Jump to content


Reductio Ad Absurdum

Illogic Fallacy nerf RB-17

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
52 replies to this topic

Prenzlau #1 Posted 25 August 2018 - 08:51 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 20368 battles
  • 1,058
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    12-14-2015

    Fake Fantasy Physics

 

    Friends and colleagues, lend me a few moments of your time. I would like share some avenues of thought with you all. Let me start with with the concept of "selective thinking". Selective thinking is the process whereby one selects favorable evidence for a particular belief, ignoring unfavorable evidence that may undermine that belief. In fairness, we all do this to some extent in our personal lives, our ego's are always all to willing to oblige us. In terms of warplanes however, this is how the selective thinking is applied. 

    Warplanes is a arcade video game in which it's premise and structure is based in fantasy physics. For example, and I will just name somethings that are very obvious. Unlimited ammo. No fuel concerns. No landing and taking off. Instant repair. Unrealistic aerial maneuvering. As a group we probably could think of hundreds of things. So warplanes is not a flight simulator, nor is the premise of it's construct based in, or a realistic reflection of reality, or historical reality. Do we not agree on this point??? This is well known among most of you and the community. So this game is fantasy. 

    Here comes the selective thinking. Yet even though almost everyone will agree that warplanes is contrived and fantasy, there are people who speak as if elements of the game have to have some root in established physical reality, or realism. So people speak of climb rates, acceleration, the guns on certain planes, the bombs, just about anything you can think of, and they speak of these things as being relevant, as if they are tethered to some sort of semblance of reality. They are not. The elements and aspect of warplanes is no more relevant to any sort of reality, than the swing rate of an orc's ax, or the rate of fire from an elf's bow in a different fantasy game. It is only relevant to the game itself and it's contrived system of rules. 

    So the popular reasoning is that bombers should not be allowed to fly low, because historically they were used at high altitudes, is non sequitur, again applying selective thinking, there is ignorance of the fact that the entire premise of the game is fantasy that is not based on historical realism. So when certain people either within, or outside of War Gaming want to justify changes, the popular reasoning is to refer to some sort of historical reality. This is always popular, because people want the planes they fly to reflect some historical reality. Then the same people conveniently ignore all the many fantasy aspects to the game that are not historical, or scientifically practical, or even reasonable. This of course is highly hypocritical. The argument that bombers in a fantasy game should fly one way or another is totally objective and the reasoning is based on a whim. You cannot use the irrational (the game) to justify changes in a rational way, when the structure itself (of the game) is a convoluted and illogical. 

    So what does this mean? It means that the reasoning behind the idea that a bomber (or any other plane), has to fly a certain way if inherently flawed and not based on reason or logic considering the game reality itself is flawed and not based on reason or logic. This argument would be no more relevant than people playing a "Game Of Thrones" video game and arguing over how fast a dragon can fly, or how many times it can use it's fire breath, or what the aerial turn radius of a dragon in flight would be. 

    So friends please don't tell me my RB-17 or any other bomber is meant to fly at a certain altitude, without admitting to yourself that you are ignoring all the other fantasy around you that makes warplanes fantasy and not reality. 

 

    Why We Play

 

    The object of the game is to win. When we fly our planes, the goal is to win the game by doing things within the game to accomplish victory over the other team. This does not explain fully, however, why we play the game. We also play the game to have fun. It is an arcade style warplanes video game that we play because we enjoy it for what it is. Well, not everyone, right? There are a great many people past and present who are still trying to reconcile their personal expectations (of the game) with the current state (of the game). Selective thinking still is in play here. The people who cannot ignore the flaws, or fabrications of fantasy versus historical reality are having a difficult time playing or enjoying the game. Some people are waiting for the game to become something closer to their expectations, while others who are actively playing the game are struggling with the current changes. The bottom line and this might supersede winning, is having fun. If the game is not fun, people will tend not to play it and will eventually move on to more enjoyable endeavors. 

