Thargoid invasion - Next target systems?

[Ned Flandalorian]

Doesn't matter much for invasions no, but the hint about distance combined with control systems on the outer edges getting additional scenarios and "shoot where they are going, not where they are" - seems to be pointing us towards concentrating on containing/retreating the thargoids, starting from the outer edges and working in rather than just defending the inhabited systems (which then get reattacked in a few weeks time because nothing around them has changed).

These are pretty much the same reasons why I've decided to concentrate on Col 285 Sector PM-B b14-5 for this cycle; it's an uninhabited control system a decent distance away from the maelstrom (26.05LYs) with the potential to throw alerts in the direction of several reasonably sized human systems. If it gets eliminated those systems will be safe (for now) as there are no other control systems within 10LYs.

 

[Phill P]

Doesn't matter much for invasions no, but the hint about distance combined with control systems on the outer edges getting additional scenarios and "shoot where they are going, not where they are" - seems to be pointing us towards concentrating on containing/retreating the thargoids, starting from the outer edges and working in rather than just defending the inhabited systems (which then get reattacked in a few weeks time because nothing around them has changed).

These are pretty much the same reasons why I've decided to concentrate on Col 285 Sector PM-B b14-5 for this cycle; it's an uninhabited control system a decent distance away from the maelstrom (26.05LYs) with the potential to throw alerts in the direction of several reasonably sized human systems. If it gets eliminated those systems will be safe (for now) as there are no other control systems within 10LYs.

It makes sense yes. Retaking controlled systems in the areas near recovered/defended systems or just booting the Goids out of the uninhabited ones there would seem the most logical way to prevent reinvasions. Good luck with the target.

 

[Aleks Zuno]

Indeed, HIP 20019 has one of the best Thursday openings thus far! Many systems returning from the previous cycle, some in their first Invasion week, and Desurinbin joins the fight!

Top targets at 00:50 27th January 3309:
HIP 20019 Invasion + 3 ports – 48%
Col 285 Sector JW-M c7-18 Control (empty) – 10%
HIP 23716 Invasion + 3 ports – 8%
Jeng Invasion + 1 port – 8%
Benanekpeno Invasion + 2 ports – 6%

From the live stream today, sounds like Aleks' job is about to get easier.

To revisit this a bit after having watched it (video):

• The main feature for Monday sounded to be the built-in top five progress list per system type, for which Derin stated the exact motivation I have been using from the start (Commander efforts are votes), and which would be much like the snippets I have been presenting from the start. We will have to see at that time, though short of having a full list available it sounded perfect. I imagine the full list actually shortening, given more Commanders choosing a top-five system rather than an arbitrary system.
• Without specifics, Derin also acknowledged the feedback regarding the reset, future changes to which could ease the overwhelming importance of having to check and support the top systems. Arthur echoed the word agency there, which I and others have been citing every time when discussing it. If Frontier can remove that Thursday-morning barrier, I imagine I might perform far fewer full checks and focus more on having my fun with announcing victories.

I will need to check it again on the weekend and note a few key points. Just in case I forget later, I think the relevant conversation started from around 50 minutes.

Sounds like you might have to start including each system's distance from the maelstrom so people have a rough idea of the difficulty involved.

Maybe! It sounded to me that Derin mentioned that almost in response to you and others having tested it. I am a bit concerned about packing too much confusion into one line though, and based on how Commanders react to it I think that details such as the attacked/damaged port types come ahead of the Maelstrom distance, at least for Invasion systems of course. We have INTRA watching those in the background now, so ultimately if that produces an additional pertinent information snippet for Invasion systems then I imagine the equivalent for Control could be the distance—if you conclude it to have a worthwhile effect, of course.

Note that Derin also mentioned Conflict Zones for Control systems on the Maelstrom periphery, the presence of which could affect ease much more strongly that anything to be gained by observing the distance.

