DM poll

[JGr2/J5_Klugermann]

30

[AnPetrovich]

Closed for analysis finalisation.
Feedback is coming soon.

[AnPetrovich]

Hi guys! 
Here is some analysis of data I have collected in this topic, and data I got from an examination of the current DM.
 

At first, I would like to say thank you everyone who took part in this poll! 
At least 40 FC-users seem to be interested in this subject (unfortunately not hundreds as I would hope  but anyway a significant amount of players!). Here is a sheet with final results of your voting, guys:

Based on this data we can easily draw a chart of distribution of your perception (blue curve) and expectations (green curve) regarding the number of hits required to break a particular part of Camel's wing. I remind, that the initial question in this poll was about an outer one third part of the top right wing of the Sopwith Camel, which flies in the level flight, and get hits from the "dead six" from a close distance.

On this chart you can see how many users (vertical axis) think that a particular number of hits (horizontal axis) required for breaking the wing (all pics below are clickable):

 

 

 

After uniting some close-to-each-other answers (using the very well known formula for calculation the "weighted average") and transfering from the "amount of users" to the "distribution of probability", we can see such result:

 

Well, it looks like there are at least two noticeable groups of you (players) who have similar perceptions (how you evaluate the current DM), and at least two groups of you who have similar expectations (what you want to have eventually). I can see here that most of you think that right now only approximately five hits are enough to break the wing in this particular situation. Some of you, however, think that the number of hits is something around 15. I also see that some of you expect that this number of hits should be about 25, while others think it should be ~50.
 

This is pretty interesting data to think about, isn't it?
It becomes even more interesting after I add here the curve that mirrors how the current DM really works.

As I told you recently, I have a special dev-tool that allows me to perform thousands and thousands tests very quickly, instead of firing at an airplane in the game. Using this tool in each test I can measure the number of hits required to break a particular airframe part of the particular airplane, taking into account the direction of shooting (in 3D space) and the particular type of ammo. In the past there was an issue with this tool: the airframe was tested unloaded (meaning the zero-gravity conditions). Thus, this tool measured the number of hits taking into account only the self-strength of the airframe.
 

But here is a good news: last week I improved this tool. Now we can perform this test for the airplane in flight, at given altitude, airspeed, and G-load (in the level-turn other than 1G), while the airplane remains balanced by control surfaces. If the airplane can not be balanced at given airspeed and G-load because of the power deficiency, than we simulate a hard-break turn, meaning that the airplane reaches this G-load at this airspeed while it decelerates during the level turn.
 

Finally... Using this upgraded tool last week I got a distribution of probability of the number of hits exactly for this particular situation, I asked you in this poll. Which is: how many hits of 7.92 mm bullets fired from the "dead six" from a close distance is required to break the outer one third part of the top right wing of the Sopwith Camel, which is in the level flight? Here is a gray curve, as a result of 10'000 tests, performed for the Camel in the level flight (1G) at altitude 500 meters MSL, at 180 km/h:

This is how the current DM works.

Wow... looks like the current DM is something between what you do feel and what you do expect from the game.

It is very interesting, that most of you feel the current things differently.
Especially taking into account that everybody can perform their own tests in-game to figure out real numbers (and some of you did! - and gave the most relevant answers, by the way, as I noticed). Yes, nobody has a tool like I have, and you could not conduct thousands of tests. But at least it is possible to do a few test like this one (this is my in-game test from one of the 4.005 Betas).

Some may notice that it looks like players’ perception is based on dogfights, where G-load is a factor as no one flies at 1G in dogfight. Of course, in this situation, lesser number of hits are well expected.
 

Although, firstly, my original question in this poll was about the level flight. So, I hope answers were also about this condition, rather than about turns at high G's.
Furthermore, with the new tool it became possible to perform the test at any G-load! Thus, we can see how the distribution of probability of the number of hits changes with different G-load!

I performed the same test for the Camel, but this time not only for one particular part of the wing, but for each part of its wings (10'000 tests for each part), then I calculated the average numbers. Here are the results for any "typical" part of Camel's wings on average, depending on G-load:



 

This time on the vertical axis of this chart there are numbers of cases (tests) instead of probability.

Let's dive deeper.

Look at the amount of cases (tests) which ends with less than 10 hits required to break any “typical” part of wings. It is relatively low, even under a high G-load condition! 

For example, at 5G only in 787 out of 10'000 cases the part of the wing was broken after 5 or less hits. This is only 7.9% of all tests. Or, in other words, only in one out of ~13 cases the wing could be broken after 3-5 hits.
The same way we can figure out that at 5G only in 2'191 out of 10'000 cases the part of the wing was broken after less than 10 hits (the previous cases included). In other words there is about 22% chance of such a situation, or it is one case out of five.
 

There is also a statistics for others G's:

 

Let's repeat it again:

Only in one out of 13 cases the “typical” part of Camel's wings can be broken after 3-5 bullets hitting the SAME part of the wing (not whole wings!), fired from the "dead six", while Camel is doing a hard-break turn at 5G at 180 km/h.
 

If the G-load is less than 5 - than more bullets are required.
If one fires not exactly from the "dead six" (e.g. from the top) - than many bullets will "hit the air" and in the end more bullets are required.
If one spreads bullets over the wings rather than place them at the same part of the wing - than more bullets are required.

But somehow most of the interviewed players think that only about 5 hits are enough to break Camel’s wing in the level flight. Although it is possible only in one out of 169 situations as tests shows...

This is really, really interesting, why players feel this way, and why you guys take so rare cases as a basis for your perception and conclusions. Maybe because we only memorize the most unusual cases? Maybe because we fly virtually and pull high G on these airplanes regardless of received damages, unlike a real pilot who has a real fear? I don't have an answer.. really.

Anyway.
I have finished the investigation of "what situation really is" and "how you perceive this".
Moreover, now we have your expectations of "how it should be".

Seems like we need to change the airframe durability. Or change the DM taking into account some other factors related to the process when bullet damages a spar, to make this damage not very hard. Perhaps...

I asked about the Camel in that poll not accidentally.

As I mentioned in other topic, I have already corrected the size of spars of all our WW1 airplanes in FC (this fix is coming soon). Some of the airplanes spars have been corrected a bit, while others have been corrected significantly. The durability of Camel remains almost the same. That's why I asked about this plane. Just to be aware what to expect from your expectations. 

I performed the test for all WW1 planes to compare their durability before and after I have corrected their spars size. This test was performed before I have updated the tool, so it was done under zero-gravity conditions. But it gives quite a good understanding of airplanes durability anyway:

Any of your constructive comments and thoughts are very welcome.
I open this topic for discussion, so you can post right here.

What should we do?
"That is the question!" (c) 

[=J18=FritzGerald]

Wow! will have to take a moment to digest this all.

[No.23_Gaylion]

Does that say 110+ rounds in the same spot for the D7 and 90 for the Bristol?!

 

As a former machine gunner.... thats uhhhh....yeahhh...

 

I thought 50 was on the high side.

 

How thick is this board?

 

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, AnPetrovich said:

Any of your constructive comments and thoughts are very welcome.
I open this topic for discussion, so you can post right here.

First of all, thank you so much for doing all this and being candid in such a way! It is quiet an eye opener.

 

This in mind now, I will check how those numbers match the gameplay we have currently and get back with you then.

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

@AnPetrovich

 

Do the people whose perception closely matched the actual DM get a prize?

 

Or was our prize not needing to freak out over the DM the past couple weeks?  ?

 

Though that 100 rounds for the D7 does seem a bit...impressive.

Edited May 6, 2020 by J28w-Broccoli

[J2_Bidu]

1 hour ago, AnPetrovich said:

This is really, really interesting, why players feel this way, and why you guys take so rare cases as a basis for your perception and conclusions. Maybe because we only memorize the most unusual cases? Maybe because we fly virtually and pull high G on these airplanes regardless of received damages, unlike a real pilot who has a real fear? I don't have an answer.. really.

 

Maybe it's because for non-FFB joystick users, the joystick responds as if the pilot had infinite strength, and G's had no effect on the effort to use the control column at all.

For this very reason, on the suggestions section, I suggested a visual feedback on this. Some means of limiting the instant amount of force that can be applied could also be devised (i.e. limiting joystick input in certain circumstances).

[kendo]

Wow! Many thanks for doing this investigation. There is a lot of fascinating material there.

 

Going to let this sink in a bit (and sleep on it) before making any more comment.

 

But well done. Really ?

