Problem is, that they've delayed development on some cool features saying that they need the resources for preparing the Steam release... They've also ignored fixing matchmaking issues, saying it will automatically "fix itself" once we get a big enough playerbase from Steam. Very little has changed in the past half year, maybe even more. Everything was put aside in favor of the Steam version...

And then we get this.
Seriously, wtf?... Basic features stopped working, the Hangar UI is horrible, the sounds also got a lot worse, and no new feature or improvement came with Steam either, apart from some cosmetic items. Things are either not changed at all, or if changed, then changed for the worse. So what on Earth have they been working on all this time? My bet would be their Rainbow Six Platinum ranks...

Yeah, Team Elimination was it. That game mode had a greater tactical depth that I'm missing a lot... I hope it'll return one day, the only thing that sucked about it was the way the fighters were implemented.

Back on topic, I think all the other game modes could gain a similar tactical depth, if matches were like... 30% longer...

I've brought this up in the past already, and now that I got back to the game, I feel the same way again. Matches are just too short, making them feel less serious and also your actions as a player less relevant. A great many times there is no back-and-forth, there is no trying different tactics or anything along those lines, because the match ends abruptly, way before a team could adapt to what their opponents are doing and counter it. Mostly it's just a roflstomp, kaboom, win! Exactly NOT what I'm looking for in this game...

The only time matches reach acceptable lengths is when 2 well-working healballs end up in a standoff.

I suggest to increase match duration simply by adjusting the scoring system, and also increase match rewards accordingly, to avoid enraging the playerbase.

Matches where one team is very clearly stronger than the other will still end quickly, as they will have no issue accumulating points in rapid succession. In the meantime better balanced teams will get a more immersive and fun experience, by letting them really shell it out against one-another.

P.S.: I think a great many players that have loved and are missing the old match type (that I can't remember the name of anymore), where you had a Captain selected and had to survive as a team in multiple rounds, have loved that game mode at least partially because of this: since it was longer and had multiple rounds, you had a real chance to adapt, to turn things around, to try different approaches...
The current matches totally lack this!

DN_Svenice#5360 posted (#post-226243) said:

We're trying actively to get F&F up as soon as possible.

The team has been working weekends and up to 2AM/3AM every night. We will be working again this weekend crazy hours.

Huh, what makes this so complicated, did you have to re-write the complete back-end or the networking parts, or what's wrong with it now? I mean, you already had the game up and running for quite some time now and open for everyone, so howcome that suddenly it can't take a couple dozen people playing? What changed so much?

...sooo I guess we're not getting it this week?...


It's accustomed to these type of free-to-play multiplayer online battle arena games, to hide some of the units' stats completely, or wrap them up in meaningless values.

I have yet to understand why...

Maybe Havoc will suit your needs?... (basically proving grounds on steroids)

You'll get a week of premium account, + more if you have a founder's pack. Beside that I'm sure we get some other small feat to recognize us being early adopters, like a new ship decal or something like that.

Can't really ask for more, they have to make a living too...

I was talking about display size (physical) and PPI, so nothing is wrong there...

Sure you can virtually display more content on higher resolution, but in practice that doesn't work out well. Even Windows itself starts using upscaling by default if you connect a display that has too many pixels for its' size. Same applies to FOV, you can set it to like 180° or whatever, but stuff will be miniature.
Having pixels that display things so small that you can't actually see them isn't something I aim to have.

Also I said that if you keep the original PPI (the PPI of a 24" 1080p display (91.79), which by the way is still conisdered the default in most applications), but move up in physical display size, then your FOV will still increase.

If you take the now popular 1440p resolution:

  • on a 16:9 32" display it will be 2560x1440, with a PPI of 91.79 and a physical display area of 2822.93 cm^2

  • on a 21:9 34" display, it will be 3440x1440, with a PPI of 109.68 and a physical display area of 2656.48 cm^2

I still think that it's very misleading when people upgrade from a classic 24" to a 34" ultrawide and think 21:9 is that much superior. I think the main improvement there is the size upgrade itself.

I think less is more in this case, as switching to 16:9 / 32" / 1440p lets you keep the exact same PPI, but still have a much bigger screen area. You still get a higher FOV than what you had befure, and at the same time you don't have to face any scaling issues. Things won't become smaller because the too high PPI, and thing won't become distorted because of no 21:9 support... so even though you get a lower amount of pixels, you can utilize them a lot better. As if that wouldn't be enough, your graphics card also has an easier job with this resolution.

I still don't regret sticking with 16:9, and I'm still not convinced 21:9 is clearly superior (for my use-cases it is actually inferior). As I said I think these two will co-exist for a long time, with no clear winner. Therefore stating that 21:9 is the future and Dreadnought (and all other games) should prioritize it is... questionable at best.
I can understand why some people like and prefer 21:9, but completely disagree about its superiority.