Shouldn't be.

Open Social from the lefthand side menu > Click the Find New Friends button > then enter the Player Name in the search field.

If you use the "first search box" when you hit "Social" from the menu, it will only search your current friend list.

Devs,

I would also like take a moment and echo some of the other player’s remarks about the time and creative design that has been put into the game. What a ride so far! I’m almost certain it’s easy to feel challenged overwhelmed by feedback when a new idea rolls out for a public comment. It should also be so noted, there's a sincere appreciation for the time and effort it takes to come up with ideas from concept to game board—and always very eager to hear new ideas, thoughts and follow ups.

Some questions and thoughts about Linking:

“Territory Linking is the heart of Conquest Mode and allows for maximum contribution to a team’s claimed territory.”

• Sounds like it should be interesting and the primary way to win this mode—look forward to playing the new goals and objectives.

“Links can be formed three ways: Ship to Ship, Ship to Control Point, and Ship to Home Base…When two allies move close to one another, they will link and their Influence area will become greater.”

• Is there a standard distance when links are formed for all three link types? (Example: less than X kilometers) Aside from the “mini-map” are there any other visual ques?

“When a Control Point is captured, it will attempt to link with nearby allies.”

• Is there a standard distance when links are formed from a Control Point to nearby allies? (Example: less than X kilometers) Aside from the “mini-map” are there any other visual ques?

“Links can be severed if an enemy player (Corvettes included) intersects between the two linked points, one of the linked players dies, or a Control Point flips ownership.”

As it applies to Corvettes:

• Is there a way to re-establish a link once it’s been severed? If so what are the conditions for this to occur? (Example: Two static ships are linked at the minimum distance to connect. Corvette fly’s between the link. Link broken. Will the link re-establish at the minimum distance?)

“The grid for all games modes is an interesting idea. We'd love to hear your feedback on how it fits within Conquest and can be improved before rolling it out to other modes.”

As it applies to rolling it out to other modes:

• The current configuration of the mini-map in general is somewhat wanting (v1.11). It offers the basics of a forward looking radar (cool ) but leaves regrouping and fleet level maneuvers somewhat wanting after a respawn—and currently no way to adjust radar magnification (ie. 5km range, 10km, 15km.) Granted this does allow for some unique tactics on the opposing team but offers little to help allied players understand awareness, surroundings or calls for a regroup.

Additional thoughts:

Might be kind of fun to add two “pseudo squads” (made up of 4 players per “sub-squad”) within the 8 player teams during ship selection—or some variation. Hanger squaded players would fill one “sub-squad” while the others are randomly assigned within the subset (an 8 player “hanger unsquaded” group would populate at random.) Maybe even assign squad leaders (in sub-sqauds)—with a star icon on the HUD IFF when players mouse over their squad? Maybe, even as a separate mode? (The Comm Wheel would announce “Battle Group 2 Regroup—depending on squad) Who knows…random thoughts…lol

Example:

8 Player Team

• Squad 1: Blue (color on mini-map)


• Players 1-4 (Ex. Squaded in hanger 1-3, Random 4, etc.)


• Squad 2: Green (color on mini-map)


• Players 5-8 (Ex. Squaded in hanger 5-6, Random 7-8, etc.)

Opposing team on mini-map shows up as red.

New changes sound good. Some thoughts...

• 
  

  Overall the new update sounds good. Should be interesting and certainly a welcome boost for the new player base. Not changing research costs is welcomed—but as another commenter noted it still needs a slight increase or an adjustment to the reward formula (or event scoreing thresholds)—as hitting the wall is still a little steep. However, there maybe little now to differentiate between a t3-t4—except in speed advantage—trading health and more modules over damage—so I’m a little conflicted on this one…lol.

  
  


• 
  

  Secondary loadouts seem like a good idea. Although, part of the challenge was to outfit a fleet to have at least “some” counters to other classes. I think it will be good—but we’ll see where it turns out.

  
  

“The original idea for mines was to create a module that would restrict enemy movement. The problem with the mines up until now was, that they did not spread out far enough to fulfill that task. A minefield gave the impression of a grapevine which resulted in situations where a single Dreadnought could pass through them clearing the entire field which defeated its purpose. We did not want mines to be overcome that easily – especially if the clearing ship was not even destroyed in the process (which was often the case for Dreadnoughts). To achieve this, we made a few changes to the way mines work. They will now spread out further when being deployed. Mines will remain active longer after the ship that laid them has been destroyed and their health has been buffed, which will make them withstand a pulse, for example. Some mines now also have a higher effect and are triggered faster.”

