Fellow Ex-Gunners Of Icarus Lend Me Your Ears!

[RearAdmiralZill]

While true, someone awhile back proved to me that you can get to ~lvl5 pilot and never touch the helm. Makes me cringe thinking about that.

[Moriarty]

Played with an engi like that today, lv5 and not quite getting the difference between the spanner and the mallet.

[Helmic]

While true, someone awhile back proved to me that you can get to ~lvl5 pilot and never touch the helm. Makes me cringe thinking about that.

If you've ever seen Ergoproxy you know this to be true.  He ALWAYS goes pilot, whether or not there's already a pilot, and seems to have gotten to level 4 by leeching off other pilots or forcing one of his crew to fly for him while he sits on a gun.  Level 1 everything else and an utter nightmare to have on board.  Would really like to see those achievements fixed so that people like him aren't rewarded for stuff like that.

[HamsterIV]

It does say something about the community that such ranks can be reached without actually learning the roll. Mostly that there are enough newbie games that some one can get achievements even while operating at a sub optimal level. Last night I flew with a level 4 engineer who kept double teaming components with me that were on repair cool down, and tried to rebuild the hull with a buff kit.

[RearAdmiralZill]

I feel like I've started this to go off-topic. If someone wants to make a post for levels then by all means, otherwise lets shift back toward gunners.

[HamsterIV]

Gunners get a bad name because of all the level 1 gunners who don't know the basics of the game. I fly the Pyramidion most of the time because it is the best way to mitigate the effect of a bad gunner. A goldfish with a bad gunner is almost completely ineffective, where as a Pyramidion is still decently effective. I can never rely on the lobby to give me a good gunner and thus I base most of my captaining decisions on the assumption the gunner doesn't know how to work theweapons.

My main argument is that gunner should not be the default class since it makes new player catch a lot for flack when they mid game join a ship that already has a gunner. Unfortunately Awkm disagrees with me and I don't think it is an argument I will be winning.

[Helmic]

As far as just reputation goes, I can't disagree, though I insist that there's a mechanical disadvantage as well that needs to be addressed, probably by just having a dickton of ammo types so that there's never just one or two ammos good for a gun.  I think awkm will eventually change his mind so long we don't let up and continue to provide clear reasons, or at least wait until the game makes having a second gunner much more viable.

[Machiavelliest]

lol, a high level anything gets most of their levels through very specific grinding.

Exactly.

[Pickle]

My main argument is that gunner should not be the default class since it makes new player catch a lot for flack when they mid game join a ship that already has a gunner. Unfortunately Awkm disagrees with me and I don't think it is an argument I will be winning.

I think Eric is in a minority on this.  We've already persuaded him to change some of the default ship loadouts, and I agree with you that it would be best for new players to default to Engineer (spanner, mallet, extinguisher; spyglass; heavy clip).

[Malarosa Agresti]

Argument necromancy, hooray!

I'm definitely in the camp that thinks the Gunner needs increased utility so that having 1 or even 2 is the rule rather than the exception.

Gun mods still need some tweaking to make them a bit more user/noobie friendly, but this might be one of the rare balancing situations where a nerf would be better then a buff.  Maybe the Engie is too useful, rather than Gunners being too weak?

What if the Gunner was, like, 'tougher' then other classes.  Make other classes unable to use guns that are on fire, and give the gunner reduced penalties for handling damaged weapons.  This poorly conceived change that I literally just made up would have three positive effects.

1)  Buff the Gunner in a way that wouldn't necessitate major changes to the current ammo system.
2)  NERF the Engineer / Pilots trying to use guns, but only a little.  They're likely to have a way to extinguish fire and repair a gun quickly, so it's more of a speed bump in their ability to fire a gun, making a true Gunner more responsive and consistent in their offense.
3)  Buff fire, which is currently kinda blah.

Essentially the Engie would be forced to stop and fix his gun, while a Gunner could 'take the heat' and continue fighting at peak efficiency until the last moment.

[Squash]

As it stands currently no class has intrinsic advantage in others, it's all about equipment allotment. It would be a shame to make one class the exception to that pattern, as it encourages skillful play and doesn't sacrifice it for RPG style benefits. I was certainly in the camp of 'gunners are useless' when this thread started, but I'm not anymore. We always take a gunner when we go into a match on a galleon now, the lumberjack isn't so versatile that it allows an engi-gunner.

There are certainly other situations where gunners are useful. The front gun of a goldfish will certainly always have a gunner, manticore-spires would be wise to bring them as well. I think it's safe to say every medium gun (excepting maybe the heavy carronade) would majorly benefit from a gunner. The problem is really that the same isn't true with light guns.

Or is it? The new junker popularity might of fixed that, as now typically on a junker two people are each responsible for two guns. If they're of different types then having a gunner would make a lot of sense. But yeah, useful and required are two different things. A ship can run just fine with three engineers, it's definitely the rarist class in play, or at least it should be. I think 1 gunner for every 2 ships is pretty typical of the current meta.

[Machiavelliest]

I think the strength of the manticore and the need to switch between heavy and other rounds has reduced the marginalization of gunners.

[JaceBoojah]

Gunner solution: take all ammo types away from non-gunners.
Think about it.

[Kyren]

Gunner solution: take all ammo types away from non-gunners.
Think about it.

Very radical, even though it sounds good at the first moment. What makes me unconvinced is that we'd only go half of the way - take gunning functionality away from the Captain and Engineer, but leave the Engineer & Captain functionality to the gunner. (Meaning, Gunner has Engi & Captain Slot, Engi & Captain don't have a Gunner slot). Kind of unfair, but limiting the classes to only their respective slots would also take a lot of.. features away.

[LazerusKI]

i think its also situational and ship based.
on our pyra we like to have 2 gunners and 1 engi
while our spire has 2 engi and 1 gunner.

with our pyra i like to switch between longrange (lesmok, heavy) and closerange (burst) ammo.
also with the gunner i can use different guns without disadvantages. if our pyra is loaded with long-range guns on the front and close-range guns on the side, i dont need to use lesmok for the side weapons. i want something to bash the enemy there. with an engineer im fixed to one ammo type. the same goes for random-teams. some ships have a colorfull mix of weapons, if you cant communicate with them, you are forced to adapt to different situations.

but: i have also thought that there should be a passive bonus, engineer should have a better repair skill, gunner should have more damage and the pilot should have more movement, if they are in their specific roles.
i have also thought of switching my gunner to engineer because if our main-tactic goes well, i only need to use one gun with one ammo. Only if the situation changes a second ammo can be nice.

with a passive bonus you can still play a different position with your class (gungineer), but a gunner would be always better in dealing damage. a gunner could repair his own gun (and maybe a system next to him), but the engineer would be better for this.