    Establishing friendships and associations is common in online game. Over time people get to know each other and they have friendships. Sometimes playing an online game like warplanes is just the meeting place for friends who also enjoy the game. Friends can make good days fun and entertaining and friends can make bad days seem not so bad, or they can pull you through. So we play the game sometimes for our friends, for the many good times and if you are part of a clan, for that clan as well. These friendships and bonds might be the reason many players endure changes and expectations that are not fulfilled. There is comfort when dealing with absurdity if you are within a group. 

 

    The RB-17 

 

    I've spent the past two days flying the RB-17 and testing it at different altitudes. The over all results are disappointing. A victim of pervasive "selective thinking", it was "nerfed" using flawed reasoning and in real life economical terms, the people who spent money on it have now been swindled. So let us take a closer look.

 

    Flying below 500m. Well the speed is horribly curtailed as they said it would be. The RB-17 suffers bomb damage (from its own bombs) when other planes like attack planes do not suffer the same from their own bombs. Logic flaw. You can fly the RB-17 at 480m which is still high from the ground and take damage when logically your plane should be safe. So it is a penalty not based on logic or rational reason, but just because some people think the RB-17 should not be allowed to fly low, again selective thinking. In a fantasy game, in which nothing is realistic, somehow these people are using "realism" as their logic? If this was a historical simulation of actual aerial war, I would be in full agreement, but it is not! So if I paid $52 for my RB-17, doesn't that all by itself give me the right to fly it anyway I chose? I guess not, and that is part of an "ugly truth" that I will get to in a brief amount of time.

 

    Flying between 500m and 1500m. Although the RB-17 does not have to fear destroying themselves by their own bomb damage, the RB-17 is this range still has a great decrease in speed. Flying at this altitude still is possible but the reduction of speed bleeds off you boost quickly and the RB-17 player then has to contend with long gaps of not having any boost or acceleration. This makes the RB-17 an easy target. Skilled players can still bomb and take caps and defend themselves, but it is a challenge to stay above 500m and deal with the lack of speed. 

 

    Flying between 1500m and 3000m. This might in fact be the optimum area to fly the RB-17 with the best speed performance. The bomb accuracy is not bad, not as good as flying at low altitude once was of course, but most targets are destroyed the closer you fly to 1500m. The problem with this zone of flight is that it is at a very convenient level for every other single plane that wants to destroy you! So while you get your speed and somewhat decent bomb accuracy, you get to be on the menu for every fighter, heavy fighter and defense plane. It only takes 2.5 seconds for a heavy to kill you. So flying at this altitude expect to be shot down 2, 3 or 4 times per battle. 

 

    Flying above 3000m. Well here is the rational for the "nerfing" of the RB-17. "The RB-17 is supposed to be a high level bomber, so you should be flying at very high altitudes". Well there is that selective thinking again. Yes, in real life, BUT this is fantasy. Remember, no fuel, no landing, unlimited ammo! Here is the reality of flying the RB-17 at the altitudes that all the selective thinkers "think" it should. First of all, the accuracy of the bombs is not great, even with the ultimate bomb sight, which of course I have, I was very disappointed on the accuracy. With only 3 bomb drops, getting one out of three targets destroyed, can't cap very easily that way. Also, with the ultimate bomb sight, the bomb re-load time goes past 45 seconds!!! That's a long, long wait for 3 bomb drops. So with the bomb sight, your screwed, and without it, you cannot hit anything consistently. Also every heavy in tier 8 and 9 can get the RB-17, no matter how high it flies. So thanks so much you selective thinkers for shoving the RB-17 up into the high altitude zone and then handicapping it so badly that it is simply not worth the time to fly. 

 

    Fly low, you kill yourself and die quickly. Fly medium and everyone in the battle gets a piece of you again and again. Fly high and and struggle bombing effectively and like I said, every heavy can still fly up and kill you easily. So the grand excuse was that bombers should fly at higher altitudes, and what we bombers have gotten is less speed, more wait between bomb drops across the board, less accurate bombing even with the sight, and our turret and tail guns getting taken out time and time again, even with protection. So flying bombers, used to be fun, but I think my prediction over time will play itself out. There will be just a group of stalwart hard core bombers who somehow manage through their skill and experience and a bunch of players, who won't fly bombers because it is too hard, too dangerous and not much fun. 

