That’s what you took out of it, which goes in line with your narrative about me.
“Finally someone with an actual idea instead of trying to squeeze them into air RB matches in a broken state.”
Read the underlined part, if your attention span allows for it, that’s the most important part of the whole paragraph.
Edit: Just to explain it to you, as best i can so you understand. The current state of bomber durability is the broken thing IN MY OPINION. Not bombers in current RB matchtype as a whole.
Reading comprehension is important, and you lack any. Either without knowing it, or knowingly. I’d bet on the latter.
Me suggesting something that would benefit bomber pilots and overall gameplay loop of bombers, along with current modes, can’t possibly be a negative, can it?
Irony, assumes “non argument”
Because of pc elitism or pure bias.
The problem, which you are willfully ignoring is someone shouldn’t have to buy a new control setup to preform as well as someone on another control scheme.
You must be in the ball park of liking the millionaires who control 37% of wealth, while being in the top 1%, which is also fundamentally flawed.
Buy a cheap controller to see how others have to play.
If you’re not at a disadvantage, you’re at an advantage.
Which again, harbors more reason things like: sound mods, sight mods, should be banned. And that controls schemes should only be preference not advantage based
Nice ad-hominem. Neither are true, second argument based on what google says i have to earn annually to be in the top 1% of the world.
Not using any mods myself. But i think they should be accessible to everyone.
As for everything else; my personal views on the ability and inability of different people to do things, are not relevant to the topic and they can be taken out of context too easily. So i refrain from giving easily misunderstood answers.
An analogy is an analogy. Read into it as heavily as you wish.
And actually I’ve been referring to the topic this whole time.
You only see your side, not the other side. That’s the problem, hence why you don’t understand what I’m getting at.
As I said earlier:
Not saying it should be fully autonomous, but gunners in the tail sides should be able to swap sides if one is still alive.
Gunner should be more useful while balancing the damage models a little better.
Being able to accurately hit targets with gunners is apart of survivability, which is more difficult in controllers.
What? That’s not what i suggested. Please stop assuming something just because you see it that way.
Again, please stop assuming. And try to actually contribute to the topic. Me and many others have had some suggestions on the damage models. I gave an option for a second gamemode along the current one. Because some people seem to be unhappy how bombers have no place in the current gamespace. You just pick it out of context over and over again
Nearly doubling their range is effectively making bomber gameplay require less player involvement than other things, while having same rewards, that’s what i have an issue with.
Call me whatever you want if i think that rewards should be based on effort.
How is suggesting a second gamemode bad? And how does it imply i want bomber pilots out of normal RB matches? Please tell me.
At no point did i say they should be removed from normal ARB matches.
Also me saying that they have no place in normal ARB matches in the current broken state is not me saying i want them out of normal ARB.
Please stop making assumptions just because you THINK that is what im saying.
But just to clarify to you so there is no misunderstanding:
I DO NOT WANT BOMBERS REMOVED FROM NORMAL ARB MATCHES IF THEY HAVE THEIR DAMAGE MODELS TUNED TO BE LESS DURABLE. THOUGH NOT TO THE THE EXTENT OF PRE-PATCH.
Alright, fair. Let’s say they double range of AI gunners, is there a trade-off to this buff you’re suggesting?
I can’t prove it, but guns mounted on bombers seem to do more damage than their equivalents mounted on fighters. Could be just me imagining things, but after playing some bombers post-patch, i feel like just a couple of hits are enough to take out fighters. Not every time, but enough times to be noticeable.
Im comparing this to my experiences shooting equivalent guns mounted on my fighter, shooting at other fighters. Pre- and post-patch.
I have noticed bombers guns taking off my fighters wings in a few hits for a long time, years even. But im refraining from using that as an example for obvious reasons
may i just join this discussion and say: Gunners should not be fully automated at all!
We have already enough zombie ships cause of autofiring guns… theres 0 need to make gunners of bombers be any better then they are, if at all they should remove the automatic of it all together. (or make it like a optional skill, so u can make the gunners do smt for your for like 30sec and then they reload this skill for 2min or whatnot so u can do critical manouvers but still do smt for a short time, just dont make them full auto)
Bombers irl mostly used gunners to scare off fighters mostly. So, it would be better if automatic gunners shot short bursts at enemy 600-800 meters away, but with bad accuracy, to just scare off a fighter that is trying to aim at you.
Also, soviet and german bombers should have their defensive grenade launchers at a tail, that launched small grenades on parachutes that were used, again, to scare off a fighter.
And when a player wants to shoot down a fighter - he has to control the turret manually.
My wings have been snapped in 1-2 hits even when flying away from the bomber.
As far as 1.5km from it. Somehow kinetic rounds have enough energy at that range to accomplish that, oh well.
I cut you here… please dont compare RL to Game… RL ure multiple persons, ingame ure solo.
RL Bombers almost never flew solo, ingame they basically never fly in formation
