Guns Of Icarus Online
Info => Feedback and Suggestions => Topic started by: BlackenedPies on August 07, 2014, 09:51:43 pm
-
There is nothing more annoying than extra gunners or pilots joining during a match and refusing to leave. Why not restrict extra gunners and pilots during match but still let a ship start a match with all gunners if it so chooses?
The second most annoying thing is a crew member with an ineffective loadout joining mid match. Instead, why not display a message containing the crew's loadout and asking if you want them to join. The message will NOT display the crew's level or name which will prevent the captain from rejecting low level crew. The accept/reject commands should be simple and non intrusive like F4 and F5. The message timeout should be short (10-15 secs).
Or let us play with AI if we choose by letting captains lock crew spots when the match starts.
Or restrict novice players to novice games. This may fix a significant amount of the above problems.
-
And what about low level stupid captains that will refuse to accept your loadout, even of you have good one? Well if ignore this, then idea with acceptation loadouts looks very good.
-
In my experience, most low level captains don't care about their crew loadouts and would prefer any crew over an AI. Notifying the captain of the loadout might teach them the importance of correct loadouts quicker and make them more perceptive about crew performance.
Contrary to common belief, the captain chooses crew loadouts not the crew. If a crew doesn't want to bring the captain's loadout then they can join a different ship. If a captain doesn't want a crew's loadout, then they shouldn't be forced to have it.
-
This will go away when matchmaking system is brought to live.
-
This will go away when matchmaking system is brought to live.
Than you can finally blame yourself for a loss instead of your crew or teammate.
-
Contrary to common belief, the captain chooses crew loadouts not the crew. If a crew doesn't want to bring the captain's loadout then they can join a different ship. If a captain doesn't want a crew's loadout, then they shouldn't be forced to have it.
Contrary to your belief, this is blatantly and demonstrably false.
1. There is no mechanic to kick someone from your ship.
2. There is no mechanic allowing a captain to forcibly alter a crew member's loadout.
3. There IS a mechanic allowing individual players, whether captain or not, to alter their own loadouts freely.
If you get someone on your ship with a loadout you don't like, you have the right (and as a captain, the responsibility) to advise them of possible changes that would work better. As new players, it is their responsibility to listen and take a more experienced player's advice, but they have the right to ignore you and do whatever they want as well.
Public matches are still public. Open-level matches are open-level. Novice players have the right to join open matches, but should expect to get stomped into the ground if they don't learn REALLY fast. And novices who aren't learning should expect (and will recieve) a measure of ridicule appropriate to the level of failure they demonstrate.
If you don't like your crew's loadouts, ADVISE them of what you THINK they should be using. EXPLAIN WHY you want them to change. If you make a good case, a competent player will listen, and even most new players are smart enough to take advice when they're aware that they're new. People who don't listen, regardless of whether they're captain or crew, are failing to communicate properly.
If there's no room for flexibility on a ship's crew, and the captain is being a jerk to other crew members, I WILL make a point of supporting the crew's rights over the captain's authority, and I WILL make a point of changing to a loadout that ISN'T what the captain ordered (but I'll make sure it's something I can use effectively).
I listen to my crew when they advise me of things I could do to help. If I get a gunner on my Junker who sees that I have no Hades and asks for one because he's good with it, I'll consider reshuffling the weapons to suit. If I get an engineer who doesn't have any firefighting gear, I'll ask them to bring some, and I'll explain that having something to manage fire is a crucial part of the role. If they choose not to listen, then our ship burning and dying will be resting heavily on that engineer and I'll make a point of mentioning it every time a fire kills something they could have extinguished or saved with chemspray. If I decide to pull out my (very rare) Goldfish, I'll explain why I'm bringing the loadout I've chosen, and I'll listen to my gunner's advice on main gun, and my engineers' advice on what secondary guns to load. I won't necessarily take their advice, and I might point out why I think my way is better and not change, but I will listen.
If you can't listen to your crew and at least consider their opinions when they differ from your personal preferences, then you're doing it wrong.
-
Sometimes no matter how much ADVISING, EXPLAINING, or in my case PASSIVE AGGRESSIVE EMOTIONAL BLACKMAIL a captain uses there will be players who refuse to cooperate. It is the captains job to set up the ship to have the best chance at victory. I have no respect for players who work against the captain in doing this. Even though there are no mechanics to directly punish a player for working against the captain and crew we are under no obligation to help that player learn the game. Move to a different ship, tell the lobby #player name# is not cooperating. Hopefully they will rage quit and you can take your ship back next game.
-
Crew are able to decide what loadouts they bring, but the captain is the only one who can start the match.
There is a correct ammo for a gun and circumstance which will be based on the pilot's tactics and the gunner's skill.
If my pilot tells me to bring an ammo that I don't think will be max effective, I will explain why, and if the pilot still wants me to bring it then I will bring it. Simple as that.
I often let the crew pick positions and I give them practice on important/difficult guns. I'm one of the few people who gives lumberjacks to players who have never used it before just to give them the experience. Sometimes I give options on the ship/loadout, but the problem I have is not with players who know what they are doing. My problem is with players who deliberately not take the correct loadout and give no explanation for why.
When a new crew member joins in lobby I have a pretty standard script that I use (usually in private msgs), and goes something like this (depending on their class and their current loadout):
hello _ please bring _ tools and _ ammo.
you will be _ position
_ ammo is for _. dont use _ ammo because
aim at their _
I wait for a response and if there is none,
if you dont want to bring those, please join a different ship.
If I don't get any response then I'll probably tell them that I'm not starting the match until they bring it.
If I'm doing something wrong, I don't know what it is.
For most guns I don't care much about the ammo, I'll start the match and tell them to use regular. The important part is the tools. I am very picky and I won't start start a match with a mallet gunner or ineffective buff loadout no matter what the enemy team is. It's my fault for being picky but they don't have to be on my ship.
Often, they are attempting to get achievements. If they say the need _ ammo then I might give them the appropriate gun. But if they want tool achievements they can join a different ship. A buff kit for engi is great, but only with a wrench (except on 3 engi builds). And I will only accept a gunner with a wrench. Again, they don't have to join my ship if they want to use a bad loadout. Simple as that.
For standard builds there are only 2 possible correct engineer loadout combinations (reg reg or reg buff). I'm very picky so I need them to be right (although I would never force someone to bring buffs). I will gladly educate any player and I regularly give suggestions to the enemy captains and crew. Sometimes they listen, sometimes they don't. I love to teach people about the game.
I will stall a match from starting until either the insubordinate or I decide to leave. This can be very frustrating for everyone in the lobby. Every captain who cares about their loadout has run into this problem innumerable times before where a crew members refuses to bring the stuff or change class etc. It's a waste of time and I don't see how it can be prevented. Maybe I am doing something wrong but I'm not the only one who can't always convince their crew.
I guess my main point is the captains have some amount of control over loadouts in lobby but have none in match. If someone joins during the match with a bad loadout, 9.8 times out of 10 they will refuse to change it and rejoin. The only way to prevent this problem is to wait until you have a full crew in lobby. My suggestion for the accept/reject feature was only a suggestion. Of course it will not be implemented in GoI, but maybe it will in a future game.
But what is the point of allowing extra gunners or pilots to join during the match? Sometimes they listen and leave and switch class, but sometimes they decide to stay. A ship without at least 2 engineers is a death sentence. In my opinion, joining as an extra gunner/pilot and refusing to leave constitutes trolling. There's no point in allowing a second pilot or gunner to join, so why help facilitate trolling?
-
When a new crew member joins in lobby I have a pretty standard script that I use (usually in private msgs), and goes something like this (depending on their class and their current loadout):
hello _ please bring _ tools and _ ammo.
you will be _ position
_ ammo is for _. dont use _ ammo because
aim at their _
I wait for a response and if there is none,
if you dont want to bring those, please join a different ship.
If I don't get any response then I'll probably tell them that I'm not starting the match until they bring it.
If I'm doing something wrong, I don't know what it is.
You don't know?
"if you dont want to bring those, please join a different ship."
This is a fair request. But it's a request, not an order with any authority.
"If I don't get any response then I'll probably tell them that I'm not starting the match until they bring it."
THIS is what you're doing wrong. You have one crew member who's causing a - probably minor - problem for you. Yes, you're the pilot and the captain, but you're also ONLY ONE CREW MEMBER. At this stage, with you being mildly annoyed, that's ONE player in the lobby who's annoyed. If you get over yourself, accept that there's only so much you can do to work around an uncommunicative player, and start, that's all the frustration the lobby will see. If you try and pressure someone - maybe someone who can't understand English, and has no clue what you're on about - and hold things up for half an hour or more, then people start leaving. Congratulations, YOU have annoyed EVERYONE. You're trying to spite someone when you don't know their reason for not answering or obeying you, and you're hurting the entire lobby. Instead of just one person being annoyed, it's now 16, 24, or maybe even 32 people who are annoyed.
Again, they don't have to join my ship if they want to use a bad loadout. Simple as that.
And THIS is what you're doing wrong. Request, and if the other person doesn't listen, DEAL WITH IT.
I will stall a match from starting until either the insubordinate or I decide to leave. This can be very frustrating for everyone in the lobby. Every captain who cares about their loadout has run into this problem innumerable times before where a crew members refuses to bring the stuff or change class etc. It's a waste of time and I don't see how it can be prevented. Maybe I am doing something wrong but I'm not the only one who can't always convince their crew.
THIS.
CAN.
BE.
VERY.
FRUSTRATING.
FOR.
EVERYONE.
You say you love teaching people about the game? You love playing too, clearly, or you wouldn't be as experienced as you are. You wouldn't be a high-level player in a well-respected clan. And you wouldn't be someone who I felt slightly guilty arguing with because I'm still a new guy here.
So, from that perspective of being a good fan, which would you prefer?
1. Everyone in the entire lobby (16 - 32 players) gets angry because in almost every match, there's one or two captains who need EVERYTHING to be PERFECT because it's THEIR ship and therefore THEIR loadouts for everyone. The match never starts until someone leaves - either the captain or their "insubordinate" who's there to have fun. They aren't there to try and ruin the game for you. They just want to PLAY.
2. One, maybe two captains get a little annoyed at not having their ship set up PERFECTLY the way they want it to be. They get some idiot who brings a spanner, mallet and buff hammer and rages when the fire extinguisher user decided to manage fires and repairs on other parts while they wait for the cooldown to end, then when they get back, the idiot with no firefighting gear has put the hull on cooldown again, so they run off to fix what they CAN fix in the meantime, rinse, repeat, and somehow it's "not my fault".
Yeah, it can be annoying when you're the one stuck dealing with THAT GUY (or girl). The above example actually happened to me the other day. But to be perfectly fair, it's you and people like you causing the "Lobbies of Icarus" problem. There are people who need their crew to do things how THEY want, and no other way. I've seen captains who have demanded things that make no sense. I've seen one captain who demanded burst rounds on an engineer who was only going to have gatling guns in reach. You say he has the right to hold up a match starting because is crew refuse to listen? I say he shouldn't have that right for the same reason you shouldn't. And it's nothing to do with either of you being wrong about what's best for your crew.
