cool stuff for summer, really, but before that, can we PLEASE have our soundmods back? how long has it been since we were properly able to use it, 4-5 months?
1 Like
No free planes will be given hopefully, having a infinite amount of randos and cheaters just freely access the mode is bad, the current iteration is open enough and there were plenty of players anyway.
Unique planes and mechanics (suoersonic heavy bombers, ECM, cruise missles, cluster bombs) will be introduced with time, this isn’t fortnite that new additions are basically skins, such mechanics and veichles require a lot of work and we will see them in the future.
Gbu 53 fix when? Also can i jave the object 279
The balancing not only to retain old timers, but I still feel that the economy is another huge step to help retain new players.
I love reading that new modes and missions are being developed for the game.
Regarding Nuclear Escalation:
Asymmetrical missions:
I prefer them to be asymmetrical. Personally, I lean towards a realistic and semi-historical approach rather than a free-for-all. Sometimes reality just isn't balanced.
Air defences:
I personally do think Soviet AA is much more powerful than NATO's. Maybe toning them down a bit is a good plan. Though definitely not too much—it adds difficulty and at least poses a challenge. For my part, even if they stay as they are, it's perfectly fine.
Economy:
It is true that some players will rack up tons of points in every match and will likely earn a lot as a result. But for the rest of us mere mortals who don't get as many tickets, it sometimes feels like the mode doesn't properly reward the effort of a 1-hour match.
If this is done intentionally to keep regular game modes for grinding and this one as a hobby with some rewards, that's fine.
However, if the plan is to make this mode permanent in the future, a bit more reward for destroying AI objectives would be highly appreciated.
For example:
Boost for destroying 5 objectives
Boost for 10 objectives
Boost for 15 objectives
Also, destroying certain ships feels heavily undervalued.
My personal opinion:
I think people are being very critical, which is fine, but this is a new mode under development. We should encourage them to keep going. I absolutely love and am passionate about Nuclear Escalation, and I hope it becomes permanent. I’m looking forward to seeing new permanent game modes for planes, tanks, helicopters…
Being able to complete alternative objectives on a massive map where you actually have to think about your approach strategy beforehand is fascinating.
Keep it up!
My main feedback/request would to bring back the free vehicles. Looking at it in the way of teamwork it might help with the dynamic of the game mode. When they announced that NE was coming back my friends were very excited to play it again, but they do not have any jets and were disappointed of no free vehicles as they souly used the free vehicles provided in the first iteration.
They dont need to be competitive but I would imagine a jet that would be able to keep up in the br range of the game mode.
While this publication shows more dedication for this gameplay loop then it has been shown for the rest of the game in a long time, I’m still exceptical about the results of this and if it will be actually implemented in a way that correctly balances the game (after the last patches I will only believe in a balanced game once I see it).
Apart from this there’s still some things that should be done to improve this mode, and one of the most important and easiest to do is to revise the threat bubbles of the enemy AA and how they overlapse. Currently there’s difficultly any point in the map wher you can engage a threat (another airborne or earth-based) without being engaged by multiple AA platforms, being the worst offenders the long range platforms that engage aircraft even as long as taking off the runways, and making the saturation attacks not only almost the only option but also diminishing the quantity of paths this threats can take since you can’t hardly launch ARMs at high speed and altitude, and also damaging the effectivity of NATO A-G munitions against armoured targets since this munitions normally require a greater top-down angle due to their decreased lethality when compared with soviet A-G munitions (for whichever reason).
TLDR: I will believe that this mode is being “cared for” once I see it, and one of the best ways to do this would be to re-evaluate the AA role in this mode, and enhancing the definition of different areas where either ground threats, or air threats are the primary threat, reducing the areas where both have the same importance only to key areas on the map.
I await more information on this with a mix of anticipation and apprehension. “Historical” set ups in WT have been very difficult to balance in the past. It’s commendable that you guys are trying again, though. Hopefully with new ideas it’ll work out this time.
Historical Ground Battles gives us some free vehicles. Does Atomic Thunder also offer free planes, or is it still providing specific aircraft like it did originally?
I see your point, but I would disagree. If someone really wants to enter the mode, he could just buy a top tier premium. If they are willing to spend money for a cheating tool, this wouldn’t stop them.
Also my idea ist mostly combined with the point, that the nations you can choose are limited by the scenario. So if you for example get a pacific scenario you could use russia, china, japan and USA. BNut if you didn’t have a nation in this BR, you still could play or you could just also join the other side if you desire without the need of grinding for like forever. Also if there are some more specialized scenarios like a “naval invasion”, so one side only gets carrier based planes while you don’t have any, you could acess it.
But I see a point in low level players joining hig and top tier, so there could be some restriction that you need to grind at least one nation up to this BR.
In the long run, this mode will not be viable because Gaijin’s management simply has a different vision for it than the community.
I read your post with mixed feelings; while some points sound very promising,
others are rather concerning.
In fact, those concerning aspects are precisely the reason why I moved away from this mode.
That being said, I have not yet lost hope and would wish,
for this mode to become successful and reputable with the right adjustments.
Those look like pipe dreams and more in line with limited time events than with a full game mode.
What’s the point of restricting nations to match the historical context if that context is never balanced … at that point, you need to balance the numbers or systems, and at that point, other nations are too much?
You can do a limited time game mode about mig21 vs. phantoms. After 3 days, it gets boring and unbalanced.
Nuclear thunder should stay RED vs. BLUE and with our own jets, and it wil stay like that for the forseeable future.
It was pretty fun and much more organic than ARB. In ARB, you just go YOLO and try to do something in the 5 min of the match.
In NT, you can do what you want for how long you want.
Apart from BUK being too strong and SAMPT being slaughtered by KH31, the mode is pretty good.
If you want AA to be just targets, if you want to run around unopposed, if you want to get altitude without doing DEAD or defeating AA missles, then it’s not the mode for you.
I played the russians and it was kinda boring, dodging BUKs and slaughtering the whole battery with GBU39 was much better, especially the need to defend myself by planes, using agm88 on tunguskas, it was such a better exoerience than shooting fish in barrel in GRB or YOLOONG without a care un ARB.
Pure PVP wil lalways be on ARB, not in NT.
Apart from the buk the other AA are not a problem
Where are the sound mod
He didn’t say this was the first time they tested it, genius. Obviously having a live server with a big population of players is going to give you a lot more information than internal play testing. Equally obviously, given that there have been recent changes to the mode, they needed to play it again.
The willingness of WT players to misinterpret in bad faith everything Gaijin says will never cease to amaze me.
2 Likes
Read the OP and you will find out.
I appreciate you taking the time to post this, Bvv_D. That being said, while I have not been able to play the current iteration due to not having top tier jets, I can call upon my experience with the Nuclear Thunder April Fools event.
If the goal is a game mode to be “more than PvP,” then the PvE objectives need to be actually practical to deal with. During Nuclear Thunder, they were not, and based on this, they aren’t really changing much. Thus everyone simply avoids the SAM areas entirely and the mode just devolves into yet another PvP mode.
Furthermore, not allowing people the use of the tactical nukes which we had during the original event, removing the ability to spawn the superbombers with their electronic countermeasures modeled, and removing the bomber-derived win condition all gutted the entire point of the game mode in addition to the seeming refusal to lobotomize the SPAAGs, IFVs, and SAMs.
What this mode needs is win conditions that depend ONLY on the PvE part, not the PvP one. PvP can exist and should exist, but it in and of itself should intentionally NOT be able to win the game at all, just like real life air combat not being able to win real battles that ultimately demand one side or the other occupy the dirt under the airspace. It needs lobotomized AI that are no more competent than average players using the same systems. ARMs need to unequivocably work vs the SAMs they are designed to kill with zero chance of the SAMs intercepting them. SPAAGs and especially IFVs should not be able to reliably hit supersonic jets.
One of the best changes was removing the free aircraft i hope theyre never added back because they ruined the whole balamcing of the game mode initially and are why aircraft like the f4s and mig29 (r73) could dominate in headons so easily
1 Like