 12 kills we 'secured' on red sepulchre. =P
-
I don't think the point of balancing should be to show that 2engy-1gunner is as good as 3engies. That alone shows classes arent really balanced and it restricts the amount of variety in class combos.
The real balance is showing that 2gunners-1engy is as good as 2engy-1gunner.
-
I don't think the point of balancing should be to show that 2engy-1gunner is as good as 3engies. That alone shows classes arent really balanced and it restricts the amount of variety in class combos.
The real balance is showing that 2gunners-1engy is as good as 2engy-1gunner.
I'd agree with the first part, but not the second. 2 eng-1gun being just as good as 3 eng shows a bit of an issue (the part I agree with), where I'd say that a more balanced bit would be 2 eng-1 gun being better than 3 eng at the very least.
Anyway, like I was told, Muse is planning some changes in the near to distant future. No idea what those will be, but Muse knows best; and I trust them to make a good call.
-
I don't think the point of balancing should be to show that 2engy-1gunner is as good as 3engies. That alone shows classes arent really balanced and it restricts the amount of variety in class combos.
The real balance is showing that 2gunners-1engy is as good as 2engy-1gunner.
Anyway, like I was told, Muse is planning some changes in the near to distant future. No idea what those will be, but Muse knows best; and I trust them to make a good call.
I hope so, it certainly seems like any kind of suggestion or implication that the current state of gunner could be improved is met with dismissive resistance by those who have already crunched the numbers and created their meta-playstyle.
"The gunner is fine" it is always said, the mere hint that it could be improved in versatility or some other means (not necessarily direct damage output) is either A:useless (Which it may be to them, but not others) or B:too upsetting to the game (Ie their pre-determined playstyle) and utterly detrimental (might have to consider changing their playstyle! Until of course they crunch the numbers again and find the new meta, so what's the issue again?)
At least in my most recent experience, and what this thread seems to likewise indicate =/
-
(http://i654.photobucket.com/albums/uu266/thbrown07/EngineerVsGunner.jpg)
Personally I think that says more about the debate than anything else. That's a screen taken from past videos of the Cogs Tournament Finals. Meaning that these are high skill teams going for the gold. You'll notice that most of them opt out of taking a gunner. To put it another way, when it comes down to getting every advantage you can for the best chance of victory, they chose to get rid of the gunner.
Gunning does have some advantages over being an engineer, there's no doubt about it. But those advantages are minimal at best. And when you weigh the pros and cons of that last slot being an engineer or gunner, competitive teams often go with engineer.
So why do other people still require a gunner on their team? Maybe they feel they should have one just in case, or maybe it's just to help define the roles on the ship. Usually they just like having a gunner, as most of the time they'll be using one particular ammo type, switching to the other types relatively infrequently. Of course it all really comes down the ships and guns being used.
Either way, Muse seems to have plans in the works to address this.
I don't know where you got this screenshot. The last COG's season was the Gents vs the Paddling and we run gunners on all our boats.
-
When i hear people want to "improve" gunner class and personally think it's pretty ok as is, it's like an allergic reaction.
How? Aim assists? bigger and faster guns? More guns?
I love being a gunner. It's straightforward, not too fussy and you live with what your captain can do. Rest is up to you.
Engineer is a bit stressful.
-
I think that was Cogs season 3? I was looking for videos of GoIO tournaments and I can't seem to find anything particularly fresh. It could just be that I don't know who's been streaming them recently. I believe those particular shots are from Qwerty's twitch.
-
*puts on Cogs Expert glasses*
Cogs Season 3 hasn't started yet.
Those are screenshots from the semi-final of the Cogs Season 1 Finale, which was on May 18th.
-
A long time ago.
-
A long time ago.
Very little has changed with regards to gunners since then. If anything, the buffs that fire has gotten has given engineers an extra boost.
I won't say anything more here.
-
Gunners are useful at LEAST on 3 out of the 7 ships currently in the game and CAN be useful (depending on the loadout) on the rest of them except maybe the Squid which is of course, again, an opinion and nothing else.
This is why this debate will never go away, it honestly depents on how you run your ship or how the ship you join is being run, now close the Pandora's box of GoI please.
