Powerplay fix

Zac Antonaci

Head of Communications
Frontier
Hey guys,

Just a quick note from Sandro and the Dev team regarding a fix going out to Powerplay imminently.

***

Hello Commanders!

This is just an update to let you know of an issue that's cropped up with Aisling Duval: due to a bug, Miss Duval incorrectly remains running a deficit. Her expansions for the last cycle should have pulled her out of deficit, but this was sabotaged by a system in turmoil incorrectly remaining on the books rather than revolting, and dragging her income down into the red with its costs.

The result has managed to be both beneficial and baneful - she did not lose the system in turmoil (Syntheng) that she should have, but she did remain in deficit because of it.

We're fixing the code so that this event should not occur again. However, in this instance, we're not intending to change to the live build due to risk and the mixed benefits of the results.

We've also fixed a bug that prevented systems in turmoil from being undermined or fortified.

***

Thanks,

Zac
 

Vicktore Beskor

Vicktore Beskor
I would like to know when are you going to fix Hudson's broken ethos! So that Hudson supporters can start to lower fortification cost. Without having to put in place governments that are anti-federation.
 

Martin Schou

Martin Schou
Can we please see the maths that shows that Aisling should have been pulled out of turmoil by her expansions, after having lost Syntheng?
 

palazo

Banned
palazo
Thanks for your job guys .

You are doing an excellent job on the game.

But what needs to be fixed on the powerplay are the motives to play it.

Only obtain credits or two modules.

The powerplay needs to provide something for the player to do participate, I like the concept but do not win anything by playing it.

Only an imperial-hammer class2 and a shield.

I think frontier can do much more for the power-play or integrate directly to groups of players in it and engages in its history.

We need to encourage more reason to play it.
 

GNThrone

GNThrone
Thank you for this!

Can you also please look into the way systems are selected for turmoil? Currently it adds more deficit by losing incomes from the highest income systems (incidentally also highest upkeep). There's an entire thread in this forum regarding that matter.
 

Martin Schou

Martin Schou
Actually - can we get an explanation for the following:

Aisling's in turmoil for the second week running. She loses Syntheng.

She's then given expansions that supposedly pulls her out of turmoil.

Aisling's no longer in turmoil ... so why did she lose Syntheng in the first place?

She couldn't have lose Syntheng without being **in** turmoil, yet she's allowed to get expansions, even though Frontier has explicitly said that you won't get successful expansions while in turmoil.

Also - can we get an answer as to why it was only 3 systems, when those 3 systems weren't enough to cover the CC deficit Aisling was facing? Similar question for Torval.

If there is a maximum limit of the number of systems in turmoil at once (3), then that will have a MASSIVE impact on the strategies of power play. Why bother fortifying at all, when you won't have more than 3 systems in turmoil anyway?
 

Kryfield

K
I understand the lack of a retrospective fix, but I think "the result managed to be both beneficial and baneful" is incorrect.

There is no beneficial effect. Aisling will be in turmoil next week (unless other powers greatly reduce their undermining), so the turmoil system Syntheng will just be lost next cycle instead of this.

I'm more concerned about the fundamental problem that there's no way to remove the low-profit liability control systems which contribute to the deficit, even in the absence of Undermined systems.
 
Last edited:

Saool

Saool
Whilst this is certainly not the result we were expecting at least you guys have acknowledge there was a problem and are doing a fix.

Please can you post up a far more comprehensive rule set for us to work with?

EDIT: and at the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, the fact that you do not tell us in what order things are calculated during the cycle end, we cannot run the maths ourselves to verify anything, leaving the spectre that you are happily fiddling the figures each week to keep things following a path you want, and hoping we just roll with it.
 
Last edited:

CMDR John Casey

CMDR John Casey
Thank you, actually it was a kind of paradoxical situation seeing the power in turmoil but the already-in-turmoil system still on the list. On the other hand, there is the risk of another kind of paradox, where the system disappears but the power remains in positive numbers.

So, let me understand the rule: let's call X the amount of cc coming from the expansions, O the current overhead and O' the overhead after the expansions are included, and T the upkeep cost of the systems in turmoil. Is it that:
If X-O-T is negative, the systems in turmoil revolt and the final balance is T-O'?
 

GNThrone

GNThrone
Martin Schou said:
Can we please see the maths that shows that Aisling should have been pulled out of turmoil by her expansions, after having lost Syntheng?
Click to expand...

According to Zac, Syntheng remained undermined. Which meant we would have probably paid for the undermined upkeep again at the start of this turn.

Our CC before the fix: -359 CC

Add the undermined upkeep we shouldn't have paid (+122 CC)
Add the income we lost from not getting incomes from Kwatsu and Kelin Samba (+149 CC; +132 CC)

Presto, not negative. (44 CC)
 
Last edited:

CMDR John Casey

CMDR John Casey
Martin Schou said:
Actually - can we get an explanation for the following:

Aisling's in turmoil for the second week running. She loses Syntheng.

She's then given expansions that supposedly pulls her out of turmoil.

Aisling's no longer in turmoil ... so why did she lose Syntheng in the first place?

She couldn't have lose Syntheng without being **in** turmoil, yet she's allowed to get expansions, even though Frontier has explicitly said that you won't get successful expansions while in turmoil.
Click to expand...

^this. I was trying to say it but thanks Martin for making the paradox explicit. I think it's important to understand what is solved at which time. If the power balance is calculated in two times, then the expansions cannot "save" the power, because the first partial is calculated exactly to verify the turmoil status.
 

Mikalus

Mikalus
Appreciate the update. Are we closer to fixing the bug in Gliese that doesn't allow us to actually expand into it? So we are one day in and the Imperials can prevent it but we can't do anything to further it. Would hate to lose an expansion simply because the game won't allow it rather than the all out epic Pegasi war the galaxy deserves.
 

GNThrone

GNThrone
CMDR John Casey said:
^this. I was trying to say it but thanks Martin for making the paradox explicit. I think it's important to understand what is solved at which time. If the power balance is calculated in two times, then the expansions cannot "save" the power, because the first partial is calculated exactly to verify the turmoil status.
Click to expand...

You missed it, I guess I'll post it again

According to Zac, Syntheng remained undermined. Which meant we would have probably
Click to expand...
paid for the undermined upkeep again at the start of this turn.Our CC before the fix: -359 CC
Add the undermined upkeep we shouldn't have paid (+122 CC)
Add the income we lost from not getting incomes from Kwatsu and Kelin Samba (+149 CC; +132 CC)Presto, not negative. (44 CC)
Click to expand...


The expansion Zac is talking about (Blod, Aowica, HIP 95256) all gave a total net positive of +71.7 CC. If they didn't succeed, we'd be in the negative with -27.7 CC (and with the increased deficit, -308.7 CC; yes that's still my concern)


 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom