Thargoid War Feedback

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
"Eliminate" thargoid mission often does not count

Thargoid conflict zones glitch
  • Severe lag
    • Sometimes freeze, and for a moment later receives conflict zone announcement again
      • One time the game freezes several times and crashed eventually
  • Instance meter glitch
    • Nothing spawns and the instance meter is still unfinished, and new meter does not show up
      • Sometimes interceptors still spawns from time to time, that keeps players in the conflict zone and unwilling to jump out to reset
      • 20230204183425_1.jpg
    • Gets no interceptors but scouts only
      • Oftentimes ends up as the last situation and unable to proceed to hydra phase
    • Hydra meter does not update
    • Hydras were downed and the meter shows 0%, but the conflict zone does not refresh
    • Hydras were downed and the meter shows 0%, along with a new conflict zone meter
  • Mesh glitch
    • Thargoids stuck in the structure mesh, sometimes unreachable due to collision
    • 20230203141109_1.jpg
    • Interceptors float below the ground, and return after a moment
    • Ghost caustic cloud, ships will always get caustic once they are launched even if there were no caustic missile nearby, or sometimes the ship will get stubborn caustic where nothing was around in 3km radius.
  • Behavior glitch
    • Interceptors sometimes have burst move speed and quickly move to another location
    • Energy surge takes place way after the alert
      • Sometimes the interceptor emit the surge after it start attacking
    • (Not a glitch really) Please disable consecutive shut-downs, experienced 3 shutdown fields with a few seconds interval. Not much ship can avoid that unless communicated.

System jump from/to thargoid invasion systems are glitchy
  • Often times jump would end up coming back to the system
  • Sometimes the jump last for over 30 seconds
 

Attachments

  • 20230204133350_1.jpg
    20230204133350_1.jpg
    1.4 MB · Views: 81
Mod hat on

Once again, this is not a discussion thread. Let's keep the thread to feedback only please.
My intention was to provide feedback from the peaceful side of the aisle, as this thread was feedback on the war.
Not everbody is invested into the Thargoid conflict, for a variety of reasons
Apologies for the miscommunication. o7
 

Ozric

Volunteer Moderator
My intention was to provide feedback from the peaceful side of the aisle, as this thread was feedback on the war.
Not everbody is invested into the Thargoid conflict, for a variety of reasons
Apologies for the miscommunication. o7
Your initial feedback is still there.

Your conversation with someone else debating the lore of the Thargoids, isn't.
 
I have one more suggestion to add, one that goes all the way back to when the Thargoids were introduced:
Make the Type 10 a more viable combat ship (AX or Standard Combat) by DevMagically increasing it's pitch rate to match the Federal Corvette, or possibly being even better. This ship is nearly as expensive to equip as a Cutter and is the worst of the big four in all combat. It's built off of the Type 9, which also has a horrible pitch rate/maneuverability.. until you put the landing gear down. Then that ship is super agile to line up on the landing pad, especially compared to the Imperial Cutter. So with the Type-10, keep it slow, but say they tweaked the thrusters to give it more maneuverability to keep it's weapons on target.

Just a thought. I just wasted two days making another AX one (first one was back when they were introduced) and watch it fail horribly again. Some of the problems were due to just incredibly bad luck in my first test run, but... this ship needs some love. This is the ONLY ship that I've had take damage from ships after a HyperInterdiction, even though I boosted away immediately at top speed. Not even my rescue Anaconda had this problem.

I love the look of this ship, the idea of what it should be able to do (at it running incredibly cold), and yet it is an unmitigated disaster in anything other than an AFK farming build. Please, please, fix this ship! The Cutter might also have a horrible pitch rate, but it is super fast and can be made into a super shield tank (I've never bothered to go that far with mine). This ship is good for nothing.

Perhaps if you had allowed human AX weapons to no longer have a limit, without needing a stabiliser, it might have made a good turret boat... no, probably not even then.

Currently, the Type 10 is a bigger lemon than a 1982 Ford Escort... and anyone who ever had to deal with one of those knows exactly how bad that is. Argh!
Sorry to make a separate followup post, but I was afraid you already read the quoted one above and editing it to add more info wouldn't do any good.

