Powerplay fix

[GluttonyFang]

Actually what Zac stated conflicts with the first part of what he said. "We successfully got out of turmoil." If you follow that point, Syntheng would not have revolted and was kept as a control system (because we successfully got out of deficit - losing syntheng would have caused more deficit which goes against Zac saying that we got out of deficit so it doesn't make sense that the proper resolution would be Syntheng's revolt). (Even his statement contradicts itself.) At this point, only Zac or anyone with official data can prove who is right or not right.

Wait, what?

Losing Syntheng would give you better ground to expand into those three new systems (Zac specifically said Syntheng revolted. With the revolution, AD's overhead decreases). With those new systems, AD shouldn't be in deficit, but as a result Syntheng is lost. (This way Zac's statement makes sense)

Since Zac said Syntheng should have revolted, it means that there's no way that cycle was not considered a turmoil cycle. By dropping Syntheng, AD gained positive CC, therefore the three expansions occurred.

If everything is kept, then it simply doesn't match up to the numbers according to Shrink's math.

Or did I get confused somewhere?

 

[fergal]

Hey, during that second week I noticed a few other Powers also got frozen Overhead numbers. That's the Bail Out 1.2 I've been mentioning on other threads. No one noticed it, because the week before Lavigny's stood out like a sore thumb, because it was a live-hotfix.

Well apologies to singling out ALD
They were the only ones I was undermining, and they should have lost Vaka and Kamocam. Kamocam was hard work back with only 15 merits per kill.

Actually what Zac stated conflicts with the first part of what he said. "We successfully got out of turmoil." If you follow that point, Syntheng would not have revolted and was kept as a control system (because we successfully got out of deficit - losing syntheng would have caused more deficit which goes against Zac saying that we got out of deficit so it doesn't make sense that the proper resolution would be Syntheng's revolt). (Even his statement contradicts itself.) At this point, only Zac or anyone with official data can prove who is right or not right.

I don't read it the way you do, but the fact that is can be interpreted differently doesn't help anything here.

The reality from in game right now is Aisling is currently in Turmoil, with 3 systems specifically in Turmoil.
Aisling can't prepare any systems this week because she has a - cc balance.
Aisling can't expand any systems this week because she couldn't prepare any last week.

 

[GNThrone]

Wait, what?

Losing Syntheng would give you better ground to expand into those three new systems (Zac specifically said Syntheng revolted. With the revolution, AD's overhead decreases). With those new systems, AD shouldn't be in deficit, but as a result Syntheng is lost. (This way Zac's statement makes sense)

Since Zac said Syntheng should have revolted, it means that there's no way that cycle was not considered a turmoil cycle. By dropping Syntheng, AD gained positive CC, therefore the three expansions occurred.

If everything is kept, then it simply doesn't match up to the numbers according to Shrink's math.

Or did I get confused somewhere?

Okay, I got confused somewhere. But zac's statement really still does conflict with itself (no systems lost from turmoil after ending the turn with a positive CC)

In either scenario, syntheng lost or not, the CC would still be positive (no turmoil). According to you, losing syntheng would gain us CC from not paying overheads anymore.

So the real problem is why syntheng is still there. Aisling would not have been in turmoil either way.

If we lose syntheng, then it would have meant starting the week in deficit -> which would not be the case since Zac said we started the week without deficit.

If we don't lose syntheng, then it would have meant that we did not start the week in deficit.

Everything points to Aisling not being in turmoil. We should have positive CC and kept Syntheng (conflicts with the revolt quoted by Zac).

There's a lot of conflicts in the information presented to us and we won't be able to determine what is true or not at this point.

- - - Updated - - -

Well apologies to singling out ALD
They were the only ones I was undermining, and they should have lost Vaka and Kamocam. Kamocam was hard work back with only 15 merits per kill.



I don't read it the way you do, but the fact that is can be interpreted differently doesn't help anything here.

