Jump to content


Another request to WG: Rescind the turret dps at max range nerfs on planes that never had good, let ...


  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

legoboy0401 #1 Posted 08 February 2019 - 10:19 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 1520 battles
  • 1,559
  • [FK] FK
  • Member since:
    11-30-2013

Dear WG,

 

Please, PLEASE rollback this nerf on planes where it was never warranted! It's ridiculous that planes like the TSH-2, Blenheim IV(e), Ao 192 Kurier, and other planes with similarly poorly-armed turrets with darn poor dps for their tiers(Bf 110s, IL-2(m), Fw 189 C Eule, Do 17 Z-Kraus, Ju-87 G, Do 17 Z, Ju-88 P, Ju-88a, SB, AR-2, and on and on) and with similarly garbage range for their respective tiers got the exact same relatively large dps at max range nerf as massively strong gunboats like the B-17G, B-32, A-26B, and RB-17.

 

If the nerf impacted those planes with very powerful turrets in such a way as to make them balanced(or at least more so), how do you think it has impacted those whose turrets were already balanced/underpowered?! Hmm? 

 

To say that it has impacted them unfairly and unduly would be a COLOSSAL understatement.

 

This has utterly ruined the whole point of having a rear gunner for pretty much every plane below tier V, and most Tier Vs as well(with the probable exception of the SE-100 and perhaps maybe the Beaufighter)!

 

 

Just, just, what on earth were you thinking?!

 

This has made a mess of the low-tiers, and in particular, takes one of the only major advantages of the Fw-189 C and Ju-87 G tier IV and V German GAAs over their non-premium Soviet Tier IV and V counterparts, as well as the Hs-129 B (in the case of the Ju-87 G), and throws it out the window!

 

 

Regards, Legoboy0401

 

 


Edited by legoboy0401, 08 February 2019 - 10:32 PM.

An average player with an average goal: greatness, someday. Today, mediocrity will have to suffice. But no matter, I will always play to the best of my ability, and I will always strive to make the best of my ability just that little bit stronger and better.

 

#Failureisalwaysanoption

 

#Givingupneveris


TankNoob1960 #2 Posted 08 February 2019 - 10:51 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 6294 battles
  • 271
  • Member since:
    02-05-2016

They don't care.

EVERY DECISION THEY MAKE IS BAD FOR PLAYERS.

Soon, this game will be in the garbage like "Total War"...

Already LESS than 2000 players in ALL of North America.

Pathetic.

 

I am personally sick of the DEVS and their DUMB IDEAS.

 

Gunny


 

 


legoboy0401 #3 Posted 08 February 2019 - 10:54 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 1520 battles
  • 1,559
  • [FK] FK
  • Member since:
    11-30-2013

View PostTankNoob1960, on 08 February 2019 - 02:51 PM, said:

They don't care.

EVERY DECISION THEY MAKE IS BAD FOR PLAYERS.

Soon, this game will be in the garbage like "Total War"...

Already LESS than 2000 players in ALL of North America.

Pathetic.

 

I am personally sick of the DEVS and their DUMB IDEAS.

 

Gunny

 

I never liked 2.0.5 in the first place. I attacked it from the moment it came out(only from the moment it came out because when it came out was the first time we actually got any information on it, BECAUSE WG wanted to SHOVE IT DOWN OUR THROATS WITHOUT ASKING OUR OPINION ON IT!).

An average player with an average goal: greatness, someday. Today, mediocrity will have to suffice. But no matter, I will always play to the best of my ability, and I will always strive to make the best of my ability just that little bit stronger and better.

 

#Failureisalwaysanoption

 

#Givingupneveris


Captain_Underpants53 #4 Posted 08 February 2019 - 11:31 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 21482 battles
  • 3,065
  • [A-S-S] A-S-S
  • Member since:
    04-17-2017

View Postlegoboy0401, on 08 February 2019 - 05:19 PM, said:

Dear WG,

 

Please, PLEASE rollback this nerf on planes where it was never warranted! It's ridiculous that planes like the TSH-2, Blenheim IV(e), Ao 192 Kurier, and other planes with similarly poorly-armed turrets with darn poor dps for their tiers(Bf 110s, IL-2(m), Fw 189 C Eule, Do 17 Z-Kraus, Ju-87 G, Do 17 Z, Ju-88 P, Ju-88a, SB, AR-2, and on and on) and with similarly garbage range for their respective tiers got the exact same relatively large dps at max range nerf as massively strong gunboats like the B-17G, B-32, A-26B, and RB-17.

 

If the nerf impacted those planes with very powerful turrets in such a way as to make them balanced(or at least more so), how do you think it has impacted those whose turrets were already balanced/underpowered?! Hmm? 

 

To say that it has impacted them unfairly and unduly would be a COLOSSAL understatement.

 

This has utterly ruined the whole point of having a rear gunner for pretty much every plane below tier V, and most Tier Vs as well(with the probable exception of the SE-100 and perhaps maybe the Beaufighter)!

 

 

Just, just, what on earth were you thinking?!

 

This has made a mess of the low-tiers, and in particular, takes one of the only major advantages of the Fw-189 C and Ju-87 G tier IV and V German GAAs over their non-premium Soviet Tier IV and V counterparts, as well as the Hs-129 B (in the case of the Ju-87 G), and throws it out the window!

 

 

Regards, Legoboy0401

 

 

 

:medal:
MSgt, USAF, (ret)

legoboy0401 #5 Posted 09 February 2019 - 04:28 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 1520 battles
  • 1,559
  • [FK] FK
  • Member since:
    11-30-2013

Another issue, I would say, though not the same, is the turret angles nerf that limited Bombers and Heavy Fighter defensive turret vertical angles to a max 50 degrees depression and elevation.

 

I think for German Bombers at least, that was kinda stupid.


An average player with an average goal: greatness, someday. Today, mediocrity will have to suffice. But no matter, I will always play to the best of my ability, and I will always strive to make the best of my ability just that little bit stronger and better.

 

#Failureisalwaysanoption

 

#Givingupneveris


Jazz_4 #6 Posted 09 February 2019 - 05:16 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 1529 battles
  • 270
  • [PWOOD] PWOOD
  • Member since:
    11-05-2016
i think they should nerf some of the heavy fighters the gun on the tier 7 Japanese heavy show have it's range decreased and for the tier 5 uk heavy fighter honestly it's really op right now but for the turret on the a26b I don't get why they would nerf it.honestly the bots in game that are heavy fighters are a bit to much when your playing your bomber. just be carful they will player hunt you if your playing any bombers from the b32 to the 126b it's a bit of a pain.

_Panzerkunst_ #7 Posted 09 February 2019 - 07:55 PM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 5428 battles
  • 79
  • Member since:
    01-11-2014
You have a link to those nerfs? IMO, you're not going to kill anything with 7.92mm rear guns on any tier. Planes are just not powerful enough tier 5 & below. Heck, a couple tier 5 GA's don't even have rear gunners. No bomber should be able to destroy a full HP same tier heavy, bombers would be too OP. So that's is the trade off, bombers get high alt & can turn caps better than the other classes but have weak defensive turrets. The only bomber IMO that needed a nerf was the RB17, 1100m out and it can already start hitting me and case crits. <o
"If You Want Peace, Prepare For War."

LMG #8 Posted 09 February 2019 - 11:10 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2436 battles
  • 1,937
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostKonigTiger42, on 09 February 2019 - 02:55 PM, said:

You have a link to those nerfs? IMO, you're not going to kill anything with 7.92mm rear guns on any tier. Planes are just not powerful enough tier 5 & below. Heck, a couple tier 5 GA's don't even have rear gunners. No bomber should be able to destroy a full HP same tier heavy, bombers would be too OP. So that's is the trade off, bombers get high alt & can turn caps better than the other classes but have weak defensive turrets. The only bomber IMO that needed a nerf was the RB17, 1100m out and it can already start hitting me and case crits. <o

 

The problem with Bombers and self-defense is that their main predator are heavies, which are not easy to intercept once they lock onto a target and go in at full speed. GAAs can fight back enemies that engage them through several means, be it a head-on duel with their superior firepower and prowess when ramming (or the use of rockets), attempting a bombkill on an incoming foe, using the reargun, and the fact that they're so slow enemies have to often attack in several passes because they can't afford to slow down enough to stay on their tail.

 

Bombers don't really get to do that. Most don't have forward-facing conventional weaponry, and the ones that do can at best slowly repell a hostile plane if they ever get their sights on them. They often fly far too high to attempt a bombkill, unless you can actually drop the bomb on top of the enemy attacking you. Most of them can't really slow down enough for the enemy to stall without them risking a stall themselves, and they're usually not fast enough to just bail out from a bad situation by going into maximum overdrive. All they have left to survive is their turrets, most of which don't have enough firepower to threaten light fighters, let alone heavies, the planes that will most likely be hunting them down (doubly so for bot heavies).

 

So you end up with a plane who's only means of survival is mostly negligible. Now we don't need every bomber to be a pre-nerf B-32 mobile no-fly zone, but if all I have for survival is turrets then they should at least give me a chance at staying alive, otherwise playing Bombers will feel like flying around on an XP Piñata since there's no counterplay for when another plane shows up. I should go "oh crap, here come a heavy. Ok, let's try... this!" instead of "oh, a heavy. Hit the self-destruct, Bobby, we're done here." :amazed:


Edited by LMG, 09 February 2019 - 11:11 PM.

This is my IL-2 (t). There are many like it, but this one is mine. :child:

_Panzerkunst_ #9 Posted 10 February 2019 - 12:59 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 5428 battles
  • 79
  • Member since:
    01-11-2014

View PostLMG, on 09 February 2019 - 11:10 PM, said:

 

The problem with Bombers and self-defense is that their main predator are heavies, which are not easy to intercept once they lock onto a target and go in at full speed. GAAs can fight back enemies that engage them through several means, be it a head-on duel with their superior firepower and prowess when ramming (or the use of rockets), attempting a bombkill on an incoming foe, using the reargun, and the fact that they're so slow enemies have to often attack in several passes because they can't afford to slow down enough to stay on their tail.

 

Bombers don't really get to do that. Most don't have forward-facing conventional weaponry, and the ones that do can at best slowly repell a hostile plane if they ever get their sights on them. They often fly far too high to attempt a bombkill, unless you can actually drop the bomb on top of the enemy attacking you. Most of them can't really slow down enough for the enemy to stall without them risking a stall themselves, and they're usually not fast enough to just bail out from a bad situation by going into maximum overdrive. All they have left to survive is their turrets, most of which don't have enough firepower to threaten light fighters, let alone heavies, the planes that will most likely be hunting them down (doubly so for bot heavies).

 

So you end up with a plane who's only means of survival is mostly negligible. Now we don't need every bomber to be a pre-nerf B-32 mobile no-fly zone, but if all I have for survival is turrets then they should at least give me a chance at staying alive, otherwise playing Bombers will feel like flying around on an XP Piñata since there's no counterplay for when another plane shows up. I should go "oh crap, here come a heavy. Ok, let's try... this!" instead of "oh, a heavy. Hit the self-destruct, Bobby, we're done here." :amazed:

 

I agree, it is true that bombers have very limited means to defend themselves. But, they don't need to defend themselves very often if played efficiently. The B32, no tier 7 or 6 LF/MRF can take it out efficiently. Only the P51D, BF109G, & I-220 can get to its alt & would be hard pressed to take out a full HP B32. Bot heavies & ADA give chase but end up stalling out or stop attacking after the rear turrets fire on them. So a B32 really only needs to worry about a human in a HF that makes it a point to hunt him, which does not happen very often. A B32 in a tier 7/6 match with the enemy human flying a Yak-3 can dominate, the real threat is all the AA fire. <o
"If You Want Peace, Prepare For War."

legoboy0401 #10 Posted 10 February 2019 - 01:18 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 1520 battles
  • 1,559
  • [FK] FK
  • Member since:
    11-30-2013

View PostLMG, on 09 February 2019 - 03:10 PM, said:

 

The problem with Bombers and self-defense is that their main predator are heavies, which are not easy to intercept once they lock onto a target and go in at full speed. GAAs can fight back enemies that engage them through several means, be it a head-on duel with their superior firepower and prowess when ramming (or the use of rockets), attempting a bombkill on an incoming foe, using the reargun, and the fact that they're so slow enemies have to often attack in several passes because they can't afford to slow down enough to stay on their tail.

 

Bombers don't really get to do that. Most don't have forward-facing conventional weaponry, and the ones that do can at best slowly repell a hostile plane if they ever get their sights on them. They often fly far too high to attempt a bombkill, unless you can actually drop the bomb on top of the enemy attacking you. Most of them can't really slow down enough for the enemy to stall without them risking a stall themselves, and they're usually not fast enough to just bail out from a bad situation by going into maximum overdrive. All they have left to survive is their turrets, most of which don't have enough firepower to threaten light fighters, let alone heavies, the planes that will most likely be hunting them down (doubly so for bot heavies).

