Any chance on balancing the hostile rep a bit. I understand that getting back from hostile takes a bit more work than getting hostile but I've been doing missions and trades for the last 2 months just to get on the good side of the feds again but still hostile. Still having fun but I must say it's getting less by the day.
Patch Notes Update Update 1.1.05 incoming (19.02.15)
- Thread starter Edward Lewis
- Start date
- Status
Dammit! That's going to shake things up for me.
AI Interdictions have gotten really crazy in the last week or two and I'm still trying to figure out why FD would make these changes or is it a bug. I would create a ticket but what would be the point as I have a few tickets open since early January and they haven't even been looked at.
It seems like you can't go anywhere without being interdicted at least once, twice, sometimes more in a single trip.
You can be cruising along happily singing to yourself with nothing showing on the radar when all of a sudden BHAM you are being interdicted. Where did it come from ?
This seems to be in solo and open. Anyone else notice this ?
It seems like you can't go anywhere without being interdicted at least once, twice, sometimes more in a single trip.
You can be cruising along happily singing to yourself with nothing showing on the radar when all of a sudden BHAM you are being interdicted. Where did it come from ?
This seems to be in solo and open. Anyone else notice this ?
Last edited:
That doesn't help when you run it with the sound switched off like I do !
It's very much tied to System "Security Level".
For example, I took 7 supercruise trips last night, of 7.5 minutes each, with the throttle at the very bottom of the blue zone. Flying a hauler, neutral reputation, cargo hold full of 16t of shiny, valuable cargo. I was not interdicted even once. That was in a High Security Communist system.
Contrast that to a test in the same ship, same cargo, same duration flights. In just 4 flights, I was interdicted 8 times. That was in a Low Security Anarchy system.
Apparently, the ship you fly can make a difference. The reputation you have with local factions can make a difference.
But... "all else being equal"... "High Security" seems to be safer than "Medium Security"... and don't think of using the words "Anarchy" and "safe" in the same sentence.
![[VR] Frank_G](https://d2aefvhu2f0gi9.cloudfront.net/data/avatars/m/59/59394.jpg?1553527111){kind=avatar}
Thank you for the nice set of bugfixes and for keeping up the pace to get things done solid. You people are doing an awesome job at FD!
Upon arriving at a new system I always check for company. While exploring, scanning, refueling those pesky pirates are a nuisance, so I evade them by dropping out of SC while safe. That gives me time to look at the system map without being jumped. I wouldn't mind the occasional fight, but on exploration missions there's nothing to be gained from it, and every bit of damage prevented counts.
Thank you for the discovery analyzer! It helps keeping track of changes since we still don't have a history log to look up visited systems.
Thank you for the discovery analyzer! It helps keeping track of changes since we still don't have a history log to look up visited systems.
Well for sure; FD needs to keep their fingers on manually placing stations where they are appropriate. With all the player 'meta-gaming' activities occuring, FD has to stay flexible on the station locations. (sorry <ninja'd>.)
Also with 'meta-gaming', besides the obvious threat to trader routes; FD's manual placement of Stations allows them to control/limit? player developed empires. Something I'm sure they want to do and something I believe we want also...
Last edited:
Pot calling kettle black.
It's very much tied to System "Security Level".
For example, I took 7 supercruise trips last night, of 7.5 minutes each, with the throttle at the very bottom of the blue zone. Flying a hauler, neutral reputation, cargo hold full of 16t of shiny, valuable cargo. I was not interdicted even once. That was in a High Security Communist system.
Contrast that to a test in the same ship, same cargo, same duration flights. In just 4 flights, I was interdicted 8 times. That was in a Low Security Anarchy system.
Apparently, the ship you fly can make a difference. The reputation you have with local factions can make a difference.
But... "all else being equal"... "High Security" seems to be safer than "Medium Security"... and don't think of using the words "Anarchy" and "safe" in the same sentence.
Think the point here is that with the 1.1.05 patch, and likely server side changes that were not announced, interdictions have increased and changed and are simply more annoying now. The systems security status doesn't seem to make sense at times as interdictions can be very frequent now in secure systems.
Behavior changed to now being stopped frequently by security ships that do nothing: they don't scan or stop to chat but simply fly off. This happens in very safe high security systems.
Also continue to take take damage when submitting. Interesting side note that a support tech replied to someone sayin FD have some sort of RNG on purpose so that there's always a chance of damage even when zero throttling.
And finally I have experienced the prolonged FSD cool down when submitting. Interestingly, it was only when using the Python last night and was repeatable in three interdictions (two appeared out of nowhere as usual). Changing to the Asp this did not happen - no long cool down but I was only interdicted once in the Asp before severe boredom set in and I logged.
The (NPC) interdiction mechanic really needs an overhaul. It's broken in so many ways. Increasing the frequency rather than shutting it down until it's fixed is another bad move IMO.
