Pyro: question about the buff .50s

[CavemanJ]

Pryo,
In another thread you said
   

Bomber gunners don't get a longer range or higher lethality, but we do make it a bit easier for them to hit to offset lag effects.

[/b]

I thought HT had said the buff guns had a 300-400yd range boost to help them with netlag.  Was this removed or did I misunderstand what HT was saying.

How is it easier to hit a bandit if a bandit is on my tail and sees 400yds on his FE and I see 800yds on my FE.  I'm dead before I can do enough damage to kill him.  Please explain how I am being helped here.
[edit]  Also, what's to keep a fighter from sitting at 800-900yds back on his FE and spraying away, since he'll be 1200-1300yds back on my FE, and effectively out of range of my .50s because they are (in the game) ineffective at that distance?  [/edit]

In version .45 the guns felt right according to everything I've read/seen/heard about .50s.  In .47 they felt weaker, but not too much to worry about.  In version 1.00 they became bb guns.  Might as well have taken them off the planes altogether, I'd have the same chances of success.

Once upon a time if one of the sharp shooters like WD or Torque got on me I could at least be assured of mutal destruction.  Now the only way that happens is if they mess up on thier run.  Usually they fly away unhurt despite reciveing 2-3 seconds of direct hits (I've checked my connection, running 160-180 w/ no packet loss).
85% of my kills are newbies who dinnae how to attack a buff properly or guys who dinnae quite have the hang of the gunnery yet, or where we shot each other down but he was the first to bail.  The other 10% are guys who misjudge thier approach and get into compression and can't bring thier guns to bear, but I can track and kill them.  The last 5% are just pure luck that I got them and lived (usually heavily damaged).  Also my kills have gone WAY down, just go look at the stats, and it's not because my gunnery has gotten worse.

This is a very serious issue.  The buffs are my favorite rides and I'm damn good on the guns.  I've been told by many a pilot that they wished my bird had some kind of mark so they knew it was me and could stay away.  But the guns are basically to the point that they can kill me and not worry, and my skill is wasted.

I recall back around the end of beta tour 1 or begining of beta tour 2 someone saying the .50s had been turned down for playbalance issues.  Were they not turned back up?  Are they to be left turned down (BIG mistake)?  Of course, I could be remembering incorrectly also, but dinnae think so.  Could there be a bug, similar to the flaps issue, that has reduced the damage or rate of fire of the .50s?  Whatever it is, it has taken all the fun out of driving the heavies.

Now that I've written a book, one other thought has occured to me.  Could there be something on me system that is causing rubber bullets and making me such an easy mark?  I'm inclined to say "no way" because this has been a gradual change in the guns, and I'm not the only one who has noticed it.

Thanks

[This message has been edited by CavemanJ (edited 03-14-2000).]

[funked]

I dunno Cave, I'm pretty happy with the BUFF guns.  Admittedly I only have 18 bomber sorties this tour, but I've got 18 kills and only 4 deaths.  And I'm not that good.

[Mox]

I used to be able to fly a buff without escort and have a "chance" to return home.  

Now I know I will likely never have a chance to land a buff after a successful mission unless it a crash landing.  

The buff guns have been changed... and changed for the worse in my opinion.

Why not put the guns back the way they were and make bombing more difficult?  I'd say this would increase the fun factor for the buff pilots and the fighter pilots.

More fun for the bomber pilots in the gun positions

More of a challenge to bomb the target

More of a challenge to the fighter that attacks the bombers.  If you're dumb enough to attack a buff low on it's 6 then you should die.  Look at the old gun camera films, no fighters "parked" off the tail of a Buff and lobbed cannon shells at them.  The fighters always attacked fast and from above when they could.

Nothing's worse than flying for hours to reach your target and getting a single ping kill from a fighter thats below you and lobbing cannon shells at your six.

Of course this is just my opinion...  

Mox
The Wrecking Crew

[mx22]

 

Originally posted by Mox:
Look at the old gun camera films, no fighters "parked" off the tail of a Buff and lobbed cannon shells at them.  The fighters always attacked fast and from above when they could.

Not entirely true. I seen films where fighters will close in from dead 6. I think frontal attack at high speed or an attack at high speed was emplyed against a group of bombers. A lone bomber wasn't all that lethal and attack from 6 with small speed overtake was possible.
Now do I want buff's guns more lethal? No!!! They are lethal enough already. If you want to bomb a target and survive, fly in a tight formation of 3-4 bombers and you see results right away.

mx22

[Rocket]

I agree with mx22.  A lone buff should be close to a sitting duck.  These were the ones the LW seemed to prefer attack.  In a buff safety in numbers with a good escort should be the only way to survive the flight.
Just MHO  


Rocket

------------------
The Red Dragons
Fierce and Bold
With Honour and Courage
_______________________
www.reddragons.de

[Mox]

 

Originally posted by mx22:
If you want to bomb a target and survive, fly in a tight formation of 3-4 bombers and you see results right away.

mx22

Mx22, I agree that the "ideal and historic" way to fly a buff is in formation but it's a rare occasion to see a bomber formation with more than 2 bombers.  The buffs guns do not have enough range to cover their own bellybutton let alone the other bombers in the formation.  I've only seen guns cover other buffs when the formation was touching wings.  Aside from the big raids (which are only good for City and DAR attacks) why would you ever need a bomber formation to take out 2 acks and a tower?    

There's a fine line between realistic and fun.  Why is it that ACKS are the super guns here and everyone wants the buff guns "nerfed"?   I guess thats entirely a different issue...