I'm recommending that you do something - preferably increase maneuverability (pitch rate better than Corvette) in both normal space and super cruise. It needs both because as it currently stands, it's as bad as the Cutter in maneuverability while not having anywhere near as good weapon placement (most of the weapons are on the front and limited in field of fire vs Cutter's hardpoints), shield strength multiplier (you can get stronger results on Anaconda for a less credits/power draw with a lower class shield). As for the supercruise maneuverability... why not throw it a bone there? You can explain that way lore wise as this is an Alliance ship and Bill Turner is the one that reverse engineered the Thargoid drives to give us the modern FSD drive, so he did something special for this alliance ship.

There is Dev precedent for improving ships - the Type 9 got an extra size 8 slot and suddenly became a really great freighter to use again, giving the Cutter competition; Cutter if you want to carry a little less but be safe (speed/shields/and weapons), Type 9 if you want haul more and take a risk. I think you buffed/fixed the Beluga, but I don't recall the details on that. It's one of the few ships I don't own or fly. Lore wise, if you actually want to make a Galnet article out of it, you can say the original flaws in the design were fixed by Bill Turner and others in the Alliance.

This isn't like the argument a lot of us had years ago about wanting a buff to the Corvette to make it have more hardpoints than the Anaconda since it the former is a dedicated warship and the latter is... well, it's just great at everything. No, in this case the Type 10 is so bad people only fly it because:
  1. They just love the design.
  2. They want to use some trick build (a 9 torpedo layout to instakill NPC Corvettes in assassination missions)
  3. They want to build an AFK farming ship.
With six of the nine hardpoints facing forward, with no real arc for turret use, it really needs to be able to turn quickly to face it's target. The hard point convergence is also really bad for the four large points, necessitating gimballed weapons, but now that you've added Gimballed AX Multicannons, at least that part is somewhat fixed.

Bottom line: the Type 10 is a neat looking ship that isn't useful in the game; there is always a better ship to use for any purpose one might want to use it for (save for possible AFK mat farming). If you don't buff it, we'll all survive. However, it is grating that there is a big ship there crying out to be used, and yet one would be better served buying an Anaconda, Corvette, or Cutter depending on what you want to do. The Type 10 can't outperform any of them (save for remaining cool during fuel scooping, which is neat, but not that big a deal).

Here is the new build I made for a Type 10 to do AX combat, followed by it's replacement, a retooled Anaconda I had in storage. The Anaconda performs better in every way and with less expensive components.

Type 10 AX build
Anaconda AX build

Please note, I wasn't trying to build on of these crazy six Salvation Plasma Charger or Shard Cannon builds to instakill a Cyclops. I'm trying to build a decent ship to effectively wipe out scouts while also being able to fight Cyclops, and possibly Basilisk, Interceptors. The Type 10 was a total disaster - taking damage in multiple hyperdictions/interdictions and being destroyed very quickly in the first surface AX battle it was used in. Meanwhile the Anaconda plowed through every scout it found and had little trouble dealing with the Cyclops interceptors when they showed up; it would have had even less trouble if I'd had my SLF pilot on board. He was on board the Type 10, and that's the first time I've had to do the rebuy for my Elite SLF pilot.

So I humbly suggest you buff the Type 10 to make it combat worthy. Adding more military compartments or something similar will only make it a more expensive lemon. It should be slow, but maneuverable, and possibly have a better (but probably not as good as the Cutter) shield multiplier. Until then, the player base will probably continue to ignore this ship - the very first AX ship introduced - because it is a lemon.

Thanks for your time.
 
I am not sure that the level of involvement that has occurred in the period since the War first started is going to continue for ever - I think that there are many like me who have not played their Alt out exploring in the Black since it statrted, but that will not continue for ever, which will cause the involvement in the War to get less over time.
 
Hopefully as a place for more of a reminder, this thread is the least wrong:

At least our visibility of Control progress, if not our actual Control progress, became broken just as we were ramping up eviction efforts. It occurred mid-cycle, and has now remained broken for a week. If anything, my feedback here is that we are in dire need of at least an updated statement regarding that issue (tracker entry) or ideally to have Control progress working normally for the next cycle.

