Careful with this. Someone who isn’t a moderator will police you and say that “wHaT yOu ThInK iS “rIGhT” dOeSnT mEaN yOu’Re RiGhT”
We are supposed to base our arguments on how we feel about the situation on a personal level.
But i personally feel that this is the way to go;
And sadly i wanted this too for years;
But it was destroyed by the addition of copy-pasted vehicles for opposing nations.
Not that i know of no, you would instandly see this when you “barely” penetrate smt. But to my eye it dont. Mabye i make a video later and count frames before and after penetration to make sure.
Despite this gets a little bit off-topic the quote above might be the root cause for our dissent. Which “other” game are you referring to?
Wrong. The pre-established momentum of the shell would have largely frontloaded all the spread. What you said would be true if the shell was activated while still, but as the shell moves forward the explosion moves with it. It worked as a supplement to the spalling that would happen, and the british chose not to opt for it because they considered the spalling sufficient enough to not need to add a suppliment to it.
Just to confirm, u really wanted to reply to me? :D
I’m glad you said this. Because bombers have been longgggg longggggggg over due for some love.
It has been a long time coming for bombers to be useful again.
This i believe is possible to reconcile with those like lend-lease to nations like Italy, Germany, and Japan, to have a separate tier for vehicles that correspond to early Cold War vehicles even for WW2 era vehicles, depending on when the operating company used it. But it is frustrating.
I agree. But this is way past the mark. The way to amend the situation in an accurate balanced way lies far past the shallow simpleminded implementation they have given us. A change is very much needed from this as it is not something that cannot be healthy for gameplay.
Cries in his Italian m24 when staring down the barrel of an IS-3, watching T-54’s appear in the horizon. While someone yells through the radio “JUST FLANK IT BRO”
You have started to go down a road that i think will require a lot more crayons than you can carry. And even with a trailer full of them, im personally quite sure you will not convince people to agree with you that there’s anything wrong with the current damage model.
Lmao yeah, but to be fairrrr, there are oft things one cannot destroy in any way shape or form in typical engagement. However it could work!
I know the kind of person that I’m dealing with. But without expressing my perspective, even if i can’t convince them, i can at least be a counter to those who are much more shortsighted than I believe I to be…
Based on my experience and observations you’re dealing with people who, to me, appear to base their arguments on emotions more than logic.
As neither side hasn’t been able to prove with 100% certainty that the current damage models is indeed correct or incorrect realistically, the discussion should be about the change’s impact on game balance.
Im very much aligned with how i think you feel, where currently the game balance favors bombers more than anything.
Edit: Also be prepared for some people to assume that you want the old damage models back, just because you oppose the current state.
Edit2: This is meant just as a fair heads up so you and others reading this know what to expect
Based on my observations, people on the forum can’t read long texts from devs, lol.
Under the regenerative steering devblog people were asking for “toggleable option”, while devs specifically said that most modern tanks had no such toggle. Now there, when devs said that they literally “just begun implementing”, “will continue to refine and improve”, “have a long road agead”, people just assume “thats it, thats the changes they were teasing months ago”.
I know that this isn’t final implementation of the changes, but nowhere did it say which way the future changes are going. If no one gives opposing feedback, why would they feel like changing them to a bit less durable, even making them stronger?
Sigh
No, YOU assume that feeeback and discussion isn’t necessary because “they will keep working and refining it”
Edit: Hey by the way, you never gave more input to the discussion we had about the Fw-200.
I was curious to see the proof you based your claims on.
History shows… better not rely on gaijins words…or expect “refinement”
same bugs had stayed for years, fixed for a few, came back later, are still present now, some have worsen over time, some bugs roallercoaster around… but fixed and stayed fixed? hell no
oh and btw, the toggle option is wanted because it changes some vehicles drastically in balance… just saying
I don’t yet have a degree in aeronautics and mechanical engineering, however I can look at historical documents that show what was considered sufficient and insufficient to down a bomber, and heres my findings.
From what i see is that generally large structurally sound bombers with typically 2-4 engines, .30s were deemed only really good at leaking liquid storages and killing crewmen. A solid pass with .50s was deemed insufficient to dealing structural damage, while fine at targeting crew, flight equipment (Including entirely busting an engine and lighting them afire). A pass with 20s would be sufficient to solidly cripple one, structurally but the accuracy and slow firing of them often would be seen as taking away from performance. The German 30mm MK 108 was definitely enough to down one with a single pass, however their low velocity rounds made the pass engagement proximity much closer which meant that engagement time was much lower as well. MK 103 was much better for that, but its size meant that it was not adopted by many aircraft because it would slow the engaging aircraft down too much to be fast enough to catch up with the bombers or be so big that survival was almost nil before being lit up by a bomber box. Those that rocked the 37mm, 40mm, and 50mm basically bet effectiveness of a good shot over volume of offensive weaponry, and of course the courier of these weapons needed to be either much larger and heavier or much slower than they would otherwise be. And remember the inverse square cube law with these calibers btw, a 40mm round doesn’t carry twice the amount of explosive power a 20mm does it carries about 8x.
This all being said is that a big issue with bombers right now is that mouse aim makes it much easier to get a cleaner pass on a bomber that any fighter otherwise would in real life having to ACTUALLY fly a plane without some instructor doing it for them, which should be addressed.
Also I agree and know that people will not be able to appreciate the existence of nuance of how i am thoroughly unsatisfied with both the previous and current bomber damage models.
I agree, it is much easier to get a clean pass on a bomber in the game than it actually was in real life. But the same applies to the bombers, flying with heavy damage is far easier in-game than it was in real life. Not to mention aiming with gunners and the FoV you get while in the gunner view.
Not to mention a single person doing the job of multiple people at once.
Hence I don’t generally regard the mouse aim for fighters alone as a reason to buff the damage model of bombers. It’s a zero sum argument because it applies both ways.
But then again for gameplay balancing purposes i also don’t think that the old damage model was even close to sufficient to be considered balanced.
Because we already have that for Helicopters and it isn’t fun and takes forever to spade vehicles through it