I actually think that crew members should be able to ready up independent of their captain, and if everyone on a ship except the captain is ready, that should mark the ship as ready as if the captain was ok with things. If your crew just want the game to start and not have a lobby to sit around in for ages, and you can't deal with that, YOU can leave. One person inconvenienced is better than 15+ who just want to get into a battle in the sky.
For competitive matches, or when you're running with friends who are happy with how you do things, great. Have all the control you want. You'll get well-reasoned discussions when you propose a change to someone's loadout and they disagree. You might learn something from letting a teammate do something different from your usual. You might teach them something instead. For public matches with crew you don't know, stop refusing to play and start playing. You'll get more time in-game, you'll see more crazy and random things, and you might sometimes have just as much fun as you do when things go smoothly.
I've been in a match where one of the captains spent half his time running around the ship loading lochnagar rounds into all the flamethrowers, and telling the crew to use the lochangar instead of switching ammo. Every time they disobeyed, he left the helm with the ship at full throttle, and took over their gun to switch back. It was a Squid, so leaving the ship at full throttle was a crazy move. At the end of the match, everyone was asking the captain to never do that again, but his whole crew - AND their friendly ship - were laughing. It wasn't just crazy, it was flat-out stupid. But it was still something everyone had fun with.
You're playing a game.
Games are about fun.
Sometimes, I think people forget that. When you're not with your friends, sure, go ahead, teach people and give them advice. But if they don't listen, DEAL WITH IT. Get out into the friendly skies, laugh when your flamethrower gets blown up firing a lochnagar shot. HAVE FUN.
Being entirely serious here, I'm worried about the plan to use "matchmaking" (details unspecified) in place of the current lobby system. They've implied that lobbies are going away somehow, and I'm not entirely sure that's a good thing, but that's a story for another thread.
-
Once again:
This will go away when matchmaking system is brought to live.
-
Captains have the right to an effective loadout. Crew have the right to choose their captain. Conflict occurs when interests collide. This causes inefficiency.
I will support any captain's decision to not start the game until they have the right loadout. It's a courtesy to not ready up until everyone is ready, and I would never force an opponent to start with the wrong loadout no matter how long it took. I believe that it's irresponsible to let a player refuse to bring the captain's loadout, and unfortunately this can lead to Lobbies of Icarus.
If a crew member on the other side is making everyone wait for them, it would be ridiculous to blame the captain for not starting the match. I wholeheartedly support their decision and I would expect the other captains to do too. The crew member is making the lobby wait- not the captain.
I believe that not giving in to a crew's bad loadout is the right thing to do. I'll use match chat and say that I'm waiting on _ and for them to please hurry up. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. Fighting stubbornness with stubbornness is pretty ineffective, but I don't know what the alternative is. This is a team game and if a crew doesn't want to be a team player then they shouldn't be on the ship, and there are plenty of others who want to play as a team. The fun/success of the team outweighs the desire of the individual.
Allowing crew to ready up would be a disaster to all captains. It would allow a crew to bring any loadout, and to be all gunners if they chose to. Regardless of the mechanics or how the system works, the captain chooses the loadout of their ship. The crew can have input, but in the end it is up to the captain. The game is a mess when crew decide their loadouts, and I would argue that everyone on the ship has more fun when the crew has the right loadout. A system that doesn't allow the captain to choose loadouts is a broken system.
The classic example is the hwatcha gunner. All hwatcha gunners bring heavy clip and burst, and if the gunner refuses to bring both then they shouldn't be shooting a hwatcha. It would be extremely inconsiderate to force the captain to start with the wrong ammo. It would be wrong to force the gunner to bring the right ammo, but it would be wrong to force the captain to have the wrong ammo.
I would argue that the captain's need to have the right ammo supersedes the gunner's ability to bring the wrong ammo. The captain has the choice of the build and it's the crews' job to crew it effectively. The gunner accommodates the captain not the other way around. If they don't like it then they don't have to be on the ship. GoI is a team game.
Crew have the liberty of choosing their captain but not the other way around. By refusing to cooperate they are wasting everyone's time. The captain shouldn't have to leave because of a detrimental crew member. Having a bad loadout, or 2 gunners, or an extra pilot can be a death sentence, and I believe that it's the captain's right to prevent that. Every captain has the right to an effective loadout. Crew members have the right to choose their captain. There are plenty of players who want to be a team, and there are some who don't.
Generally when a captain gives a loadout it's because they know it will be effective, and rarely do captains give ineffective loadouts. If a captain wanted me to bring a bad loadout and I wanted to bring the right loadout, I probably wouldn't stick around. If the captain consistently hears that his loadout should be _, maybe eventually he will take the advice. GoI is about fun and learning.
There sometimes is the problem that the crew member doesn't speak English, but most are able to explain that they don't speak english and that they speak _. In this case I will go to google translate, and ask the lobby/global if anyone speaks the language. I rarely run into this problem. Most of the time I'm dealing with names that imply they speak english.
Regardless of how the system works, the captain chooses loadouts. If a crew wants to bring what they want, then they should find a captain who will let them bring it. A captain should never be forced to have a bad loadout (ex 2 gunners). I'm picky and stubborn and don't mix well with players that don't cooperate. This leads to inefficiency and universal frustration. The system is broken, and if matchmaking is the fix, then I hope it arrives quickly.
-
Too many triple or quadruple gunner spires = urge to kill...rising...
Seen that a few times recently. Sad. Poor guy started with AI to get the match going then within 2 mins he had 3 gunners join on him. Died once, rage quit. When its that bad, I just refuse to engage till they leave.
-
Captains have the right to an effective loadout. Crew have the right to choose their captain. Conflict occurs when interests collide. This causes inefficiency.
Captains choose an effective loadout for the SHIP, and for THEMSELVES. Captains have the right to ADVISE their crew on complementary loadouts. In competitive matches, competent crew will work with the captain. In random public matches, they don't always do so.
And as to crew having the right to choose their captain, what happens when you have a 2 vs. 2 lobby with 3 premade crews? How exactly are the crew supposed to choose their captain? They have one option.
I will support any captain's decision to not start the game until they have the right loadout. It's a courtesy to not ready up until everyone is ready, and I would never force an opponent to start with the wrong loadout no matter how long it took. I believe that it's irresponsible to let a player refuse to bring the captain's loadout, and unfortunately this can lead to Lobbies of Icarus.
ANY captain? Any at all? What if you've got a squid with 3 gatling guns and their captain's "right" loadout is 3 engineers with lochnagar rounds, spanner, mallet and buff hammer? Will you support their right to be a jerk to their crew? It's the captain's right to do that though, yeah? You're ok with that?
I agree that the captain has the right to REQUEST changes, as I've said. If everyone on the crew can tell that the captain's advice is insane, and decides not to play along, they should have that right. If even one person on the ship agrees with the captain, nothing would change and they still have to wait.
If a crew member on the other side is making everyone wait for them, it would be ridiculous to blame the captain for not starting the match. I wholeheartedly support their decision and I would expect the other captains to do too. The crew member is making the lobby wait- not the captain.
If a crew member is UNABLE to communicate and DOESN'T KNOW why the match isn't starting, you can't necessarily blame them for being silent. If a crew member has explained themselves clearly and made valid points against the captain's suggested loadout, and the captain's argument is "but I'm the captain and I want you to do it, I don't care if your way is better", then I'd blame the captain. If the crew are telling the captain why they have their loadouts, and the captain isn't explaining why they should change, then they aren't the ones holding the game up. The guy who is refusing to click "ready" is holding the game up.
I believe that not giving in to a crew's bad loadout is the right thing to do. I'll use match chat and say that I'm waiting on _ and for them to please hurry up. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. Fighting stubbornness with stubbornness is pretty ineffective, but I don't know what the alternative is. This is a team game and if a crew doesn't want to be a team player then they shouldn't be on the ship, and there are plenty of others who want to play as a team. The fun/success of the team outweighs the desire of the individual.
If I was on your crew, and someone disagreed - with good reason - with your proposed loadout, I'd expect you to at least provide some semblance of an explanation for why you want an alternative. I agree that captains have some authority over their crew. But they don't have 100% control, or they would have 100% control.
Allowing crew to ready up would be a disaster to all captains. It would allow a crew to bring any loadout, and to be all gunners if they chose to. Regardless of the mechanics or how the system works, the captain chooses the loadout of their ship. The crew can have input, but in the end it is up to the captain. The game is a mess when crew decide their loadouts, and I would argue that everyone on the ship has more fun when the crew has the right loadout. A system that doesn't allow the captain to choose loadouts is a broken system.
Requiring ALL the crew to ready up before it counts would negate your argument in almost every case. If ONE crew member agrees with the captain's request, the remaining 2 can't ready the ship up on their own. If the ship has a single AI slot open, the captain still has final say because there aren't 3 crew members available to ready up and force the captain's hand.
The classic example is the hwatcha gunner. All hwatcha gunners bring heavy clip and burst, and if the gunner refuses to bring both then they shouldn't be shooting a hwatcha. It would be extremely inconsiderate to force the captain to start with the wrong ammo. It would be wrong to force the gunner to bring the right ammo, but it would be wrong to force the captain to have the wrong ammo.
I would argue that the captain's need to have the right ammo supersedes the gunner's ability to bring the wrong ammo. The captain has the choice of the build and it's the crews' job to crew it effectively. The gunner accommodates the captain not the other way around. If they don't like it then they don't have to be on the ship. GoI is a team game.
And in that example, most players - myself included - will agree with a captain asking for Heavy/Burst, and will refuse to ready up when a guy with greased/lochnagar/lesmok is saying "No, I want to use these ammo types, ready up so we can play". Don't just work from the grounds of "I'm captain, what I say goes", SUPPORT your case, and your crew will support you. Crews have to work with their captains, and captains have to work with their crews. One uncooperative crew member doesn't get the option to ready up the ship. An entire crew disagreeing with their captain does.
From the sound of things, you're doing it right in-game for the most part. I disagree agree with how you presented your case in the beginning here, but I don't disagree with everything you're saying. I think the captain is the only person on a ship who should have the ability to ready the ship up ALONE. A single crew member saying "no, I want THIS loadout" is going to be held up by the captain AND the rest of the crew refusing to ready up. A pair of gunners who both refuse to swap roles will be held up by the captain AND the lone engineer who doesn't want to be alone. In many cases, the two gunners will both want to be the only gunner, so they won't ready up until one or the other backs down anyway.
Crew have the liberty of choosing their captain but not the other way around. By refusing to cooperate they are wasting everyone's time. The captain shouldn't have to leave because of a detrimental crew member. Having a bad loadout, or 2 gunners, or an extra pilot can be a death sentence, and I believe that it's the captain's right to prevent that. Every captain has the right to an effective loadout. Crew members have the right to choose their captain. There are plenty of players who want to be a team, and there are some who don't.
It's the captain's responsibility to TRY and prevent that. It isn't always possible. In those cases, it's the captain's responsibility to make the best of what they have. The captain has the right to request changes, and the right to delay things (to a lesser extent once matchmaking is in place, apparently) when the crew don't listen. They don't have the right to dictate everything about their crew's choices every step of the way.
Generally when a captain gives a loadout it's because they know it will be effective, and rarely do captains give ineffective loadouts. If a captain wanted me to bring a bad loadout and I wanted to bring the right loadout, I probably wouldn't stick around. If the captain consistently hears that his loadout should be _, maybe eventually he will take the advice. GoI is about fun and learning.
Generally when a competent captain gives a loadout, and a crew member disagrees, the captain will explain WHY they want the loadout they do. If they don't do that, nobody is learning anything. When a competent crew member disagrees with the captain's suggested loadout, they're going to explain why they don't want to take the loadout being suggested. If the captain doesn't give them a valid counter-point to their reasoning, they have the right to not listen.
There sometimes is the problem that the crew member doesn't speak English, but most are able to explain that they don't speak english and that they speak _. In this case I will go to google translate, and ask the lobby/global if anyone speaks the language. I rarely run into this problem. Most of the time I'm dealing with names that imply they speak english.
Some people are uncommunicative for various reasons. Sometimes it's partly due to the language barrier. And sometimes, google translate doesn't help because the translations make no real sense. Have you seen the mess you get when you translate back and forth between English and Japanese on that site? It's actually pretty funny sometimes.
Regardless of how the system works, the captain chooses loadouts. If a crew wants to bring what they want, then they should find a captain who will let them bring it. A captain should never be forced to have a bad loadout (ex 2 gunners). I'm picky and stubborn and don't mix well with players that don't cooperate. This leads to inefficiency and universal frustration. The system is broken, and if matchmaking is the fix, then I hope it arrives quickly.
So you're saying that no matter how the game is made, including the fact that the captain literally doesn't choose loadouts, the captain chooses loadouts.
Cool story.
Matchmaking will be fixing the problem of mid-match joining, because that won't be happening with the matchmaking system. I'm not sure what that means for matches in progress when a captain leaves. It won't miraculously give captains more control over the loadouts for their crew. In some ways, what I've heard makes it sound like you'll be given less of an ability to stall things.
-
Matchmaking will solve nothing as far as wrong loadouts. Once it comes out, if someone refuses to change, I will just leave the lobby. Having nothing invested in getting into a lobby makes it easy to quit.
-
There may be cases when a captain is requesting a ridiculous loadout, but again his crew don't have to join. In that case he has 2 options: to wait for someone who will take his loadout, or to start with AI. The first option will piss off the lobby (and he might be trolling). This is a special case but not the issue here. I have never run into a problem where a captain is not starting the match because he is waiting on a bad loadout. If a crew disagree with a loadout and refuse to take it then they should leave. Simple as that. If they want to be stubborn and stick around then they're delaying the match. This may be a minority of the cases but I have never run into it.
Whether or not the request is reasonable, the captain has the right to stall the match. If the captain has an unreasonable request then the lobby should be mad, and the captain might be trolling. Again, I don't run into this problem. Captains generally make reasonable requests so that people will follow them. If they make unreasonable requests then crew are less likely to follow them.
I have run into players not understanding english 4 times that I know of: French Polish and Russian. Google translate works if you're translating words or phrases, and global chat speaks many languages. This is a special case and it's not the problem.
Let's focus on the vast majority of the cases: players who refuse to cooperate or give explanation. Players who don't cooperate and prefer to frustrate people and waste time are trolls. Not readying is the only defense captains have against them because there is no kick feature and the report abuse button doesnt work. I am glad to see captains refuse to ready because of a troll on their crew, and it would be extremely rude to attempt to start the match.
All experienced players understand this, and I have sat in plenty of lobbies for extended periods just waiting on someone's crew member. Not starting is the right thing to do because otherwise you are giving in to trolling. A captain cannot be expected to ready up with a bad loadout in the same way that they can't be expected to ready with 2 gunners or an extra pilot. Having a bad loadout is often as detrimental as having an extra gunner.
I'm not trying to argue about special cases. I'm discussing the vast majority of cases that I see every day.
If I join a ship with a bad loadout or as an extra pilot/gunner and the pilot wants me to switch and I refuse, then I am trolling. If the pilot refuses to start the match with me then he is being responsible. A captain has the right, ability, and responsibility to not start the match with a troll in his crew.
If a captain makes a reasonable request, you should either cooperate or leave. This should be a universal rule. If you don't cooperate, then expect the captain to stall the match. Congratulations, you are now trolling.
I'm not saying that the captain has control over his loadouts, but the community agrees that the captain chooses loadouts. Allowing crew to ready up would be a disaster and ruin the experience. The community would not endorse it. Crews don't get to choose what captain they want, but they can leave a ship if they are not happy with it.
"Sometimes no matter how much ADVISING, EXPLAINING, or in my case PASSIVE AGGRESSIVE EMOTIONAL BLACKMAIL a captain uses there will be players who refuse to cooperate. It is the captains job to set up the ship to have the best chance at victory. I have no respect for players who work against the captain in doing this. Even though there are no mechanics to directly punish a player for working against the captain and crew we are under no obligation to help that player learn the game. Move to a different ship, tell the lobby #player name# is not cooperating. Hopefully they will rage quit and you can take your ship back next game."
-HamsterIV
He is describing trolling, and that's what I'm trying to discuss.
-
If someone is silent, completely uncommunicative, and doesn't know what the chat function is, or can't read it, then you have no right to call them a troll.
Maybe a friend who speaks English gave someone a copy of the game when there hasn't been a translation into any language that person speaks. So they have the game, in English, and have relied on a friend to help them learn how to navigate the menus. They know maybe a few of the basics of the game, and they know how to set up their loadout, but they can't speak because nobody will understand them, and they not only can't read the chat, but have been told to ignore it because it won't help anyway.
So you get someone who can't communicate, won't communicate no matter how hard you try, but who STILL WANTS TO PLAY.
What are you going to do? Call them a troll and rant and rave and refuse to start when you literally have nothing at all you can do to fix the problem? Or just get on with it and deal with the fact that this player might be hard to work with?
What about a guy who's been injured, has trouble typing, but can operate a couple of keys at a time, and can handle a mouse. He might not be capable of speaking coherently, and he can't type fast enough to be worth trying. So you get nothing again. Maybe he'll take your advice, maybe he won't. Maybe he'll take the - perfectly reasonable - stance that anything you say is just a guideline/suggestion/advice, and not set in stone.
What about someone who's simply new to the game and doesn't speak English. They don't necessarily know where the chat window is, or whether it's important to look at. They don't know what all these people are talking about. They decide that because they can't read that scrolling text in the corner, it's not important.
Someone who does communicate, yeah, they might be a troll, or just that stupid. Someone who doesn't, you're best off NOT assuming the worst. People who have legitimate reason not to communicate have the right to play too, and being rude to them isn't helping. All that does is raise your blood pressure and get you needlessly upset, and maybe get a few of the less serious players in your random public lobby a bit annoyed while you're at it. You're hurting yourself, you're slowing the game down, and you're raging over something that you have no control over.
-
It's true that people might not see chats, but it's hard to miss a private message. Chat windows are a common feature in games and most new players will recognize it immediately. If someone starts speaking to you in a foreign language then your first response is probably that you don't speak that language. If you're playing on a US server, the players most likely speak English.
There are a million reasons why someone might not communicate, but the most likely and common one is that they just want to play the game and they don't want someone telling them what to do. In my experience, these players are usually young and novice.
What usually happens for me is that players see a level 10 captain and want to join my ship. I explain what their role will be but they just want to play. I make it clear that I will delay the match as long as necessary, and they either comply, leave, or watch me stall the match. Often times these are the players telling me to ready up.
One thing that makes them start communicating nearly immediately is threatening to report them. When you threaten to report someone, you will get a response back. Of course it's an idle threat, but it proves that the player can communicate and is choosing not to. I can only think of a few times when I have threatened and received no answer, and those players usually left.
Really I just need a designation for my ship saying BE PREPARED TO BRING A SPECIFIC LOADOUT OR DO NOT JOIN THIS SHIP PLEASE. Unfortunately, that doesn't fit as a ship name.
There are a few rules that should be common knowledge for all players:
the captain slot is for the person who will fly the ship
ships need at least two engineers
if you don't want to do what the captain asks, please join a different ship
-
Really I just need a designation for my ship saying BE PREPARED TO BRING A SPECIFIC LOADOUT OR DO NOT JOIN THIS SHIP PLEASE. Unfortunately, that doesn't fit as a ship name.
Have you tried "OBEY YOUR CAPTAIN" to see if that works? If not, I'm sure "OBEY CAPTAIN" will. Good luck on having everyone follow the ship name though. You aren't always going to get cooperative crew members.
There are a few rules that should be common knowledge for all players:
the captain slot is for the person who will fly the ship
ships need at least two engineers
if you don't want to do what the captain asks, please join a different ship
1. Earlier today, I got to see a non-captain pilot on a Squid. I thought it was crazy, but it worked, because the engineering captain had a better view of the ship itself AND could more easily afford to bring up the map and work out tactics with our friendly ship than he would have while trying to pilot in a dense and hazard-filled map with the placement of the helm, which he found awkward (and as an inexperienced Squid pilot thus far, I'm inclined to agree with him).
2. I've captained on a Junker and a Galleon and been quite successful with 2 gunners. More than once for each ship. I've also had luck as a second gunner on a Galleon in one match, and as an engineer on a Junker with 2 gunners.
3. There are very rare situations where disobeying a captain is a good idea. I've had a drunk captain who armed his ship with flak on the front, and lined the front gun up for a clean shot on an enemy ship that had its armour down and one of our friendly ships with a gatling gun trained on the target. When I manned the gun and opened fire, he told me off for shooting from too far away, and got upset that I was giving away our position. I explained that the gun has an arming range and isn't effective up close, and that it was only dealing full damage while firing from longer range. He responded with, "you're a level 1 gunner, you don't know what you're talking about. I'm level 8 captain, I've been playing this game for over a year. You do what I say and you'll see I'm right". When a level 7 engineer joined the conversation, and pointed out that the engineer was his lowest-level role, and that our captain was ALSO a level 1 gunner like me, he finally backed down - NOT by letting me keep shooting at range, but by switching to Carronades for the next match to suit how he wanted to play. It worked out rather well, actually.
In general, what you've listed are good GUIDELINES that most crews should follow, but they aren't RULES that should be set in stone, and there are exceptions where other options will be viable - sometimes MORE viable. For the majority of situations, yes, the captain will be the pilot, and yes, the ship will benefit from a second engineer more than a second gunner, and yes, the captain will usually be in a better position to manage the crew than anyone else on board. But that isn't always the case, and exceptions do need to be considered in some (admittedly rare) circumstances.
-
I've never seen a match delayed because a captain was requesting a terrible loadout and the crew disagreed, only because crew refused to listen to their captains. I absolutely think the captain has the right to choose their crew's loadouts and delay the match until the crew comply. There is a reason they are the CAPTAIN and they are the ones who decide when the ship is ready. They are the ones planning the ship build and the strategy. Being captain is by far the most challenging role and if a crew member wants to disregard others and do whatever they want, they should go captain their own ship and tell the crew "bring whatever you want", or find a level 1 captain who hasn't learned yet that loadouts matter. Yes, it's a game, and yes, we want to have fun, but a huge part of that fun is being able to cooperate and do what is best for the entire team to succeed rather than "this is my loadout and screw you for wanting to succeed."