-
Good call! Seems they're listed as S2W2. Not entirely sure where that three came from. I blame faeries.
-
Here those matches are on YouTube, by the way (all right, enough derailing).
http://youtu.be/cY1GRX6F0oE
http://youtu.be/_bXTcC5Smhs
-
The fact that half the community are for and the other half are against gunners doesn't mean that they're fine.
Because no one is against engineers or pilots. The fact that 50% of players don't use a gunner is a balance problem with the classes.
This is why this debate will never go away, it honestly depents on how you run your ship or how the ship you join is being run, now close the Pandora's box of GoI please.
The discussion will never go away, so there for we should not try and solve the problem? Wait what?
-
Doesn't mean they're not fine. Every ship has parts that needs repairing. Some guns produce better results with 3 ammo selections. Some do not. That is inherently a gun balance issue, not a "gunner is broken" issue.
-
The discussion will never go away, so there for we should not try and solve the problem? Wait what?
You either make it so you HAVE to have gunners on a ship, or you leave it as is where a choosing between a gunner and an engineer doesn't have bladantly obvious downsides and both have their merit.
The fact that both classes work is why there is even a debate between the people that don't use them and the people that do, those that use them extensively benefit from using them, those that don't just think they just ain't on par, but how do you know? If it was absolutely everyone, fine, I would admit the gunner was useless, but seems like the devide is pretty equal, which is pretty okay, it means there can be a choice.
-
Would be nice if we had more discussion pertaining to what you think could help gunner and alternatively why said ideas are unnecessary rather than the "Yeah they need something" "no they don't" considering it would at least be somewhat productive in generating new ideas, rather than constantly chucking the same argument back and forth.
-
What I think could help the Gunner: More weapons that have an obvious benefit from multiple ammo types.
Sounds good enough to you? Makes gunners more 'useful' without touching core mechanics of the class. Genious.
-
That's, actually kind of brilliant, time consuming but brilliant.
-
We Ducks are pretty well known for being three engie focused. Ever since Squash begain piloting his Galleon as an engineer, I can't think of any Duck ships without three engineers. My Junker is all about the triple engineer. It gives me two buffs, two extinguisher and two mallet/spanner combos. Its damn fearsome. However, as someone who has spent a lot of time designing my ship, I know that the lack of gunners does restrict my choices for builds. Having a great diversity on my ship is not always optimal, ie a long range merc/artemis side paired with a closer range gat mortar side. I'll never use a gunner as the game stands but that is not because they are inherently under powered but instead my play style fits better with three engineers. I prefer to sacrifice the diversity a gunner could add to my ship for the various benefits my three engis give me.
BTW the real balance question is whats better, a Gunner, or a buff Gungineer.
-
Having ammo types switch between damage types would make gunners a lot more diverse. The carronades, for example. Have some ammo types load 'slugs' instead of 'shot', and do component and piercing damage rather than balloon, as well as traveling further.
-
Having ammo types switch between damage types would make gunners a lot more diverse. The carronades, for example. Have some ammo types load 'slugs' instead of 'shot', and do component and piercing damage rather than balloon, as well as traveling further.
I like this idea, I think it would work really well, even if it would be nightmareish to balance at the beginning.
-
I think i could understand from between the lines that pilot and engineer are as useful as gunners thanks to the one ammotype they can choose? Guns just need one by majority and so builds are made not with gunners in mind but engineers and pilot?
What about restricting that gunner feature in the other two classes? Like loch for captain, default for engineer? Would that make the gunner more useful?
That way maybe the guns that are ok with gunners and 3 ammotypes get used more?
-
BTW the real balance question is whats better, a Gunner, or a buff Gungineer.
Been having such a discussion last night with Sunderland and it IS indeed true, if anything, as Sammy said, Gunners have a purpose and it's mostly a playstyle choice, but if you realy want to look at something, look at the buff hammer and how it affects various components, that's the primary reason people want to go three engineers and sacrifice diversity for a more specialized build, it's all about bringing 2 of these babies to keep everything running at over a 100% capacity, including your guns.
Then again the utility of the buff hammer has been OP since I started playing last May.
-
BTW the real balance question is whats better, a Gunner, or a buff Gungineer.