All sorts of new fun here with this weeks tweaks and changes. : /
(Feel sorry for those that still have sound issues... Really expected a fast response as that's like being stuck in VGA graphics...)
Last edited:
Hi,
I also got the impression that NPC interdictions occur a bit more often now than they used to prior to the update. Not much more often though - feels like about +10% or so. However, I never, not even once, took damage when I submitted. Im using the "set throttle to 0%" key to submit - could it be possible that the game tells you that you submitted when using another key ("S" comes to mind) while actually making the calculations as if you did not submit? 'll test this lateron...
Greets!
DC
I also got the impression that NPC interdictions occur a bit more often now than they used to prior to the update. Not much more often though - feels like about +10% or so. However, I never, not even once, took damage when I submitted. Im using the "set throttle to 0%" key to submit - could it be possible that the game tells you that you submitted when using another key ("S" comes to mind) while actually making the calculations as if you did not submit? 'll test this lateron...
Greets!
DC
They should really be seen on the radar. Our ships doesnt have silent running in SC so if a ship (NPC or player) come to interdict you they should be seen moving towards you. Now it happens out of the blue. Might be a sound, which is good, but should be seen too.
|
Cheers for the update FD.
All it is is a number tracker. It hosts nothing of substance and does not run any kind if true, persistent simulation. When a station or anything else is added to the game it has to be done on the files on players' computers because they are what is "hosting" everything in-game. There is no way to alter those files on the run, that's why even the smallest changes need patches.
I think I've found a bug with certain Semi-Major Axis (SMA) values listed in the System Map, but I'm unsure if this is related to the current patch or not.
Details of the system are in the spoiler tag at the bottom.
The first orbiting body of this single-star system is a Class Y dwarf star.
At first, I thought it was odd that a "planet" appeared on my system map before I discovered it. Then I noticed it was a Class Y star with a ring. OK- so it's technically a star and we get to see all of those by default on the System Map. Makes sense.
But then when I traveled to the star and scanned it, I learned that its listed SMA value was 0.03AU. The distance in the sim from the threshold of the dwarf star's gravity well to its parent star was 2,554 Ls (about 5.1 AU). So I would have expected the listed SMA value to be at least 5.1 AU.
The second orbiting body is a Class III Gas Giant. Its listed SMA is 0.11 AU, but when I traveled to it I was at a distance of over 4 AU from the parent star.
Other systems I have analyzed in this fashion have checked out. So far I've only found this one that doesn't add up.
Am I miscalculating something here? Sanity check humbly requested!
If anyone's keen to check on this system themselves to report its behavior for them, here is the system info:
Thanks, and here's hoping this wasn't already discussed (I did search the forums before posting.)
Details of the system are in the spoiler tag at the bottom.
The first orbiting body of this single-star system is a Class Y dwarf star.
At first, I thought it was odd that a "planet" appeared on my system map before I discovered it. Then I noticed it was a Class Y star with a ring. OK- so it's technically a star and we get to see all of those by default on the System Map. Makes sense.
But then when I traveled to the star and scanned it, I learned that its listed SMA value was 0.03AU. The distance in the sim from the threshold of the dwarf star's gravity well to its parent star was 2,554 Ls (about 5.1 AU). So I would have expected the listed SMA value to be at least 5.1 AU.
The second orbiting body is a Class III Gas Giant. Its listed SMA is 0.11 AU, but when I traveled to it I was at a distance of over 4 AU from the parent star.
Other systems I have analyzed in this fashion have checked out. So far I've only found this one that doesn't add up.
Am I miscalculating something here? Sanity check humbly requested!
If anyone's keen to check on this system themselves to report its behavior for them, here is the system info:
HR 997
X: 31 Y:-99 Z: -62
X: 31 Y:-99 Z: -62
Thanks, and here's hoping this wasn't already discussed (I did search the forums before posting.)
Last edited:
+1 ... as it perfectly sums it up!
There is no background simulation existing which is able to change or add anything dynamically regarding an 'evolving/living' galaxy.
I was going to go on an extended rant about how you people are assuming so damn much about Frontier'sFrontier's background simulation architecture but I'm gonna curb that response by saying that you people have no clue how their systems work, or why they seemingly have to manually add stations. You're probably the same kinds of people that lost their damn mind that the servers has to reboot for a few minutes daily, and maybe that is when they could add stations automatically.
Not that they would since they've stated before that they're not completely ready for the background simulation to run rampant, unchecked.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The toxicity, entitlement, expectations, and pompous know-it-all attitude prevalent on these forums makes League of Legends look tame.
I guess my response was long afterall.
I guess that is true...
...as long as you completely disregard the tens of thousands of systems in the game which ARE dynamically altered in regards to economy, system states, faction balances, missions, NPC traffic, exploration data, conflict zones and a whole bunch of other stuff based on this so called "nonexistent" background simulation...
Is there some bugs in the system currently? Yes and they are being addressed.
Is your statement above true? No. Not even close.
- Status