-
I would like to say that I have seen captains requesting terrible loadouts and holding up lobbies.
-
I've never seen a match delayed because a captain was requesting a terrible loadout and the crew disagreed, only because crew refused to listen to their captains.
I'm quite happy to say that the former situation is very rare, but I have seen it, and I've seen it more than once.
I'll agree that players not listening to a captain's reasonable request is more common though.
Of course, I will also point out that in every single case of a lobby being held up while the captain was making a reasonable request, there's only been ONE crew member refusing to play along. I haven't yet seen a situation where even two crew members have disagreed with a captain who made sensible requests.
It would be nice to see something like this to help speed the process up in those rare instances where it IS the captain causing the problem.
-
I could never non pilot captain a squid, kerosene and hydrogen are too important. I'm not sure how a engi squid pilot would work because there aren't any repairs near the helm, and I'm not sure what you mean by having a better view of the ship- anyone flying would have the same view. Engineer pilots are only really viable on a galleon or spire.
2 gunners is never a viable strategy except against bad/inexperienced opponents. Most guns only need one ammo and there's a reason why competitive teams almost always fly with 3 engineers. A buff engineer is much more useful than a gunner in most circumstances. Ships need engineers not gunners.
I'm talking about obeying the captain when they give loadouts. If you don't want to bring the loadout, then don't join. The captain has the ability to not start the match until you do.
Captains can make bad requests like loading the wrong ammo or dedicating crew labor to the wrong components, but if you know better then you should inform the captain (like you rightfully did).
If a captain told me to do something wrong I would first explain why it's wrong (if it required an immediate action then I would first do the right thing before explaining). If they insist on doing the wrong thing, then either call them something in your vocabulary and do what they want, or disobey and piss them off. It's your call. I'm not trying to discuss captains making bad requests, I'm discussing captains making perfectly reasonable requests.
You're lucky, sometimes I get all 3 crew members refusing to play along.
Sparklerfish is right.
-
I could never non pilot captain a squid, kerosene and hydrogen are too important.
Non-pilot Captain NOT taking the helm with a pilot who can focus on piloting. You seem to have missed the point. The Captain isn't the pilot because he's NOT A PILOT. He's sitting up top in the middle of the ship with the better viewpoint, and doesn't have to wait for a moment he isn't focusing on his ship's manoeuvres before he can take a look at the map and work on strategising with his fellow Captain(s). He's an Engineer because he's in a position where having an Engineer is more usful than having a guy standing half the ship away from the helm and still being a Pilot.
I'm not sure how a engi squid pilot would work because there aren't any repairs near the helm, and I'm not sure what you mean by having a better view of the ship- anyone flying would have the same view. Engineer pilots are only really viable on a galleon or spire.
Which is exactly why I said Engineer CAPTAIN and not Engineer PILOT. Clearly.
2 gunners is never a viable strategy except against bad/inexperienced opponents. Most guns only need one ammo and there's a reason why competitive teams almost always fly with 3 engineers. A buff engineer is much more useful than a gunner in most circumstances. Ships need engineers not gunners.
Think of which guns can benefit from multiple ammo types. Gatling (Lesmok/Greased/Incendiary), Flamethrower (Lesmok/Burst), Hwacha (Heavy Clip/Burst). I just listed the first 3 that came to mind, and HEY LOOK I JUST LOADED UP A GOLDFISH. One gunner with Lesmok/Greased/Burst to cover side guns and the other with Heavy Clip/Burst/whatever focusing on the Hwacha, both with Wrench for repairs and a good Spanner/Mallet/Chemspray Engi, and you're golden.
I'm talking about obeying the captain when they give loadouts. If you don't want to bring the loadout, then don't join. The captain has the ability to not start the match until you do.
Captains can make bad requests like loading the wrong ammo or dedicating crew labor to the wrong components, but if you know better then you should inform the captain (like you rightfully did).
You should inform the Captain. And I did. And sometimes, they don't listen, and keep holding up the game. By your logic, the Captain is right to insist that I do something stupid, WITHOUT needing to explain the reason why he's insisting on that, and you're saying that I'M the one holding up the game by not obeying an instruction that cannot possibly have a constructive and valid explanation. Even if I was told to bring Lochnagar to load into Flamerthrowers and Gatling Guns on a ship with no other weapons, I am willing to do that if the Captain is willing to explain the reason for their request. I'll even accept "because LOL" as a reason - not a GOOD reason, but if the Captain just wants a stupid laugh, I'm cool with that.
If a captain told me to do something wrong I would first explain why it's wrong (if it required an immediate action then I would first do the right thing before explaining). If they insist on doing the wrong thing, then either call them something in your vocabulary and do what they want, or disobey and piss them off. It's your call. I'm not trying to discuss captains making bad requests, I'm discussing captains making perfectly reasonable requests.
This thread is proposing a solution to the problem of Captains making STUPID requests, NOT the non-problem of Captains making reasonable requests. You say you never see Captains making requests like that. As proven by DJ Tips N Trix, I'm not the only one who has, even though it is a rare occurence in my experience. You've clearly been luckier than me. That personal experience doesn't negate the fact that this situation CAN happen, and DOES happen. It's pretty much entirely unreasonable to expect an entire crew of a ship to all agree that their Captain is an idiot while the Captain is being reasonable and explaining their position. A Captain being an idiot is a far more likely occurence. A bad Captain being bad should have at least a moderate-to-slim chance of being pushed into the match without getting his way. Just like a bad non-Captain being bad should be stalled from getting into the game.
You're lucky, sometimes I get all 3 crew members refusing to play along.
Sparklerfish is right.
I've seen times where you get one or two players not communicating at all, and one player ACTIVELY refusing to play along. I've seen times where you get one player not playing along and one player saying they should be allowed to refuse the request (usually providing reasons why, whether valid and reasonable or not). I've seen NO instance of an entire crew saying "nope, we're doing what we want, and we don't care" while the Captain is being reasonable.
I'm NOT including Captains who demand "use this loadout" in a gruff manner and refuse to consider explanations from their crew about the loadout being used. Even if you're right, THAT ISN'T REASONABLE BEHAVIOUR. You should be ASKING your crew to change, EXPLAINING why you want the change requested, and COUNTERING any reasons being given for dissent.
-
You should be ASKING your crew to change, EXPLAINING why you want the change requested, and COUNTERING any reasons being given for dissent.
-Lobbies of Icarus, 2014.
Also the reason why I will be leaving a lot of Queues of Icarus lobbies. If someone won't change on my ship, I will instantly leave. No explaining. No COUNTERING. No time for that. My ship. My rules.
-
You should be ASKING your crew to change, EXPLAINING why you want the change requested, and COUNTERING any reasons being given for dissent.
-Lobbies of Icarus, 2014.
Also the reason why I will be leaving a lot of Queues of Icarus lobbies. If someone won't change on my ship, I will instantly leave. No explaining. No COUNTERING. No time for that. My ship. My rules.
Quick explanation. Give it a minute or two, and if they don't follow instructions, leave. Or at least try explaining if the player asks (politely) for a reason why you want that loadout.
If someone says, "No, that's a stupid loadout, why would you want that?" then sure, move on if you don't want to deal with it. But if they say, "I'm not sure what the benefit of that could be over what I'm using. Can you explain how I should be using it?" then you're clearly looking at someone who wants to understand and be a helpful crew member. Would you still leave a ship with a crew member asking that question? Or would you be a bit more patient and willing to talk things over?
Telling people, "do this" then ditching when they don't listen isn't helping you find good crew, isn't helping newer players learn so they can BECOME good crew, and isn't giving you a chance to potentially find out new things yourself (unless you intentionally try out new crew loadouts regularly to see how well they perform). You may be experienced, but the game is changed with every patch, and those changes adjust how the various weapons perform. That plus the occasional shift in meta should keep it open enough for players to mix things up a bit.
I do approve of the fact that you're willing to leave immediately instead of holding up the game though. "My ship, my rules" means that if the crew doesn't like it, you pack up and take the ship with you. That's cool.
EDIT: Just for the record, I've seen a level 10 engineer who was asked to bring Chemspray instead of an extinguisher and he said "No, chemspray sucks, the extinguisher is way better. Why would you even ask that?" and I've seen a level 1 everything playing as gunner who said "I was using lesmok for long range because I've been told the speed increase also translates to longer ranges. I assumed that would help on the Hwacha too. Does the reduced recoil on Heavy Clip make that much difference on a Hwacha?"
I've also seen a surprising number of level 1 engineers and gunners claiming "I've played the tutorials (sometimes when they haven't), I know how the game works" when they're arguing with level 7 and 8 and even 10+ captains trying to explain why burst ammo in a gatling gun is a bad idea. The number of high-level players willing to say "alright captain, but what's your reasoning?" is higher than I'd have expected as well.
In contrast to the rare overly-dictatorial captains and jaded bittervets, the majority of the community for this game is friendly and VERY open to listening to and learning from one another. New players who don't listen seem to have a tendency to change their ways fast, OR to disappear.
-
The captain is the person who is flying the ship. All experienced players recognize this. Engineers with repairs have a very limited view of situations, and likely have no time to look at the map or strategize. Under ideal circumstances where a squid engineer had no repairs, yes they would have a better view. While the captain has the hardest job, engineers have the most hectic job- especially on a squid. I can tell you from experience that an engineer that is repairing often has a very limited or no view of the situation. If the engineer has repairs, they can't see the situation and can't communicate effectively with the ally. It is always best to have the person flying the ship to be the captain.
In the same way, under ideal circumstances (ex not getting shot at), having 3 gunners would be best. If you're dealing with a challenge then you need at least 2 engineers. If gunners were useful on small guns (your gat example), then people would bring them. There is always an ideal ammo to use. I would much rather have a spanner mallet buff engi with heavy or greased on my gat than a gunner. On some small guns like the hades or mine launcher having 2 ammos is very useful, but still not necessary. If a pilot has control over every engagement, then there isn't a gun in the game that needs more than 1 ammo. The only reason that I don't fly with 3 engi when it would better to is because it can be hard to convince a gunner to switch. A gunner is more likely to switch ammo than class so I just don't bother.
On a heavy carro goldfish it's better to have a spanner mallet buff engi with heavy clip than the standard gunner loadout of heavy charged incendiary. On hwatchafish I like one engi with burst and the other heavy. I will have the main ammo engi bring spanner mallet buff depending on the presumed engagement range. With hwatcha gat flame, the gat should probably have greased and the flame lesmok (or greased, although I do like burst flame). Luckily, each engineer can carry a different ammo and can preload the guns.
A double gunner goldfish is a death sentence. Yes it would be useful to have lots of different ammo options, but it would be way more useful to have an engineer and the ideal ammo. A wrench buff chem engi on the balloon is very useful on a goldfish. Goldfish are a frontal attack ship so they can choose their engagement range- bring the ideal ammo for the presumed circumstances. Try flying double gunner against any competent captain, you'll see why it wont work. Although goldfish have a lot of health, they are fragile and can be difficult to repair in emergencies.