 

    Over Powered Whaaaaaat???

 

    So let's take a closer look to what lead to the "nerfing" of the RB-17 and the other bombers. I've already examined the "selective thinking", when people ignore one thing and focus on another, even though that act is very hypocritical. So the assertion was that the RB-17 is "over powered". If that is truly the case, would it not have been easier and far more logical to move it up to tier 9? Or is sticking a square peg in a round hole just too irresistible for some people? Here is the ugly truth I spoke about previously. No plane is ever "over powered". Just like no sword, or gun or egg beater! It is the human element that makes something great or outstanding. When you have a low human population, and battles have 3 or less humans per side and the rest bots, an RB-17 or flighted pair RB-17's flown by excellent and skilled players will dominate and SEEM over powered, but that is circumstantial. A RB-17 player who is below average or a pair of them will lose, if opposed by higher skilled human players. This game regardless of the type of plane is Skill vs. Skill. By nerfing the bombers, all the mediocre and below average players have been rewarded because bombers in the hands of higher skilled players will have less of an impact, and be destroyed by lesser skilled players who simply are flying planes that are armed to the teeth. The reason the RB-17 and other bombers seemed "over powered" and formidable was the skill of the bomber players versus the incompetence of less skilled players in other plane types. The complaining was not over Joe Average in a Do 217M getting 5 ground target kills and getting shot down three times was it? 

    So when you "nerf" a plane or in this case all of the bombers to some degree, what has actually happened is that every player who flies a bomber has just been "nerfed". Not just the plane, but the skill of the player has been nerfed because the bomber player is now faced with having to do more, with less. The problem though is the same flawed logic, which has happened before from what I have been told, many times in fact, is still in place to nerf other planes and thus nerf other players. So if you love your pancake, or your IL-10M, or whatever you really enjoy having as your signature plane, next time it might be you. Now all the bomber players get to use the same flawed selective thinking, and start complaining about "over powered" heavy fighters, and "over powered" ground attacks. Oh what fun!!! When all the planes are successfully nerfed, we will play but not to win, because winning causes psychological trauma for the losers, so we will play for participation ribbons to say we did it together but we all tied in the end. Yippeee!

 

    In Conclusion

 

    It is obvious that more human players have been playing this weekend. More human players make the battles more competitive and because human players have a much wider range of decisions and creativity versus programmed bots, the battles are more fun and challenging in general. What this game has needed all along is more players, more participation and certainly more planes of every type. Nerfing planes is not the way to do it. If you want bombers to fly high, don't make their bomb drops painfully long. Don't make bomb sights that are only marginally better for a high cost. Don't nerf the speed, and don't pretend that flying at ceiling altitude is some some sort of bonus or defense against opposing planes, it is not! Don't take the fun away, which I fear is exactly what is happening to the bombing community. Most of the bombers who currently play would be happy at high altitudes if they did not get nerfed there as well, which is what has happened. 

    Whenever you try and force people to do things they don't want to do, there is always an adverse effect. That is your historical realism for the day. I'm starting to understand and see some points of view that I have previously criticized in these forums. Sometimes the only way you can understand something is to experience it yourself. This arcade fantasy warplanes game might actually be great, if there weren't so many attempts to sabotage it from within. 

 

Prenzlau

 

    

 

    

 

 


Edited by Prenzlau, 25 August 2018 - 09:08 PM.

 

 

 

 


SlappedbyPatton #2 Posted 25 August 2018 - 09:09 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 1938 battles
  • 453
  • [SHRKE] SHRKE
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

Can I request the "reader Digest" version  of this.....

