Gunner Passives

[Jereven]

I was thinking about this some today... Not necessarily passives, but additional gunner tools that aren't necessarily ammo but perhaps could be toggle-able effects.

For instance, an item that trades reload time for clip size (in either direction, probably as two separate items) when active and stacks with the currently selected ammo.  As a perk, it would add some more utility to gunners... who could preload the engineer's gun as well as their own between engagements.

[Thomas]

https://gunsoficarus.com/community/forum/index.php/topic,2596.msg45714.html#msg45714


This topic has always been hotly debated. However, I personally like the idea of semi-passive skills for gunners. While this could be considered overpowered or gamebreaking by some, gunners -should- be able to be better at gunning than engineers. You can argue that this is already the case, but time and again it's been shown to be more effective to have more engineers and less gunners. In more than a few situations, you don't even need a single gunner.

Having items you can use alongside of different ammo types (such as the old heavy gauntlets, modified trigger, ammo box, etc) can give gunners a significant boost over non-gunners when it comes to gunning. At that point you can actually start debating if you want to bring two gunners or two engineers on your ship, instead of debating if you need to bring a gunner at all.


I don't particularly like the idea of straight up passives; and just adding more ammo types won't change anything. Gunners would still be able to use one ammo type at a time, and in almost all cases that's all you need. Where engineers can make use of multiple tools in a much shorter time frame.

[Jereven]

Yeah, my idea was more along the lines of "Here are some ideas for new tools, and while we're at it why not make gunners more useful?"  To elaborate more now that I'm not typing on a phone, some ideas, again going with the premise of "You can toggle this on or off, rather than equipping it" but perhaps with the "Limit one toggleable active at a time."  The 'gunner tools' all would replace an ammo slot as far as your loadout goes, but don't affect the ammo you'd be loading into the gun -- so your loadout might be spyglass, engi tool, 2 ammo types, gunner tool.

So some ideas, maybe or maybe not balanced.  Percentages can all be adjusted



Gunner tools (all stack with ammo effects).

* Active: When you begin reloading a gun: +15% clip size, +15% reload time.  (Set up front-loaded damage)

* Active: When you begin reloading a gun, -10% clip size, -15% reload time.  (Sacrifice burst for sustained DPS -- possibly no penalty on small-clip weapons). Effect persists even if you stop manning the gun reload. 

* Active: While on a gun, its incoming damage is reduced by 20% but its firing rate is decreased by 10%.

Note: All of these can benefit an engineer as well, but it comes at the cost of their ammo option.  (Though the usual tricks of preloading ammo can work around this with a gunner/other engineer, with some drawbacks)



Engineer tools:

* A repair tool of sorts that has moderately fast rebuild and repair times on <system> (between wrench and better of spanner/mallet), but slow (slowest between spanner and mallet) rebuild times on all other systems.  Possible option for a gunner who wants to be able to quickly repair their weapons, at the cost of being able to emergency repair other parts of the ship.  Or if one of these covered a hull, give it + buff hammer + chemspray to a Squid's hull engineer.

* Tool to increase movement speed, but decrease repair (and maybe rebuild) effectiveness.  Effects persist for X seconds after deactivation.

[Thomas]

Well here's an interesting thought. One reason engineers tend to be considered better to have on a ship than gunners is because of the variety of tools they can bring. Why not give gunners a better variety?


For instance, change the buff hammer so that it can't buff guns (some achievements will need to be changed), and give gunners a tool that buffs guns. Perhaps by a smaller margin, but for a longer period, making them not have to jump back off and on constantly. Perhaps even give them other tools to apply different effects to their guns, such as some kind of gun shield that buffs the guns' HP, making them harder to break.


Something like this would make gunners a lot more effective, especially if you created more than gun buffing tool. (One for HP, one for damage, maybe one for turning, get rid of heat sink clip and make that a gun buff tool, etc). Allowing them to buff the gun (would the buffs be stackable, or only one buff per gun at a time?) and still load up an ammo type.

[Spud Nick]

Well here's an interesting thought. One reason engineers tend to be considered better to have on a ship than gunners is because of the variety of tools they can bring. Why not give gunners a better variety?


