logical Turmoil risks-table

after browsing a search on ppl's gripes on the turmoil game-feature,

i thought... many ppl are concentrating on one combination of events/circumstances that have combined,
to put them in a difficult/uphill-battle situation.

individual problems about the turmoil system 'fixed' ... sometimes could cause imbalances elsewhere which then can cause a problem for someone else!
so its understandable why frontier's not wanted to do too much to it...



has anyone seriously RE-considered the turmoil dynamic,
in terms of a more complete-listing of the logical-risks?


remoteness/distance from HQ,

local controlling faction favourable/un-fav,

bubble-wide faction favourable/un-fav,

CC income ( if income is meant to be being split between the superpower and the local system ( more agents?, etc) )

any / amount of overlapping contested-areas

thargoid activity?

special unique entities ( HQ of a game-plot organisation, like raiders, or pirates, or more recently, Nova Imperioum ( before their defeat, they would have increased risk / lowered security, etc ) )




i mean like these ...

a really COMPLETE, list.


if someone did, and MAINTAINED it...
you could also maintain, a logical-likelyhoods or chances-table ;

One where, not,.. only 1...
concrete, one-rather-than-another determination,

rigidly-determines which sys go into turmoil.

is it still only highest-CC ? i've lost interest in undermining others to such a extent, i've forgotten.


and why doesn't highCC, =to inertia?
difficulty, not higher risk, of going into turmoil?

they'd have more buffers, more dissoveable assets, more of a snowball of morale, more well established intelligence, etc.


it also never made sense to me, that if a system was MORE valuable, that a power would not spend more, to protect it.

the inverse of that... that powers SHOULD, logically protect them more, should also, mean, that they'd have inertia.

you'd need more to get the good ones into turmoil,

and need less from-players to defend them,
if ;
interested-parties in game... corporations, extremely wealthy, politicians... whoever... would have more to LOSE, from change,
...then it makes sense, that players could need to INdirectly do less, if the rich&powerful, or commited/loyal, etc,
would inhibit change / want to prevent revolution(further revolutions), etc

it seems to me like that highest-first choice,
was a slap-dash guess,
was thought of in a single-moment of,..

' this needs to be more of a risk than that '.


one factor taken into consideration, sure... but OF HOW MANY OTHERS? :S


from what ... 5 years ago? :O

dynamics have changed since then!

the WHEN, and from-what of risks,
should have changed since then too! :(

that doesn't mean, taking away the risk, of losing more, from higher risk, for higher income systems,..
but perhaps not ... agh... 100%... one at a time. too concentrated!! [blah]

something more SPREAD, or proportionate.
top-down, still more-risk,

but not 100% just on one at a time, on the highest-first, anymore.


i propose,


a uncertainty principle is used -

to make low, contributive risk-factors,
contributing a overall risk-chance % BASE,

that is then fit-within a threshold range,
followed by a roll of the dice, if the base is enough to deserve one.

something like ;

>5% , no-chance, safe

5-15%, low-chance, undermining/attacks / special events cause a %roll ( % in 100 )
if none,.. safe.

15-50%, med-high chance, undermining/attacks / special events not-needed for a roll
undermining/attacks / special events ADD bonus chance (%+bonus in 100 )

50-100%, extreme chance, undermining/attacks / special events not-needed for a roll
attacks / special events cause it without a roll.
if none, the extreme % is still a massive risk during the roll ( % in 100 )


these BASE %s would be worked out, would be of two-types ;

#1# Bonus amounts ( this would need tweaking, but say for example, a successful PP undermine,
could increase a base risk of 5%, but when a bubble is in a medium-high state-of-risk,
and the chance is rolled, if an undermining is present,.. then an additional 1% is added

the 5% was in the base-chance to get into the state above,.. the threshold - out of, beyond, low, and into medium-high,
but ONLY, then, an additional 1% ( a kind of fragility, once getting past 15% ))

#2# the BASE RATE

i've done a little hypothetical table here ;

[ https://drive.google.com/open?id=1AXD8jUNTnIyV4ftgcyKlJNPQpWSA9MBn ]

the idea being, that this base chance is only actually rolled, ( chance in 100 ),
when-in, when-at,.. the above conditions - so at best, when over 5% in combination with an attack/event,
or always,.. once it's as high as 15%

exactly how much one gets from particular actions/conditions,
would be tweaked, so don't freak'd ! ... :(
at the amount. howEVER much, Frontier'd re-balance.

and only when it's a shocking 50-100 ... or something else very-high,.. can you get a inevitable chance-at turmoil.

the amounts i've got in this table would normally, get no-where near, 50%. almost never.

if a near worse case scenario situation existed, and a system was under a special event, that lowered it, AND, was undermined at the same time... a aggressive Community Goal, event, or something... and then on TOP of that, it's successfully undermined, and not cancelled-out... say... and a shocker of everything bottom of the rung,..
then the exceptionally bad combo, gets above 50%, then ok yeah, that's enough for the collapse.

that predictability, would be very rare - i probably shouldn't've added it to this list for the POINT, im trying to get across.
*sigh* :rolleyes:

so if you didn't want that predictability, which'd make sense since i was saying at the start of this idea, that predictability was the problem ...
then scratch just-that,


the main, most common, every week, idea,
is that above some low threshold, 5% or something...

is something that allows you to get a chance, EVERY TURN, if your opponent NEGLECTS the system you're targeting. [yesnod]

punishment, for neglect, in way. at least risk-from.


its not much of a risk, if the BASE risk% stays low,

but if you allow too many,
or you don't lower the risk down again so it's safe...

then eventually you'll get turmoils,
EVEN DURING, times of high CC net, of your power's global total ( the weekly able-to-spend total )

this PARALLEL or simultaneous change,
might seem erratic or non-stable,

but once players get used to the idea of not being able to neglect their control systems,

they will not be able to afford, tactically, to be able to do the same in a decoy/tactical-chosen system, as they cannot in a actually desired, long-term one.
how much effort, when & where, will become a skill/experience to bring to your power / a skill to retain.

it would allow for flexibility, while still having incentive to reduce risk, for those better/keen on acting on the BGS.


essentially, everyone, normally,
not being ABLE, to necessarily know when it could happen. :O

where, potentially, u might know,
but not when, exactly.

the turmoil chance, being a two-week process,
needing CC back up again to prevent, would REMAIN, :)

but, so too, could a 2nd week in a row, of turmoil, or a 3rd if you were extremely un-lucky / lucky
happen, with this additional chance.


* additional / interesting dual-usage point *

the BASE, could also be used, to determine where, when a regular deficit turmoil-trigger, was to determine where would be most likely, for it to occur. :cool:


the perhaps big shock, would be that there is now a SECOND way, that turmoil can happen !
as unpopular as it might seem at first,

it would make 5C prepping near pointless, since you could now shed systems by deliberately neglecting the risk% :cool:

and, it would also force people to become ADAPTIVE, by needing to be able to RESPOND to things,
rather than just exploiting the rules-of-the-game.

or worse, as it is now, most if not all powers, being maintained by a few / few dozen players that do, know how to,
and also know what perceptions of competitive 'necessity' ... means in terms of tactical risk -
ie, if we don't do it to them, they'll do it to us...

kinds of THOUGHT, being pervasive/stubborn to shift into something more interesting and less monotonous.

the inverse? simplified-inverse? nature of the simplified highest-first,
is a understandable idea,..
but that doesn't mean it isn't improvable-upon.
that doesn't mean it's perfect.

ONLY one, way, as to WHICH control-sys goes into turmoil,
both creates unrealistic, in-direct protection of the vulnerable ones,
AND, denies logical protection of the MORE valuable.

it'd be like playing a game of WOW, or some tactical over-view game, and getting LESS interest in the richer gold-mine, or richer resources-location, than more.
it immediately, directly, does not make sense, in proportion.

at the more-to-lose end of which are more-to-risk, it might...
but not at the, which would be more VULNERABLE,.. end.
the current way FAILS, no less, to represent vulnerability.