[JGr2/J5_Klugermann]

@US93_Talbot   I can't wait for my new DVII....you'll never shoot me down lol.  (perhaps with kryptonite rounds)

 

It was my understanding that the DR1 was not very durable.

Edited May 6, 2020 by J5_Klugermann

[No.23_Gaylion]

Them spars don't hide that noggin

[emely]

The probability of hitting a wing from the "dead six" is not so high.  And from the fact that getting into a place where there is no spar is still recorded as if they got into it - maybe this is the problem.

In this case, there may be 10,000 hits and the wing should remain intact.  In the game, it will break.

https://youtu.be/NOJzQPxvwuM

Second point: It is completely unclear where the degree of damage to the spar from one hit came from.

But all this practically does not matter, in comparison with the expected new properties of D7f and Dr1.  Previously, Dr1 had the properties of a tank during shelling, but now the D7 will be even stronger!  ;-))) This will not be a game, but a gray longing

And I also want to note this: All the data on the properties of ww1 aircraft that developers have, all this data is highly doubtful.

[J2_Bidu]

2 hours ago, AnPetrovich said:

What should we do?
"That is the question!" (c) 

 

I think you did a great job with this. It is structured and understandable. However, while you are trying to make the customer happy - a good thing all by itself - this is a case in which the customer isn't really able to express what he wants and, besides, there's lots of them with different opinions. I still think the best criteria to judge what is "right" in the game is the distribution of deaths per death type, when compared to historical reports. This is what ultimately will make the sense of "that's how it was" kick in. And I believe most people will be happy when we get there. Of course there are many factors to this, and a structured approach to address each intervening factor is needed, like you've done. I just prefer the historical "truth"  to the customer wish as a criteria, even knowing it's hard to figure that "truth" out and relate it to product features. In the mean time, we might have to accommodate... ?

[kendo]

12 minutes ago, emely said:

The probability of hitting a wing from the "dead six" is not so high.  And from the fact that getting into a place where there is no spar is still recorded as if they got into it - maybe this is the problem.

In this case, there may be 10,000 hits and the wing should remain intact.  In the game, it will break.

 

 

That's not true. Read it again.

 

2 hours ago, AnPetrovich said:

If the G-load is less than 5 - than more bullets are required.
If one fires not exactly from the "dead six" (e.g. from the top) - than many bullets will "hit the air" and in the end more bullets are required.
If one spreads bullets over the wings rather than place them at the same part of the wing - than more bullets are required.

 

 

For the purposes of the test - firing from 6 o'clock was specified. In this case spar is highly likely to be hit.

 

Situations where firing from above, or at angles is accounted for too by the sim. That is, the likelihood of 'hitting air' in this situation is accounted for.

Edited May 6, 2020 by kendo

[JG1_Butzzell]

S!

 

Many thanks.  This has been quite the investigation.

 

The 10,000 test shows that the actual  DM is  above  perception but lower than expected.

 

The adjusted spar data test show a shift towards the expected.   This is very good.

 

The original problem was  seeing a few hits in a wing cause enough damage that the wing broke. Getting 20 hits on a spar is probably a very rare event yet here we have the wings falling off.

 

Emely may have found something.

4 minutes ago, emely said:

The probability of hitting a wing from the "dead six" is not so high.  And from the fact that getting into a place where there is no spar is still recorded as if they got into it - maybe this is the problem.

 

Again, many thanks for doing all this work.

[76SQN-FatherTed]

Thanks AnPetrovich for taking the time to do this analysis.  It is interesting, and I take your point about us (as human beings, not just gamers) only remembering the "bad" outcomes.  I think that those of us who have played a lot of games get conditioned to expect a certain outcome from a certain circumstance, because that's how videogames generally work (hitpoints, health-bars and so on).  You seem to be saying that the DM uses a RNG as part of the damage calculation (as evidenced by the distribution curve), so we will get outlying results.  This, I think, is great, but people will still complain ("I only took two hits", "I shredded his wings").

 

At the top of your post you said that you were surprised how few people responded to the poll.  I'll just say what I said before - I have no clue as to the answer to the first question, so my answer would not be useful.

 

Secondly, I personally think that when you start basing outcomes on what we believe, then the sim unravels.

[emely]

9 minutes ago, kendo said:

 

That's not true. Read it again.

