lowkey this
1 Like
Sabotaging their effort != Saying their current implementation is overtuned and needs to be adjusted
Pretty much everyone who is arguing in good faith agrees that there need to be changes one way or another, people who defend the previous wet paper bombers and people who defend the invincible ones like YOU are the ones sabotaging the effort to have good damage models.
1 Like
Your arguments are mostly the bomber player being “too entitled” and “playing bomber needs zero skill” and other things before the DM buff, not about how the new damage model is overperforming. You are more disingenuous than any non-specific local politician you see on TV.
2 Likes
the problem is that a lot of people highkey only care about hp of components :(
I want bombers in air rb to have limited ammo as they do in air sb
Moreover, I don’t see how saying bombers deserve their own PvE gamemode is a bad thing. If they don’t fit in the gameplay loop of Air RB regardless of their damage model, why force them in? Why not let them have their own mode where they can be a lot more fun to play with unique game mechanics to boot?
I like that, actually. I would like to have more modules, tho, like fuel lines, control lines being parallelised instead of being destroyed in a single hit, actual mechanisms of gears, mechanisation of ailerones and bomb bays with turrets (turret vertical and horizontal drives when?) Also spare ammo modelled in a bomber. Also it should detonate upon impact as it does in ground mode
2 Likes
I would also like to have realistic he shells for aircrafts. Something that they did with aphe rework that did not see the light, sadly.
Theoretically that should make them pen more as there will be big fragments and small fragments.
1 Like
These are the things you pick out from the posts where i also mention that the damage model is overperforming, again, very picky and choosy with what you want to see and what is actually said.
By how? You are not even the one who stated
nor
I would rather see this, than just “Lets just have a middle ground and tune them down a bit”, imo.
- No infinite reloads in air rb.
- More cool modules like turret rings and spare ammo that should detonate, fuel lines and hydraulics, mechanisms for gears, bomb bays and mechanisation, etc.
- HE shells rework that will make them more realistic with fragments of various size and also a nose cone fragment as they did with aphe shells.
- Flight model should take into account hull damage, as @Heehehehe said.
- Fire should be modelled as a cone effect behind that will kill gunners and damage hull behind it if bomber won’t extinguish it. Rn it does that, I think, but not reliably?
5 Likes
But you see what you just said, IS the middle ground i want to see. Never, in any post did i say that i want a middle ground with HP or anything hinting at that.
I used middle ground just as a term to describe something between the extreme ends of wet paper towel and indestructible death star.
Edit: I hate the idea of modules or models having any sort of HP bar to begin with. That’s reserved to the other game we dont talk about here.
yeah, this is what i would do
1 Like
heli pve, assault ground pve, assault air pve, should I continue?
pve is bad, pvpve is the best, I would love to have escalation for all brs At least from rank 3
Yes, because that sounds way too pessimistic and literally you are trying to “sweep dirt under the rug”.
Can we really say with certainty that bombers inherently don’t fit, or are we just jumping to conclusions because of a bad experience?
You know, there are a hundred things that could be done to make them fit, and this is basically the first time in 10 years a real attempt to address the issue has been made. You can’t throw in the towel that soon…
Besides, if we have to remove bombers from ARB, we’d also have to remove interceptors whose entire role depends on them.
2 Likes
But now that i might not be misunderstood on purpose, or because of lack of actual ability to read what i write. I have seen good propositions, this especially:
But what do we think about combining this, with and Enduring Confrontation mode in Realistic Air Battles, minus markers?
I would like to see more bombing targets than generic bases. Give actual tactical targets to bomb.
Use larger maps, so it is easier for every type of plane to use terrain etc to cover their advance and flight path, reducing chances of being spotted.
Matches should take MUCH longer than current RB matches, and leaving mid game would give you less reward, than someone who stayed from start to finish. But only as a percentage of time spent in match. Needs ideas for this, to encourage staying in.
All this in an RB mode, where enemies dont have markers on them, and you have to actually spot them by seeing them in the Air.
Obviously markerless mode has it’s issues, where lower quality settings make it easier to spot planes against the ground. But i think this is one path to give bombers more purpose, right?
2 Likes
@Kefal_Bravo_690
Why did you remove your reply? I was about to answer a few of your points.
But what i remember reading, is how i dared to approach the Me264 with my B-26B, correct? Because the B-26B is a bomber affected by the change.
Did i read it right before you deleted it?
Sure because you did provide some specific input here
Interestingly, the situation mirrors the cas in grb. Some people demand it being removed, which will also lead to a removal of spaa from every tech tree…
Why is it that me, someone who doesn’t play bombers or -input whatever misconception about me you might have-, has to be the one to come up with ideas for vehicles which i don’t really enjoy playing.
This is not an exclusive right for me, you can do it too. It’s more constructive than picking things out of posts that fit your hateful agenda against criticism and those having it of the current state.