I've decided to concentrate on Col 285 Sector PM-B b14-5 for this cycle

Is that for more testing, or for an eviction attempt? I would like to label it in the former case, or perhaps join it in the latter case.

 

[Ned Flandalorian]

Is that for more testing, or for an eviction attempt? I would like to label it in the former case, or perhaps join it in the latter case.

This week is an actual eviction attempt chosen to protect inhabited systems. I've had enough data gathering for a while and have switched to just killing whatever shows up. I don't imagine being able to clear it myself but will hopefully make enough progress to get some attention when people start looking for targets later in the week.

(For difficulty reference: the first pip took me about two hours fighting solo. A team of people, divided between fighting a medusa and taking down the scouts in the same instance should be able to score 120 points per 15 mins, with each progress pip being worth ~190 points.)

 

[Ian Doncaster]

It doesn't seem to make a lot of difference that we have noticed in Invasion systems

From the overall stats I've gathered on invasion systems, that doesn't surprise me.

Pretty much all invasion fights lately have been in the 20-30 LY range, and last week I think all but two of the invasions receiving serious effort fell within the narrow 24-27 LY range. There's certainly a pattern of "easier when further out appearing" on the aggregated data, but it's limited.

I'd say - all else equal - a system at 20 LY is probably about twice as difficult as a system at 30 LY for invasions [1]. But with so many other factors involved on how fast a system progresses - even the exact same system can have 2x changes in recorded effort / pip from week to week due to incomplete recording or changes in effectiveness of action - picking that up is going to be difficult on a system-by-system basis.

If that sort of pattern continues and we get to the point where we can - e.g. - hit a 20 LY system and a 40 LY system in the same week, then I think it'd get a lot more obvious.

[1] This seems to closely match up with the tests done in uninhabited control systems over that range, and the simplest option would be for the same distance-difficulty curve to apply to all system types.

 

[Weps]

I imagine the full list actually shortening, given more Commanders choosing a top-five system rather than an arbitrary system.

That was also my understanding, that the UI coming on Monday will list (somehwere) the top 5 systems for each state (Alert, Invasion, Control) in terms of progress. And once a system is completed (ticks into the next stage), the list will be automatically updated and the 6th ranked system will be bumped into the top 5.

PS: I haven't read the whole report from Operation Ida, sorry my lazyness... but does anyone know if they tested with deliveries carried out throughout the whole 4 week Recovery period?

I'm asking because a point made by Derin is that with the Monday update, we will also get a new mechanic to power up settlements, and this will affect what he called an "increase buffer for the progress done on the Recovery state". And then he goes on to mention that there will be a change to the UI system so that in the week when the actual tick takes place, the progress is displayed as 100% rather than the remaining percentage.

Which makes me think? Is this actually the way it works already, but the UI simply does not display it? As in, do deliveries actually do help with the recovery, but the UI simply keeps displaying 13.44 hours per chevron, but it could actually tick a week earlier, if people would deliver the (minimum required) quantities required for it to do so?

 

[BDelacroix]

That was also my understanding, that the UI coming on Monday will list (somehwere) the top 5 systems for each state (Alert, Invasion, Control) in terms of progress. And once a system is completed (ticks into the next stage), the list will be automatically updated and the 6th ranked system will be bumped into the top 5.

PS: I haven't read the whole report from Operation Ida, sorry my lazyness... but does anyone know if they tested with deliveries carried out throughout the whole 4 week Recovery period?

I'm asking because a point made by Derin is that with the Monday update, we will also get a new mechanic to power up settlements, and this will affect what he called an "increase buffer for the progress done on the Recovery state". And then he goes on to mention that there will be a change to the UI system so that in the week when the actual tick takes place, the progress is displayed as 100% rather than the remaining percentage.

Which makes me think? Is this actually the way it works already, but the UI simply does not display it? As in, do deliveries actually do help with the recovery, but the UI simply keeps displaying 13.44 hours per chevron, but it could actually tick a week earlier, if people would deliver the (minimum required) quantities required for it to do so?

Ah right, changes coming for recovery state in that we can accelerate them. Don't recall if that's a monday thing or an update 15 thing off hand.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

And then he goes on to mention that there will be a change to the UI system so that in the week when the actual tick takes place, the progress is displayed as 100% rather than the remaining percentage.

That may just be to match how 1-week recoveries (from invasions defeated in their first week) currently display - they start off at 100% on Thursday morning, because obviously there's nothing that can possibly be done to make them faster than 1 week.

 

[zimms]

Ah right, changes coming for recovery state in that we can accelerate them. Don't recall if that's a monday thing or an update 15 thing off hand.

I think all the new features mentioned were U15 things. 14.02 will be more of a bug fix patch.

 

[BDelacroix]

I think all the new features mentioned were U15 things. 14.02 will be more of a bug fix patch.

Maybe, but my notes have these before "now they are talking about U15". Also, Arf mentions "and this is just an interim patch, not an update" referring again to the list of features. We'll see.

 

[Weps]

Maybe, but my notes have these before "now they are talking about U15". Also, Arf mentions "and this is just an interim patch, not an update" referring again to the list of features. We'll see.

Yes, exactly. He also says "this is the stuff we're putting out in January".

I take that as a confirmation this is coming next week... I hope not to be proven wrong....

 

[Phill P]

From the overall stats I've gathered on invasion systems, that doesn't surprise me.

Pretty much all invasion fights lately have been in the 20-30 LY range, and last week I think all but two of the invasions receiving serious effort fell within the narrow 24-27 LY range. There's certainly a pattern of "easier when further out appearing" on the aggregated data, but it's limited.

I'd say - all else equal - a system at 20 LY is probably about twice as difficult as a system at 30 LY for invasions [1].

Hmm, this is the thing, I am not sure all things are equal. There may be a sliding scale of difficulty but it's different for each system type, or something, it's only an assumption that it's the same across the board. Even though we have for the first time cleared a system in a day(!) it seemed to take the same effort to move the bar, as far as we could tell.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Hmm, this is the thing, I am not sure all things are equal. There may be a sliding scale of difficulty but it's different for each system type. Even though we have for the first time cleared a system in a day(!) it seemed to take the same effort to move the bar, as far as we could tell.

There's an interesting experiment possible this week - Dao Tzu is the furthest-ever (seriously-contested) invasion at 36.64LY and HIP 23716 is back for another go at 18.43 LY.

On the crude FSDJump measure, HIP 23716 looks like it'll complete after roughly 1000 while Dao Tzu will be under 300 (comparable to HIP 20019 which took 290) - both in the "normal" sort of range for an invasion with stations left at that sort of distance from the centre.

On the data coming through on DCoH+Inara, on the other hand, Dao Tzu has more recorded actions in most categories than HIP 23716 has (though fewer rescues)

It's an interesting discrepancy between the two measurement types. My expectation would be that for busy systems, both will obviously underestimate but more CMDRs are likely to be running an EDDN feed than a full Inara sync or DCoH feed, though that doesn't necessarily make the EDDN feed intrinsically more accurate.

 

[Aleks Zuno]

Victory in HIP 20019! Eviction activity is very strong about M. Hadad with efforts to stop the advance both below and above, and Benanekpeno has an Invasion surge. Many existing Invasion systems have returned, and we have some familiar sequels—Ebisu from week 3, and Huile from week 5. Canaharvas joins the fight!