• Theme 2 feels like a mixed bag. The overall change to Artillery Cruiser Mines—having them spread out is a welcomed addition. Although, they are already tricky to use (spread—in addition to landing in proximity distance)—activation distance may help with this. However, there’s no real “area targeting” to make an actual area denial system—other than to target a ship and launch. Perhaps with the new changes will address—sadly, I suspect it will need a true area targeting system at some point to make it more strategic in nature (certainly, a challenge for the space maps). If Mine Catapult works as intended (update 1.11) the additional changes to damage may not need to be implemented until a later update. (See Theme 3 for additional remarks)

“We also adjusted the Corvette mines that were often used like unguided bombs - which was not intended - to act more like actual mines. Another thing we changed are the mines that are planted by bombers. Of all Dreadnought modules, the bombers were your least favorite – especially when compared to fighters and interceptors. What bombers are doing is placing mines in an area of their owner’s choice and unfortunately, these mines were really not that good. Therefore we buffed these mines quite a bit and are hoping that this will increase the bombers’ popularity.”

• 
  

  Not sure if corvette mines were really an issue for most players? Certainly, it will affect the way DN Bomber Module “bombs” will deploy. Should be interesting. Although, I suspect the unintended result will be fewer creative uses for corvette mines.

  
  


• 
  

  I think the damage and debuff times are a welcomed improvment but may still need tweeking. In part due to to the fragile nature of "Fighters/Bombers/Interceptors" in general vs. experienced players—in addition to having long cooldown times. The increase in activation range for the “bombs” may “fix” some of the inherent issues—hopefully, they won't blow themselves up in the process. (See: Fighters, Bombers, Interceptors—Keeping AI intact, in Beta Feedback)

  
  

"Right now the mine catapult is so powerful, a well-placed shot can take out an entire command ship at once. We think that this is just too much. Artillery Cruisers also feature highly effective disruptor beams that enable an experienced player to cover and protect their entire team. These two modules at the Artillery Cruisers’ disposal made them into extremely versatile vehicles, that were becoming just a bit too versatile."

• Again—feels like a mixed bag. Part of the challenge was the lack of mine spread to create a “field” or “area denial”. In addition to lack of targeting options—other than guessing at it’s maximum range or targeting a ship. Mines (as of 1.10) essentially “blob” in a general location—if they are struck—the likelihood of taking all damage at once was significant. IF they have a useful spread in the new 1.11 update, the damage reduction may not be needed since the likelihood of hitting all the mines at once will be reduced.

"As a first step, we reduced the range of the disruptor beams…We will now evaluate the “Artys” and will make additional changes if necessary."

Artillery Crusier Auto Beams IV-V: Range / Move to Tactical Cruiser?

• 
  

  Range for all AC Auto Beams (in general) seems to be an issue. However, I feel this is more of a 2 part issue. Imho, 2km-1.75km "feels" appropriate—1.5km "seems" a little harsh as pulses are now 1.2km. Maybe split the difference? However, as stated it does make AC’s very difficult to approach or counter.

  
  


• 
  

  On the other hand, it seems kind of perverse to have Auto Beams on an Artillery Crusier. The module seems more appropriate on a Tactical Cruiser—as they already employ the technology into the design. I submit, it would make Tactical Cruisers more “Tactical” and provide more options other than repair support—placing a little more emphasis in those other core roles.

  
  


• 
  

  Perhaps, replacing Artillery Crusier Auto Beams with other modules—more in line with AC’s role. (Ex. maybe different types of Bomb "debuff" Catapults or Purge/Stasis/Scrambler Catapult "type" of debuffs? Maybe a Stasis or Scrambler Shot w/ blast radius? Armor Piercing Shot? Idk—ideas welcome.)

  
  

Overall, sounds like some interesting changes.

Jawayne#8001 posted (#post-205467) said:

...No clue what the current values are but at one time a single assault ship with about 5k hp gave as much score as a player kill.

If memory serves, I believe the following pertains to how Onslaught is scoreing as of 1.10.0.

(Team Score) Fighter & Assault Ship

• 1 point / Fighter


• 2 points / Assault Ship

(Individual Score) Fighter & Assault Ship

• 8 points / Fighter


• 22 points / Assault Ship

Additionally, I believe there's an "assist" scoring that is given if two players are attacking the same NPC (Fighter or Assault Ship). Not sure on the point breakdown.

War does not determine who is right... only who is left...