Been having such a discussion last night with Sunderland and it IS indeed true, if anything, as Sammy said, Gunners have a purpose and it's mostly a playstyle choice, but if you realy want to look at something, look at the buff hammer and how it affects various components, that's the primary reason people want to go three engineers and sacrifice diversity for a more specialized build, it's all about bringing 2 of these babies to keep everything running at over a 100% capacity, including your guns.
Then again the utility of the buff hammer has been OP since I started playing last May.
This is where I've ended up on the issue. I think if buff hammer gets a nerf to how much it increases weapon damage, we might see a decrease in 3-engi crews. At some point, something like buffed gat + heavy did/does about the same amount of damage as unbuffed gat with greased. The buff hammer can, to a certain extent, replace the utility of multiple ammo types on several guns. Nerfing the weapon damage increase of buff isn't a cure-all, but I think it would be a good start.
-
If you ask me the damage buff it offers to weapons needs to go entirely and be replaced with something more 'creative' than just raw damage addition, this is something that is already covered by an ammo type and comes with corresponding weaknesses, no reason an engineer tool should be able offer you 66% of what Charged rounds can do without any actual penalty to the gun and it does so in combination with whatever ammo type you will bring.
-
If you ask me the damage buff it offers to weapons needs to go entirely and be replaced with something more 'creative' than just raw damage addition, this is something that is already covered by an ammo type and comes with corresponding weaknesses, no reason an engineer tool should be able offer you 66% of what Charged rounds can do without any actual penalty to the gun and it does so in combination with whatever ammo type you will bring.
This seems pretty reasonable to me. The question is what it would bring. We can't mess with damage or reload times without stepping on the toes of ammo types, which basically leaves us with durability buffs, turn rate buffs (which might make sense), or increased gun arcs (which might also make sense). The latter two would fit with the general theme of granting extra mobility that we see the buff tool bring to the Balloon and Engines, and might also allow some interesting options on whips that ALMOST have a ton of firing angles: with such a Buff Tool you might be able to get a forward-facing Spire trifecta or even quad, for example.
-
Just make all ammo-type drawbacks 15-20% less harsh on gunners.
they should be able to bring the 3 types of ammo, and have slightly less restrictions than someone who isn't specializing in the gunning field, while engineers and pilots have to deal with the current basic restrictions.
-
Just make all ammo-type drawbacks 15-20% less harsh on gunners.
they should be able to bring the 3 types of ammo, and have slightly less restrictions than someone who isn't specializing in the gunning field, while engineers and pilots have to deal with the current basic restrictions.
Would completely break the class and many weapon/ammo combinations. Like having LJs with Lesmok and 6 ammo and a completely unaffected Heavy clip. blah blah, you get it. It would pretty much make gunners mandatory and OP.
-
This seems pretty reasonable to me. The question is what it would bring. We can't mess with damage or reload times without stepping on the toes of ammo types, which basically leaves us with durability buffs, turn rate buffs (which might make sense), or increased gun arcs (which might also make sense). The latter two would fit with the general theme of granting extra mobility that we see the buff tool bring to the Balloon and Engines, and might also allow some interesting options on whips that ALMOST have a ton of firing angles: with such a Buff Tool you might be able to get a forward-facing Spire trifecta or even quad, for example.
I arrived at pretty much the same conclusion a while back (Deleted the post in disgust due to elitism from a CA -_-) along with a few other niche, but useful supplementary items. I can't think of any "I would totally use this" items, but then the aim is "I might use this, compared to the other bits, the ship im on, etc etc"
-
Just make all ammo-type drawbacks 15-20% less harsh on gunners.
they should be able to bring the 3 types of ammo, and have slightly less restrictions than someone who isn't specializing in the gunning field, while engineers and pilots have to deal with the current basic restrictions.
Would completely break the class and many weapon/ammo combinations. Like having LJs with Lesmok and 6 ammo and a completely unaffected Heavy clip. blah blah, you get it. It would pretty much make gunners mandatory and OP.
Heatsink op in that scenario.
-
I haven't read this entire thread it's several pages so apologies if this has been brought up, but I think gunners are fine as is.
To make gunners more useful, I would suggest to make all other classes require a gun setup time I.E. Hold 'E' to mount gun and there be a 2-3 second delay, while gunners mount instantaneously.