Top targets at 18:50 27th January 3309:
Col 285 Sector JW-M c7-18 Control (empty) – 42%
Benanekpeno Invasion + 2 ports – 22%
HIP 23716 Invasion + 3 ports – 16%
Jeng Invasion + 1 port – 16%
Col 285 Sector PM-B b14-5 Control (empty) – 8%
Dao Tzu Invasion + 1 port – 8%
Elboongzi Invasion + 3 ports – 8%

---

To explore including a little extra information, I am considering something such as this, if it would not be too cluttered:

Jeng Invasion 16% • Oya 23 Ly, 1 port, attack at 1587 Ls outpost, damage at 2194 Ls outpost
Col 285 Sector PM-B b14-5 Control 8% • Hadad 26 Ly, empty

The word order for Invasion ports can look a bit strange, though should make more sense when one reads "attack" and "damage" as nouns and the distance as an adjective ("fly to a 1587 Ls outpost", as opposed to "fly 1587 Ls to an outpost"). The purpose is so that multiple attacks/damages can be written more concisely.

PS: I haven't read the whole report from Operation Ida, sorry my lazyness... but does anyone know if they tested with deliveries carried out throughout the whole 4 week Recovery period?
I'm asking because a point made by Derin is that with the Monday update, we will also get a new mechanic to power up settlements, and this will affect what he called an "increase buffer for the progress done on the Recovery state".

That part puzzled me, for Derin did not explain why in the Galaxy would we want to accelerate the Recovery. I love the idea of helping the settlements, but instead I imagine it should be a case of fortifying them with weapons for shooting Thargoids out of orbit, or at least anything which does not involve helping them to put a populated system back into Alert!

 

[Cori]

Victory in HIP 20019! Eviction activity is very strong about M. Hadad with efforts to stop the advance both below and above, and Benanekpeno has an Invasion surge. Many existing Invasion systems have returned, and we have some familiar sequels—Ebisu from week 3, and Huile from week 5. Canaharvas joins the fight!

Top targets at 18:50 27th January 3309:
Col 285 Sector JW-M c7-18 Control (empty) – 42%
Benanekpeno Invasion + 2 ports – 22%
HIP 23716 Invasion + 3 ports – 16%
Jeng Invasion + 1 port – 16%
Col 285 Sector PM-B b14-5 Control (empty) – 8%
Dao Tzu Invasion + 1 port – 8%
Elboongzi Invasion + 3 ports – 8%

---

To explore including a little extra information, I am considering something such as this, if it would not be too cluttered:

Jeng Invasion 16% • Oya 23 Ly, 1 port, attack at 1587 Ls outpost, damage at 2194 Ls outpost
Col 285 Sector PM-B b14-5 Control 8% • Hadad 26 Ly, empty

The word order for Invasion ports can look a bit strange, though should make more sense when one reads "attack" and "damage" as nouns and the distance as an adjective ("fly to a 1587 Ls outpost", as opposed to "fly 1587 Ls to an outpost"). The purpose is so that multiple attacks/damages can be written more concisely.




That part puzzled me, for Derin did not explain why in the Galaxy would we want to accelerate the Recovery. I love the idea of helping the settlements, but instead I imagine it should be a case of fortifying them with weapons for shooting Thargoids out of orbit, or at least anything which does not involve helping them to put a populated system back into Alert!

Shorten it even more: use and like the map!

More seriously, one thing I wondered about was perhaps including which Maelstrom each target was attached to.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

That part puzzled me, for Derin did not explain why in the Galaxy would we want to accelerate the Recovery. I love the idea of helping the settlements, but instead I imagine it should be a case of fortifying them with weapons for shooting Thargoids out of orbit, or at least anything which does not involve helping them to put a populated system back into Alert!

Any system they re-do an Alert on is a new system they haven't hit instead. I can certainly think of theoretical situations - all requiring the "new Alerts" / "systems won" numbers to be rather closer together! - where a strategy of spinning out the cycle on some systems as long as possible, and keeping others as short as possible, could be used to keep the Thargoids out of a particular area.

Or, more simply, it might be a system with some sort of unique station service (rares, engineers, etc.) - where if we did fail to stop them at the Alert stage, keeping the recovery as short as possible would be very beneficial.

 

[Phill P]

There's an interesting experiment possible this week - Dao Tzu is the furthest-ever (seriously-contested) invasion at 36.64LY and HIP 23716 is back for another go at 18.43 LY.