 

W_W
 



Martymart1976 #3 Posted 25 August 2018 - 09:37 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 7115 battles
  • 402
  • Member since:
    12-19-2013
Obviously, WG received too many complaints about human RB17 flights flying in low and fast and "Insta capping" bases.  You do however make some valid points.  I feel should not be penalized for how you want to play the game.  If you want to blaze away at mining plants with 30 cal machine guns, be my guest.  If you want to climb to 1200 feet and shoot down bombers, go ahead.  You are obviously a man of learning, remember WG is catering the gamenow to the " instant gratification" crowd.

Ace_BOTlistic_Cosmo #4 Posted 25 August 2018 - 10:26 PM

    Major

  • Member
  • 1937 battles
  • 6,443
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    01-26-2014
sab·o·tage
ˈsabəˌtäZH/
verb
verb: sabotage; 3rd person present: sabotages; past tense: sabotaged; past participle: sabotaged; gerund or present participle: sabotaging
  1. 1.
    deliberately destroy, damage, or obstruct (something), especially for political or military advantage.
    synonyms: vandalize, wreck, damage, destroy, cripple, impair, incapacitate; More
    obstruct, disrupt, spoil, ruin, undermine, threaten, subvert
    "they were hired to sabotage the competition"
noun
noun: sabotage
  1. 1.
    the action of sabotaging something.
    synonyms: vandalism, wrecking, destruction, impairment, incapacitation, damage; More
    subversion, obstruction, disruption, spoiling, undermining;
    informala (monkey) wrench in the works
    "the fire may have been an act of sabotage"
Origin
early 20th century: from French, from saboter ‘kick with sabots, willfully destroy’ (see sabot).


Bobby_Tables #5 Posted 25 August 2018 - 11:02 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 16302 battles
  • 2,042
  • [DIXX] DIXX
  • Member since:
    06-16-2014

Your plane was nerfed.  It sucks, but it is a common occurrence in WG and should be expected.  

 

You plane now experiences damage from bombs dropped at low altitudes.  Actually, that is pretty accurate.  In WWII the 5th Air Force used innovative techniques like skip-bombing and parafrags to reduce damage to their aircraft while inflicting serious damage on Japanese ships and fixed position targets like anti-aircraft.  If you read up on "Kenney's Kids" you will find how they adapted mid level bombers to low level strafing and bombing and it worked very well.  

 

Now, for the RB-17, you are playing a fantasy aircraft that was never produced, in an arcade game that is subject to the whims of a development team in Ukraine.  Said team tend to strike with a nerf bat like it is filled with lead.  You and many others came up with an innovative way to use a mid to high level bomber to devastating effect at low level.  So other players complained about this.  Along comes the Persha developers and they completely reverse your advantage because people complained.  

 

Happens all the time in this game.  So many previous tech tree and premium planes have received the nerf bat that it is impossible to keep count.  On the flip side, imagine if in WWII the Japanese complained about the 5th Air Force tactics and they changed to placate the Japanese.  Would never happen, right?  But in the game, in the name of "balance" innovation is punished.  

 

Adapt and overcome.  If you want to keep flying the RB-17, now is the time to find new tactics.  If it is too much, find a new meta or do like so many others have done and pick up your marbles and just play the forum game.  

 

Not trying to be harsh, but if you abuse the meta and then find the meta is no longer valid, then you have to adapt.  

 

Cheers!

 

Glenn

(OK, not Glenn, but I decided to steal his signature)


Edited by Bobby_Tables, 25 August 2018 - 11:13 PM.


Fly_Time #6 Posted 25 August 2018 - 11:12 PM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 140 battles
  • 97
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    12-06-2013
This guys makes a lot of sense. I stopped playing a few months ago when it was obvious to me the game I really enjoyed ,30,000 battles before 2.0 was headed in a direction I didn't enjoy anymore. I have been reading the forum hoping wg would make some changes that us oldtimers would support and come back.guess not,will keep checking from time to time to see if anything good happens. Oh and a shoutout to ABC,we were in multiple clans together, I was rb1951 in the past,just my 2cents worth of thoughts,good luck guys

Unit620 #7 Posted 26 August 2018 - 12:10 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 1637 battles
  • 33
  • Member since:
    09-20-2013

Short version, RB 17 was nerfed.  We play this game for fun and all of a sudden games is not so fun.  People leave when the game is not fun.