If the real progress is still actually working, I would like to note that the severity of losing the Galaxy map progress report would be much lower given some of my earlier suggestions; in particular, adding a Chat panel message and a Journal entry:

To expand also upon the notion of organising collective efforts, a very welcome addition would be Journal reports regarding the War system states. Perhaps initially, if jumping to a system could report its War state with all the same information as shown for it on the Galaxy map, that alone would confer a massive functionality benefit.

Victory announcement​

It would be lovely if Commanders received some form of message when they are in a system which reaches completion, and also when they jump into a system which has been completed.
Some obvious extensions of these are:
  • A chat panel message with the present completion percentage could appear upon every arrival.
 
Why do we get a (locked) thread telling us progress will no longer be reset each week when we currently can't register any progress in control systems? Surely an update on that issue should come first (the issue tracker entry doesn't even have the green acknowledgement tick).
 
I have distilled the problem with unpopulated alert systems down to one simple picture:
Screenshot_0433.png


If thargoid vessels are present in this system, where are they? As per the war panel instructions, there are no other actions that can be done to help this system.
(I kept the FSS open for 20 minutes, no signals appeared.)
 
Last edited:
This is something of an updated overview given some of the recent changes, some time to watch activity in response, and some fixed problems which seem to have gone unacknowledged!

1. Wednesdays​

The change so that system progress drops one-third of the total requirement was incredibly positive for activity! Obviously we have had only one cycle boundary since then, so it behoves one to watch at least one more cycle for unexpected side-effects or quirky behaviour. Otherwise, it has solved the problem of many Commanders withdrawing their time investment on Wednesday, and some disregarding the remaining cycle time even as early as Monday.

Any such change will attract comments paraphrased with "too easy now", however these are always the product of inability to separate mechanism from magnitude. For example, if ten systems are completed per cycle and that mechanism change also happens to increase the number to eleven, and the extra system is deemed a problem, you have an independent magnitude adjustment you can use to compensate while retaining the new mechanism. Too few understand this!

The one-third choice is high enough that almost all systems will be back at zero as before, and also low enough that there will be a few systems which have already met 33% in a cycle and therefore have nothing more to lose by continuing to invest there on Wednesday—which is exactly what Commanders noticed immediately and how they acted immediately. Last cycle, the system Cephei Sector YZ-Y b4 would have been a close battle at best due to the arbitrary activity decay, but instead it completed at a perfectly normal rate! After that, I saw the previously-unthinkable; Commanders continued nearby to spend the last seven hours defending Muncheim, exactly because it was already above 33%.

Assuming that Frontier is applying the strict design idea that Commanders must congregate to complete a system, we can see that this design definitely is retained, while also un-weirding those evenings towards the end of a cycle. Thank you all most kindly for this!

2. Control report​

I noticed very quickly this cycle that Col 285 Sector TS-Z b14-0 was showing visible progress, so I think this can be considered working now!

3. Control requirement​

Based on those watching the specific numbers in Control systems more closely than I am, these appear to require something like five times the amount of activity now as compares to a couple of cycles ago (last cycle having no displayed progress, of course). I will avoid comment regarding whether the actual amount is intended, however I will note that it is so far above the effort needed for a Invasion system that combat Commanders have adjusted to ignore Control and stay with Invasion.

As long as that disproportion exists, I believe not a single Control system will be considered for full investment until all Invasion systems are complete, which at present is never. Note that Commanders are very astutely valuing both as "one system", such that any major difference in activity requirement will demote the higher entirely behind the lower.

4. Alerts in empty systems​

Despite the Galaxy map listing an action for stopping these, and displaying their measure of being stopped, there is all but no way to do so. The only action possible is to destroy Thargoid craft, yet none attack us and there are no non-human signal sources. Indeed, as far as I can imagine, the only actual means of encountering a Thargoid at all is to attempt a jump to a nearby Control system and await Hyperspace destabilisation as a means of summoning a Thargoid into the empty Alert system.

Combined with the overwhelming activity required to complete one Control system as noted above, at present there is in effect no means to stop a Thargoid advance through any amount of unpopulated space in any direction, regardless of how many Commanders congregate to do that.

5. Muncheim​

As you have noticed, the Muncheim system actually did not drop by 33% at all, instead remaining at 52% as it was at the end of the last cycle. If that was by design then this is a little quirky but generally fine, because it emphasises further to Commanders the advantage of organising and completing a system together.

