Bomber balance

[McNeo]

I think people here have had a bit more exposure to the high maneuverability bombers than the low ones. The problem herein lies with the high maneuverability bombers, to which there is no counter, not the low maneuverability bombers.

Also, bomber pilots gain most of their skill from piloting fighters. Myself, I have 9 fighters and 3 bombers currently, none of which I intend to name.

Those who say "You're only in a bomber because you'll win in one as its OP" can face my Titan in a relatively slow bomber (Praetorian, Rheinland, Barghest, Challenger). Then we can reverse it, and see the results. The outcome of a bomber vs fighter battle is based almost solely on the skill of the fighter pilot relative to that of the bomber pilot. A major factor in the skill level against bomber's is how patient you wish to be. A fighter pilot who can make decisions fast and who can analyse the -really basic- flight style of a bomber pilot can beat him easily. I can't stress enough that piloting a bomber stems from fighter experience, either.

This is aimed at single eared dude specifically: A good bomber pilot will take out an average or bad fighter pilot, and your notion of making it possible for a decrease in the skill factor in the outcome of a battle between these two classes of ship seems like a disturbing notion. What is the point of getting good in a class of ship, if all that is going to happen is that it's going to be nerfed? Does that give me any point to train hard to become better, when all my time is going to have been made worthless? Maybe you think it's unfair that some people know how to fly bombers, but knowledge is power. You want to take away that power, you must take the knowledge, which is not very possible. I don't see your logic at all and it makes me wonder if more of the server carry that view, what is the point in practice?:(