 

Same thing many of us have said since 2.0.5.



Perco_lator #8 Posted 26 August 2018 - 01:15 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 11 battles
  • 960
  • Member since:
    08-15-2015

According to WG policy they don't balance a vehicle just because players complain that it is overpowered. They use data that is logged from every single battle to determine if a vehicle is over-performing & then decide if & how changes will be made. The mistake WG makes is they usually go too far one way or the other when nerfing/buffing when trying to balance rather than just making minor adjustments, several if necessary.

 

Yes this is an arcade game where things can & do take place that wouldn't normally happen in R/L but you seem to be missing the part where there still needs to be some semblance of balance between planes/classes for a game of this type to work. Your theory of selective thinking & whiners are not the reasons for your beloved RB-17 changes. WG determined that there was indeed an imbalance & this is their attempt at fixing it. Now were they successful? I personally can't say but I will also not be taking your word for it either based upon your own selective thinking that there was no issue to begin with.



SOLxCAT32 #9 Posted 26 August 2018 - 03:25 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 2687 battles
  • 72
  • [HVAR] HVAR
  • Member since:
    10-10-2016
lol

[HVAR]SOLxCAT32 - Top 25 NA - Streaming here

 

"A glass of windex a day keeps the superunicums away"


Chunky_Cleb #10 Posted 26 August 2018 - 09:22 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 2401 battles
  • 44
  • [LEGIX] LEGIX
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013
All...that reading...….my eyes hurt.

Edited by Chunky_Cleb, 26 August 2018 - 09:30 AM.


Chunky_Cleb #11 Posted 26 August 2018 - 09:28 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 2401 battles
  • 44
  • [LEGIX] LEGIX
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013
Well....Prenzlau….that was a " Rant Of Biblical Proportions ". That said, I read the whole dang thing and I liked your line of thought and or reasoning...well said.  However, next time you feel compelled to speak out....how about the Cliff Notes version instead...ehhh?

Maj_Prowler #12 Posted 26 August 2018 - 12:49 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 6945 battles
  • 225
  • [SHRKE] SHRKE
  • Member since:
    10-31-2017
All I got out of this is your mad your not OP anymore.  As stated above most likely due to having complaints about 2 man RB17 teams steam rolling people. I'm sorry but it was a tad dominant and needed a adjustment. I myself prefer fighter's if they nerf my fav I adjust and overcome. 

EZP_MRKARP #13 Posted 26 August 2018 - 01:44 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 14632 battles
  • 327
  • [SS-G1] SS-G1
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
.all spec on planes means nothing planes have been tweaked so many times too many whined this and this plane OP .now we all suffer spec what a joke

CorvusCorvax #14 Posted 26 August 2018 - 02:42 PM

    Colonel

  • Member
  • 7627 battles
  • 9,023
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
Switching to another OP aircraft is the only hope when WG nerfs something.  Although if they ever nerf the Me-410, I'm still going to fly it.  Damn the torpedoes, and all that.
I might not be King of the Hill, but I am the Prince of Potatoes.

trikke #15 Posted 26 August 2018 - 02:48 PM

    Major

  • Member
  • 6810 battles
  • 7,140
  • [CWM] CWM
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

we all guessed that it was coming...   and similar OP planes in the past have gotten slapped harder

 

i tried low-alt RBing for a while, but just wasn't effective

 

you're a great pilot, Prenz    you'll always find a way, brother


Spittoon says #smarterpilotswinmore     

 

 #smarterpilotscanpostpics


MadJackChurchil #16 Posted 26 August 2018 - 08:52 PM

    Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 1872 battles
  • 79
  • [B_C_S] B_C_S
  • Member since:
    11-14-2012

View PostPrenzlau, on 25 August 2018 - 08:51 PM, said:

    Fake Fantasy Physics

 

    Friends and colleagues, lend me a few moments of your time. I would like share some avenues of thought with you all. Let me start with with the concept of "selective thinking". Selective thinking is the process whereby one selects favorable evidence for a particular belief, ignoring unfavorable evidence that may undermine that belief. In fairness, we all do t.......

