Monetised frustration.
1 Like
EA-18Gs would be so cool.
These two are what I’m most interested in so far:
Long term I am interested in naval vessels.
PLEASE make it so AI requires active radar locks to use SACLOS missiles, and launch ARH missiles.
7 Likes
1 Like
also one more
PLEASE BAN 13.0 HELI FROM HELI PVE AFTER THIS HELI NUCLEAR ESCALATION EXIST. This should be the gamemode fully suited for major FnF helis rather than shooting JAGM or CM502KG at recoilless gunners if devs are still lazy implementing challenging objectives and ground vehicles plus BR bracket separation for them.
technically this is already ingame with the MFDs on jets like the gripen and (i think) the rafale
however im not too sure on the accuracy of the threat range displays
Will we see pure red vs blue matches. Like no more nations fighting itself? Russia and China vs NATO?
I strongly agree with this sentiment, but I do have to point out one very clear area where a nerf to a specific air defense system (the Buk-M3) needs to occur, and one thing that MUST be modelled for the future health of the mode and quite frankly this game in general.
As it stands, the lock range for the 9M317MH missile the Buk-M3 fires is an absurd 70km with a seeker activation range of 40km. This is absolutely insane. Its a large missile sure, but I can’t see 70km lock range against a fighter being in any way realistic, and this has the (extremely annoying) effect of making every buk-m3 launch trip RWR as a missile lock immediately (so the missile lock siren blares non-stop until the missile passes by you), and also makes it nearly impossible to defeat the missile early, as terrain masking is irrelevant since the missile is tracking you on its own basically from the moment its launched and lofts above terrain. The SAMP/T for compairison has a lock range of 16km…
If for some reason, 70km lock range for the 9M317MH is historical, I guess thats that, but if there arent actually any documents saying the missiles onboard seeker has a lock range of 70km (I havent found any), then this needs to be brought more in line with reality as soon as possible.
The second point in which an adjustment is due is not for air defense specifically, but for munitions. Munition RCS appears to simply be much too high in-game, and possibly even standardized across munitions (havent verified this yet), this leads to multiple negative effects;
- Mass radar clutter (I should not be able to see every single munition in the air at all times across the entire map with an airborne radar
- “Iron dome meta” (jets just intercepting eachothers munitions until someone runs out and dies)
- Unrealistic munition interception characteristics by ground based air defense (smaller munitions should be harder to pick up on radar and therefore harder for air defense to properly intercept. At the moment, all that matters is speed of the munition and quantity fired)
Theres some more I want to say about the mode, particularly in its current iteration, but overall I love the mode, I think theres a ton of potential and WT is finally moving in the right direction, but balance issues in this iteration of Nuclear Thunder are clear and need to be addressed. I’ll have a more complete write-up at a later date though :)
14 Likes
What? . . . you mean this part?? . . .
“P.S. I’ll be honest right away, I won’t be able to constantly monitor this topic and read all the comments, much less reply to them, but our CM team will be monitoring and collecting valuable information and feedback, which we will then analyse and possibly adjust our plans. Therefore, I ask once again to be constructive and stay on topic.”
I guess it is not strictly concerning “top tier”
but everything else in the post is . . . and I asked the question because of that.
And yes . . . I read the title . . . lol
I was just curious, not everyone that plays WT foams at the mouth over top tier,
or nukes or BVR or guided/automated weaponry . . . it’s not a “sin” . . .lol
. . . that’s all . . . it’s a legitimate question(prolly won’t get any answer, but . . )
1 Like
Why did you remove CCRP from the nuke carriers? Do you think tossing the bombs is too easy?
1 Like
What are ya gonna do about the current state of the grind. With premium time and vehicles it takes months just to get a vehicle or two (at brs higher than 6.7) and it’s not just me, it’s many others. I’ve talked to a few people and they (and I) wish that the grind was like the lower tiers in the sense that the vehicle that you just got would be spaded before/when you get the next vehicle.
When will we be getting the older anti rad missiles as the the shrike and starm with the air craft that can use them. Plus the ones for other nations.
1 Like
now with the BUK nerf my only complaint is that the AI 2S6 tunguskas dont have their search radars on so it makes it hard to be aware of them and to fire missiles at them since most ARMs dont cover J band for their tracking radars
The biggest issue is AA intercepting your munitions. When it takes all 4 of your ARMs to take out one AA system, only to then die and lose 15k SL there is no point to doing SEAD
1 Like
Asymmetry is ok, and encouraged. But currently the game mode is not asymmetric. It’s just imbalanced. The difference in AA have already been somewhat addressed. The issue is the Redfor has incredibly more effective means to deal with AA and players at the same time. A suggestion would be asymmetric battle ratings to force certain vehicles out? Although it would not work in the long run.
I love the idea of helicopters in this mode. Especially if the economy is adjusted (buffed), it could effectively be the best to use their full potential and grind out modules
Only if there was an ARM carrier with more than 4 that we could take into this gamemode
Vulcan confirmed
4 Likes
Wait what? You developed mode, which is around what half year, and only weeks ago you tested? WhAT?
3 Likes
This is great news and im glad to hear it, especially for the other new game modes. Thank you for actively trying to make the game better Gaijin.