After this many days and the only one minor change?
The problem is not only they are slow , but in the end and from what i’ve seen in 13 years i play the game they never had it for gameplay. When you see user made missions and events having more quality than what the developing company offers , something is wrong.
They are just too slow to implement solutions and if anything it’s not that they listen that much to feedback it seems.
I believe this is that they want it as an alternative/ afterthought mode, not exactly to replace the Random Battles modes.
I don’t even believe that there is a specific department around the designing of game modes and missions and it is very different thing one being good in development of models and mechanics like missiles/radars etc. and different in designing missions and gameplay.
Hell, even their balance is practically automated, being around player effectiveness (in SL nonetheless) and not really vehicle capabilities (minus some exceptions).
I wouldn’t say Gaijin is slow, they are simply unwilling to tamper with financially winning formula.
2 Likes
Both nuke carriers don’t have CCRP even tho their normal variants do, so bomb tossing isn’t as effective.
I agree with the points you make, however it would be a lie if I said I did not find this game mode fun, maybe because of it’s novelty.
However I also believe the first iteration of nuclear thunder was just as bad or worse than the current iteration, as the meta for the April Fool’s event was to multipath through map middle and taking a few head ons as you make your way towards the enemy airfield, giving you 3-5 kills and repeat until the big nuke has been unlocked, making for rather stale gameplay.
i always flew up north and around the whole air defense line and struck that way with the nukes on the F-4E, there was hardly any opposition that way
If you mix the LD-10s and YJ-91s the Su-30MKK can carry 8 ARMs, but you are down to only IR A2A missiles if you do that.
This is very noticeable with the ASM-2, it will in most cases just fly over the target, while the ASM-1 and Sea Eagle will usually strike lower on the hull.
I’m not sure it the issue may be the IR ASM seekers as the ASM-1 and Sea Eagle are ARH while the ASM-2 is IR. I do not have any other IR ASMs to test it with though.