I doubt that you watched the video.  But however!  I thought that first write a message, and then think, this property is only mine ;-)))

[No.23_Starling]

Uh oh. The Dvii is getting Kevlar spars! The Dv though, flew her for a few hours tonight (great fun vs Camels!) and yes they do seem worse than the SE... parachute is a must.

[emely]

6 minutes ago, kendo said:

 

As I posted above, Emely is wrong!

Of course I'm wrong, and you're right!  If you shoot at the very edge of the wing, you will surely fall into its middle! ? Yes, man, you will not have any problems with the new DM, especially when flying on a D7f with spars thicker than a telegraph pole))))

[kendo]

22 minutes ago, emely said:

I doubt that you watched the video.  But however!  I thought that first write a message, and then think, this property is only mine ;-)))

 

Damn! ? 

 

Yeah, I know video.

 

Ok, both are true. Sim DM does account for 'hitting air' from above/other angles, but in a 'probabilistic' way (averaging over area), a technique which is potentially defeated by the technique in the video.

 

Question is, how likely is that technique in video to happen in a real flight when being fired at by another manoeuvring aircraft? Essentially, close to 0% probablity. In game situation their model will work. ie it will produce, on average, appropriate percent of hits on a spar to real life.

 

Question still arises though as to strength/etc modelling - ie how many hits it should take to break spar. That is where real disagreements still are possible.

 

(now...bed...really....!)

Edited May 6, 2020 by kendo

[emely]

11 minutes ago, kendo said:

 

Ok, both are true. Sim DM does account for 'hitting air' from above/other angles, but in a 'probabilistic' way (averaging over area), a technique which is potentially defeated by the technique in the video.

Probability theory is a very interesting thing)) A lot depends on the source data.  What is the likelihood that you will see a green elephant on your street tomorrow?  The answer is 50%!  50% there is a chance that you will see and 50% that you will NOT see ;-))

16 minutes ago, kendo said:

 

Question still arises though as to strength/etc modelling - ie how many hits it should take to break spar. That is where real disagreements still are possible.

This is over secret information, it is dangerous for simple virpils)))

[76SQN-FatherTed]

14 minutes ago, emely said:

Probability theory is a very interesting thing)) A lot depends on the source data.  What is the likelihood that you will see a green elephant on your street tomorrow?  The answer is 50%!  50% there is a chance that you will see and 50% that you will NOT see ;-))

This is over secret information, it is dangerous for simple virpils)))

If you see a green elephant on your street are you more or less likely to see one again the next day?

[kendo]

17 minutes ago, emely said:

Probability theory is a very interesting thing)) A lot depends on the source data.  What is the likelihood that you will see a green elephant on your street tomorrow?  The answer is 50%!  50% there is a chance that you will see and 50% that you will NOT see ;-))

This is over secret information, it is dangerous for simple virpils)))

 

I bet you $1500 I will NOT see a green elephant on my street tomorrow. ?

[emely]

11 minutes ago, kendo said:

 

I bet you $1500 I will NOT see a green elephant on my street tomorrow. ?

You can change the terms of the dispute and charge me $ 1,500 if you see such an elephant!  What is the likelihood that you tell me tomorrow, "Dude, I saw two green elephants at a nearby intersection at about noon .. Here's my account number, I'm waiting for my 3,000 bucks"?  However, I am not ready to bet on such conditions, because the likelihood of the appearance of elephants is very high :-))))

18 minutes ago, =CfC=FatherTed said:

If you see a green elephant on your street are you more or less likely to see one again the next day?

The likelihood will decrease, because it’s more and more difficult to buy good marijuana ?

Edited May 6, 2020 by emely

[J5_Gamecock]

In 21,873 days I've never seen a green elephant on my street, but there's always tomorrow.

[JG1_Vonrd]

I shee Pink elephants every day after happy hour..."hic"

[J2_Bidu]

5 minutes ago, J5_Gamecock said:

In 21,873 days I've never seen a green elephant on my street, but there's always tomorrow.

In these times of terrorism, the safest thing is always to carry a bomb when boarding an airliner. There is very little risk of having TWO bombs on the same plane.

[76SQN-FatherTed]

I see you all get probability?

[AnPetrovich]

Guys, please do not confuse the interpretation of the test results and do not make a mockery of probability theory!

 

The test condition was: "how many HITS are required", but not "how many bullets should be fired". 

We do NOT speak here about someone's aiming ability or about the probability of hitting the wing when the airplane is under atack.