THAT's my prime argument, as to why it needs updating.

not an absolute removal/replacement.. no no, just a integrating, updating, combining, with something else.
being-added-to, or adding-to, something else.


what im saying is that at the moment, the PREDICTABILITY,
of-when turmoil might happen, ( as it is at the moment )

combines with the ABSCENCE-of-uncertainty,..

...and that has created a stale, games-rules exploiting environment, much like,

"the guy who plays the wizard in a game of D&D is the smartest 'anyway',
just agree with what he says, SINCE he knows the rules"

knowing the rules, should not be the ONLY way of getting a reward, in enjoyment-of-play terms, and there is a long-backlogged list of complaints about how undermining has become too difficult.

this mixture,
would allow for some reward when it comes to that, but also a reliable capacity to reduce-risk, IF effort-needed is attempted,
the reward for BGS efforts, only reducing,
but NOT ELIMINATING, risk. [where is it]


if the numbers ive got in that table were used, or something similar to them were used,
only fortifying to cancel out undermining, would still prevent a whole 5%, which is a LOT compared to those little .25s and .5s in my table.

screw my exact-numbers but in terms of HOW, this structure would word... if you could bring a drop back down of 5%, if you had been undermined somewhere,.. just back UNDER 5% ... by a long-standing BGS effort... or a i don't know... sudden rush to get SECURITY back up?

things like that !..

then you'd have a kind of 2nd defence,
to prevent even a chance, of a undermining being ITSELF, enough to cause a chance.
that capacity, if you really didn't want somewhere to be a risk, would require a fair amount of effort, and doing so would also indirectly cause OTHER systems to be preferred, when a REGULAR CC global-deficit would be having to happen somewhere.

when-to, and when-not-to, allow a low-chance roll, at the same time as creating a MORE REALISTIC, where is it more likely-to happen from a regular deficit,
is the essence of this idea.

two birds with one stone, + some new random chances to keep things interesting,
so you can't neglect, what you claim to protect.


absolutely no chance,.. <5%,
requires dillignece / maintenance, and IF, you do,
you deserve the reward in defence.

how much OF,.. a low chance, could also be tweaked as we'd get used to it,
so it's not too crazy.
unstable, as it probably SHOULD be,.. but only a little. :S

fragile, is a better word.
but able to be made metallic-silver glass, or something, by lowering risks. not Mithril, that's an alloy or something.
who's got a LOTR silver-glass reference? agh. can't remember it.


re-introducing uncertainty, by ditching rigid rules for the WHERE sys go into Turmoil, entirely,

as long as its not happening too much at any 1 time -crazy,

would demand a higher level of attention (why are you playing PP if you aren't wanting to spend SOME time in maintenance? )

and would also BRING BACK SURPRISE,
into the aggressive side of competitive PP. [yesnod]

surprise would be limited-to low,.. risks,
but interestingly / satisfyingly,
you'd get it... WHERE, they deserve to be,
in terms of effort, in attack. [yesnod]

the irony of a committed bunch of players,
being able to spend a huge amount of time, in some population 2500 system, probably ending up killing more than 2500 pilots during their efforts...
getting only at the end of it, of some HUGE undermining total... 300% say! getting at the end of that... nothing more than a contributive minor undermining penalty,
on a power that as it turns out, can afford it...
at best, getting a INdirect turmoil chance,

at some system a hundred Ly away, that the turn before, could've been perfectly peaceful and happy and safe and secure...
but then because of a shortfall of 'income' ... is suddenly in total, political, revolutionary,
turmoil !

is just ridiculous.

one minute CC is "not" ... only money,
but the next minute, it FAILS, like money. [woah]

where's the OTHER resiliences? impediments? [mad]


in terms of realism, going into bust, might be more up to date, with new mechanics.

different ideas,
developed at different times?
not intentional, some of this. :eek:

that's a big part of WHY, the turmoil sys needs to be updated.
(and control as well? not as complex? )


something like this, even if not as i've got it here,
would also facilitate self-driven turmoils, at least in time.

ie... if a chances based system, meant that you could lower, the normal chances, of-preventing a turmoil low-chance,
in a system you're wanting to remove,

indirectly increasing it, as your enemy would,

you would not have to goto a huge amount of effort, to facilitate it in the LONG TERM.
you could make it a bit-wobbly... soto speak, and sooner or later, a chance will come.

that would free up people to defend the more valuable, or leave them free, to attack / play in PP expansions / regular fortification, etc


as it is, the chance of getting one of the last in-the-line-to-go
control systems, of your enemy,..
to be the control sys that goes into turmoil,

when it is last/near-last ... instead of first...
is ludicrous.

so say commonly,
one wanted to undermine your enemy's neighbouring control sys...

and it's CC balance was so bad, it was -60.
that DESERVES, something. i think, some kind of parallel risk.

say they've got 75 control sys.

a -60 one... could easily be 10th last,
maybe say,.. 3rd last.

you would have to go through what...? 57... 114 turns,
of constant, dominating, undermining and turmoil ... (minus however many would be ones where you'd remove more than one at a time.)

ridiculous hypothetical ... but it kind of shows what's wrong, even tho the 114's not really exactly how many. not meant to be an exact number.

i'm just illustrating a point -
strong systems are 1st, and weak, vulnerable ones are last, and INdirectly protected!


when and WHY... did that get decided upon?



being able to target vulnerable ones, and get a low but reasonable chance, would mean maybe something like this ;

turn 1 2% chance 1 in 50 - in response to the attempt, your enemy strengthens it

turn 2 1.5% chance 1 in 66.6 - in further response, they make it even tighter.
by the end of turn 2, 1in50 + 1in66.6 = still pretty low, ( were you to've got a roll ).

turn 3 .5% chance 1 in 200 - practically impossible, so they move back to what they were doing.
by the end of turn 3, 1in50 + 1in66.6 + 1in200 = still pretty low, ( were you to've got a roll ).

turn 4 2.5% chance 1 in 40 - your efforts persisted, when they thought it safe... coming back
by the end of turn 4, 1in50 + 1in66.6 + 1in200 + 1in40 = still pretty low, ( were you to've got a roll ).
but starting to get somewhere, if the rate continues to increase.


turn 5 6% chance 1 in 16.6 - above 5% !! finally you're getting somewhere, and you finally get a roll. it's 1 in 16, so nahh, you don't get it... but they're in trouble, if it gets any worse, or if they leave it above 5% ... if they neglect it
(( by the start of turn 5 = real chance! with a roll of the dice, at 1 in 16.6 ))

turn 6 8% chance 1 in 12.5 - some players came to defend it, but others dismissed the perception of the low chance as,.. able-to-be-dealt-with-later.
now you're cooking, 1 in 12.5!
(( by the end of turn 6 = a 2nd roll of the dice in a row, at 1 in 16, + 1 in 12.5 ))

turn 7 7% chance 1 in 14.2 - less, a bit of a fight-back,.. but still considerable, seeing as though you've managed 3 in a row rolls!
(( by the end of turn 6 = a 2nd roll of the dice in a row, at 1 in 16, + 1 in 12.5 + 1 in 14.2 ))



consider it a bit like the penetrating shields experimental mod - it only gets through a little, but at least you GET SOMETHING.
that's got to be better? :cool:


This kind of only-if ... effort X rewards system, would reward BOTH defence and attack as i've said,
and it could be ADDED TO ... when needing to convert existing rules into it's new totalling-flexibilty.

so say, you said...

Well !, Vurrath,
we can't just ditch the,
if in short-fall, the shortfall has to be met, risk, in terms of the overall CC [alien]

no no, i'm not saying it would be.

what im saying is you could BLEND, INTEGRATE,
it,.. into, the new system, or something.

like... i don't know... say...
the overall CC deficit, is met by a LOAD SPREADING, instead of coming from one system ?

In a power with a hypothetical 8 systems ;
where a 88 CC deficit , was needing to be met ;

( average CC 68.75 )

method 1 2

1 50 income 11 each (68.75 \ 11) X 50 ... 8 or something
2 75 income 11 each (68.75 \ 11) X 75 ... 13...
3 100 income 11 each (68.75 \ 11) X 100 ... 20

more, from the ones that would, lose, more,
from a SOURCING from multiple places.

4 60 income 11 each (68.75 \ 11) X etc
5 40 income 11 each (68.75 \ 11) X etc
6 50 income 11 each (68.75 \ 11) X
7 100 income 11 each (68.75 \ 11) X
8 75 income 11 each (68.75 \ 11) X

LIKE that... there'd be ways to make work-arounds,
KEEPING existing reasons for distributing risk / punishment, for failure to protect,

but it would not need to be so, arbitrarily forced, condensed? of, into, ONLY ONE, system

one argument, 'winning'...
of which-should ;
highest-first? or lowest-first?

as it is,..
its too consistent, in a multitudes of combinations of risks / events / resiliences -
perhaps it SHOULD,.. not,.. be consistent, ok? [blah]


you can think of what we've got at the moment,
in terms of a choice,
desired game-play, desired management,
but why should only some of us get what we want?


why has whether or not,.. it should,.. be consistent,

been skipped in the first place? [woah]



the long-off , AI driven choices OF, the billions and trillions choosing powerplay powers, and being a PART, of powerplay, instead of only players,
might still be a long way off...

but that's not a reason, to ignore the problem with the old-choice, of the highest-first problem...

NOR, a reason, not-to create a little uncertainty or 'wobblyness' ... for those low-chances.

they would never be automatic successful turmoils, mind you,
this is only the getting-into, phase, BEFORE, one's chance to fort to get CC back up.

so that part of the game, would remain un-changed. [smile]

what it would create, is a low-chances chance, to spark a chance, at a desired target,

which still needs the winning, of SUSTAINED undermining, versus a fortification rush.

that part would remain unchanged, in terms of the numbers/how it RESOLVES.
unchanged. [smile]

the only part which would be different, is WHERE, turmoil sometimes HAS a chance, of happening. :cool:

it's quite naive, to think that the superpowers don't ALREADY, have a high capacity to make things difficult in the BGS.

the addition of more chances of getting an turmoil, where one might want it, might SEEM like too much of a risk in terms of the superpowers,

but, don't forget, if one cancels a undermining, when one might notice the risk is higher than others,
that one can prevent that 5% boost, from a un-challenged undermining,

so with that basic capacity for fortification remaining,
it would take a lot, of effort to change the BGS so much that you'd even be getting much of a chance, with, this low-chance method.
and if ppl are going to a lot of effort to do so,
they probably deserve something.

minor powers are ALREADY, able to be attacked heavily anytime the superpowers would want to.
that wouldn't change.

what would change, is HOW, they could.
it would be a potential way for them to do a lot of damage, concentrating system-by-system, one after another,..

but, they'd neglect their OWN systems when doing so, in terms of vulnerability,
AND, it would also be a quite slow, grind, of a way, to have to.
and it's defendable-from, with regular CC rush in response to ANY Turmoil, just like normal.

and therein lies why they'd deserve it, in terms of comparative effort.

deserve a chance of someWHERE, else, but the chance itself, being no-easier.
[big grin]

that doesn't mean they'd necessarily do any better, at actually winning the CC defciit / fort-rush.

one could still defend with a fortification rush / panic, like Kermit the frog an hour before the show starts,
just as much, as you can now.

the only part that would change, is where the system in turmoil is / which it is.
Last edited:
Top Bottom