Probably it was not intended, though. Such is not a major problem directly, however mostly as a courtesy note, I imagine it will be best if Frontier is at least able to locate/understand the cause before any more consequential effects occur. Insofar as all other systems did drop progress, including Desurinbin as the only system which dropped to something non-zero (4%), I imagine it could have something to do with the amount/rate of activity present in Muncheim.

6. Wing invites​

For quite a while, attempting to send a Wing invite to a local Commander would break the Comms panel generally, such that we had to send a Friend request first (either from History or from Social) then use the Friends list to establish a Wing. After witnessing another Commander send me a Wing invite directly, I tried it later from the Local list, which worked fine. Thank you for fixing this!

7. System AX forces chatter​

Despite the announcement that the ceaseless noise in Local chat had been reduced, their worthless messages continue as frequently as ever. Any given zone really needs a strict minimum time between possible messages regardless of the number of system AX forces present. Secondarily, it would be lovely if the messages were also at least correct, such as not claiming that everything is too quiet when there obviously are Interceptors attacking the port.

8. Murder definition​

At present, if a Beam Laser grazes some system AX forces starship for a moment then said starship explodes later, this incurs a Murder bounty and Notoriety. Obviously this then prevents the Commander from accessing port services (missions, restock, repair). This is not to say that there should be no Murder bounty consequences necessarily, however at present this can occur without so much as a Reckless Weapons Discharge fine (for damage while targeting something else). Speaking of which, there is also a case for allowing a fine to be cleared at an attacked port.

For the moment, I suggest leaving an Assault bounty as it is now, and that a Murder bounty occurring as above should require at least a prior Reckless Weapons Discharge. There is a case for requiring more strongly that a prior Assault occurred, but I suggest only to waive the negligible damage for now in the interest of keeping changes minimal.

I imagine I need to note in advance that this has nothing to do with calls for Report Crimes to be disabled automatically, which is a related but ultimately different matter. Commanders have always been required to check their targets and practise trigger discipline, hence suggesting for now only that Thargoids cannot effect negligible damage maturing into a Murder bounty.
 
One more item which I had at the back of the mind earlier, then got distracted by friends inviting me to hunt Thargoids, during which I was reminded of it:

Zone reset​

The Thargoid war definitely is exposing the lack of an explicit means to drop into a fresh zone, referring both to AX Conflict Zones and to attacked ports, the latter being the same as a High intensity zone with a port present. There are many different reasons for doing so:
  • Commanders remaining present at the end of a conflict for a rest, for chat, and for managing their missions.
  • Connection problems with other Commanders in an ongoing conflict.
  • Any problem such as zone progress freezing, Interceptors getting stuck underground, or Interceptors failing to arrive.
  • Simply wanting to start a Conflict Zone from the beginning.
Regardless of reason, at present we have the following means:
  • Using Solo or Private Group.
  • Blocking a present Commander temporarily then dropping again (or exit and continue).
There may be other means, but my point here is that obtaining a fresh zone is not the primary purpose of any such procedure, just merely a side-effect. Solo or Private Group should be used because one wants to fight solo or as a specific group, not just because one wants a fresh zone. Blocking a Commander should be used because said Commander is being a nuisance, not just because one wants a fresh zone.

One way I imagine it working is with an option which affects your next drop, similar to the way Nav-lock is enabled. When activated, either just once or thereafter until deactivated, the next drop to normal flight surely would then be a fresh zone. If there is a need to minimise the impact elsewhere, it would be absolutely fine if such an option worked only for AX Conflict Zones (including attacked ports), although I argue that the above workarounds still exist and therefore there is still a case for a fresh-zone-drop option for Commanders to use properly rather than resorting to those workarounds.
 
One way I imagine it working is with an option which affects your next drop, similar to the way Nav-lock is enabled. When activated, either just once or thereafter until deactivated, the next drop to normal flight surely would then be a fresh zone. If there is a need to minimise the impact elsewhere, it would be absolutely fine if such an option worked only for AX Conflict Zones (including attacked ports), although I argue that the above workarounds still exist and therefore there is still a case for a fresh-zone-drop option for Commanders to use properly rather than resorting to those workarounds.
Disagree with the need for this - it would just be adding more workarounds to the existing ones instead of addressing the root problems, which are mainly the scenario progress getting stuck or not restarting when complete.
It would also be exploitable; players in open should not have fine-grained control over who they instance with since that's specifically what the other play options are meant for.
 
It would also be exploitable; players in open should not have fine-grained control over who they instance with since that's specifically what the other play options are meant for.

But what is the Block feature, if not exactly a means of controlling with whom one connects? The intention in this case is to start a zone anew, in Open with uncontrolled access for anyone else to drop there, without excluding anyone by name as Commanders are doing at the moment. If anything, I would then support (for examples):
  • Everyone being aware that a new zone was created explicitly.
  • Low-wake drops being more likely to join that new zone.
  • A way for anyone to join that new zone explicitly.
I think that would help to keep hands away from the Block feature, and ultimately increase encounters in Open! Again, it is fine if limited to AX Conflict Zones, or conceptually for conflicts with only one side to join. It is also fine (and perhaps necessary!) to limit how many zones can be started that way.

That said—

it would just be adding more workarounds to the existing ones instead of addressing the root problems, which are mainly the scenario progress getting stuck or not restarting when complete.

That is quite true; I listed scenario problems among the possible demands, and working towards removing that source of demand would both account for a lot and also provide a much better experience.
 
Couple of notes

7. System AX forces chatter​

Despite the announcement that the ceaseless noise in Local chat had been reduced, their worthless messages continue as frequently as ever. Any given zone really needs a strict minimum time between possible messages regardless of the number of system AX forces present. Secondarily, it would be lovely if the messages were also at least correct, such as not claiming that everything is too quiet when there obviously are Interceptors attacking the port.
Oh my god, this. So much this. I can't communicate effectively with other CMDRs in system without typing in all-caps and just hoping they glance at their coms window in the few seconds before my message is buried by AX pilots claiming everything is quiet while they're actively getting dribbled like a basketball by a Hydra.

NPC chatter generally makes the game feel more "lived in," but there really needs to be an option to filter it in the chat window. Give us the option to remove every bit of NPC chatter that isn't directly aimed at us (like a pirate demanding we drop cargo, or a system security ship announcing a scan). I don't need to hear AX pilots complaining about how crazy thargoid ships are up close while I'm in the middle of a dogfight.

8. Murder definition​

At present, if a Beam Laser grazes some system AX forces starship for a moment then said starship explodes later, this incurs a Murder bounty and Notoriety. Obviously this then prevents the Commander from accessing port services (missions, restock, repair). This is not to say that there should be no Murder bounty consequences necessarily, however at present this can occur without so much as a Reckless Weapons Discharge fine (for damage while targeting something else). Speaking of which, there is also a case for allowing a fine to be cleared at an attacked port.

For the moment, I suggest leaving an Assault bounty as it is now, and that a Murder bounty occurring as above should require at least a prior Reckless Weapons Discharge. There is a case for requiring more strongly that a prior Assault occurred, but I suggest only to waive the negligible damage for now in the interest of keeping changes minimal.

I imagine I need to note in advance that this has nothing to do with calls for Report Crimes to be disabled automatically, which is a related but ultimately different matter. Commanders have always been required to check their targets and practise trigger discipline, hence suggesting for now only that Thargoids cannot effect negligible damage maturing into a Murder bounty.

There's actually a simpler fix (or at least workaround) for this: leave administrative contacts active in ports under thargoid attack. Its very silly to need to fly to the nearest Interstellar Factors facility in the middle of a pitched battle because I incurred a fee for grazing someone with a beam laser. Just let me pay the fee right there in the port, like I would in any other system.


Also, there really, REALLY needs to be a way to remotely destroy or deactivate ship launched fighters so you can land. Its never been an issue before, because we've never really had a situation where combat is happening near a port, but it's a significant problem if your multicrew SLF pilot is being stupid. I have had to actually track my own fighter down to kill it because the CMDR wasn't watching their chat box. That's silly. I suggest one of the following fixes:
  1. Make it so that requesting docking and/or dropping your landing gear destroys all deployed fighters, much like jumping to supercruise does.
  2. Give us a "destroy deployed fighters" option in the "Ship" control panel. You could even have a confirmation timer like the self destruct and reboot/repair functions do.
  3. Make it so deactivating your fighter bay module destroys any fighters you have deployed. I'd even be ok with making it so damage to the fighter bay would sever the connection to your fighters. That would be an acceptable tradeoff.
  4. Make it so changing your multicrew permissions to disallow fighters destroys any fighters currently piloted by multicrew pilots
  5. Give us a "remote destruct" command option accessible through the "Role" panel, letting up pop a specific fighter if need be.
  6. Let me get out of my seat, walk over to the multicrew pilot in question, and pimpslap the crap out of them until they get the message.
Seriously, the solution for getting rid of a deployed fighter can't be to just track them down and kill them when I need to panic-land.
 