 

The case when the airplane get hits from the "dead six" is quite informative. Just because almost every hit at wing from this direction leads to damage of the spar(s). This is not very accurate because there is a wings incidence angle, but this case is still pretty close to the most "worse" of situation anyway.

[HagarTheHorrible]

1). D.VII / DR1. -  Is a “box” spar as resistant to battle damage as a solid spar ?

 

2) Is a “box” spar considered solid , if the middle is not?

 

3). If a  “big” cantilever spar carries all the load does it break sooner, if damaged, than a spar that is supported by wires ?

 

4]. Is a traditional biplane wing not just like a D. VII “box” spar, except bigger and with lots more holes ?

 

5). Is a man made “box” spar, built with animal glue and subject to variations in temperature and moisture, as strong on day 30 as on day one (DR1, it appears, didn’t like service conditions). ?

 

6). Does having several bays per wing make any difference, maybe the Spad XIII, Bristol and Dolphin designers went to a lot of trouble for no gain ?

 

7). Do doubled up flying wires make any difference to damage resistance or is all wing durability tied to the spars ?

 

8). If you have shown the number of hits, dead six, needed to brake a wing spar, and  I assume always a wing spar, because from dead six you will always hit a wing spar, how many hits are required that are not dead six, either 45 deg or 90 deg that might not necessarily hit a spar. ?  ( Bristol wing will break with no additional load after approx 100 rounds, fired at 45deg at single hit box, trailing edge, damage graphics and missing wires will appear after 11 rounds)

 

9). Is a “thick” wing spar two or three times as likely to be hit, from dead six, as a spar that is much thinner ?

 

Thank you very much, AnPetrovich, for your time and detailed answer, I greatly appreciate it, even if I still have questions.

Edited May 6, 2020 by HagarTheHorrible

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

To anybody worried about the D7 wings;  I thought you guys were aiming at "meat and metal".  ?

Edited May 7, 2020 by J28w-Broccoli

[US103_Hunter]

the SPAD was known for some of the strongest wings on any traditionally build aircraft? Why is it so low on the chart? The albatross was know for weak wings, but they take more hits then the spad now?

 

The real killers of the war shot the pilot or the engine, and often both. This is how the original DM worked. Why on earth were the devs thinking that they should get away from this idea and make it a wing shooting game? Did they even take FC into account or do any testing when they created the new DM?

 

Many of us are very frustrated with what is happening to our game. The CL2 for example is designed to be a rugged ground attack aircraft and now they completely fall to pieces after a few hits.... Ridiculous.

[JGr2/J5_Baeumer]

Andy, thanks for your work on this.  However, I believe that what your data also shows is that, on average, players believe that the damage should be 4.48 TIMES harder than it is currently.  So your not really in the sweet spot at all.  It doesn't matter what our guesses at the number of bullets it takes to drop the wings in your example vs. what you KNOW the number of bullets is.....it is the ratio of the desired number of bullets to drop the plane/wing (what feels right) divided by our perception of the current number of bullets required to drop the plane/wing that provides you with the insight into how far off the community believes the DM is.

 

So whatever your settings are currently, the community desires a damage model that is 4.48x more difficult than you have currently modeled.

 

 

Desire Perception 20 15   50 5   15 5   17.5 0   45 7.5   47.5 5   40 5   50 5   47.5 7   25 0   30 8   45 8   50 5   35 10   25 7   21 10   25 8   27 7   20 5   20 20   30 15   40 15   45 5   30 5   35 7   50 5   35 5   40 5   30 0   25 15   30 10   20 15   25 10   50 1   20 15   25 5   61 7   50 5   50 20   30 0   AVG 34.4125 AVG 7.6875 RATIO 4.476423

[J5_Gamecock]

13 minutes ago, US3PG_Hunter said:

the SPAD was known for some of the strongest wings on any traditionally build aircraft? Why is it so low on the chart? The albatross was know for weak wings, but they take more hits then the spad now?

 

 This isn't entirely true. Yes the SPAD was a very sturdy aircraft and could out dive just about any aircraft, including the DVII, without losing wings. Its wings did however, have a very thin cross section compared to most other aircraft. It stands to reason that a smaller (thinner) spar would be more susceptible to damage.  As for the Alb, it didn't have weak wings in this respect, it was a design flaw. The single attachment point of the "V" strut to the lower wing allowed it to twist at high speed.... which is why it couldn't follow the SPAD in the dive.