 

    Why We Play

 

    The object of the game is to win. When we fly our planes, the goal is to win the game by doing things within the game to accomplish victory over the other team. This does not explain fully, however, why we play the game. We also play the game to have fun. It is an arcade style warplanes video game that we play because we enjoy it for what it is. Well, not ev........

 

    The RB-17 

 

    I've spent the past two days flying the RB-17 and testing it at different altitudes. The over all results are disappointing. A victim of pervasive "selective thinking", it was "nerfed" using flawed reasoning and in real life economical terms, the people who spent money on it have now been swindled. So let us take a closer look.

 

    Flying be.......

 

    Over Powered Whaaaaaat???

 

    So let's take a closer look to what lead to the "nerfing" of the RB-17 and the other bombers. I've already examined the "selective thinking", when people ignore one thing and focus on another, even though that act is very hypocritical. So the assertion was that the RB-17 is "over powered". If that is truly the case, would it not have been easie........ed" heavy fighters, and "over powered" ground attacks. Oh what fun!!! When all the planes are successfully nerfed, we will play but not to win, because winning causes psychological trauma for the losers, so we will play for participation ribbons to say we did it together but we all tied in the end. Yippeee!

 

    In Conclusion

 

    It is obvious that more human players have been playing this weekend. More human players make the battles more competitive and because human players have a much .......

 

 

Prenzlau

 

    

 

    

 

 

 

Man, you have a talent. Write a book (this post can be one chapter).

 

As someone said, I doubt WG would nerf the plane just because me and few other unskilled idiots were crying about it on forum (I have been crying about those god damn flapjacks even more, and hey), but had it most likely based on statistics. You might argue that when you play against that plane is not unbalanced, but by definition average player is average, 50% of players are worse than average... and having plane balanced for top 5% of players is perhaps not the best marketing strategy.

 

BTW, if I remember right, altitude bands were here before 2.0 anyway, right? Which means WG solution was -f-u-c-k-i-n-g- lazy [don't dare to censor my swearing, WG!] in the first place, but hey.

 

With your skill, you will find the way to kick [edited]in any other plane.


Edited by MadJackChurchil, 26 August 2018 - 08:53 PM.


Petey_ATX #17 Posted 26 August 2018 - 10:21 PM

    Senior Airman

  • Member
  • 2300 battles
  • 16
  • Member since:
    01-14-2018

I don't mind the nerfing except that I paid $56 for the plane.  I don't play tanks, but my brother said if they nerf a tank like that, you get the option to get your money back.

I agree that the biggest problem leading to nerfing was all the bots.  This weekend with so many humans, it's like a different game and low-level bombing is very hard.   No way I can complete the Grade 2 mission, and I tried...a lot!  At least I don't have the skillz for that against so many humans.


Edited by Petey_ATX, 26 August 2018 - 10:25 PM.


MadJackChurchil #18 Posted 26 August 2018 - 10:39 PM

    Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 1872 battles
  • 79
  • [B_C_S] B_C_S
  • Member since:
    11-14-2012

View PostPetey_ATX, on 26 August 2018 - 10:21 PM, said:

I don't mind the nerfing except that I paid $56 for the plane.  I don't play tanks, but my brother said if they nerf a tank like that, you get the option to get your money back.

I agree that the biggest problem leading to nerfing was all the bots.  This weekend with so many humans, it's like a different game and low-level bombing is very hard.   No way I can complete the Grade 2 mission, and I tried...a lot!  At least I don't have the skillz for that against so many humans.

 

You are right about that, and you touched a rather interesting marketing problem. When WG sells one-off bonus planes, you king of expect them to be strong and a bit imbalanced - that's why you are paying. If you make them strong and a bit imbalanced, though, they will dominate the game (like RB-17 did) and you will put off players that don't have them. I recon someone must have thought this business model is long-term sustainable?

Edited by MadJackChurchil, 26 August 2018 - 10:39 PM.


Wombatmetal #19 Posted 27 August 2018 - 12:44 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 1147 battles
  • 1,045
  • Member since:
    06-02-2013
Bombers shouldn't be better at 

View PostPetey_ATX, on 26 August 2018 - 02:21 PM, said:

I don't mind the nerfing except that I paid $56 for the plane.  I don't play tanks, but my brother said if they nerf a tank like that, you get the option to get your money back.

I agree that the biggest problem leading to nerfing was all the bots.  This weekend with so many humans, it's like a different game and low-level bombing is very hard.   No way I can complete the Grade 2 mission, and I tried...a lot!  At least I don't have the skillz for that against so many humans.

 

Your brother isn't quite right. They offered refunds in gold when they nerfed the Super Pershing, but no money. And when they nerfed other tanks like the T59 and LefH artillery (they moved it from tier 4 to tier 5) you got no compensation. And that was a direct nerf.

 

This is an indirect nerf, which they never compensated for in Tanks. They nerfed the game mechanics; ask the IS6 drivers if they ever saw any compensation when the MM changed and made their lives a lot worse. 

 

It's an MMO.  Things get buffed and nerfed. Where I disagree with the OP is bombers should not be better at low altitude bombing than planes purpose built for it. The RB17 was a good candidate for a nerf; I think I would have done it differently but it is understandable, though I think this is another one of those problems that we wouldn't have if we had more players.



MagusGerhardt #20 Posted 27 August 2018 - 02:12 AM

    Horten Test Pilot

  • -Community Ace-
  • 924 battles
  • 5,549
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

Here's the thing, and this has been the thing to varying degrees for as long as I have been playing, and that clock goes all the way back to pre-release testing, and quite a bit of that as well.  Prenz is right; the physics of the game and the rules of flight are a fantasy, due to their being only loosely tied to what the aircraft were like in reality.  Aircraft historically weren't balanced.  Biplanes fought 109s in Spain and obsolete 109s and Zeros faced increasingly better Allied aircraft in the war's later years.

 

Characteristics of how aircraft in this game perform are molded, massaged and occasionally completely reworked in the name of the game's ongoing development. Patch 2.0 was the largest change of that nature.  2.0.5 was a close second to 2.0 for altering the gameplay the most.  The only competition to the new enhancement/calibration and specialist system was in 1.5 when the game physics were completely reworked and the performance or availability of a few control methods were seriously changed.  The other competitor was 1.7 with the introduction of AI bots to fill out teams in the PVP matches.  What these patches all had in common was that they were panned pretty hard on release.  All of them have also had aftershocks in the following patches as changes for balance occur as unintended performance is demonstrated by creative thinkers.

 

It's a cycle and process I've seen play out several times already.   The goal here is to have a balanced game.  What that means is so long as every plane isn't a carbon copy of everything else there must be ongoing monitoring of stats of aircraft.  If one begins to overperform in important areas, such as expected ground and capture points earned in a single battle, or winrate, or aircraft destroyed per battle....they'll probably analyze the three server's battle data and maybe even look at the forums to get a feeling for what is going on.  That information is based on far more than the battles you logged in the RB-17.  The anecdotal "evidence" of  posts on the forums complaining about the RB-17 may have been on all three server's forums, but their contents and complaints weren't what the devs based their changes on.  That would have been the numbers they got from analyzing the RB-17's performance in battle.  I am saddened that the A-26B got caught up in this as well and the other high-flying bombers have been made even more defenseless than they were before (while still requiring defensive gunner kills to specialize cause reasons) just boggles me.

 

That being said, man, I understand how you feel.  I remember losing three man flights and arguing back that "Anyone could flight up with two friends.  Don't blame us for being good at this game."  Many other nerfs were to follow; I stopped keeping track after awhile and now just wander around until I find something I like in my hangar again whenever major changes drop.


 

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 1787






Also tagged with Illogic, Fallacy, nerf, RB-17

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users