Reaper Zwei wrote:I agree with Gorton. Why is it bad that you can micro a bomber but not a tank or a lab?
Because making a tank or bot dodge around to avoid shots is intuitive and makes sense. You can try to argue that having a bomber hover in place and drop bombs continuously is intuitive and makes sense, but you aren't fooling anybody.
Reaper Zwei wrote: errorblankfield wrote:It's a dumb mechanic -no questioning that.
Ok just because you think so doesn't mean a majority thinks so.
Same to you. Do a poll then. Because I
highly doubt a majority of players would vote that it is a not a dumb mechanic.
Reaper Zwei wrote:It improves gameplay. Without it I doubt first bomber would be even worth it.
Just saying it improves gameplay doesn't make it so. How, exactly, does it improve gameplay? Because it makes bomber first more powerful? How does that improve gameplay?
Gorton wrote:
Tell me how it differs from other micro?
(I give you hint, it doesn't)
Here's a hint - the unit's AI has it fly directly over a target as it fires its weapon, whereas a gunship, for example, has it move in some direction while rotating to stay pointed at the target and a tank's has it stand still or move in any direction as its turret rotates to aim.
The way the unit is meant to work is quite clear.
I'm not arguing that it is not a legitimate tactic, since it
is part of the game, but I find all of these justifications pretty laughable.