 

 I agree with you about the CL2. It does appear to be way to fragile for what it's primary role was.

[NO.20_W_M_Thomson]

37 minutes ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

To anybody worried about the D7 wings;  I thought you guys were aiming at "meat and metal".  ?

When it comes to the J28's I'm aiming for meat and nothing but meat, J28's and RAF 20's were mortal enemies you know.

[Stumble]

I thought of it the same as @J5_Baeumer. I thought we were more looking for a ratio of how much stronger we want the DM to be. I'm not sure if I miss read it, or my own subconscious ignorance

 

I still find it so weird that some people don't feel much of a change since the new DM was introduced... where as other people now consider the game to be broken. Is it a result of different fighting styles?

[J5_Adam]

15 minutes ago, J5_Gamecock said:

 

 This isn't entirely true. Yes the SPAD was a very sturdy aircraft and could out dive just about any aircraft, including the DVII, without losing wings. Its wings did however, have a very thin cross section compared to most other aircraft. It stands to reason that a smaller (thinner) spar would be more susceptible to damage.  As for the Alb, it didn't have weak wings in this respect, it was a design flaw. The single attachment point of the "V" strut to the lower wing allowed it to twist at high speed.... which is why it couldn't follow the SPAD in the dive.

 

 I agree with you about the CL2. It does appear to be way to fragile for what it's primary role was.

 

Most WW1 aircraft on BOTH sides, other than Later Fokkers and maybe a couple others, used thin wings. 

Edited May 7, 2020 by Adam

[No.23_Triggers]

2 hours ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

To anybody worried about the D7 wings;  I thought you guys were aiming at "meat and metal".  ?

I'm actually glad that the D7's wings are going to hold better for exactly this reason. It's been frustrating to fire at something and have its wings just pop off after specifically working on my aim to kill pilots. That being said, I'd rather the other guy needed to be good enough (or even just lucky enough) to score a PK in order to bring me down in turn. 

 

7 hours ago, AnPetrovich said:

What should we do?
"That is the question!" (c) 

Firstly, thanks for continuing to keep in touch with the FC community about the DM developments! Be the responses happy or unhappy, I'm sure that everybody is equally glad to be able to communicate directly with you and know what work is being done with the DM. 

For what it's worth - I would consider "Trialling" the updated spars - that is to say, letting the community 'test' them to see how they feel when they are implemented, and being prepared to continue communicating with and receiving feedback from the community. From there, it's all down to how the devs feel, in regards to their historical research VS the 'in-game experience'. 

It may be the case that, despite how the chart appears, the DM with the new Spars will feel great, and everybody will carry on as normal! But, it could also be the case that the community thinks more work should be done - that, of course, is ultimately up to you - but I'd give the community the chance to 'test' the DM with the new spars and report back 

I also would like to point out, unless I have misread, that Mr. Petrovich has mentioned that the overall durability (not just the SPARS) of WW1 aircraft is being considered as well. It's possible (and I suspect it may be the case) that the current DM perceptions come from a combination of spar damage mixed with other non-spar damage. If this is the case, we may yet see WW1 aircraft being very tough until the spars have been hit. 

In any case, I very much hope that @AnPetrovich can keep working alongside the Flying Circus community to reach a happy conclusion, and thank him for taking the effort to begin doing so! 

 

Edited May 7, 2020 by US93_Larner

[J5_Gamecock]

Just now, Adam said:

 

Most WW1 aircraft on BOTH sides, other than Later Fokkers and maybe a couple others, used thin wings. 

 

 True. Still, the SPAD wing was thinner than that of most of its time. Its strength came from being made from many smaller cells of thinner materials.  It was very strong in a dive. 

 

  Charles D'Olive was quoted as saying he knew a pilot that got credit for knocking down two DVII's without firing a shot. They followed him in a dive, and when he pulled up they both lost their wings trying to follow.

 

  I still believe that the thinner materials would be more susceptible to damage.

 

  

 

 

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

1 hour ago, Stumble said:

I still find it so weird that some people don't feel much of a change since the new DM was introduced... where as other people now consider the game to be broken. Is it a result of different fighting styles?

 

Some people rarely need to use more than one burst to down a plane (even before the patch), while others twist and turn with enemies regularly.

 

So yes I think fighting style may make a difference.