Since the kits were redone, lots of fun kits were added, such as Valkrye and Nurse. However, since then, a very integral kit was removed from the game: Bomber. Bomber helped add chaos to a game that's typically a quick and easy rush towards the core, mine it, and done. Occasionally there's skybridges and enderpearls and changes to gameplay (whether it be by kit or by map), but overall the gameplay for DTC is straightforward. Having DTC brought a sense of chaos to the map, whether it be for good or for evil. Having a player rush into your base and blow up your fortress makes it more exciting (albeit angering) to play the game, and allows for more variance in gameplay. For example, on the map Spaaaace, a strategy I've been using recently is building a fortress around the core to prevent people from enderpearling or gliding to the core. Usually this stops most of my enemies, however a few make it in. Those few are easily taken out by shooting them. However, if Bomber was a kit, the game could become exponentially more exciting, by adding the possibility of allowing that fortress to be blown up, and a ton of intruders to quickly ransack your core. Another point is that recently, some maps can last up to 15-25 minutes games (especially with gold cores coming in as late as 25 minutes). Adding a bomber kit can speed up the game, by blowing up an enemy's bridge or a crucial path to the core as your team mines it and takes the win. However, I will admit that bomber does have it's faults. It can be used to blow up spawns, or make a player angry that their work was all for naught because a single bomber came in and ruined things. However, some maps already have TNT under their spawns (see Autumn), and spawn trapping is already bannable. Perhaps a good way to work around this is by having bedrock 2-3 blocks below spawn, to ensure players don't fall into the void. Other arguments I've seen for not bringing back Bomber include phrases like "It's really annoying". Personally, I believe Bomber is actually one of the best kits because of this. Being able to break up your enemy's gameplay and force them to rethink their strategy makes the game have actual variance, as opposed to the simple guard->rush->break method I talked about earlier. I've also heard the argument that having Bomber shifts the goal of the game from destroying the core to blowing up as much shit as possible, and dealing the most amount of damage to the opposing team. I believe that that factor comes down to how many players are in the game. If the game is a 1v1, then it can be hard to play against a bomber, assuming all they want to do is kill you. However, if you play the game with 6 players (how it's meant to be played), then at least 2 of those players will want to break the core. In the end, I think it comes down to how overpowered Bomber kit is. Pre-kit change, Bomber was pretty OP. They had chainmail armor, Speed 2, and 4 TNT/Torches to light. This made it ridiculously easy to rush to the player's side (especially on runner maps), blow up something important, then kill yourself to get more TNT. If Bomber were to return, I believe they should be given weaker armor (leather), but keep the Speed 2 and 4 TNT. In addition to this, Bomber should receive a very weak sword and bow, as their kit is not combat based. Perhaps a wooden sword (with Knockback?), and a bow with only 16 arrows could work. This way, the kit doesn't last as long as it did Pre-kit changes, and makes people less frustrated at trying to kill a bomber before they blow up something important.