Small Clip size, Small Reload [Gunner fix theory]

[nhbearit]

What if MUSE loosened what tools classes could bring? What if you could bring up to two tools from a set that your class doesn't specialize in (maintaining the current total of five tools)? A gunner could bring three ammos and two repair tools at the expense of their spyglass. It would allow a gunner to bring a buff hammer. It would also have to work the same way for the other classes. You might see gungineers bringing two ammos and pilots bringing two repair tools. It would change gameplay significantly and probably wouldn't be noob friendly, but it would allow gunners to make more choices about their load out and do more with their gun. This might make gunners specialized to the point where they really do become rare though. Would this be a risk worth taking?

[ShadedExalt]

What if MUSE loosened what tools classes could bring? What if you could bring up to two tools from a set that your class doesn't specialize in (maintaining the current total of five tools)? A gunner could bring three ammos and two repair tools at the expense of their spyglass. It would allow a gunner to bring a buff hammer. It would also have to work the same way for the other classes. You might see gungineers bringing two ammos and pilots bringing two repair tools. It would change gameplay significantly and probably wouldn't be noob friendly, but it would allow gunners to make more choices about their load out and do more with their gun. This might make gunners specialized to the point where they really do become rare though. Would this be a risk worth taking?

This is easily the best Gunner Fix I've ever heard. 

[Crafeksterty]

What? No! That just shows that the engineers tools are Way too much needed for the gunner.

You will want to make engineers that gun wish they were gunners, much like how gunners that repair wish they were engineers.

Edit: Just as a note. Yeah my idea of weapons is very broken i know that hah. But it would change the spectrum of classes used to more gunners than just engineers.
Just wanted to show what causes gunners to not be as good as engineers. And well i did answer my own question after a little bit of time after the thread. Im on the side of "Long clips like today should be a chance for the gunner to do something inbetween" Again reinforcing an instant activatable on gun tool again

I agree on buff hammer increasing reload speed. Actualy. The damage up will be missed, but that is something that an instant activatable should be applied for gunners. Not engineers.

And sorry for infusing you guys with the instant activatable. I just think its a good idea :|

[Imagine]

If engineers could bring two ammo types, gunners would even be less used.

[Mean Machine]

Maybe there could be different buff tools. For example, one that only engineers can use and one that only gunners could use. Engineer's buff tools would increase durability of components (would come in handy when fighting against disable ships) and gunner's buff tool would increase damage.

[Dementio]

I always felt like the gunner replacing buff engineers are more of a counter than anything. Set a Metajunker with a gunner versus a Metajunker with a buff engineer as the gunner and the buff engineer Metajunker will probably win, because it just has that extra damage output and possibly better durability, because of the extra buff being able to buff the armor. Now set this Junker against a Blenderfish and how much difference does it make compared to the gunner Junker? In the best case scenario it saved itself a few percentage of permahull.
Similar to most "Meta"/"Average" builds in the game: The one with the extra buff engineer will most likely have an easier time winning.

The same I view the gunner's ability to choose multiple ammo types: In exchange for a little more dps in the best to average case position/engagement, in terms of range, and maybe some extra armor, I will have a gunner being able to jump on one or two more guns and can make use of the extra guns to turn the worst case scenario into a victory.
Hades and Gatling have similar purposes: Hit a relatively huge target called the hull. A Carronade can destroy the balloon, snipe the balloon and snipe guns and engines. A Hwacha with a Gunner has the potential to destroy everything, everytime, as long as arcs are given.

This of course can lead to some more weirdish or specialized builds, that have multiple guns without similar purpose, not necessarily working so well without the gunner's ability to change the weapon behaviour/ability to get the best out of mutliple guns.
A Galleon with a Lumberjack one side and Hwacha on the other side, I feel, will profit more from the Gunner's ability to allow the ship to win more ways to fight back as well as do so in a more successful manner.

To summarize my point of view in a form of a Fancy list:

• When a "generic" ship build is used against itself, the one with the extra buff will most likely win.
• When a "generic" ship build is not used against itself, it matters little wether it is an extra buff engineer or a gunner.
• When a not "generic" ship build is used, then it will most likely profit more from a gunner instead of an extra buff engineer.

