The only thing I struggled to kill while spamming the Qing-6 yesterday was the B-17, which to be fair also did nothing to me other than make my fuselage yellow.
I normally don’t even play prop br, but as long as these changes remain as-is I will continue to abuse bombers with busted turrets as unkillable gunships because why shouldn’t I lol, not my br range, not my problem they killed it
Congratulations, you answered most of your own questions: a bomber pilot will not just climb to the edge of space. They would go and shoot down enemy bombers after dropping bombs. Why are you complaining about bomber players with some stereotype you made up?
Did you use your forward gun to kill the Me264? Then why would you say
You just touch the Me264.
Then why are you not getting shot down by the Me264, and how come you’re able to shoot it down despite it having multiple gunners?
Do you think it takes zero skill for you to kill the Me264 as a bomber? Or does it take zero skill to play the Me264? And if it takes zero skill to play, why would you shoot down the Me264 as a bomber?
If it is so easy and only takes little skill to aim gunners and cause damage, then how come you were able to shoot down the Me264 with your sluggish B-26?
Though to be honest, if they actually want to make lower br’s enjoyable, they need to remove bombers from air rb.
Bombers need their own separate PvE mode, completely separate from Air RB which is clear as day designed for PvP gameplay (short match timers, short ranges, close airfields and requiring you to kill the entire enemy team to win)
Just dialing down bomber dm’s (as much as they should be dialed down obviously) won’t fix anything, nor did buffing them. Bombers simply do not belong in the gamemode itself and need something separate. The only mode where player bombers and player fighters should meet is Nuclear Escalation and GRB.
Bombers having an entirely separate mode also unlocks the possibility of adding more of them without worrying about ARB or GRB performance, instead letting them perform in their own mode and Nuclear Escalation (Avro vulcan for example, which carries no defensive armament)
Why do bomber defenders keep defending the “new damage models”, are you guys blind or unable to see that HE minengoschoss cannot even pen cockpits that are 0 mm armor?
People who defend these changes seem to only really do so because the game being broken in their favour benefits them and they never cared about “realism” to begin with. Do not expect anything less from this community, people who play the victim will gladly become the abuser the second they get the upper hand.
We criticise Gaijin for being unable to find a middle ground with anything in this game, but are we any different?
Finally someone with an actual idea instead of trying to squeeze them into air RB matches in a broken state.
I think that an EC mode without markers, and large maps for props too. More varied bomb targets than just generic bases etc. would be an amazing gamemode, where i would see myself taking bombers out too.
But i kind of wanted someone else to give input of ideas too
did this also happen in one of those “everyday” missions where it was completely, totally not a miracle story where the crew was collecting the 30mm inside the cockpit for souvenir?
We can, and we want to fix it; we just know that if we let that become a total player crashout instead of specific feedback, GJ may roll back the change entirely.
However, what is funny is that any other player that is not abusing the bombers seems to understand what changes should be implemented than the bomber players themselves LMAO
I am abusing bombers by gunshipping currently but that doesn’t mean I’ll deny the changes are absolutely broken and overtuned by magnitudes
Qing-6, Pe-8 etc. are really good, but a G8N1 will essentially wipe an entire lobby by itself because the DM on that one in particular is actually unkillable
As a gamedev of some sort myself I hate listening to community cuz all they do is crying and telling you not to do the thing you want, while simultaneously asking for new things.
Community will ruin any game, aphe change, regenerative steering and now bomber rework are the examples.
They do deserve billions of clones for 100$ each without new content and changes to old content.
Gaijin literally said that it is not a final change yet they want to revert it, so funny, I wouldn’t want to be a dev at gaijin, I actually feel sorry for them, imagine managers running to devs screaming that they did bad, revert everything, dump your work you did and your plans you started to do.
I’m not sure anyone who is engaging in good faith is asking for a complete reversal. Bombers being made out of wet paper was not good, but them being made out of reinforced concrete is not good either. There needs to be a middle ground, but people are too busy defending their preferred broken state whether it be wet paper bombers or invincible bombers, because they are only interested in abusing what benefits them the most.
Don’t try to have common sense and dare to find a middle ground, that is against their agenda and how they see anyone who has critique about the current situation.
They think anyone who wants some finetuning to make them slightly less durable than now, is wanting them to revert the change.
Dude, you literally said that you don’t want bombers to be removed, but then 30 minutes later agreed on a separate pve mode for them, removing them from arb.
commok sense? middle ground?
I have only one argument - gaijin said there will be more changes and its not a final state. Stop sabotaging developer’s work, idk.
Oh and to be absolutely clear for both sides. What they call a “rework” can honestly be summed up as them searching for “hp” in bomber configs and setting everything to a very high number like 1,000 (Alongside things like making fire chances much lower in some places etc.)
So even if you wanted a rework, this isn’t what you wanted, because actually making new damage models is too much effort.
(Old left, new right)
(Notice how in this case, everything is set to a flat 1,000 regardless of what it is)