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)