Keeping in mind that Dreadnoughts are Tankish--therefore not a high damage output class of ship. I think Lando offers and outlines some very good tactics for dealing with pesky Artillery Cruisers. Perhaps, the only thing I might add is remembering to Warp in with a full magazine and full energy bar--while using PtW (Power to Weapons), PtS (Power to Shields) and PtE (Power to Engines) accordingly and judiciously.

Yes, AC's seem invincible or "OP". Yes, they can get annoying. And finally, yes, a group of well-seasoned AC's working together as a team will whittle down any player (new & old) in a manner unbecoming...lol. In many ways, it's an outcast cancer stick ship class--some more than others. Frustrating, yes. I've been there. In the beginning, on principle, I avoided the AC class...lol. But again, as Lando eloquently states, "...stick with it; your experience WILL get better and you WILL have more fun the further you progress."--not to mention find tactics to counter or employ.

However, keeping in mind, that's not to say AC's don't have their weaknesses or shortcomings--built into their strengths which applies to most ship classes as well. In "sticking with it" you will come to despise and love each with their different flavors and characteristics.

To the point(s) being made...

PeaceKeeper#1936 posted (#post-205407) said:

Btw my ratio defeat/victory is 1.8, failling cause snip.
I play ALL class except snip ! I even haven't the first !

For continue my topic i will say that i see a lot of snip in MVP like 11-2 or worse !
I very would like more opinion.
At pleasure.

In general, as a T3 (Tier 3 player) the transition from Recruit to Veteran can be brutal. In Recruit matches fully researched T2's will have an advantage over newer T1's...likewise it could be said that a stock T3 will be at a disadvantage against a T4--and so on, and so forth. Resulting in a decrease in W/L ratios. Do not be discouraged. It happens. The knowledge gain from each battle won or lost will aid in spotting what tactics work--and when to use them.

There are many reasons to avoid playing certain classes--but I would also offer that by avoiding classes (snipers, in this case) there's a chance to miss out on a whole lot of fun--not to mention finding out the limitations and weaknesses of each class. In playing any ship, if there are difficulties with the ship, it's a good bet that might be one of it's weaknesses. (One example--most snipers have a fairly narrow cone arc at close range vs. long range--not to mention player focus) And there are many more.

Stick with it and keep trying new tactics. Find those blind spots and most importantly have fun.

RE: Update 1.9.5 & Balancing

With the latest release of 1.9.5 and balancing changes is there a updated spread sheet release with the numbers available? Might be helpful/useful in providing additional quantitative feedback.

Ridiculon#3900 posted (#post-123350)

The zoom level of the minimap changed in patch 1.5, it shows much less of the map now than it did previously.

Indeed. I was referring to the 1.5.0 - 1.7.0 updates. Feels like there has been a change--likely after the 1.6.0 update.

Thanks will check. But I'm reasonably certain it's not a graphics setting issue (nonvisable Tractor Beam) as some targets do not appear to be effected when this occurs.

This feels like it is more of a range issue? Where the Tractor Beam lock icon lights up on the reticle and while activating the Tractor Beam module. Resulting in a non-firing tractor beam.

Anyone else having issues with DN Tractor Beams?

Seems like the module icon on the reticle will light up indicating a lock in range but no Tractor Beam will fire or connect.

FunkyBacon#8443 posted (#post-123161)

I don't understand why you need LoS to see your team mates. The times I have flown around or respawned with no idea of where to go or where I am needed is too many to count. Especially when the game respawns you on the other side of the map behind enemy lines and no friendlies appear on the very limited range of the minimap.

I will have to agree with this sentiment and three additional thoughts on this matter...

• 
  

  This creates a situation of trying to Regroup as a team--when someone calls out to regroup...you're kinda like thinking, "No problem...but where?" The communications wheel seems less useful now for calling out a regroup.

  
  


• 
  

  Did the Radar change? I feel like we could at least see our teammates within the Medium Range circle.

  
  


• 
  

  Additionally, it seems like it takes longer for teammates to be identified as FoE even with LOS--a few seconds at least. Not sure if this is a bug.

  
  

Tyrel#8199 posted (#post-123203)

Agreed to both, it's...space ships, they should have the tech to know each-other's location (friendly-to-friendly) regardless of what's between them.

Again, not sure what's going on with the Radar UI (mini-map) or if this is a bug from the new 1.7.0 patch but it "feels" like Radar is far less useful. The first patch of the new "zoomed in" mini-map to distinguish finer detail of what was around you was bearable--but still some what useful. In it's current state, it feels like a dedicated set of eyeballs is mandatory just to use it with all the constant spinning to point the Radar. I'm sure when Vette pilots figure this out they will start to exploit this new blind spot.