 

So you end up with a plane who's only means of survival is mostly negligible. Now we don't need every bomber to be a pre-nerf B-32 mobile no-fly zone, but if all I have for survival is turrets then they should at least give me a chance at staying alive, otherwise playing Bombers will feel like flying around on an XP Piñata since there's no counterplay for when another plane shows up. I should go "oh crap, here come a heavy. Ok, let's try... this!" instead of "oh, a heavy. Hit the self-destruct, Bobby, we're done here." :amazed:

 

This is absolutely true. As a player who has devoted considerable time to a plane from each of those classes(GAA, Heavy, and Bomber), I can tell you that as a GAA with any lick of support(and only having to have support because of Bot Air Defense Heavies having been told by WG a few patches back to stop merely harassing bombers and get to harassing all classes at all altitudes)

 

you have a fighting chance. As you said, one has many options in a GAA for defense. There's always even the possibility when it comes to player bots and actual players of them stalling and crashing, crashing, or actually accidentally colliding with you.

 

As a bomber, you have no such luck. I hear people tell me all the time "Lego, you are a fool for playing your(usually my Ju-88a) bombers near the max yellow altitude. You should come down lower, and then you'll have more success."

 

My response is always:

 

"What, do you need your head examined? You are an idiot! Coming down lower wouldn't bring me more success, it would leave me a hilariously easy target for anyone. I would be just an XP and credits piñata for the enemy team and would not likely be able to get a single ground target destroyed in any sortie before I would be inevitably ruthlessly murdered by both ADF Heavies and, more likely than not, more than a few enemy player and player-bot Heavies, fast multi-roles, and light fighters with good altitude performance as well. My health would be drained(especially in a medium bomber) as fast as a tier I's health would be drained by a tier X heavy fighter."

 

"There is only one good defense for most bombers, and it is altitude that others can't reach. By giving that up, it's only a matter of time before you will be shot down. It turns into a matter of WHEN, not IF. In addition, most heavies can already comfortably reach the max altitude of same-tier bombers quite easily. Even the ones with less altitude performance usually still can get there, albeit with a little more patience, because they will have to take a shallower climb up to the bomber, which will take longer.

 

The only thing that often saves bombers that are targeted by this particular type of heavy is said heavy's players' lack of patience, which causes them to sometimes stall their lower-altitude performance heavy while still being well below the bomber that is their intended target.

 

With the bombers at a lower altitude, even THIS protection goes away and these lower altitude heavies can easily reach them without stalling. And once they reach you, if you don't have seriously overpowered firepower coupled with equally overpowered range(to hit them before they get you with their kill-zone) I DON'T CARE HOW GOOD YOUR PILOT AND GUNNER ARE, I DON'T CARE HOW MUCH SPECIALIZED EQUIPMENT YOU HAVE, IT'll ONLY AFFECT HOW MUCH YOU GET OF YOUR ASSAILANT BEFORE YOUR ASSAILANT INEVITABLY GETS YOU ENTIRELY, IT WON'T ACTUALLY SAVE YOU(assuming both of you are on full health at the beginning of the engagement)."

 

 


An average player with an average goal: greatness, someday. Today, mediocrity will have to suffice. But no matter, I will always play to the best of my ability, and I will always strive to make the best of my ability just that little bit stronger and better.

 

#Failureisalwaysanoption

 

#Givingupneveris


legoboy0401 #11 Posted 10 February 2019 - 01:20 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 1520 battles
  • 1,559
  • [FK] FK
  • Member since:
    11-30-2013

View PostKonigTiger42, on 09 February 2019 - 04:59 PM, said:

 

I agree, it is true that bombers have very limited means to defend themselves. But, they don't need to defend themselves very often if played efficiently. The B32, no tier 7 or 6 LF/MRF can take it out efficiently. Only the P51D, BF109G, & I-220 can get to its alt & would be hard pressed to take out a full HP B32. Bot heavies & ADA give chase but end up stalling out or stop attacking after the rear turrets fire on them. So a B32 really only needs to worry about a human in a HF that makes it a point to hunt him, which does not happen very often. A B32 in a tier 7/6 match with the enemy human flying a Yak-3 can dominate, the real threat is all the AA fire. <o

The B-32 is the B-32. Stop pretending like every bomber is as good at defending themselves as the B-32. Because most of them simply aren't. 


An average player with an average goal: greatness, someday. Today, mediocrity will have to suffice. But no matter, I will always play to the best of my ability, and I will always strive to make the best of my ability just that little bit stronger and better.