On the crude FSDJump measure, HIP 23716 looks like it'll complete after roughly 1000 while Dao Tzu will be under 300 (comparable to HIP 20019 which took 290) - both in the "normal" sort of range for an invasion with stations left at that sort of distance from the centre.

On the data coming through on DCoH+Inara, on the other hand, Dao Tzu has more recorded actions in most categories than HIP 23716 has (though fewer rescues)

It's an interesting discrepancy between the two measurement types. My expectation would be that for busy systems, both will obviously underestimate but more CMDRs are likely to be running an EDDN feed than a full Inara sync or DCoH feed, though that doesn't necessarily make the EDDN feed intrinsically more accurate.

Dao Tzu has a large Coriolis, a bit closer than Wakata Station in HIP 23716, but only has that one station where HIP 23716 has a large Coriolis, 2 Outposts and 2 Ground Ports all in various states, so there is a wider variety of jobs to do. I find it helpful to keep separate in my mind the effort to move a progress bar (which seems consistent) and the actual number of jobs needed to achieve that level of effort, because in every way that matters they are not the same thing. An outpost that restricts ship use to medium will take more actual jobs. It's more jumps as well yes but this is a minor concern to us, who jump all day while others park and fight.

HIP 23716 also has Ida there right now so I'd logically expect that to be cleared next.

 

[Leadfoot]

HIP 23716 Invasion + 3 ports – 16%

I thought we cleared that once already. Oh well, Wakata Forever...Again!

 

[Kayvan]

I thought we cleared that once already. Oh well, Wakata Forever...Again!

Currently Wakata is clear, while a nearby ground base is under attack.

The system and esp Wakata has a high symbolic value for us, ofc -- the first battle that we won, the first system we managed to kick the goids out. ^^

What's annoying about that region is that everything is Brazilian League, so if you incur a fine or bounty you can't repair anywhere in a large radius. Yesterday I got a measly 100cr fine for reckless weapon discharge - and 1 notoriety! So no clearing the fine for 2h.

 

[Aleks Zuno]

Giving it a try with a "bit" more information; I am quite sure that it will become known soon enough whether it is now too busy/cluttered. Knowing the Maelstrom and distance is intended for Commanders with limited travel options, and of course the distance has some correlation with difficulty. Active port total for Invasions still gives a measure of whether it can be postponed for a cycle, and I have added specific distances and port types for attacked and damaged ports, as a response to the occasion question about that here as well as many similar questions elsewhere.

The port statuses are on an automatic collection, so it will be as well to treat them cautiously at first. Consider me very much in the market for learning how best to make the forum editor produce better formatting.

Top targets at 02:10 28th January 3309:
Col 285 Sector JW-M c7-18 Control 70% — Hadad 23 Ly, empty
HIP 23716 Invasion 34% — Taranis 18 Ly, 3 ports, 2354 Ls planet + 3044 Ls outpost attack, 2351 Ls outpost + 3051 Ls planet damage
Benanekpeno Invasion 30% — Oya 27 Ly, 2 ports, 128 Ls planet attack, 291 Ls outpost damage
Jeng Invasion 18% — Oya 23 Ly, 1 port, 1587 Ls outpost attack, 2194 Ls outpost damage
Dao Tzu Invasion 16% — Leigong 36 Ly, 1 port, 1369 Ls starport attack
Elboongzi Invasion 12% — Oya 27 Ly, 3 ports, 907 Ls outpost attack
Garongxians Invasion 10% — Leigong 28 Ly, 4 ports, 5890 Ls planet + 5991 Ls planet attack, 6148 Ls outpost damage
Aowicha Invasion 8% — Oya 23 Ly, 2 ports, 1765 Ls planet attack, 1760 Ls planet damage
Col 285 Sector PM-B b14-5 Control 8% — Hadad 26 Ly, empty