The reality from in game right now is Aisling is currently in Turmoil, with 3 systems specifically in Turmoil.
Aisling can't prepare any systems this week because she has a - cc balance.
Aisling can't expand any systems this week because she couldn't prepare any last week.

Yup, a different interpretation does not mean that both are correct or not until the original post is clarified by the original user who posted it.

Additionally, the reality is also that Aisling is in turmoil despite Zac saying that we shouldn't be in turmoil.

 

[aspiringexpatriate]

Well apologies to singling out ALD
They were the only ones I was undermining, and they should have lost Vaka and Kamocam. Kamocam was hard work back with only 15 merits per kill.

I thought you undermined Kamocan that week with less than 'pew-pew' tactics. Also, we did lose Vaka and Nunes. I believe every undermining was canceled that week, including Kamocan's. Nunes and Vaka were simply our highest upkeep systems.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Okay, I got confused somewhere. But zac's statement really still does conflict with itself (no systems lost from turmoil after ending the turn with a positive CC)

Zac stated that Syntheng should have revolted. But according to Martin's calculation, Syntheng should remain since that cycle has positive CC. So we don't know which is which and what's accurate.

In either scenario, syntheng lost or not, the CC would still be positive (no turmoil).

If Martin's math is accurate.

If we lose syntheng, then it would have meant starting the week in deficit -> which would not be the case since Zac said we started the week without deficit.

If you do lose Syntheng, and you have positive CC regardless of the status of Syntheng, then the three expansions that occurred on the cycle in question would only add to your positive CC. No deficit there.

If we don't lose syntheng, then it would have meant that we did not start the week in deficit.

If you didn't lose Syntheng, your expansion would add to your positive CC as you claimed and no, no deficit there, either.

Everything points to Aisling not being in turmoil. We should have positive CC and kept Syntheng (conflicts with the revolt quoted by Zac).

So far, if Martin's math is on point, then AD definitely shouldn't be in deficit no matter what, nor losing Syntheng.

However, the contested points are that Zac's statement of Syntheng's loss by revolt (And a 14/44 CC remainder is kind of open to margin of error considering the number). There is no need to revolt if the end result of the cycle in question results in positive CC, meaning the cycle will end in deficit if Syntheng is kept.

Therefore this contests Martin's math. If we follow that logic, then expansions can happen because losing Syntheng will result in positive CC. Otherwise no expansion can happen since keeping Syntheng means remaining in turmoil and one cannot expand in turmoil status.

By revolting, though. Syntheng's loss will provide positive CC, which is necessary to expand into the three new systems, which earned AD non-deficit status this Cycle.

And this will make relative perfect sense to the explanation given by Zac.

Edit:

Now we look at Shrink's math, Syntheng is a ghost system, it doesn't cost anything and doesn't fit on the numbers provided this Cycle. Which further supports Zac's statement on the issue--Syntheng should be lost through revolt and by that, expansions were allowed. Since if the result of keeping Syntheng that Cycle will result in positive CC anyway, there's no reason to revolt whatsoever.

There's a lot of conflicts in the information presented to us and we won't be able to determine what is true or not at this point.

You bet.

 

[shrinkshooter]

I just want to point out a few things about the general subject, since I've gotten bogged down in minutae.

First, it should be pretty clear to everyone that, although generally the case for games, you cannot take the developers' words at face value. Martin Schou and I have spent hours looking through numbers and discussing them with each other, and the one thing that stands out is that it seems nobody at FDev fully understands the Powerplay system. They say things that contradict previous words, they "fix bugs" we never knew were bugs, they have hidden mechanics and formulae and orders of operations no one can see and we need to wait for player agency to highlight them, so we can attempt to decipher them.

I know Frontier's street cred has gotten strained somewhat by what some view as being too money-focused, but this damages their credit far more in my eyes. It's plain old incompetence and lack of transparency, and it's utterly unacceptable. I think I have a good idea of what it's like for FD developers, and I feel bad for them, but my complaint lies with the company as a whole. The entire structure of Powerplay is a godawful mess, and there have been far too many things of late that cement the idea in my mind that nobody over there knows anything beyond the basics of PP. Not being able to fortify/undermine turmoil systems is a bug? We can all expand to net gain system in turmoil (then what's the freaking danger of turmoil)? We have a hard limit of 3 turmoil systems (then what's the freaking danger of turmoil)? A system didn't get removed after a power was in turmoil two cycles in a row? The developers claim something happened that requires contradictory logic, which would really be a paradox?

What the christ is going on over there? Given the reaction I've seen on these forums and in direct conversations with people (and I've spoken to many since the cycle turnover) confidence in FDev sounds like it's at a record low. I haven't completely lost trust yet, but I entirely understand those who are swearing of PP as a bugged, biased, broken waste of time that erases any sort of meaning from player agency.

Finally, I want to tell everyone not to worry about the math. It doesn't matter at this point. Frontier themselves said that, to avoid the risk of screwing up the current cycle of the game, they're not going to make any changes to anything that would alter any current values. Any changes are simply going to apply to the game at the end of this cycle and going forward. And even assuming I'm right in all I said and Frontier is wrong, it's all moot if they simply change things in the game so they ARE right. I'm not entirely convinced of FDev's "empire bias," but I'm pretty close, if only because as soon as Aisling complains of a bug, FDev is on the case in record time, while other powers' bugs go unanswered for weeks.

So, Aisling is still in turmoil and will stay there. She will still have Kwatsu and Kelin in turmoil (like she's supposed to, I would argue). She still has Syntheng "in turmoil" (it doesn't act like that, she gets no income but she pays the upkeep and overhead), which takes the place of Kalana, which should rightfully be there. None of that changes. Hopefully going forward enough people are angered by this stupidity that Aisling gets undermined into the ground, so there can be no possible argument of turmoil never having happened.

 

[GNThrone]

I just want to point out a few things about the general subject, since I've gotten bogged down in minutae.

First, it should be pretty clear to everyone that, although generally the case for games, you cannot take the developers' words at face value. Martin Schou and I have spent hours looking through numbers and discussing them with each other, and the one thing that stands out is that it seems nobody at FDev fully understands the Powerplay system. They say things that contradict previous words, they "fix bugs" we never knew were bugs, they have hidden mechanics and formulae and orders of operations no one can see and we need to wait for player agency to highlight them, so we can attempt to decipher them.

I know Frontier's street cred has gotten strained somewhat by what some view as being too money-focused, but this damages their credit far more in my eyes. It's plain old incompetence and lack of transparency, and it's utterly unacceptable. I think I have a good idea of what it's like for FD developers, and I feel bad for them, but my complaint lies with the company as a whole. The entire structure of Powerplay is a godawful mess, and there have been far too many things of late that cement the idea in my mind that nobody over there knows anything beyond the basics of PP. Not being able to fortify/undermine turmoil systems is a bug? We can all expand to net gain system in turmoil (then what's the freaking danger of turmoil)? We have a hard limit of 3 turmoil systems (then what's the freaking danger of turmoil)? A system didn't get removed after a power was in turmoil two cycles in a row? The developers claim something happened that requires contradictory logic, which would really be a paradox?

What the christ is going on over there? Given the reaction I've seen on these forums and in direct conversations with people (and I've spoken to many since the cycle turnover) confidence in FDev sounds like it's at a record low. I haven't completely lost trust yet, but I entirely understand those who are swearing of PP as a bugged, biased, broken waste of time that erases any sort of meaning from player agency.

Finally, I want to tell everyone not to worry about the math. It doesn't matter at this point. Frontier themselves said that, to avoid the risk of screwing up the current cycle of the game, they're not going to make any changes to anything that would alter any current values. Any changes are simply going to apply to the game at the end of this cycle and going forward. And even assuming I'm right in all I said and Frontier is wrong, it's all moot if they simply change things in the game so they ARE right. I'm not entirely convinced of FDev's "empire bias," but I'm pretty close, if only because as soon as Aisling complains of a bug, FDev is on the case in record time, while other powers' bugs go unanswered for weeks.

