I must have posted the official changelog in a very oppinionated manner!
1 Like
And apart from the XA-38 not being on the list of aircraft that were buffed, it hasn’t appeared in the patch notes afterwards either to receive the buff.
Don’t post those damn opinionated assumptionated links!
1 Like
He likes to talk about performance of vehicles while also not ever using them all.
I never said in regards to the list.
Although the Xa-38 needs some love tbh
The one way mentality you and @PercussionCap share is peak
You’ve shown me nobody is entitled to their own opinions / thoughts.
And only you guys can assume lol
In any case, now that shooting bombers in the air with the 75mm has gotten boring… I know what I’ll be continuing tomorrow!
THE BOAT DEMANDS SACRIFICE
And if I owned it, I would also think a mach 3 interceptor seeing RWR-less subsonics (or even if they have an RWR, many cannot detect J-band) is incredibly unfair and shouldn’t happen. I don’t care how off-meta it is. It’s just one of many planes that doesn’t really fit the game and won’t ever do well unless it is ridiculously undertiered.
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.