Noone said that.
We’re just making fun of you saying that facts are actually opinions.
It’s not even just that vehicle though lol. You’ve done it a few times now.
Something something ToS something something.
Oh wait… that apparently only applies to me.
Something something (self diagnosed) “facts” something something
You must be 110 now if you were flying that 110
All it takes is pointing out the issue or nonsense going on with whatever you say and you devolve to these ridiculous strawmans.
I don’t need to fly the Bf 110 to know where the guns are located.
So it’s nonsense to think about possibilities ?
My my how the forums have fallen.
I do find it funny you consistently are going against ToS yet nothing ever occurs to people such as yourself. Miracle that is.
Honestly I would love to watch gaijin follow yours and others every whim to merely ruin the game.
It’s just very funny (to me at least) that you disregard possibilities brought forth by others because they’re “opinionated”:
And then just a few messages later…
If you’re gonna turn down “opinionated assuming”, I expect you to be consistent and practice what you demand of others. At least within the same conversation, in the same day, and a few messages apart.
One is an inference based on a possibility, not an opinion.
Learn the difference. Get an education if you don’t have one.
Its a fake video. I’ve seen the original one with original Luftwaffe text.
-
The orginal reel is blurry and somehow also “damaged”. You barely see any details ecxept for the very end when its close.
-
The vid you linked is an AI fake/overhaul showing things which aren’t visible in the original footage.
-
According to the original context it was part of training footage for LW pilots showing successful attacks. So keep in mind the plane was in fact lost.
From my pov we talk about 2 different things:
- Common sense based on reality
- Gaijin’s way to adjust their video game
My comment has to be seen in context of the comment as a whole:
-
TIS MA prototypes (2) were not bomber related, their size plays no role- and their bomber damage model is just clear evidence that Russian bias exists.
-
My remark was based on Gaijin’s ultra low level approach to create a narrative that they would have actually invested time and money for research and adaption of damage models for a specific aircraft class.
-
Reality shows that they just fiddeld with values of HE damage and fire impacts (duration, damage over time, impact on flight performance).
-
I mean the pure fact, that they added multiple aircraft in a very short time to their damage upgrade list kills the entire research narrative. They just c+p parameters to those aircraft and their research is non-existent.
So whilst i am partially with you regarding the P-61 from a common sense perspective, i just stated the obvious that from gaijin’s perspective the size of an aircraft plays no role.
Have a good one!
For me, the main point of the devblog is:
There will be MORE changes in the future. They will work on bombers more. Maybe they will modell structure and skin as separate entities, maybe they will add more modules, who knows.
1 Like
I am not sure if you are able to look at the broader picture.
We talk about a video game which was created for one single reason: Profit.
In order to avoid repeating myself - the following post describes my view on potential changes:
Nerf for what? Just buff its BR to its 1943 to 1945 range. The place it’s supposed to be, instead of the current BR, which is based on the player sample taken in the previous lego DM.
Bombers are not the selling feature of this game yet they announced a rework of them. Why? Why not continue to add 100500 clones then, that they did for years now?
Nuclear Thunder mode, also why? Players already been playing ARB and were eating this… thing. Why would they work on something then, how will it sell something?
The game is about profit, I agree, but features are not exclusively made for profit, lol. Or else why do we have a regenerative steering rework, aphe rework or… digging. How the digging feature made profits??
I look at it as a little developer myself, there is a room for doing things “not for profit” but “interesting to you” even in very strict working environments. Like, someone was interested in making this weird digging feature alongside with craters from bombs. That did not made profits, thats just a weird little feature that required some interesting code, for sure.
Idk, I like reading devblogs and watching devstreams where bvvd describes what they did and why, what they are working on next, etc, I am naive, for sure, but behind these little weird optional features (regenerative steering, more interesting aphe shatter, digging, pneumatic suspension, interesting little visual details of nets/crew/rubber skirts, etc) I see devs who may find them interesting to implement.
It can also be caused by the HE in its AP(HE)-T only working when hitting tanks. Another bug holding its back.
New features and game mechanics help with player retention and attracting new players too, i would assume.
I wonder how many players wanted to dig… Or were attracted by digging.
Tanking 50 mms with half a kg tnt directly in the tail is absolutely ridiculous… I dont mind bombers getting some buff. They were bad before BUT not like this…
I just hate how they said that interceptors and large calibers will matter more now. But its just complete opposide. 12 mm with AP rounds are the meta aggainst bombers. Thats just wrong. It should have made those small caliber guns do barely anything while actually having need for the big HE guns like 30 mm, 40 mm and bigger to hunt the bombers. But as for now it made all the slow firing or inaccurate large caliber HE guns that uptier planes to insane BRs not usuable aggainst things they were made to destroy…
1 Like
I wrote here:
So “bombers” are just a synonym for a low skill grinding tool which developed over the years into a high skill requiring option for a few enthusiasts within the prop-BR ranges (in which most of “bombers” are placed) as they became hard to use for average players whilst the “grinding by base bombing” still works fine at jet-BRs - that’s why almost everybody is base bombing with Mach 2 jets.
The selling feature is neither immersion, historical accuracy or anything else gaijin is advertising. Its an easy to use and little to low skill requiring vehicle based shooter optimized for the demands of their main income group - and looking at the game for more than a decade all indicators prove this for the popular modes.
Try to look as a customer aware of this picture:
Taken from here - discussion about MM / SBMM.
Based on dozens of studies within the gaming industry the player retention is the ability to keep players as long as possible in the flow channel whilst your challenge as game designer in charge of profit is to determine the economic value of players over time, the correct identification of your main income group and your ability to focus on the most profitable periods.
In other words:
A company active over a decade with millions of users and billions of user data is able to determine with which customers with which average retention spawn they earn earn the most at which levels (wt = ranks) and where are obstacles which prevent them to get there.
That’s why this whole thread looks interesting but works from my pov mainly with the wrong assumption that gaijin would make decisions out of the blue without any clue.
From my pov it is the opposite: Gaijin has a solid track record to match the demands of their customers with minimal expenses whilst maximising profits. What you miss is that most of their main income group is neither active or interested in this forum.
500 kg tnt on B 17 did nothing lmao
https://www.youtube.com/live/lL51eAjk1ss?si=xBP4qzbe3uAypkRX&t=3682
Thanks for killing your argument