An explanation of certain terms I used:
With a "generic ship build" I mean ship builds that use their gunner/extra buff engineer for either only one gun with only one purpose or multiple guns that have a very similar purpose.
You could even say the Gatling is the short range version of the Hades in which case it could even simulate a Hades with a gunner with different ammo types and thus they are very similar. Also, on a Metajunker the Gatling will unlikely have the purpose to destroy components with shatter damage and the Hades will unlikely have the purpose to overheat guns.
These "generic" builds mostly happen to be the Meta.
This kind of excludes Hwacha fish has the hwacha can have the purpose to disable at multiple ranges. Each range being a different purpose, for we differntiate between long and short range disable builds.

With "most likely" and "matters little" I mean what I think is the average case. Of course it matters if the buff could save the armor with 10hp left, the mobility keeps the guns in arc, the guns only need 1 range (e.g.: >800m hades only), but how often do these scenarios happen and how often do they happen where it matters? Are these the average cases?
If a sniping ship with a gunner can use its long range guns the entire time and win then I only think that a buff engineer does the job quicker than the gunner, but at the same time, how likely is it that a sniping ship will never confronted with close range combat?
A Metamidion with a gunner can use lesmok Gatling against a Metamidion without a gunner and maybe even win, because of the early armor pressure, but how likely is it that two Metamidions have a face of starting at 700m+ with at least the gunnerless one engaging, with nothing in between and no ally support? It could happen on dunes with two 1v1's, but really now...


I don't think it is necessary to nerf the buff hammer/buff the gunner, but more ammo types that can change the behaviour, the purpose, of the gun will certainly help the gunner be chosen more often. Who knows if a tar-creating Gatling gun is the key factor of killing the other Metamidion, while the other one only has one extra buff hammer? This inconsistence in gun behaviour would at least give me a reason to think and adapt my piloting to it.

Maybe there could be different buff tools. For example, one that only engineers can use and one that only gunners could use.

How does the gunner repair his own guns then?

[ShadedExalt]

Maybe there could be different buff tools. For example, one that only engineers can use and one that only gunners could use.

How does the gunner repair his own guns then?

He doesn't.  Most of them don't anyway.

[GeoRmr]

Maybe there could be different buff tools. For example, one that only engineers can use and one that only gunners could use.

How does the gunner repair his own guns then?

He doesn't.  Most of them don't anyway.

Make the gunner only buff tools "gunnery equipment" in place of an ammo type. - Muse won't do this though because it supposedly breaks their design paradigm - all engineer tools are tools - all gunnery equipment is ammo - all pilot tools are ~ oh wait spyglass and range finder LOL MUSE.

[Crafeksterty]

Spyglass and rangefinder dont tend to Engineer or Gunner roles Directly.
Ammo doesnt help the engineer repair.
And the repair tools dont help the gunner gun.

And every class can use one tool of each, if spyglass and rangefinder wouldnt be what they are. Engineers and gunners wouldnt be able to use 1 out of 5 tools given to them.
Pilot would be available to use all 5. Which would break the design even further.

If the buff tool is on a gunnery equipment, you would see an engiegunner. And engineers would be free to use spanner mallet anti-fire + buff hammer.
No conflict of choice for the engineer in the role of an engineer.

Pilots have Helm tools, and Glass tools (2 types)
Engineers have Repair, Buff and anti-fire tools (3 types)
Gunners have ammo (1 type)

This imo is what breaks the gunners flexability. Gunners ONLY have AMMO. Nothing else. In the current state of long clips there are no other uses of other ammo unless its a small clip weapon.
Which is why i made this thread.

Best direct solutions ive seen is:

-Make Default Ammo a selectable ammo
This makes gunners usefull but also questions how guns reload and especialy how making the DEFAULT ammo make sense to how the gun actualy works just normaly on the everyday game.

-Give gunner a new tool type
Something the gunner can use during having and shooting with an ammo

-Complete and utter ammo overhaul
Basically overhauling ammo to the point of usefullness of gunners. It can work but it needs to be more quite vast.