For instance, change the buff hammer so that it can't buff guns (some achievements will need to be changed), and give gunners a tool that buffs guns. Perhaps by a smaller margin, but for a longer period, making them not have to jump back off and on constantly. Perhaps even give them other tools to apply different effects to their guns, such as some kind of gun shield that buffs the guns' HP, making them harder to break.


Something like this would make gunners a lot more effective, especially if you created more than gun buffing tool. (One for HP, one for damage, maybe one for turning, get rid of heat sink clip and make that a gun buff tool, etc). Allowing them to buff the gun (would the buffs be stackable, or only one buff per gun at a time?) and still load up an ammo type.

I like this idea. Engineers will still be able to buff the other components and gunners will be able to deal more damage than engineers.

[Wundsalz]

Currently there are just too many ship builds which run best without any gunners at all. A lot of guns/positions only require a single ammo type to be  efficiently executed and in those cases an engineer is the natural pick. Not only can the damage output be maximized (with a buff hammer) but the ship is also granted some extra repair power.
Hence I like the idea of passive gunning boosters which can be put into ammo slots - something similar attractive as the buff hammer, gunners de-facto don't have access to. Those gunner gadgets might also come along with negative side effects (something like ammobox: +x% clips, but -y% turn rate due to the additional mass which has to be accelerated or experimental bearing oil: increases turn rate by x%, but adds a chance ignite if the weapons gets damaged). This way the gunners role would rather be diversified than outright buffed.
I general I believe gunners need to be made more viable - somehow. It'd be nice to see people thinking about whether to bring one or two gunners rather than one or none like we do quite often right now.

[Caprontos]

Another idea.. that maybe bad but... what if a gunner could take either 1 engineer tool and 3 ammo OR 2 tools and 2 ammo's (if they pick a second engineer tool the third ammo slot is blocked)..

This way you can opt to have two gunners who have two ammo types and two tools... Then 1 engineer two gunners (or three gunners maybe on some ships).. etc could all be more viable.. because you do not lose all your repair power but you still gain that extra ammo..

(some actual play tests would need to be done to see how true this is.. but thinking about it from what I know from the game it sounds like it would go aways in opening up what class combo is best for what ship and load-out)...

It would make gunner more of a hybrid/versatile class though and less of a strict path, which may or may not be something they want to do.. (I don't think it makes them any more versatile then an engineer though).

I maybe over looking some major issue why this is just a bad idea (and I can't imagine it hasn't be suggested before.. perhaps with some reason why it won't work?)..

I assume there are issues that need to be consider with this idea if it were considered.. but I can't think of much atm.. (it is late and I am tired)..

[Thomas]

https://gunsoficarus.com/community/forum/index.php/topic,3022.0.html

Reminds me of my 'gungineer' role idea. Essentially the same thing (1 pilot, 2 engi, 2 gunner tools). I think the biggest complaint with it is that it would more or less phase out the gunner role. A few guns will benefit from 2 ammo types, but very few benefit from 3 ammo types. The only one I know of that consistently benefits from 3 ammo types consistently in the same match is the Mine Launcher.

[redria]

Correct me if you think I am wrong, but...
Classically, a trained swordsman would beat an untrained peasant holding a sword 99 times out of 100. A trained archer is going to make a better shot than someone with no experience shooting a bow. This all changed with the introduction of guns. You can train and get better with guns, but for the most part, it's point and shoot. Guns offered a much greater equalizer between forces.

Let's take a look at our classes. Each class can take 1 tool from the others, and 3 of their own. This gives 2 possibilities:
1. There is only room on the ship for each person to take a total of 5 tools. This seems unlikely. Given the infinite ammo we have, along with how useful certain things would be to have realistically, captains would make room for a few extra tools and ammo types.
2. Each person is only trained in how to use 5 tools.

Here is why I like option 2.
Trained pilots know how to use 3 different piloting tools. They can shoot a gun, and repair things in a pinch, but what they know how to do best is pilot.
Trained engineers can use 3 engineering tools. They also know how to use a specific type of ammo. They can take the wheel and lumber around because they have no training, and they can take a gun and shoot it pretty effectively, but what they know how to do best is repair.
Trained gunners know how to use 3 types of ammo. They can take the wheel and steer around, and they can repair something in a pinch, but what they know how to do best is use a variety of ammo.

Piloting a ship takes skill. Truly piloting requires the deft use of tools and requires a pilot. Flying a weapons platform can allow you to take a different class, but in that case you are a stationary weapons platform, not a mobile craft. Piloting practically requires a pilot.
Repairing a ship takes knowledge. Repairing something complex requires knowledge of how it works and goes together. Someone without that training is almost as likely to damage it as they are to fix it. Repairing practically requires an engineer.
Shooting a gun takes... a trigger. There is a level of skill involved, but my premise is that guns are an equalizer. A gunner is more versatile because he can use more ammo types, but an engineer can shoot just about as well and can also repair.
Just going by in universe logic, I would argue that gunners should be the least used class. It is an opportunity position to add versatility to your guns with the large tradeoff of being nearly useless everywhere else.

In keeping with this idea, I would argue that gunners should get a slight boost to accuracy somehow. Whether that is through the rangefinder, a lessening in recoil, or a lessening in spread. But realistically, you would not leave port with more dedicated gunners than engineers who are willing (and happy) to take a gun.

TLDR: Pilots need training, engineers need schooling, and guns are easy to shoot. Multiple gunners should never be worth more than multiple engineers.

[Thomas]

xD I'd be careful with that. A lot of real life arms enthusiasts would not appreciate it.

I will say that shooting a gun is a lot more than just pulling a trigger, even in the real life equivalent of standing at a shooting range. Personally I never shoot a gun, and I know I'd be terri-bad at it. No practice or training. Then you start getting into heavy weaponry, automatic and sniper rifles, and things get even more complicated. What about mortars and rockets? More and more training and practice just to get close to being good.

Now of course this is a game, and there's a lot of simplifying of all the roles. Flying an airship would be a nightmare to work all the controls and fighting the natural elements (wind, high and low pressure systems, etc). Engineering would be a lot more complicated than smacking something with a tool. As for gunners, you have to know how all the weapons work, be able to load up the ammo rapidly, and account for the motion of the ship, wind speeds, and the motion of the enemy; among a number of other things.

Essentially it's unfair to say that gunners are less important because shooting a gun is easy, while the other roles are difficult (or at least more difficult).

[redria]

This is fair. I don't mean to insult anyone. I realize that experts are going to beat me every time in shooting guns. It just seems (to my silly inexperienced mind, so seriously, don't take me too seriously here) that it is easier to have an engineer shoot a gun effectively than it is to have a gunner repair things effectively. I feel like this would transfer over into the GoI universe and make engineers more important in general than gunners.

I am probably wrong on all accounts. People with more experience in shooting guns, feel free to shoot me down here.

[Caprontos]

https://gunsoficarus.com/community/forum/index.php/topic,3022.0.html

Reminds me of my 'gungineer' role idea. Essentially the same thing (1 pilot, 2 engi, 2 gunner tools). I think the biggest complaint with it is that it would more or less phase out the gunner role. A few guns will benefit from 2 ammo types, but very few benefit from 3 ammo types. The only one I know of that consistently benefits from 3 ammo types consistently in the same match is the Mine Launcher.

The difference being it doesn't add a new class to fill that type of role but lets the gunner opt to be that role.. So gunner is more useful in more situations.. nor does it remove the gunner we have now since you can still bring 3 ammo types and 1 tool for the guns/ships that, that is beneficial for.

So their would have to be some other flaw for it to not be a workable idea.. IMO..

--To redria's post--
Also considering all classes can do all things... and the only real difference is what tools we brought (ie there isn't really classes - just equipment)... Everyone is a pilot.. a gunner and a engineer.. Just if you bring more pilot tools you give your self more options when flying.. If you bring more ammos you have extra options on what to shoot and if you bring more tools your more able to repair.

I don't really consider the roles in this game to be like your post redria because of that.. Also given the game setting.. wouldn't many of us just be "self taught"? Or learned from family and such at a younger age?..

How likely is it we go to university to learn how to be an airship pilot or engineer or how to aim a lumberjack to hit things really far away? I admit I don't know a lot about the game world but from the little I do know.. it doesn't sound likely..