Mox
The Wrecking Crew


[This message has been edited by Mox (edited 03-15-2000).]

[Mox]

 

Originally posted by Rocket:
I agree with mx22.  A lone buff should be close to a sitting duck.  

As it is now any bomber without escort is DEAD unless it's flying like a dweeb at 38K.

So it seems the bomber pilots are in a pinch either don't care about your score and expect to die every single flight, wait weeks for a large raid, or be a dweeb and fly at 38k.

Historic?  No..
Fun? No..

From a fighter pilots view I LOVE when I find a lone bomber.. I know it's a easy kill, and it's more of a race to beat my fellow countrymen to the buff than to kill it.

Shouldn't the fight be more fun than the race is?  

Mox
The Wrecking Crew

[Vermillion]

Lone buffs might be dead if your flying a cannon bird, but try to attack one with just x6 .50 cals. Its suicide over half the time.

Much tougher without those 20 mike mike's

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
 
 

[This message has been edited by Vermillion (edited 03-15-2000).]

[mx22]

Mox,

If you beef up buff's guns, fighters will start to die in numbers easily. Now, they will too start to demand more powerfull guns to kill bombers (or lessen effectivness of buff's guns). As you see we come a full circle. The best way to do it is keep realistic and work from there. Before bombing run ask if anyone wants to fly another bomber with you and ask for escort. I'm sure you find someone else in your country who will join you. Acctually I yet have to see a bomber pilot, who asked for escort and got no responses...

mx22

[Mox]

 

Originally posted by Vermillion:
Lone buffs might be dead if your flying a cannon bird, but try to attack one with just x6 .50 cals. Its suicide over half the time.

Much tougher without those 20 mike mike's

So "nerf" all the buff guns to give a specific plane (Pony or F4UD) a better chance at killing it?  Doesn't seem fair to me.  

I don't have a problem with any of the cannons in the game except the cannons on the hogs.
I personaly think the F4UC's cannon are way too stronge.  Even the 30mm on the 109's seems to be weaker than the hogs 20's. But thats a different arguement.

I'm just trying to point out my opinion of the way some things should be balanced.

Verm, I completly agree with you that killing a buff in a Pony is MUCH more difficult than to do it in a Hog. I'm rarely ever attacked by a Pony or a F4UD in a buff.

Don't you fighter jocks want a fight after you've climped all the way up to the buff?  Or do you just want a easy kill?  

Mox
The Wrecking Crew

[mx22]

 

Originally posted by Mox:
Don't you fighter jocks want a fight after you've climped all the way up to the buff?  Or do you just want a easy kill?  

We do already have to fight for a kill. I can't simply fly on your 6 and shoot, more chances then not I'll be the first one to go down.
On to lethality of F4U - I think it's fine. I do die under F4U's guns a lot, but I expect nothign less from 4 20mm cannons. The reason BF109's 30mm doing worse is due to a slow rate of fire and slow speed. Ohh and btw, 30mm is perfect for killing buffs, the whole problem is to bring your BF109 close enough without beign shot down.

mx22

[Minotaur]

CavemanJ;

I understand your post and agree pretty much with what you say.  IMO it seems like the BUFF guns are noticably less effective than they were in Beta.

Pyro and HiTech have said a couple of times that no changes have been made to 50cal guns.  IMO then it has to be the planes toughness or the pattern of the BUFF guns that has changed.    

If the BUFF guns hold a less tight pattern that would reduce combined lethality on target.  This produces a "Shotgun Pattern", vice a "Point of Dedicated Kill Pattern".

So now, at any one time you are only hitting with a pair of 50's vice up to 7 of them previously.  EI:  You get more hits, but they have less effect because there is no concentration of fire power on the target.

Keep in mind that I have no evidence of this and that it is just my own personal hunch.

I remember well.  Credit where credit is do, you were almost invincable.  IMO you are probably the main reason this change was in-acted.  Lets hope HTC will see fit to possibly tweak it back the other way just a tad.  

------------------
Mino
The Wrecking Crew

[Mox]

 

Originally posted by mx22:
We do already have to fight for a kill. I can't simply fly on your 6 and shoot, more chances then not I'll be the first one to go down.
On to lethality of F4U - I think it's fine. I do die under F4U's guns a lot, but I expect nothign less from 4 20mm cannons. The reason BF109's 30mm doing worse is due to a slow rate of fire and slow speed. Ohh and btw, 30mm is perfect for killing buffs, the whole problem is to bring your BF109 close enough without beign shot down.

mx22

It's rarely a fight for me.  If the fighter pilot is smart about it, it should be a one pass kill unless your without cannons.  Most of the experienced players (with does NOT include me) will kill me in a buff in one single pass, since the guns were nerfed.  Prior to the nerf I at least had a fighting chance.

After thinking about the Hog's cannons, I seem to have more of a problem with their range as opposed to their lethality.  I agree the cannons should be VERY lethal but not at 1.4K behind my buff and kill me with 1 ping.

I also agree the 30mm is great for buff hunting BUT a F4UC could kill a buff 5 times over before a 109 ever got in range to use his 60 shells of 30mm.

Mox
The Wrecking Crew

[mx22]

 

Originally posted by Mox:
I agree the cannons should be VERY lethal but not at 1.4K behind my buff and kill me with 1 ping.

1 ping deaths might be due to the net lag or something. I yet have to see a 1 ping death or kill - even when taking hits from F4U, I'll hear 3-4 pings before loosing parts or being killed. And I'm flying Spits, which are not all that good in taking damage.

mx22

[CavemanJ]

I'd still like to see what Pryo et al have to say on this