So, Aisling is still in turmoil and will stay there. She will still have Kwatsu and Kelin in turmoil (like she's supposed to, I would argue). She still has Syntheng "in turmoil" (it doesn't act like that, she gets no income but she pays the upkeep and overhead), which takes the place of Kalana, which should rightfully be there. None of that changes. Hopefully going forward enough people are angered by this stupidity that Aisling gets undermined into the ground, so there can be no possible argument of turmoil never having happened.

I would also argue that applying a fix resulting in Aisling getting out of turmoil will not sit well with other players but that 'feeling' should matter little in the face of what's fair. It's fair that Aisling should not be in turmoil (according to the statement that they released), and unfair for them to withhold the fix preventing the correct, just, and fair outcome.

It should also be noted that the developers are the only ones who hold the most accurate data in the game. While we cannot take their words at face value, they're the only ones who actually have access to that data and are the only ones capable of publishing any definitive statement. Of course, as you said, that is an issue of transparency.

Also, no one complained about the bug they presented before it was presented - no one knew about the bug. I complained about turmoil selection - a completely different matter and one they still have yet to respond to.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Fold

Personally, I lost faith in FD the first time when they tell me straight in the face that player can only drop 20 tons of cargo in all instances is an intended change after I explain to them how it breaks the profession of piracy.

Eight patches later, that's after me kicking and screaming on the top of my lung on the forum (One locked thread and a new thread made after it), they changed the limit to 100 tons.

You know what, it doesn't sit right with me that traders can carry 532 tons of cargo when I can only pirate 100 tons. But I get it, piracy isn't popular, people hate it, people want to kill every player that participates in it.

Then comes faction modules. I, again, after numerous people telling FD how unbalanced they are and all Empire modules are meta modules, screamed and kicked and got Sandro to respond to me telling me they're looking into it. He also tells me I have a bad attitude and he doesn't like it. I still replied that the communication itself was appreciated and my faith in FD was restored slightly from it.

You know what, Sandro, I get it, you're under constant pressure, stressed by work, being a developer isn't easy. We get that, I'm a Computer Science student myself and I know at least a portion of your pain.

However, saving a pot of water from steaming away won't be done by standing aside and watching it burn. We don't want to scream at you, we don't want to yell, all we ask for is some reasonable attention. Yes, you are busy, but I would like to think seriously reading player input and actually fixing/update on the progress of fixing things to be a part of the top priority of a developer of a game that has an interactive playerbase.

Yet, module problems still aren't addressed or even have a status update on how it would be handled. If speaking of urgency, Archon Delaine can't expand this cycle because its only expansion is glitched. The issue was raised since July, and the only respond we got was from a QA guy telling us that he's passing the issue forward.

Taking SJA off AI was another thing that really put a minus in my book.

Sandro, you said that you appreciate the players setting up strategic threads on the forum and organizing outside of the game. If you hold true to that, please respect the effort people are putting into PP. Empire, Alliance, Federation, Independent, it doesn't matter who it is or what faction, we would like to see a leveled playing field where people don't feel like they are wasting their time. And this extends further than just PP.

Creating a playerbase is much easier than maintaining one. And I certainly hope FD has the intention to do a better job on the latter. I know that communicating with the playerbase is probably still new to FD, we appreciate what effort has been put into communication, but please step up the game.

 

[fergal]

I thought you undermined Kamocan that week with less than 'pew-pew' tactics. Also, we did lose Vaka and Nunes. I believe every undermining was canceled that week, including Kamocan's. Nunes and Vaka were simply our highest upkeep systems.

There was plenty of Pew pew (had to do something while they were scooping 200T and delivering them back) , plenty of dropping fortification widgets for the Aisling guys. 5 merits per ton for the widgets would have helped too.
The trigger isn't low
Kamocam and Vaka were both cancelled that week so were the highest upkeep for ALD, which meant they would be picked instead of Pancenses, but then everything went into turmoil, and then everything was forgiven.