-
I haven't read this entire thread it's several pages so apologies if this has been brought up, but I think gunners are fine as is.
To make gunners more useful, I would suggest to make all other classes require a gun setup time I.E. Hold 'E' to mount gun and there be a 2-3 second delay, while gunners mount instantaneously.
Oh I can't fathom the posterior pain that would induce. Better off sticking with tweaks to equipment imo.
-
[...] no reason an engineer tool should be able offer you 66% of what Charged rounds can do without any actual penalty to the gun and it does so in combination with whatever ammo type you will bring.
I'd say the penalty is requiring an engineer to peel off from whatever else they're doing (if there's a gunner) or dismounting their own gun (if they're a gungineer) to stand hitting the gun every 20-30 seconds for 10 seconds (don't know the exact figures) is penalty enough. More over, they've sacrificed some rebuilding/repairing power or the ability to extinguish to do this as well. I think there's plenty of penalities there. Sure you can prep a lot of components before engagements and preload ammo but during a fight all these things add up to make a tool that's pretty specific and fraught with danger if you mess your priorities up.
Edit: And yeah, I know you said 'to the gun' but it's all connected.
-
I'd say the penalty is requiring an engineer to peel off from whatever else they're doing (if there's a gunner) or dismounting their own gun (if they're a gungineer) to stand hitting the gun every 20-30 seconds for 10 seconds (don't know the exact figures) is penalty enough. More over, they've sacrificed some rebuilding/repairing power or the ability to extinguish to do this as well. I think there's plenty of penalities there. Sure you can prep a lot of components before engagements and preload ammo but during a fight all these things add up to make a tool that's pretty specific and fraught with danger if you mess your priorities up.
Edit: And yeah, I know you said 'to the gun' but it's all connected.
Umm, if you were a gunner you wouldn't be able to do all of that either, the concept of the Buffgineer on a gun is that he is pretty much a Gunner, and again, he still has more utility when it comes to repairs even if you decided to give away extinguishing power or some repair power (and you still get the buff and extinguisher, while the gunner would only have the wrench.)
You don't waste much time hitting the gun if you do it right. This thread seems pointless to me now though, since the new patch I see gunners, despite the advantages a Buff-gungineer has, as much more useful and practically essential for multi-range ships and many more guns benefit much more from multiple ammo types than just having a gungineer, the flexibility of a gunner is realy starting to shine a lot in contrast to the specialization of the Buff-gungineer.
-
This thread seems pointless to me now though, since the new patch I see gunners, despite the advantages a Buff-gungineer has, as much more useful and practically essential for multi-range ships and many more guns benefit much more from multiple ammo types than just having a gungineer, the flexibility of a gunner is realy starting to shine a lot in contrast to the specialization of the Buff-gungineer.
My thoughts exactly. The recent patch has definitely made gunners a lot more desirable now. The more imporant you make ammo types, the more important gunners become, and ammo types at the moment feel more important than ever.
-
As Echo said, buffing isn't a problem if you do it right. There's the pre-buff, and then buffing during reloads. It's not like you have to sit on the gun during reloads or anything.
I'm unconvinced with regards to the patch making a major difference. Perhaps for the Junker, but not much else.
-
I'm unconvinced with regards to the patch making a major difference. Perhaps for the Junker, but not much else.
You also started this mess, or was that Morblitz? I forget now...
-
I'm unconvinced with regards to the patch making a major difference. Perhaps for the Junker, but not much else.
You also started this mess, or was that Morblitz? I forget now...
If you mean that thread, it was Moriarty. I was actually in favour of gunners when that thread was started.
Though honestly, this whole situation is a result of this:
-- 8 charges required to disable guns (guns will glow red when 8 charges are reached)
(sorry for the slight derail)
-
Quote from: Clara Skyborn on February 21, 2013, 12:37:03 pm
-- 8 charges required to disable guns (guns will glow red when 8 charges are reached)
Really? Wouldn't that play more toward your engie theory since a gunner wouldn't be able to put that out at the old 1 charge?
-
I'm thinking more about how heatsink used to be compulsory if you wanted a gun firing constantly within flamer range.
-
Ah touché.
I just learned to stay out of flame range ;p