Hi Bruce,

Thank you for asking. No, I am not enjoying the recent Thargoid content, and have no motivation to take part.

I have never wanted to put much time in to Thargoid ship combat and recent events have not changed that. I guess I don't think the threat to the populated bubble feels real, or I know that others will take of it.

I'm quite disappointed that all the new content seems to be Thargoid-conflict related. I had really been enjoying the Odyssey engineering journey, particularly the stealth and puzzle elements that you can engage with when deciding on how to approach the looting of a settlement. I was hoping that these post-Odyssey updates would contain on-foot content. Fingers crossed for the next two.

Going back to your questions, I am optimistic for humanity's chances... I mean, what are you going to do? Destroy the bubble? I think not.
 
For me there was too much Thargoid stuff already. I want base game to be feature complete before taking story further. Add all promised planet types to be landable. Add gas/water giants to be visitable. Add more SRV types. Add ship interiors, ship boarding. Add comets, asteroids. Add more station interiors not just concourses. Add interiors and humans to legacy surface settlements. Add ability to leave ship in orbit and salvage missions in zero G etc.
Story advance should be secondary part of any update. Why Odyssey does not have updates like 1.1 - 3.7. These were always bringing new features to the core game (beside story advancement). The post Odyssey updates only brings a story which feels like replacement for the real feature updates... Only texts and tables and repurposing of old assets, almost no real new features and assets, no new ships/SRVs/SLFs/carriers (beside lonely Scorpion). No real new weapons (only reconfigured old ones)... Maybe more upilotable, NPC ship types? IDK but this is not what I was waiting for. Post 2.0 updates were coming in glacial paste but it still brought a lot to the game. Feels like 4.0 made it even worse...
Its even clear in versioning method. Where is 4.1 after year and a half? Its not even on the horizon...
 
Last edited:
Recovering from bugged instances should happen automatically with a time based reset or something.

Last night in Cao Tzu i had 3 different instances bugged in the same way: both Hydra completion bars were filled, but the instance was stuck and nothing happened
I had to block a commander from each instance and relog to be able to eventually get an instance with working AX CZ progress bar

Also, there should be some sort of instance affinity, especially in the case of having your ship destroyed.
It happened to me twice already to have my ship destroyed and after rebuy to find myself in a completely different instance.
 
Last night in Cao Tzu i had 3 different instances bugged in the same way: both Hydra completion bars were filled, but the instance was stuck and nothing happened
The bars for hydras aren't completion bars, they start off full and reduce as the hydras lose hearts. Someone probably kited them away.
 
The bars for hydras aren't completion bars, they start off full and reduce as the hydras lose hearts. Someone probably kited them away.

Nope, both dead with the help of yours truly, instance never completed, hydra bars were left on* clearly hinting that both hydras were killed but the instance didnt complete and no completion bonus was awarded.
Then i tried to switch instance and 2 other instances were in the exact state, refusing to complete.
Cmdrs and NPC were idling with no enemies to fight with in all 3 instances


*(pale white as it happens when a hydra is destroyed as opposed to bright white when no damage was dealt to hydras)
 
Still issue doing AX combat zones (on Linux though, however I tried everything I could imagine about reconfiguring in system).
Each wave of thargs spam message in chat "welcome commander, join to fight" (that one with join button). I can't say for sure but I think it happens more often if I'm less then 10 kms to cz target marker.
Each one except 1st freeze the game for 20 seconds about. It can be 2-3 of them overlapped at once (each adds - up time), fps drops to 0 during that, cpu / gpu usage is about 10%. It ends up always the same - Mauve Adder - tried private group and solo, opened tcp/udp on router for 5111, set it in game fixed local IP of computer.
So - all new things are not playable for me yet.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom