Revert ARB Bomber changes

Dev Server "Spearhead" General Discussion - Dev Server
,
21

Just slowing down rearm/repair times wouldn’t be impactful at all.

There are two airfields on most maps, if a team cannot intercept the bombers before those bombers destroy both airfields, I feel like they deserve to lose the ability to rearm and repair.

If the airfield destruction is set up like it currently works in low tier you would first have to destroy all three (or four) bases before you can even damage the airfield. The airfield has a lot more health points than the bases as well.

So, for higher BRs you could add the forward airfields destruction as another requirement to make the main airfield attackable and adjust the health of both airfields so destroying everything without having to rearm would be hard to do for a squad of four bombers.

22

Foward airfield
200% repair/rearm time when itself got destroyed (30->60sec)
Disable repair/rearm feature when both are destroyed

Main base
300% repair/rearm time when itself got destroyed (30sec->90sec)
500% repair/rearm when both got destroyed (30sec->150sec)

2min 30sec will be dreadful enough even without permanently removing it I think.

23

Maps with destructible AFs were already so rare at low tier, so I don’t even think this will change much unfortunately.

I do think we need better ground targets at all BRs, and I do want destructible airfields to be introduced back to higher BRs.

1 Like
24

I feel like you are forgetting that the average player has a 15 second rearm/refuel timer and people with ace crews get that down to 10 seconds.

Unless you have taken a considerable amount of damage the repair timer doesn’t really get too long either.

I see legitimately no problem with just disabling the forward airfield entirely after destruction and with proper airfield health balancing disabling rearming/repairing on the main airfield shouldn’t be an issue either.

Again, if a team cannot intercept even a single bomber, they deserve to lose their privilege to rearm and repair.

25

ah, miscalculated… my bad

I thought 75lv crew gurantees 30sec,
and 75+trained crew gives 20sec.
:/

26

Good that it is going away

This was the best change to happen to air rb in the last few years

The ones thriving on monotony are the ones who bomb and shoot bots for RP.

27

Frankly, should lose the match if you fail to intercept these below a high BR. But even then, you definitely should still get punished heavily. But if we’re opposed to that, arguably could add runway denial weaponry that takes time to recover the airfield from.

3 Likes
28

Away with you, creature.

We know your positions and they don’t matter.

4 Likes
29

Heck. if absolutely nothing else. Even if it has no meaningful impact on match outcome. If a bomber has survived all the way to an AF. I think they deserve a reward

4 Likes
30

Completely disagree on all points.

The game was meant to include as many kinds of military operations as possible, even outside of sim, but now ARB has been reduced to slightly more realistic arcade battles.

Especially top tier has turned into mindless missile slinger slop.

3 Likes
31

It could be argued that it’s too harsh a punishment if bombers had accurate survivability and threatening weaponry. But that’s uh, not the case.

3 Likes
32

Tail cut loose from a single shell
Gunners not reacting until fighters basically touch your plane
Small caliber turrets not dealing any meaningful damage

I sure love what they did to bombers because fighters don’t want to learn how to approach a bomber :)

4 Likes
33

It took a shell for you to lose your tail? And here I was thinking the norm was a stiff breeze.

Worst part is that if you hit them at ranges before they’re engaging you manually, nothing happens to the enemy plane. Frankly gunners should open up at 2km, start being accurate at 1.5 base to 1.75 aced, and the guns should actually do something.

Could hear the gears grinding to a halt trying to work out how to approach platforms with significant dorsal and ventral blind spots.

3 Likes
34

bombers already so bad and awful to use and i need to be the first to to reach the base and now they removing af??
they need to revert this change
or rework arb game mode and add more bases and targets for bombers

4 Likes
35

'Twas only a matter of time. Gaijin gets more coin from fighter zerg muppets, so why make the things bristling with guns any threat, or have any reward for making it through with their zero threat?

4 Likes
36

When
Bombers get a reward for making it through with base bombing with zero threat
→ Gameplay is getting ruined!!! We need to remove PVE!!

When
Fighters get a reward for making it through with intercepting with zero threat
→ We cleansed those freeriders for the greater good!
If you want fun! Stop being cowardly and play fighters!

Even Sandford, Gloucestershire weren’t this bad.
:/

3 Likes
37

Don’t forget heavy fighters and interceptors also get shafted by bombers not being threatening, as why would you use a heavy fighter that’s relatively well protected and heavily armed to engage a bomber when it is so non threatening that you could down it with a Gladiator.

The Gladiator in Question

image

3 Likes
38

Yeah, if we can intercept enemy He111(example) easily with zero threat whether I play Typhoon(or Bf-109F) or Mosquitos(or Bf110E)

Why would I need a heavy fighter which is heavy and flies sluggishly?

:D

3 Likes
39

Really sucks if you like heavy fighters (me) 😿

So much rubbish is shafted on account of how the game makes enemy bombers a complete nonissue unless you’ve fumbled it spectacularly.

1 Like
40

Well, it seems bombers do not have the right to

  • Being helpful (because it will ruin the fighter’s privilege to control the match)
  • or being a free rider (because free riding is bad and being a dead weight)

Honestly, I think, Gaijin will permanently ban bombers from ARB within the next year.
Because first-class citizens don’t want to breathe the same air as us.

2 Likes