Posted 07 May 2013 - 10:43 AM
You realize this was likely an art department change and not a game design/feature change - which is a different group right?
Look their life cycle has a pretty obvious (to anyone who worked in software dev, I guess) sequence.
Introduction --> Analysis --> Review --> Internal test --> Drop hints/info externally --> review feedback (If bad, go back to review) --> Finalize testing --> Deployment --> return to Introduction. (You're introducing a new patch/change).
Many of these items occur on different cycles:
So while missiles recently got hotfixed, they are currently on 'analysis'. Meanwhile the MGs, flamers, etc are on "Review feedback". Moreover, different groups (Art, Development, Design, etc) all operate with their OWN cycles. This means minor changes to the overall flow of their process. However, the end result is the same. Of all the groups at PGI it's pretty obvious Art has the fastest turnaround. So is it really that hard to believe that a minor change of putting in a model for airstrikes would occur before game balance changes?
Moreover, if you look at dev statements they specifically said they thought about adding more damage/upping it for airstrikes/artillery but are analyzing the data. However they'd be amenable to more damage for airstrikes if you could shoot the airplane out of the sky. I recall seeing that on one of the ask the devs.
Before you can do that, you need an airplane.
If you'd prefer I'm sure they'd love to package up months worth of fixes and drop them every 6 months instead like certain companies do that start with a B and end with 'ard'.