Again, unless you're not planning on taking damage then you need at least 2 engineers. I would love to have 2 gunners on a double lumberjack galleon but it's not feasible when facing a competent opponent. Ships need 2 engineers. If you're flying against me, you need 2 engineers. In my experience, the double gunner ship always loses.
Burst is the standard artemis ammo. If a captain wants me to bring lesmok then I know that they will try to be long range and are focusing on accuracy. Even if I think that based on the circumstances burst would be a much better choice, I'm still gonna bring lesmok.
If I'm crewing, I'm gonna try to give the ship the best chance at success. I don't run into captains that make bad requests, but of course they do exist. If a captain tells me to do something that will sabotage our chances of success, I will explain why to not do it. If a captain wants to deliberately sabotage their team, I will refuse. If they become unruly then I will leave.
You're misunderstanding me: if a captain wants you to do something stupid in a match, then do whatever you want. If a captain is sabotaging the success of the team then you should do the right thing. Piss him off and in the future maybe he will realize his error. If a captain wants you to bring a bad loadout then first tell him why it's wrong. If he doesn't budge then you should bring it or leave. Or you could tell the lobby and the lobby will make their arguments against the captain's decision.
If a captain wants a terrible loadout that would be detrimental to the team, then the lobby can protest and request that the captain join a different lobby. If the captain refuses then the lobby could make a new lobby. This is a potential problem, but in my experience it is not a real issue. It might happen but it's rare. If a captain is waiting on a loadout, then that crew member should just leave instead of making the lobby wait.
If a captain in my lobby wants a stupid laugh with his loadout, then I will protest. I would expect the other captains to do so as well and to try to get the captain to leave. If this happened every time captains want a stupid laugh, then there would be fewer attempts at stupid laughs. If a captain is disrupting a lobby and refusing to leave, make a new lobby.
I'm going to reiterate what I'm assuming all captains who have the problem I'm trying to explain go through.
A new crew member joins, I welcome them aboard and tell them what to bring and where to be.
I explain why they will be using the ammo and what they should be using the gun for.
I tell them that they need to bring the loadout or to please join a different ship.
There is no debating over the ammo, the crew member doesn't change their ammo according to the gun. They don't see what gun they will be using and suggest their preferred ammo, they just keep what ammo and tools they already have.
Yes I could just leave the lobby and try to find an open captain spot, but I would much rather stay in the lobby that I had already picked out and want to play in.
I have made odd requests before and had my crew have questioned them, but in the end I have never had a crew member who is questioning my decision not do what I asked. Part of the reason may be because of how much I have played the game. If I was a low level, players might be less inclined to listen.
At least a hundred times before have I given crew loadouts and had no one on the ship attempt to bring it or give any explanation to why not. I don't care about crew level. As long as they listen they are a good crew. Yesterday I had an excellent crew for many matches of a lvl 3 and 4 engi. They made mistakes but they listened and they learned and everyone had a good time.
-
Captain is leader of the ship - he makes decision (often really quick), he designs the ship and he takes the risks. If the captain on a spire tells me - we shoot and hope they die first - I do it. As a crew member I don't remember to disagree with captain regarding my equipment. Sometimes I tried to negotiate with different results. Sometimes, especially when I see captain is low lvl, I say things like "This is not going to work" and explain why. Captain has the freedom to listen to my advice or not. I have the freedom to stay on the ship or not. As simple as that. What Richard LeMoon is harsh, but understandable. If captain can't, even in such limited way, trust his crew - then the possibility of success drops rapidly.
I've also seen a surprising number of level 1 engineers and gunners claiming "I've played the tutorials (sometimes when they haven't), I know how the game works" when they're arguing with level 7 and 8 and even 10+ captains trying to explain why burst ammo in a gatling gun is a bad idea.
That's why I'd really like links to work in GOIO. Usually when I can't or don't want to explain things I go something like: "Trust me so, and if not you can check Wundsalz weapon/ship building guide".
-
That's a good point: the captain is free to decide their tactics. It's a learning experience to see what works and what doesn't. On a mobula or spire, shooting until you die is a viable tactic but could lead to disaster. Crews can and should advise their captains when necessary, but they should still do what the captain asks. If the shoot until you die leads to quick successions of death, the captain will probably revise their tactic. If you disobey, the captain could get angry and not know if his tactic would have worked or not.
If a captain is trying to deliberately sabotage their team then it's a different story. This is probably very rare. Rule of thumb: listen to the captain, suggest alternatives, do what they say.
A while back I joined during a match on a goldfish with an engi captain/pilot. It turned out that the captain was working with the other team to 2v1 our ally pyramidion. It was pretty pathetic because the pyra was still kicking their asses (but they probably lost in the end to the 2v1). If I could have done something I would, but the captain was just flying around and crashing into stuff. Later I got the opportunity to troll their galleon- I spammed V commands and didn't repair. It wasn't the right thing to do but it felt satisfying.
-
The captain is the person who is flying the ship. All experienced players recognize this. Engineers with repairs have a very limited view of situations, and likely have no time to look at the map or strategize. Under ideal circumstances where a squid engineer had no repairs, yes they would have a better view. While the captain has the hardest job, engineers have the most hectic job- especially on a squid. I can tell you from experience that an engineer that is repairing often has a very limited or no view of the situation. If the engineer has repairs, they can't see the situation and can't communicate effectively with the ally. It is always best to have the person flying the ship to be the captain.
The captain is usually the person who is flying the ship. All experienced players recognise this. Engineers with repairs have a very limited view of the situation compared to a Captain on most ships. They likely (but not definitely) have no time to look at the map or strategise. By the same score, Pilots who are busy flying the ship (which is happening ALL THE TIME, not just while under fire) have no time to look at the map or strategise. While the Captain has the hardest job, Engineers have the most hectic job at the worst of times - especially on a Squid. If the Engineer has repairs, they can't see the situation quite as well as when they're not busy, but still better than a busy pilot can, and can't communicate as effectively with the ally. It is always usually best to have the person flying the ship to be the Captain.
Assuming a worst-case scenario at all times, the pilot MIGHT be more free to look around the ship SOME OF THE TIME. This means the fastest ship in the game is permanently in a position where it's taking enemy fire and unable to disengage for the entire duration of the battle, without exception or a moment's reprieve. While it's POSSIBLE that this might happen, it's far more likely that there will be downtime on a Squid - a ship heavily focused on hit-and-run attacks, with a reliance on mobility and agility over durability and firepower - for the engineer(s) than for the pilot. Regardless of whether or not the situation is ideal, the ideal situation for a Squid involves the pilot being busy ALL THE TIME. Only the absolute worst-case scenario for a Squid will have the Engineers busy as consistently as the Pilot.
In the same way, under ideal circumstances (ex not getting shot at), having 3 gunners would be best. If you're dealing with a challenge then you need at least 2 engineers. If gunners were useful on small guns (your gat example), then people would bring them. There is always an ideal ammo to use. I would much rather have a spanner mallet buff engi with heavy or greased on my gat than a gunner. On some small guns like the hades or mine launcher having 2 ammos is very useful, but still not necessary. If a pilot has control over every engagement, then there isn't a gun in the game that needs more than 1 ammo. The only reason that I don't fly with 3 engi when it would better to is because it can be hard to convince a gunner to switch. A gunner is more likely to switch ammo than class so I just don't bother.
If you know your ship will never be shot at, not just 3 Gunners, but 3 Gunners with buff hammers would be best. If you're dealing with a challenge then you need at least 2 Engineers, but one will frequently be manning a gun, and the other will frequently be on the Spyglass or unoccupied. Even if you know your ship will only be shot at intermittently, a Squid should still be moving around constantly, and manoeuvring most of that time. If Gunners weren't useful on Small Guns, then nobody would bring them on Junkers and Pyramidions. On some small guns, having 2 ammos is more useful than on others. Even when a ship can control every engagement, having the flexibility of multiple ammo types can be an advantage.
On a heavy carro goldfish it's better to have a spanner mallet buff engi with heavy clip than the standard gunner loadout of heavy charged incendiary. On hwatchafish I like one engi with burst and the other heavy. I will have the main ammo engi bring spanner mallet buff depending on the presumed engagement range. With hwatcha gat flame, the gat should probably have greased and the flame lesmok (or greased, although I do like burst flame). Luckily, each engineer can carry a different ammo and can preload the guns.
So you have 3 Engineers on your ship with Hwacha, Gatling and Flamethrower. One has Heavy Clip and another has Burst, leaving the remaining Engineer to bring Greased and Lesmok for the side guns. Somehow, this doesn't sound quite right to me. Can you see the flaw in your proposed logic?
A double gunner goldfish is a death sentence. Yes it would be useful to have lots of different ammo options, but it would be way more useful to have an engineer and the ideal ammo. A wrench buff chem engi on the balloon is very useful on a goldfish. Goldfish are a frontal attack ship so they can choose their engagement range- bring the ideal ammo for the presumed circumstances. Try flying double gunner against any competent captain, you'll see why it wont work. Although goldfish have a lot of health, they are fragile and can be difficult to repair in emergencies.
With a good Engineer, and Gunners willing to stop shooting and help with repairs, a double Gunner Goldfish can work out just fine. It won't necessarily perform BETTER than with two Engineers, but the slight edge in damage output can help to prevent the ship taking as much damage. I'm not talking about an improbable perfect situation where you never take hits, but a more realistic scenario where you manage to play to your strengths similarly well to how the other ship performs. Two Engineers means maybe faster repairs, and almost certainly more efficient firefighting. Two gunners means more effective damage output, and a greater variety of utility applications on weapons. You can cause more damage and set more fires with dual Gunners, but you can take more damage and extinguish/prevent more fires with dual Engineers. Do you want to be even more of a glass cannon, or add a little splash of tank into the mix?
Again, unless you're not planning on taking damage then you need at least 2 engineers. I would love to have 2 gunners on a double lumberjack galleon but it's not feasible when facing a competent opponent. Ships need 2 engineers. If you're flying against me, you need 2 engineers. In my experience, the double gunner ship always loses.
On a Galleon, I'm never going to try and argue that 2 Gunners is a good idea when you're facing actual combat. Not because the extra Gunner couldn't be useful, but because the parts that routinely need repairs and firefighting are too spread out for a single Engineer to handle effectively. On a Goldfish, even the longest routes from one part of the ship to another are comparatively easy to manage, and the worst-case scenario takes a secondary Gunner away from the role to help with repairs, which is no worse than having a second Engineer who's not manning the extra gun either.
Burst is the standard artemis ammo. If a captain wants me to bring lesmok then I know that they will try to be long range and are focusing on accuracy. Even if I think that based on the circumstances burst would be a much better choice, I'm still gonna bring lesmok.
If I'm crewing, I'm gonna try to give the ship the best chance at success. I don't run into captains that make bad requests, but of course they do exist. If a captain tells me to do something that will sabotage our chances of success, I will explain why to not do it. If a captain wants to deliberately sabotage their team, I will refuse. If they become unruly then I will leave.
If they become "unruly"? You mean like YOU DO when you don't get your own way as Captain? At least you're consistent about pushing for your way as Captain and leaving the ship when you're not Captain.
You're misunderstanding me: if a captain wants you to do something stupid in a match, then do whatever you want. If a captain is sabotaging the success of the team then you should do the right thing. Piss him off and in the future maybe he will realize his error. If a captain wants you to bring a bad loadout then first tell him why it's wrong. If he doesn't budge then you should bring it or leave. Or you could tell the lobby and the lobby will make their arguments against the captain's decision.
Ah. So what you're saying is that it's ok for a "good" Captain to be a jerk and push people around, but if they're "bad", then you should troll them and/or go against their wishes. And clearly, you must be the right person to define what's "good" and what's "bad", since you have more experience than everyone else, right?
Either apply your reasoning universally to ALL Captains, and to all non-Captains, or apply your reasoning ONLY to yourself and don't hold others to your standards. In an ideal world, every player would speak a common language, and every player would have a working mic, and nobody would need voice commands or even text chat. In an ideal world, there would be nobody embarrassed about their voice, accent, lack of experience speaking English, or injured in a manner that restricts communication. In an ideal world, when someone is wrong about something, another person explaining why they were wrong is all it would take to make them realise their mistake. Your "the Captain is always right when I'm Captain, but not when the Captain is an idiot" approach could potentially work in this ideal world. Of course, that would assume you're always right, but as an experienced player in a well-respected clan, this is probably not far from the truth.
If a captain wants a terrible loadout that would be detrimental to the team, then the lobby can protest and request that the captain join a different lobby. If the captain refuses then the lobby could make a new lobby. This is a potential problem, but in my experience it is not a real issue. It might happen but it's rare. If a captain is waiting on a loadout, then that crew member should just leave instead of making the lobby wait.
I've been in a lobby once where everyone except me and one other player was a high-level player with a lot of experience (10+ in at least 2 roles). People were playing to win, and trying their best. I was getting to a point of feeling competent with the game, and while I was still making mistakes, I didn't feel like I was holding the crew back on my ship. The other player around my level (I was 2 all around at the time, he was level 3 Gunner) had his Captain complain that he wasn't listening to reason in the previous match and trade places to put him on the crew of a more tightly-managed ship. He was asked (not told) to change his loadout, and he said "nope". He was asked to provide a good reason why not, and the only response was another "nope". EVERY SINGLE OTHER PLAYER IN THE LOBBY agreed to drop and create a new lobby without him. I was invited along, and another player filled that one remaining slot.
I've seen the same thing happen when it was a Captain being an idiot. I've also seen a group of players with experience levels ranging from level 1 everything to level 10+ in every role, where the lobby was laughing and joking and nobody was taking anything seriously. We had a Captain bring a Squid with 3 Flamethrowers, and on his Pilot loadout, he brought Lochnagar ammo, and kept kicking people off the guns to load it into them. When he left the helm, he ALWAYS left it at full throttle. It was ridiculous, but nobody cared, because it was HILARIOUS. I was Captaining a (mostly) sensible Junker build, but I spent more time ramming the enemy Galleon than shooting it, and my Gunner spent most of the match on the front-mounted Artemis than he did firing broadsides.
If a captain in my lobby wants a stupid laugh with his loadout, then I will protest. I would expect the other captains to do so as well and to try to get the captain to leave. If this happened every time captains want a stupid laugh, then there would be fewer attempts at stupid laughs. If a captain is disrupting a lobby and refusing to leave, make a new lobby.
If anyone - Captain or no - is disrupting a lobby, I agree, ask them to leave, and create a new lobby if they don't. If EVERYONE is having a stupid laugh, then I don't see the harm in playing along. If I'm in a very serious lobby and my Captain asks me to do something for a stupid laugh, I'll question whether that's appropriate for the lobby. And I'll do so publicly and get the rest of the lobby involved in the conversation because it's not only relevant to our ship. If it's a novice match, I'm less concerned. If it's a lobby where the teams are stacked and I'm on the side with all the clearly more experienced players, I'll probably play along as a form of handicap for the team.
I'm going to reiterate what I'm assuming all captains who have the problem I'm trying to explain go through.
A new crew member joins, I welcome them aboard and tell them what to bring and where to be.
I explain why they will be using the ammo and what they should be using the gun for.
I tell them that they need to bring the loadout or to please join a different ship.
See, this is fine. "PLEASE join a different ship" is fine. ASKING, not DEMANDING. EXPLAINING, not just dictating.
There is no debating over the ammo, the crew member doesn't change their ammo according to the gun. They don't see what gun they will be using and suggest their preferred ammo, they just keep what ammo and tools they already have.
Yes I could just leave the lobby and try to find an open captain spot, but I would much rather stay in the lobby that I had already picked out and want to play in.
And do you know the reason for the lack of communication? You say you'd much rather stay in the lobby you'd already picked out. Did you think that maybe so would the other person? What if they were in the lobby before you? But you're the Captain who's just joined, the guy who's been waiting for half an hour in the lobby he wants to be in should bow down to your whims, right?
I have made odd requests before and had my crew have questioned them, but in the end I have never had a crew member who is questioning my decision not do what I asked. Part of the reason may be because of how much I have played the game. If I was a low level, players might be less inclined to listen.
When I've been a Captain and have been dealing with a communicative crew, I've had crew who ended up using different loadouts from what I had originally proposed. In every case, they've explained their position and the reason for their preference, and I've considered their advice and made a decision. I've brought a very meta-looking Junker with Gat/Mortar broadsides and a Gunner has joined my crew and said "I'm a crack shot with a Hades, can you replace both Mortars with them?" and I decided to go along with it because our friendly ship was well suited to working with that alternative loadout.
At least a hundred times before have I given crew loadouts and had no one on the ship attempt to bring it or give any explanation to why not. I don't care about crew level. As long as they listen they are a good crew. Yesterday I had an excellent crew for many matches of a lvl 3 and 4 engi. They made mistakes but they listened and they learned and everyone had a good time.
That's great. Maybe name your ship "TALK TO ME" instead of "OBEY YOUR CAPTAIN" like I had previously suggested. I like a good crew who can work together without much communication being needed, but I sometimes prefer to have a more talkative crew.
-
To get more to topic: Muse will never agree to "one valid build" thing, whether it's 'captain = pilot' or '2 engineers AT LEAST'. Those MAY be the only valid builds - but players are free to choose and experiment.
And also - blah blah this will be fixed in matchmaking blah blah.
A double gunner goldfish is a death sentence. Yes it would be useful to have lots of different ammo options, but it would be way more useful to have an engineer and the ideal ammo. A wrench buff chem engi on the balloon is very useful on a goldfish. Goldfish are a frontal attack ship so they can choose their engagement range- bring the ideal ammo for the presumed circumstances. Try flying double gunner against any competent captain, you'll see why it wont work. Although goldfish have a lot of health, they are fragile and can be difficult to repair in emergencies.
With a good Engineer, and Gunners willing to stop shooting and help with repairs, a double Gunner Goldfish can work out just fine. It won't necessarily perform BETTER than with two Engineers, but the slight edge in damage output can help to prevent the ship taking as much damage. I'm not talking about an improbable perfect situation where you never take hits, but a more realistic scenario where you manage to play to your strengths similarly well to how the other ship performs. Two Engineers means maybe faster repairs, and almost certainly more efficient firefighting. Two gunners means more effective damage output, and a greater variety of utility applications on weapons. You can cause more damage and set more fires with dual Gunners, but you can take more damage and extinguish/prevent more fires with dual Engineers. Do you want to be even more of a glass cannon, or add a little splash of tank into the mix?
As a guy who mostly do engineering I call bull*t. People tend to forget that engineers can be good but can't do miracles - they are very limited by cooldowns, speed of their movement, and captain actions/speed of things happening around. Let me give you example: every time I go on squid with captain I don't know I ask him how much kerosene/moonshine he uses. Why? Because there are situations when captains use kerosene almost all the time and I as an engineer has to fix engines all the time which makes me unable to chem spay even the most important things, say hull, baloon and main engines. That's why sometimes when I know that captain do such a thing - I take extinguisher. Goldfish is especially good example because components are pretty far away from each other (when compare to, for instance, pyramidion) and trust me that one engineer isn't enough. You say "it could work, maybe not as good as 2 engineer, but good enough" - maybe when facing unexperienced enemy, only then.
-
Hey all this has kind of devolved into a slapfight over captain preference and crew composition, etc.
I think we all agree on two things though:
1. It is never a good idea to have more than 1 pilot.
2. It is usually not a good idea to have more than 1 gunner.
Now, I know Muse is generally really hands off about composition rules, etc simply because meta changes, and every captain has their own preference (for example, maybe you want 2 really good gunners for a sniping galleon).
However, I think the other side of this is - people (esp novices) don't know why you shouldn't have 2 gunners - every ship has at least 2 guns, why not have 2 gunners. I know a lot of novices still believe gunners must shoot at all times (slaved to their gun) and engineers must always only repair, etc.
The best solution is a more robust tutorial - but barring that, what if we had popups that happened if/when joining as a second gunner/pilot?
There is no stopping a player who wants to just achieve farm or who doesn't care about his team - but I think more often than not people just want to play their class and dont' know any better. Or perhaps they just forgot they were last a pilot.
So if you're joining a game as a second gunner or pilot, a popup will say something to discourage/educate them, while giving them the option of continuing as their class. Something like "Caution! You are joining as a second pilot/gunner, and may not be overlapping the role of another player. Please click <here> to change your loadout, or click <here> to continue joining."
We can have this tied to "alerts" or "tutorial" and have the player have the option of toggling this off if they really like to join as a second gunner/pilot all the time (idk, I know some people do this *cough*).
-
The community agrees with me that the captain should always be the one flying the ship. The captain on the ally ship needs to speak to the pilot, not the engineer. Otherwise there is an information delay. A squid engineer who is repairing might have no view of the situation while the pilot would. When you're repairing a component, your field of vision is limited to that component and its vicinity.
Having an ally with a non pilot captain is frustrating if you're trying to communicate with the person flying the ship. But if a crew wants a non pilot captain, that's up to them. For example, I often see (inexperienced) clans have a non pilot captain who say that they're on skype or teamspeak together so they communicate. It's annoying for the ally, but it's their choice. My problem is with players that join a captain slot just to choose the ship and be the captain.
I am constantly looking around the ship while I'm flying to see what my crew are doing and to watch the components. Even under heavy fire I am always changing my view unless I already know the rear situation and component info. A pilot that is maneuvering is by no means busy. It might take practice, but the pilot should be able to maintain situational awareness. In my experience, the most distracting part about flying is watching the crew to maintain crew efficiency.
You are adamant that the squid example worked with an engi captain, and if the crew agreed and ally was ok with it then fine. If we ask the community you will see that there is never a situation where the captain shouldn't be the pilot even though it might work in certain situations. If that squid was flying against me, the non pilot captain would be a detriment- the balloon would constantly be broken (I love popping balloons).
When I said that if gunners were useful on small guns then people would bring them I meant to say that they would bring them competitively. The only small gun you might see a gunner on is the hades. If you control engagements, there is always a best ammo and no point of having multiple ammos.
I don't like hwatchafish because it's boring, but on my hwatchafish I have a gat and carro which are both good with heavy clip or greased. When playing in regular pub matches (opponents aren't running 3 engi), I have gunners. If you're flying against a 3 engi ship with buffs, you need 3 engi. I would always have a gunner on a lumberjack however (except if there were 2 on a galleon).
A gunner with the ideal ammo is just as effective and significantly less useful than an engi with the ideal ammo. Decide engagements and plan accordingly. If I had 2 gunners on a ship then I would lose if I was facing a reasonably competent opponent. No player in the game is good enough to fly with 2 gunners.
Special ammo isn't always necessary. For example, the standard Duck junkers have a top artemis bottom hades on one side, bottom gat top mortar, and front artemis. The top engi brings wrench buff chem burst ammo for the artemis. Front engi brings spanner mallet chem burst (hull on junker can be repaired from the front). Bottom engi brings spanner mallet buff and lesmok for the hades. Both the gat and mortar use regular ammo. This is the most efficient loadout for the build.
Trust me, 2 gunners is not viable on a goldfish. If 2 goldfish face off and one has 2 gunners, they will always lose. Yes they do have a better variety of ammo, but there is always an ideal ammo. A gunner with the ideal does the same dmg as an engi.
Being able to have a spanner and mallet or wrench and buff gives an invaluable advantage over just having a wrench. For example, components (especially guns) always need to be at full health. The number 1 mistake people make is not keeping guns at 100% health, and a mallet makes this more efficient (especially on big guns). A buff hammer makes even damaged components more efficient. If you buff a balloon as soon as you rebuild it, it functions almost as well (or better) as at full health.
I would argue that the galleon is the only viable 2 gunner ship as long as you're not planning on getting too close or having guns disabled. On a galleon, the upstairs engi and pilot do repairs. The only repairs downstairs are guns and engines. A double lumberjack galleon is the safest and most effective 2 gunner ship I can think of. One day if I'm feeling brave and flying against novices, maybe I'll take a double gunner double lumber galleon.
Again, you misunderstand me. If I ever get unruly, then there's a reason for it. Not starting a match due to uncooperative players is not being unruly, it's being responsible. Keep in mind that I'm not the only one to do this. All experienced players have run into this problem.
Once I was on a mobula and the captain wanted our gunner to switch class because mobulas should have 3 engi. They refused and we waited. And waited. I left after about 5 minutes. The captain made a reasonable request and the crew member refused. Asking the gunner to switch wasn't being pushy. He didn't have to be on the ship.
Yes waiting in a lobby is boring and can be frustrating when you're just waiting on one captain. Yes the captain could just start the game with his second gunner or bad loadout. But expecting them to is inconsiderate. If I have an extra gunner, I won't start the match. If someone is waiting on a loadout, be considerate.
If I ask someone to bring a sensible loadout, I am not being pushy. I am being reasonable and responsible for my ship, crew, and team. If I don't want to bring a captain's loadout, then I should leave. If I'm captain and a crew member will not change their loadout or leave, then eventually I will leave. I don't think it's fair that a captain should have to leave due to an uncooperative crew.
NO captain should ever push their crew around. A captain that bullies their crew is a bad captain. What we do is request loadouts, and either wait for them to bring it or to leave. If there was a simpler way we would do it. There isn't, so people need to learn to deal with it.
As for deliberate bad loadouts, in my opinion you should only use them if your ally is ok with it. If your ally wants a serious game, don't take a joke loadout. If your ally wants a serious game but the other side has joke loadouts, do what you want. Occasionally I like a joke loadout. Flare squid is fun against mobulas and gat junkers are very amusing. If there are 3 harpoon mobulas in a match, it's your duty to take a harpoon mobula or join a different match.
When I explain that I'm not starting the match without a loadout and the person refuses to leave, then that's on them. They are the one delaying the match. They realize that the match is not gonna start and eventually they or I leave. It's inefficient and a waste of time. Yes there might be a million reasons why someone isn't communicating, and I might win the lottery. Players that are the least likely to cooperate are new to the game and young. What does that tell you. I would go as far to say that I don't think I have ever had a crew of at least lvl 5 not cooperate. It's a low level player problem.
"What if they were in the lobby before you? But you're the Captain who's just joined"
I avoid joining captain slots with novice players already in the crew because those are the least likely to cooperate. Whenever I join a lobby I'm always a gunner or engineer. I never join in as a pilot.
It used to be that if you joined in as a second pilot you could exit, switch, and resume. Now it is counter intuitive where you have to join from the lobby list. Muse implemented this in order to prevent players from "taking advantage of the system". A lot of times players don't realize that they're joining in as a second pilot. If they received an alert that required confirmation, there would be no excuse for accidentally joining as a second pilot or gunner. At that point, joining in as an extra pilot would be considered trolling.
-
The community agrees with me that the captain should always be the one flying the ship. The captain on the ally ship needs to speak to the pilot, not the engineer. Otherwise there is an information delay. A squid engineer who is repairing might have no view of the situation while the pilot would. When you're repairing a component, your field of vision is limited to that component and its vicinity.
I'm just going to quickly check something. You're aware that I'm part of the community, right? You know I actually do exist? Yes? Good. And you're also aware that the other player I've seen who was a successful and effective Engineer Captain on a Squid also plays the game and is therefore a part of the game's community? Right?
A large portion of the community agrees that the Captain should ALMOST always be the one flying the ship. In the lobby where I saw that Engineer Squid Captain, he was originally advised not to do it by the other Captains. He explained his case, and the other Captains said "that actually sounds fair. Lets see how it works".
Having an ally with a non pilot captain is frustrating if you're trying to communicate with the person flying the ship. But if a crew wants a non pilot captain, that's up to them. For example, I often see (inexperienced) clans have a non pilot captain who say that they're on skype or teamspeak together so they communicate. It's annoying for the ally, but it's their choice. My problem is with players that join a captain slot just to choose the ship and be the captain.
Having a good Captain who can act as an effective communications officer can somewhat alleviate the frustration of that situation if the Captain maintains effective contact with both the friendly Captain and his own crew (including Pilot). In the match where I saw a non-Pilot Squid Captain, there were precisely ZERO times during the match where I felt like our Captain was letting a breakdown in communication happen between us and our friendly ship.
I am constantly looking around the ship while I'm flying to see what my crew are doing and to watch the components. Even under heavy fire I am always changing my view unless I already know the rear situation and component info. A pilot that is maneuvering is by no means busy. It might take practice, but the pilot should be able to maintain situational awareness. In my experience, the most distracting part about flying is watching the crew to maintain crew efficiency.
When you're at high altitude and not navigating close to hazards and trying to find an optimal high-speed path through an area, sure. Also, when you're in a relatively central location with a good view over your ship, sure. On most ships, the helm is ideally placed to suit, and the mechanics of flight are ill-suited to the kind of behavious that requires intense focus from the Pilot.
When I bring a Galleon to a heavily built-up map, it takes a lot more focus to Pilot effectively than on more Galleon-friendly maps. Even so, my elevated position on the helm allows me to make up for that by having good vision over the majority of the ship while piloting.
With my Junker, if I decide to pull some fancy flying using its great agility to my team's advantage, I sometimes need to focus more intently on watching where we're going than what my crew are doing. Once again, the majority of the ship is visible from the helm while facing forward, making it relatively easy to identify potential problem areas while concentrating on flight.
The Goldfish is relatively fast and agile, and that combination can be used to pull some neat tricks. It takes some additonal concentration, but once again, you're mostly fine because the relatively centralised and elevated helm lets you retain good visibility over your ship without significantly compromising your positional awareness as a Pilot.
The Pyramidion's frontal helm makes it easy enough to look up and see the state of the front guns and balloon, but anything else requires you to lose sight of your current flight path. This is generally safe though, because with the moderate speed and slow turning arc of the ship, it's rare that you'll want to be putting yourself into situations where you need to pull out such fancy manoeuvres anyway.
The Squid is extremely fast and has crazy turning. It's also very fragile and relies heavily on its ability to evade rather than tank damage. The Pilot therefore needs to be more focused on piloting than in any other ship, particularly when engaged in combat. Its speed also lends well to the use of short-range weaponry, where it can quickly move in, hit a target, then disengage to avoid return fire. Alternatively, it can often move into a target's blind spots and maintain a position where it can't be hit effectively while raining down its own fire onto the victim. These actions once again require a lot of focus from the pilot, and detract from their ability to maintain the crew. Additionally, when simply travelling, people expect Squids to get places faster than anyone else. A skilled Pilot can shave valuable seconds from the time required to reach an important location, whether that be to capture a point, set up an ambush, or save their teammate with a well-timed distraction or finishing blow. When the ideal position to look over your crew's actions requires you to turn more than 90 degrees away from your direction of travel, keeping focus on your crew and movement at the same times is much more of a challenge than you get from other ships.
You are adamant that the squid example worked with an engi captain, and if the crew agreed and ally was ok with it then fine. If we ask the community you will see that there is never a situation where the captain shouldn't be the pilot even though it might work in certain situations. If that squid was flying against me, the non pilot captain would be a detriment- the balloon would constantly be broken (I love popping balloons).
You love popping balloons. Good for you. While repairing the balloon on the Squid, an Engineer Captain can position themselves to have good visibility over the engines or hull, and still retains a decent view of the other, while also being able to keep somewhat of an eye on the ship's movement AND having the directional indicators spaced to allow them to identify which guns are available and which need repairs. While engaged in combat, the Pilot can help out with on-board crew management if needed, and the Captain is then freed up to focus more on repairs and coordinating with the friendly ship. While on board that Squid, we fought someone else who loved popping balloons. It worked out better than I've seen with a Pilot Captain on the same ship.
When I said that if gunners were useful on small guns then people would bring them I meant to say that they would bring them competitively. The only small gun you might see a gunner on is the hades. If you control engagements, there is always a best ammo and no point of having multiple ammos.
If you assume that you can always control engagements, then you're assuming just as much of an unrealistic best-case scenario as the one you were incorrectly applying to my previous arguments. When you DON'T have control over the engagement, you're often stuck with reverting to default ammo as an Engineer, where a Gunner could switch to something that lets them keep up an edge in firepower. This, in turn, allows your ship to edge out the enemy ship in dps or add utility effects (incendiary for example) to help turn the tide and force the enemy crew to worry about more things than just firing back at you.
You also didn't address the fact that both the Pyramidion and Junker have plenty of viable loadouts which benefit from the presence of a Gunner (though rarely 2), and neither of those ships has a single heavy gun.
I don't like hwatchafish because it's boring, but on my hwatchafish I have a gat and carro which are both good with heavy clip or greased. When playing in regular pub matches (opponents aren't running 3 engi), I have gunners. If you're flying against a 3 engi ship with buffs, you need 3 engi. I would always have a gunner on a lumberjack however (except if there were 2 on a galleon).
