I spent a fair amount of time undermine Leesti today with a friend and we singlehandly tipped the scales and undermined the system. When the cycle tick was SUPPOSED to happen the undermine was 115% and fortification was at 84%. I finally felt like I accomplished something worthwhile in power play only to have it ripped away when Mahon players CONTINUED to fortify and CANCELLED the undermine AFTER the power play deadline. Needless to say this is upsetting.
Powerplay Leesti undermine CANCELLED AFTER TICK.
- Thread starter CMDR Admiral Perses
- Start date
this is one example why game play mechanics that are tied to real time triggers have to be reliant or not implemented at all. It's not good game design in my opinion if you have a fixed time where major strategies have to be executed anyway in my opinion (snipes, fortifications hold back to turn in late together etc.)
I think Mahon has someone on the inside. It's pretty conincidental that they had just enough time to reach 100% fortification before the re-reset
Er... to be honest, whilst the cycle tick being late was a bit of a problem, it doesn't make a huge difference in the long run. More worrying is the fact that pretty much everthing for this cycle is totally screwed.
Edit: Also, wouldn't Mahon want more systems undermined. Generally keeping the CC low is our target to prevent the 5th column type activities.
Edit: Also, wouldn't Mahon want more systems undermined. Generally keeping the CC low is our target to prevent the 5th column type activities.
Last edited:
If your CC is too low you can't take expansions that'll bring it below zero. Like those weaponized expansion in Fed space.
Regardless, we actually would have preferred ~200CC than ~400CC
We had plenty of time - we didn't know, but 2 hours was plenty. If it wasn't fortified until near the tick, that's because we almost spectacularly cocked it up by, I think, 4 merits.
Just to be clear, Leesti should have been undermined. However having "done the maths" (and trust me, we are good at maths in Gateway), it would not have affected any of our expansions. The only difference is we would have about 200 less CC for this week.
228cc can change the outcome of this cycle and the next one. If you are undermined again, than you will have that extra 228cc to cover more loss.
Just to get this straight: Undermined, Leesti would cost Mahon 228 CC. Default, it would cost 33 CC. The difference is 195 CC, and that's the important number in this case. We also fortified Siki in the two hours extra time, but it wasn't undermined, so we currently save 31 CC upkeep here.
Combined, Mahon now has 226 CC more than he would have if the cycle tick happened at the regular time. So instead of 479 CC, Mahon would only be able to prepare systems with a total of 253 CC. The expansions are not effected by these changes.
If you ask me and some other Mahon pledges - we would rather have 253 CC then 479 CC, so yeah, let's demand to get this corrected!
Most importantly Admiral Perses, you have my sympathy since it is incredibly frustrating when a game bug prevents so much hard work being counted. All I can offer in consolation is that, since not enough of your fellow pledges undermined other systems of Mahon, they wouldn't have been in turmoil in any case.
Just one other thing: it may be that you think the extra CC than Mahon ended up with will help them in the current or in future cycles. That isn't the case. Despite what the name ("Command Capital") suggests, it doesn't carry forward from cycle to cycle. It is only used to set how many new systems can be Prepared in the next cycle and then it is gone. So it can't, for example, be used to offset any new undermining or turmoil.
Yes. We should have had 187 CC and four completed cycles this cycle, not 479.
Less still.
The CC prediction was stable at 332 for hours prior to the cycle tic at 7:00, and I did not witness fort changes until after that.
Taking the -228 from Leesti you also had the -124 from Kokoimudji that wasn't in yet. That tolat at 352 was plenty to overcome the 332 balance by 20.
Something really screwed up happened behind the scenes anyway to get you all to the 479 even with the fortifications and undermined levels.
Leesti wouldn't have jumped from 0 to 228. It would have moved from 33 to 228 - an increase of 195 CC.
Also, Kokoimudji is already taken into account in the current cycle's 479 CC - we paid the undermined upkeep for it.
I've summed up the changes between what the Alliance Office of Statistics knows the state was at 6:32 AM and what this cycle shows was the end state at the cycle tick (the botched one) here.
And you can see the spreadsheet that this is based on here.
Feel free to run through the data. We (the AOS) do not see a way that we would end up with less than 187 CC.
Ao Kond wasn't successfully undermined, because someone accidentally counted a set of merits twice.
So what was the CC estimate as of the cycle tick? I don't see a number to correlate the comparison. I only recall the 332 CC prediction that didn't change for a few hours prior, making the CC shift seen - which didn't calculate the Kokoimudji being undermined - 20 CC under by my recognizing, making the expansions fail and possibly causing turmoil.
I am not disputing the change numbers - that's another thing, but I don't think you were at the number you got to now is my point. The numbers don't seem to add up.
Our estimate is 227 CC. That's a reduction of 252 CC, which accounts for Leesti being undermined rather than cancelled (because we fortified it after the tick), fortifying Siki after the tick and Bonitou getting fortified after 6:32 AM. It was a few hundred merits short, but I'm going for worst case that we know of.
Partha was cancelled and Kokoimudji was undermined after 6:32 AM, but both are included in the 479 CC bad cycle tick.
I said 187 CC before, because I actually forgot that Partha being cancelled is included in the bad cycle tick.
Then it doesn't make sense to me.
You calculated 227, plus the changes... then we agree its likely turmoil, right?
Adding in the changes after we get closer to your number - for the post 7:00 server to be at that 179 or whatever.
Then where in the hell does this 479 come from is what I want to know. The math does not add up to that, and I think something serious got bugged there.
Would it surprise you if I tell you that Frontier sometimes screws things up and the predictions in GalNet might not be 100% correct? And that updates to the numbers during the final hours of a cycle can be very irregular, and sometimes are delayed by hours.
Vectron has clearly listed which mutations should be done compared to the actual outcome. You haven't disputed those, you just point at the unreliable GalNet.
Wild accusations should be based on sound calculations. Show us where Vectron's numbers are wrong. Until then, I believe Vectron's numbers over GalNet's.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
No, he calculated 227 after the changes!
You seem to try very hard not to understand Vectron. Are you so upset that the snipe wasn't good enough?
The 479 CC is what the game calculated at the tick. You can "easily" check that by manually add the values for the 107 CS and subtract the overhead. Show us where that 479 CC is wrong, and we might believe you. Until then, it looks like you cannot accept that the snipe failed.
Look, I'm trying to be rational - no point in getting upset over it.
I am going by the numbers I have available, and since you are not providing different ones, I am going by what I see - which is the numbers being backpedaled from the 479 CC to get those numbers you both claim.
I want the numbers for what the CC was calculated at the 6:32 information, but I don't have the time or patience to deal with it completely, so I am asking for that number.
Without it being provided I am assuming Galnet was **mostly** accurate to estimate my side to get to my assumption that something is wrong with that 479 CC info.
If you don't like it, do the legwork and give me the 6:32 number from the information provided to prove otherwise, so I can add in the undermined estimations on it.
I am going by the numbers I have available, and since you are not providing different ones, I am going by what I see - which is the numbers being backpedaled from the 479 CC to get those numbers you both claim.
I want the numbers for what the CC was calculated at the 6:32 information, but I don't have the time or patience to deal with it completely, so I am asking for that number.
Without it being provided I am assuming Galnet was **mostly** accurate to estimate my side to get to my assumption that something is wrong with that 479 CC info.
If you don't like it, do the legwork and give me the 6:32 number from the information provided to prove otherwise, so I can add in the undermined estimations on it.