 

#Failureisalwaysanoption

 

#Givingupneveris


LMG #12 Posted 10 February 2019 - 03:56 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2436 battles
  • 1,937
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostKonigTiger42, on 09 February 2019 - 07:59 PM, said:

I agree, it is true that bombers have very limited means to defend themselves. But, they don't need to defend themselves very often if played efficiently. The B32, no tier 7 or 6 LF/MRF can take it out efficiently. Only the P51D, BF109G, & I-220 can get to its alt & would be hard pressed to take out a full HP B32. Bot heavies & ADA give chase but end up stalling out or stop attacking after the rear turrets fire on them. So a B32 really only needs to worry about a human in a HF that makes it a point to hunt him, which does not happen very often. A B32 in a tier 7/6 match with the enemy human flying a Yak-3 can dominate, the real threat is all the AA fire. <o

 

The B-32 has the best self-defense out of all bombers, even the RB-17 which is a tier higher. I used to call it the mobile no-fly zone, and even after the nerf going close to one is extremely dangerous. While each individual turret doesn't have as much damage for the tier, you're basically shooting two or more of them at the enemy at basically any given time. Just firing two turrets at a target gives you the best turret dps at tier 7, let alone 3 or, god forbid, 4 turrets at a time :ohmy:


This is my IL-2 (t). There are many like it, but this one is mine. :child:

legoboy0401 #13 Posted 10 February 2019 - 06:17 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 1520 battles
  • 1,559
  • [FK] FK
  • Member since:
    11-30-2013

View PostKonigTiger42, on 09 February 2019 - 11:55 AM, said:

You have a link to those nerfs? IMO, you're not going to kill anything with 7.92mm rear guns on any tier. Planes are just not powerful enough tier 5 & below. Heck, a couple tier 5 GA's don't even have rear gunners. No bomber should be able to destroy a full HP same tier heavy, bombers would be too OP. So that's is the trade off, bombers get high alt & can turn caps better than the other classes but have weak defensive turrets. The only bomber IMO that needed a nerf was the RB17, 1100m out and it can already start hitting me and case crits. <o

 

 

Happily:

 

 

Aircraft balance adjustments

  • Increased the turret aiming time from 2 seconds to 3 seconds. For the B-32, it is 4 seconds. For fighters and multirole fighters with turrets, it is 1 second.
  • Reduced the damage from turrets at maximum distance. The probability of critical damage and the effectiveness of fire at maximum distance have not changed.

An average player with an average goal: greatness, someday. Today, mediocrity will have to suffice. But no matter, I will always play to the best of my ability, and I will always strive to make the best of my ability just that little bit stronger and better.

 

#Failureisalwaysanoption

 

#Givingupneveris


_Panzerkunst_ #14 Posted 10 February 2019 - 08:23 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 5428 battles
  • 79
  • Member since:
    01-11-2014

View Postlegoboy0401, on 10 February 2019 - 06:17 AM, said:

 

 

Happily:

 

 

Aircraft balance adjustments

  • Increased the turret aiming time from 2 seconds to 3 seconds. For the B-32, it is 4 seconds. For fighters and multirole fighters with turrets, it is 1 second.
  • Reduced the damage from turrets at maximum distance. The probability of critical damage and the effectiveness of fire at maximum distance have not changed.

 

At least the crits are not affected at range so you can pray to dmg an engine of a climbing Heavy about to stall, haha! 
"If You Want Peace, Prepare For War."

Twindwarfs #15 Posted 10 February 2019 - 04:07 PM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 3714 battles
  • 59
  • Member since:
    11-21-2017

For lower tier bombers, I would suggest a buff to the optimal altitude and concealment rather than buff rear guns damage. Rear guns that can shred chasers within a few seconds is a stupid idea anyway. RB-17 has an optimal altitude of 2700 meters and you can easily fly at 3000. It takes a long boost even for heavy fighters to reach that high. For lower tier bombers on the other hand, for example, Blenheim IV has only 1500 meters optimal altitude performance, which is only about 500 meters above the fighting zone. So it is very easy to reach for many. (I'm just saying, Blenheim does not need a buff) In addition, lower tier bombers cannot fly very fast. RB-17 flies at 300 meters above its optimal altitude is fine, but Blenheim flies 300 meters above its altitude sacrifice too much of its speed. It is a trade-off whether you want to fly safer or be more effective, but the cost is too much for lower tier bombers. 

 

Concealment is also less useful at lower tiers too. I find bombers are always detected in lower tiers maybe because planes are not very far away from each other. In higher tiers concealment becomes more useful and sometimes you lose track of enemy bombers. 

 



legoboy0401 #16 Posted 10 February 2019 - 04:56 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 1520 battles
  • 1,559
  • [FK] FK
  • Member since:
    11-30-2013

View PostSTJ_12, on 10 February 2019 - 08:07 AM, said:

For lower tier bombers, I would suggest a buff to the optimal altitude and concealment rather than buff rear guns damage. Rear guns that can shred chasers within a few seconds is a stupid idea anyway. RB-17 has an optimal altitude of 2700 meters and you can easily fly at 3000. It takes a long boost even for heavy fighters to reach that high. For lower tier bombers on the other hand, for example, Blenheim IV has only 1500 meters optimal altitude performance, which is only about 500 meters above the fighting zone. So it is very easy to reach for many. (I'm just saying, Blenheim does not need a buff) In addition, lower tier bombers cannot fly very fast. RB-17 flies at 300 meters above its optimal altitude is fine, but Blenheim flies 300 meters above its altitude sacrifice too much of its speed. It is a trade-off whether you want to fly safer or be more effective, but the cost is too much for lower tier bombers. 

 

Concealment is also less useful at lower tiers too. I find bombers are always detected in lower tiers maybe because planes are not very far away from each other. In higher tiers concealment becomes more useful and sometimes you lose track of enemy bombers. 

 

 

Uh, if you actually looked closely at any of my posts in this thread, I never said that they should be mobile NFZs(no-fly zones), only that the problem is that when it comes to bomber defenses, either they are "too strong" and good(perhaps even too good, but not always)at what they're designed to do(defend the bomber, duh) or they are way too weak and utterly hopeless at defending the bomber, and are so useless as to make you want to remove them to lighten the aircraft, there really is no Bomber with perfectly balanced turrets.

 

 

I think you could chalk that up mainly to the fact that in this game, either Bombers have effective turrets for their tier or they don't. Either said turrets do their job well, or they suck at it. There's no middle ground.

 

IMO though, each bomber ought to have effective turrets that are balanced around getting at least half of a same-tier heavy fighter's health. Some do this really well(RB-17, for example) and others, for whatever reason, seem to be balanced around getting around about exactly half of a TIER LOWER Heavy Fighter's health, (all 3 German Tech Tree Bombers) and this infuriates me to no end!

 

Let's see

 

Fw 57: stomps tier II, balanced against Tier III, gets stomped by Tier IV

 

Bf 109E: stomps tier IV, balanced against Tier V, gets stomped by Tier VI

 

Spitfire DB605: stomps tier V, balanced against tier VI, gets stomped by Tier VII

 

A6M5 Zero: stomps Tier V, balanced against Tier VI, gets stomped by Tier VII

 

and on and on.

 

now

 

Do 17 Z: balanced against Tier III, gets mostly stomped by Tier IV, gets stomped totally and utterly by Tier V

 

Ju-88 A: balanced against Tier IV, gets mostly stomped by Tier V, gets stomped totally and utterly by Tier VI

 

Do 217 M: balanced against Tier V, gets mostly stomped by Tier VI, gets stomped totally and utterly by Tier VII

 

 

Remind me again how this is thought to be fair?


An average player with an average goal: greatness, someday. Today, mediocrity will have to suffice. But no matter, I will always play to the best of my ability, and I will always strive to make the best of my ability just that little bit stronger and better.

 

#Failureisalwaysanoption

 

#Givingupneveris


Twindwarfs #17 Posted 10 February 2019 - 05:42 PM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 3714 battles
  • 59
  • Member since:
    11-21-2017

View Postlegoboy0401, on 10 February 2019 - 04:56 PM, said:

 

Uh, if you actually looked closely at any of my posts in this thread, I never said that they should be mobile NFZs(no-fly zones), only that the problem is that when it comes to bomber defenses, either they are "too strong" and good(perhaps even too good, but not always)at what they're designed to do(defend the bomber, duh) or they are way too weak and utterly hopeless at defending the bomber, and are so useless as to make you want to remove them to lighten the aircraft, there really is no Bomber with perfectly balanced turrets.

 

 

I think you could chalk that up mainly to the fact that in this game, either Bombers have effective turrets for their tier or they don't. Either said turrets do their job well, or they suck at it. There's no middle ground.

 

IMO though, each bomber ought to have effective turrets that are balanced around getting at least half of a same-tier heavy fighter's health. Some do this really well(RB-17, for example) and others, for whatever reason, seem to be balanced around getting around about exactly half of a TIER LOWER Heavy Fighter's health, (all 3 German Tech Tree Bombers) and this infuriates me to no end!

 

Let's see

 

Fw 57: stomps tier II, balanced against Tier III, gets stomped by Tier IV

 

Bf 109E: stomps tier IV, balanced against Tier V, gets stomped by Tier VI

 

Spitfire DB605: stomps tier V, balanced against tier VI, gets stomped by Tier VII

 

A6M5 Zero: stomps Tier V, balanced against Tier VI, gets stomped by Tier VII

 

and on and on.

 

now

 

Do 17 Z: balanced against Tier III, gets mostly stomped by Tier IV, gets stomped totally and utterly by Tier V

 

Ju-88 A: balanced against Tier IV, gets mostly stomped by Tier V, gets stomped totally and utterly by Tier VI

 

Do 217 M: balanced against Tier V, gets mostly stomped by Tier VI, gets stomped totally and utterly by Tier VII

 

 

Remind me again how this is thought to be fair?

 

ehh.. every time I propose something new, people think I'm not reading closely. I agree with you that some bombers need a buff at defending themselves. Yes, you are right, buff the rear gun damage can solve the problem, but I just don't think it is the right way to go. (Even the after-nerf B-32 with a high skill point gunner, if played correctly, tier 7 heavy fighters have no chance, I mean ZERO chance in ANY situations. I don't want to see that happen again on lower tier bombers.)  What I proposed is to raise the altitude performance, which I believe can also solve the problem. It will make the enemies less willing to hunt bombers. Even they finally reach the altitude, they already lose too much speed to close the distance. Then the rear guns will be able to injure their pilot, damage their engines without bombers themselves taking too much damage, then the enemies have to give up the hunting. It serves the same purpose of keeping a bomber safe just as well. IMO, rear guns are for the defensive purpose, not for the kill. Buffing damage? Not a good idea for me. Buffing critical hit chance is fine though. If really needed, they can also buff the critical hit chance for lower tier. But I still prefer altitude performance buff, it also make the bomber gameplay more strategic because you still want to fly lower if possible to make your bombing more accurate.  

Edited by STJ_12, 10 February 2019 - 05:47 PM.


LMG #18 Posted 10 February 2019 - 06:17 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2436 battles
  • 1,937
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostSTJ_12, on 10 February 2019 - 12:42 PM, said:

ehh.. every time I propose something new, people think I'm not reading closely. I agree with you that some bombers need a buff at defending themselves. Yes, you are right, buff the rear gun damage can solve the problem, but I just don't think it is the right way to go. (Even the after-nerf B-32 with a high skill point gunner, if played correctly, tier 7 heavy fighters have no chance, I mean ZERO chance in ANY situations. I don't want to see that happen again on lower tier bombers.)  What I proposed is to raise the altitude performance, which I believe can also solve the problem. It will make the enemies less willing to hunt bombers. Even they finally reach the altitude, they already lose too much speed to close the distance. Then the rear guns will be able to injure their pilot, damage their engines without bombers themselves taking too much damage, then the enemies have to give up the hunting. It serves the same purpose of keeping a bomber safe just as well. IMO, rear guns are for the defensive purpose, not for the kill. Buffing damage? Not a good idea for me. Buffing critical hit chance is fine though. If really needed, they can also buff the critical hit chance for lower tier. But I still prefer altitude performance buff, it also make the bomber gameplay more strategic because you still want to fly lower if possible to make your bombing more accurate.  

 

Making the Bombers fly higher and higher won't quite fix the issue as much as it'll probably cause another issues; making Bombers untouchable by anything that's not a german heavy. It'll also make the bombers a lot more unreliable unless you also buff the bomb accuracy, but if they can effectively cap while remaining in orbit (aka, untouchable) then they also become too strong. It'll just be replacing one situation with no counterplay with another situation that also doesn't have a way to counter it. Hence why we suggest buffs to the rearguns, as there's ways to deal with them while still giving the bomber a chance to do something other than bend over and die.

 

The main reason Bombers tend to fly high in the first place is because their rearguns can't really keep them alive. Otherwise they could afford to stay at a lower altitude, like the Fortresses and the A-26B


This is my IL-2 (t). There are many like it, but this one is mine. :child:

legoboy0401 #19 Posted 10 February 2019 - 08:07 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 1520 battles
  • 1,559
  • [FK] FK
  • Member since:
    11-30-2013

View PostSTJ_12, on 10 February 2019 - 09:42 AM, said:

 

ehh.. every time I propose something new, people think I'm not reading closely. I agree with you that some bombers need a buff at defending themselves. Yes, you are right, buff the rear gun damage can solve the problem, but I just don't think it is the right way to go. (Even the after-nerf B-32 with a high skill point gunner, if played correctly, tier 7 heavy fighters have no chance, I mean ZERO chance in ANY situations. I don't want to see that happen again on lower tier bombers.)  What I proposed is to raise the altitude performance, which I believe can also solve the problem. It will make the enemies less willing to hunt bombers. Even they finally reach the altitude, they already lose too much speed to close the distance. Then the rear guns will be able to injure their pilot, damage their engines without bombers themselves taking too much damage, then the enemies have to give up the hunting. It serves the same purpose of keeping a bomber safe just as well. IMO, rear guns are for the defensive purpose, not for the kill. Buffing damage? Not a good idea for me. Buffing critical hit chance is fine though. If really needed, they can also buff the critical hit chance for lower tier. But I still prefer altitude performance buff, it also make the bomber gameplay more strategic because you still want to fly lower if possible to make your bombing more accurate.  

 

Bombers max altitude is just fine. Increasing it would just make them neither fun to play(because they would have to be played higher, because that is what defense you would give them, but that would nerf into the ground their efficiency at capping, which for most at the current high levels is already pretty low) nor fun to play against (a LITERALLY UNREACHABLE class for anyone but German and perhaps American Tech Tree Heavies? A big, fat, NOPE to that suggestion.).

 

I see now what you were trying to propose, and I'm sorry that I didn't understand you last time, but it doesn't change the simple fact that your proposed solution is downright awful, and would just screw up the balance of Bombers and their would-be interceptors even more for both, and would make interplay between them even less enjoyable for both.

 

So no, I DON'T think your suggestion has any merit to it whatsoever, now that I understand it.


An average player with an average goal: greatness, someday. Today, mediocrity will have to suffice. But no matter, I will always play to the best of my ability, and I will always strive to make the best of my ability just that little bit stronger and better.

 

#Failureisalwaysanoption

 

#Givingupneveris


legoboy0401 #20 Posted 10 February 2019 - 08:18 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 1520 battles
  • 1,559
  • [FK] FK
  • Member since:
    11-30-2013

View PostSTJ_12, on 10 February 2019 - 09:42 AM, said:

 

ehh.. every time I propose something new, people think I'm not reading closely. I agree with you that some bombers need a buff at defending themselves. Yes, you are right, buff the rear gun damage can solve the problem, but I just don't think it is the right way to go. (Even the after-nerf B-32 with a high skill point gunner, if played correctly, tier 7 heavy fighters have no chance, I mean ZERO chance in ANY situations. I don't want to see that happen again on lower tier bombers.)  What I proposed is to raise the altitude performance, which I believe can also solve the problem. It will make the enemies less willing to hunt bombers. Even they finally reach the altitude, they already lose too much speed to close the distance. Then the rear guns will be able to injure their pilot, damage their engines without bombers themselves taking too much damage, then the enemies have to give up the hunting. It serves the same purpose of keeping a bomber safe just as well. IMO, rear guns are for the defensive purpose, not for the kill. Buffing damage? Not a good idea for me. Buffing critical hit chance is fine though. If really needed, they can also buff the critical hit chance for lower tier. But I still prefer altitude performance buff, it also make the bomber gameplay more strategic because you still want to fly lower if possible to make your bombing more accurate.  

 

"for the defensive purpose, not for the kill"

 

Are you for real? Are you kidding? There are some players who could lose every single module in their plane and still would try to finish off a bomber.

 

that's like saying "the 20 mm Oerklion and 40 mm Bofors on American ships were to defend said ships against Kamikazes, not to shoot down said Kamikazes. :facepalm: What are you, drunk and not quite thinking clearly? FOR GOODNESS' SAKE THE TWO PURPOSES ARE ONE AND THE SAME!!!


An average player with an average goal: greatness, someday. Today, mediocrity will have to suffice. But no matter, I will always play to the best of my ability, and I will always strive to make the best of my ability just that little bit stronger and better.

 

#Failureisalwaysanoption

 

#Givingupneveris





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users