And this doesn't negate the fact that Hwacha/Gat/Flamethrower is a common combination, or the fact that your own preferred ammo types for that loadout would be better carried by a crew with a Gunner than one without. Your ship might be easy enough to manage with 3 Engineers, but that doesn't mean all ships will always perform at their best with that crew setup, or even that all ships with light weapons only will always perform better with more Engineers. I'm not saying that there AREN'T valid arguments against bringing 2 Gunners on most ships. I'm saying that there are occasional exceptions to the usual rule, and that there are times where ONE Gunner can be more useful than a third Engineer. Engi Captains on Galleons aren't the usual rule, but are common enough to warrant mention as well. You COULD run the main guns with Engineers instead of a Gunner, technically. But nobody does, because while having 3 Engineers is a big help, the Gunner's role on most Galleons is MORE IMPORTANT, so it's better to swap the Pilot out to fill the bonus role of third Engi.
A gunner with the ideal ammo is just as effective and significantly less useful than an engi with the ideal ammo. Decide engagements and plan accordingly. If I had 2 gunners on a ship then I would lose if I was facing a reasonably competent opponent. No player in the game is good enough to fly with 2 gunners.
An Engineer with the ideal ammo type for a particular gun in a particular situation is no worse than a Gunner with the same ammo on the same gun in that situation. When the situation changes, whether by requiring a move to a different gun, or by changing range or other factors, the Gunner can retain optimal efficiency operating the gun, while the Engi falls behind in performance for that particular role. Once again, you're assuming a best-case scenario where your ship is always the one controlling the engagement, and the enemy never gets to a position where your Engineer's single ammo type isn't the best option because the target isn't where you want them to be.
Special ammo isn't always necessary. For example, the standard Duck junkers have a top artemis bottom hades on one side, bottom gat top mortar, and front artemis. The top engi brings wrench buff chem burst ammo for the artemis. Front engi brings spanner mallet chem burst (hull on junker can be repaired from the front). Bottom engi brings spanner mallet buff and lesmok for the hades. Both the gat and mortar use regular ammo. This is the most efficient loadout for the build.
Special ammo isn't always necessary, you're right. I never said it was. But having an edge from using it when the enemy doesn't is still an edge. You repair faster, an enemy with a different crew makeup will hit slightly harder.
Trust me, 2 gunners is not viable on a goldfish. If 2 goldfish face off and one has 2 gunners, they will always lose. Yes they do have a better variety of ammo, but there is always an ideal ammo. A gunner with the ideal does the same dmg as an engi.
There is always an ideal ammo. And in different situations, the ideal ammo will be different for many guns. A gunner with the ideal does the same damage as an Engi, but can be doing more damage when they move to a position where the Engi's ammo is no longer ideal, but the Gunner has a different ammo type that is.
Being able to have a spanner and mallet or wrench and buff gives an invaluable advantage over just having a wrench. For example, components (especially guns) always need to be at full health. The number 1 mistake people make is not keeping guns at 100% health, and a mallet makes this more efficient (especially on big guns). A buff hammer makes even damaged components more efficient. If you buff a balloon as soon as you rebuild it, it functions almost as well (or better) as at full health.
Funnily enough, having 2 Gunners doesn't prevent a ship from having any Engineers. It's strange how that works.
I would argue that the galleon is the only viable 2 gunner ship as long as you're not planning on getting too close or having guns disabled. On a galleon, the upstairs engi and pilot do repairs. The only repairs downstairs are guns and engines. A double lumberjack galleon is the safest and most effective 2 gunner ship I can think of. One day if I'm feeling brave and flying against novices, maybe I'll take a double gunner double lumber galleon.
As soon as you said "if you're not planning on..." you fell right back into that same trap you kept accusing me of earlier. Just because you DON'T PLAN ON getting close to the enemy, doesn't mean it can't happen. And as mentioned earlier, the advantage with dual Gunner Galleon is that sometimes, you'll be able to swap your Pilot out for a backup Engineer and have a Gunner with 3 Engineers, or 2 Gunners and 2 Engis.
That said, right here you're basically conceding that there are situations where two Gunners can be effective, which is the argument I had been making. it isn't necessarily BETTER, but it's not ALWAYS going to be a worse option than having lots of Engineers.
Again, you misunderstand me. If I ever get unruly, then there's a reason for it. Not starting a match due to uncooperative players is not being unruly, it's being responsible. Keep in mind that I'm not the only one to do this. All experienced players have run into this problem.
If a Captain has a reason for what they want, and you refuse to do it because you disagree with their reasoning, you call their refusal to start the match "unruly". If you are a Captain, and you refuse to start the match because your crew aren't doing what you want, you say that "is not being unruly" and that they're being "uncooperative". THIS TELLS ME THAT YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.
Once I was on a mobula and the captain wanted our gunner to switch class because mobulas should have 3 engi. They refused and we waited. And waited. I left after about 5 minutes. The captain made a reasonable request and the crew member refused. Asking the gunner to switch wasn't being pushy. He didn't have to be on the ship.
Was there space on another ship? Were any of the other ships in need of a Gunner? Did the player respond to the request? If not, how do you know they heard it? That player joined a ship without a Gunner, and obviously wanted to be a Gunner. They might not have understood the request. They might have seen that there were Gunners on the other ships, and/or that there were no spaces on the other ships. Yes, 3 Engineers might be optimal for that ship, but a well-equipped Gunner, while not perfect, isn't going to magically ruin all hope of the ship getting anywhere.
Yes waiting in a lobby is boring and can be frustrating when you're just waiting on one captain. Yes the captain could just start the game with his second gunner or bad loadout. But expecting them to is inconsiderate. If I have an extra gunner, I won't start the match. If someone is waiting on a loadout, be considerate.
What exactly is "inconsiderate" about wanting the best for THE MAJORITY OF THE LOBBY? You have at least 16 people in a full lobby. Making them wait because of a dispute between 2 people is more inconsiderate than making 1 person deal with a bad situation. And as long as the game mechanics favour the individual player being able to customise their loadout (pro-tip: This will be forever), it's the Captain who should be expected to be the bigger man and put up with uncooperative crew in a public match.
If I ask someone to bring a sensible loadout, I am not being pushy. I am being reasonable and responsible for my ship, crew, and team. If I don't want to bring a captain's loadout, then I should leave. If I'm captain and a crew member will not change their loadout or leave, then eventually I will leave. I don't think it's fair that a captain should have to leave due to an uncooperative crew.
If you ASK someone to bring a sensible loadout, you're not being pushy. You're being reasonable and responsible for your ship, crew and team. If you refuse to accept a different, BUT ALSO SENSIBLE loadout, you're no longer being reasonable and responsible. You ARE being pushy. You don't think it's fair that a Captain should have to leave due to an uncooperative crew. I don't think it's fair that a crew member should have to leave because of an overly-aggressive Captain.
NO captain should ever push their crew around. A captain that bullies their crew is a bad captain. What we do is request loadouts, and either wait for them to bring it or to leave. If there was a simpler way we would do it. There isn't, so people need to learn to deal with it.
No Captain should ever push their crew around. By refusing to let the match start until someone gives in to your demands (and as soon as you refuse to start without the "request" being followed, it IS a demand), YOU ARE PUSHING YOUR CREW AROUND. A Captain that bullies their crew is a bad captain. By waiting until they bring your designated loadout or leave, YOU ARE BULLYING YOUR CREW. If there was a simpler way, you would do it. There is. YOU can be the bigger man, instead of a bully. You can accept SOME measure of suboptimal loadout on your ship and launch the match anyway. You've tried private messages. You've tried talking to the person. Maybe they replied and refused your request. If they're talking, explain during the match, why their loadout wasn't ideal. If not, PM them again after, and explain. If possible, point to specific situations where your suggested loadout would have worked better for the ship.
As for deliberate bad loadouts, in my opinion you should only use them if your ally is ok with it. If your ally wants a serious game, don't take a joke loadout. If your ally wants a serious game but the other side has joke loadouts, do what you want. Occasionally I like a joke loadout. Flare squid is fun against mobulas and gat junkers are very amusing. If there are 3 harpoon mobulas in a match, it's your duty to take a harpoon mobula or join a different match.
I've seen a match with 3 harpoon Mobulas and a sniper Spire. none of the Mobulas had any weapons but Flamethrowers and Harpoons. The Spire managed to ram-kill one of the Mobulas, and everyone was totally fine with it being there. If anything, it might have made the match funnier. But yeah, I agree with your point. Bringing a joke loadout when the rest of the match is playing serious isn't cool. USUALLY, being the only sensible loadout in a joke match is less than cool too, but I've seen exceptions. Usually where crew are trying things out that they've never done before, or they're a full crew of new players and the rest of the match are joke builds in an effort to handicap themselves and give the new guys a chance to learn.
More to follow (I hit the character limit... oops)
-
When I explain that I'm not starting the match without a loadout and the person refuses to leave, then that's on them. They are the one delaying the match. They realize that the match is not gonna start and eventually they or I leave. It's inefficient and a waste of time. Yes there might be a million reasons why someone isn't communicating, and I might win the lottery. Players that are the least likely to cooperate are new to the game and young. What does that tell you. I would go as far to say that I don't think I have ever had a crew of at least lvl 5 not cooperate. It's a low level player problem.
When you say you're not starting the match without a specific loadout, that's on BOTH of you - assuming they understand. One of you has to be willing to back down, or accept that the other doesn't know what you're saying. BOTH OF YOU are delaying the match. I'm not putting ALL the blame on you here, but you can't rightfully put all the blame on another person when YOU HAVE A BUTTON YOU CAN CLICK TO START THE MATCH AND THEY DON'T. The players least likely to cooperate - only counting the ones who communicate, of course - are mostly young. That tells me that young people are very often immature and stubborn. I'm not young, but I'll admit to sometimes being immature and stubborn too. For that matter, some of your comments in the discussions we've been having on this forum have also come across that way. It just seems like it's a default setting on a lot of younger people, instead of something that an older person needs to work towards during the course of a dispute.
"What if they were in the lobby before you? But you're the Captain who's just joined"
I avoid joining captain slots with novice players already in the crew because those are the least likely to cooperate. Whenever I join a lobby I'm always a gunner or engineer. I never join in as a pilot.
And if a novice switches onto your crew because their Captain is uncommunicative, or because as a higher-level player you look like someone they can learn from? What if they're interested in getting better, but want to TRY THINGS OUT and see how they work (or why they don't) for themselves?
It used to be that if you joined in as a second pilot you could exit, switch, and resume. Now it is counter intuitive where you have to join from the lobby list. Muse implemented this in order to prevent players from "taking advantage of the system". A lot of times players don't realize that they're joining in as a second pilot. If they received an alert that required confirmation, there would be no excuse for accidentally joining as a second pilot or gunner. At that point, joining in as an extra pilot would be considered trolling.
I totally agree with this. Given that the matchmaking system won't be putting players into matches in progress, it's a moot point now though. If such a functionality does return to the game, I would like to see some form of mini-lobby before a player loads into the match. Notify the Captain that a new player has queued to join the crew, give an option to view the player's loadout, and sync them into voice chat. Make them wait 20 - 30 seconds OR until the Captain hits a "ready" button. If they have a bad loadout, the Captain can talk to them and see about possibly changing a few things (like not being a pilot). If the Captain doesn't do anything, they still join. If the Captain tries but the new arrival can't hear/understand or refuses to change, they still join. If the Captain and the new crew member work things out faster, they get into the match faster.