 

[GluttonyFang]

I would also argue that applying a fix resulting in Aisling getting out of turmoil will not sit well with other players but that 'feeling' should matter little in the face of what's fair. It's fair that Aisling should not be in turmoil (according to the statement that they released), and unfair for them to withhold the fix preventing the correct, just, and fair outcome.

Allow me to use an analogy, this might be sensitive, but bear with me.

If there was a public bathroom that many XXX people use, it has leaks and it's generally dirty. XXX people complain about the quality of the bathroom, but the government doesn't care.

Suddenly, the YYY people begin to use the bathroom, as well. They, too, complain about the quality of the bathroom, and the government jumps on the issue and fixes it immediately.

I guess you can call fixing the said bathroom fair and just since it will be better than before... but why did that happen? Because YYY people complained...

Does this really sound ethical to you?

Don't get me wrong, discrimination happens all over the place, even in real life. But this degree of discrimination is necessary in a video game? Why?

Did the XXX people... did I commit some sort of sin or crime that I must pay for by being intrinsically inferior to the YYY people?

Aristotle stated himself that justice is treating equal people equally and unequal people unequally. I suppose I am considered below the YYY people, why and how?

Edit:

Ugh, stayed up way too late, 6:30 AM here. Looking at all the numbers and math is burning my eyes. Going to sleep with my husky plushy by my pillow now. Night~

 

[Seon]

Notice how FDev is so quiet about this in the forums. Some official words would do wonders right now.

 

[Apos]

Notice how FDev is so quiet about this in the forums. Some official words would do wonders right now.

They don't work in the weekend. No answer until tomorrow.

Or at least we all hope so.

 

[Martin Schou]

I read but I insist that based on your calculations, Syntheng would not have revolted and would have been kept as a control system (+14 CC means no turmoil means all turmoil systems are kept) before being incorrectly recognized as successfully undermined at the start of this turn causing additional costs to our CC resulting in turmoil and causing a chain reaction with additional losses from Kwatsu and Kelin Samba.

So what you're saying is that FDev is wrong and Aisling shouldn't have lost Syntheng, and that FDev is right in that you should have gotten the three expansions?

I've said it multiple times - if the first thing that happens is that you add the expansions, then Syntheng doesn't revolt and Aisling doesn't go into turmoil, but FDev insisted that Syntheng should be lost, so clearly this isn't the case.

You're cherry picking the statement that suits you the best, using that as an argument that the only problem is that Syntheng revolted, and then claiming that we don't understand what FDev is saying. Clearly you are the most impartial participant in this thread.

 

[aspiringexpatriate]

There was plenty of Pew pew (had to do something while they were scooping 200T and delivering them back) , plenty of dropping fortification widgets for the Aisling guys. 5 merits per ton for the widgets would have helped too.
The trigger isn't low
Kamocam and Vaka were both cancelled that week so were the highest upkeep for ALD, which meant they would be picked instead of Pancenses, but then everything went into turmoil, and then everything was forgiven.

Vaka (33) and Nunes (35) were in Turmoil from the week before, thus were already gone by then. But, yes, every single system, even the 0cc upkeep ones, entered Turmoil. It was impressive to see. And, yes, everything was forgiven. The system had broke because we didn't just hit the Overhead brick wall, we pole-vaulted over it like the big elephant in the room that it was.

- - - Updated - - -

So what you're saying is that FDev is wrong and Aisling shouldn't have lost Syntheng, and that FDev is right in that you should have gotten the three expansions?

I've said it multiple times - if the first thing that happens is that you add the expansions, then Syntheng doesn't revolt and Aisling doesn't go into turmoil, but FDev insisted that Syntheng should be lost, so clearly this isn't the case.

Yes. Exactly.

Two different conditionals means at least two different ways the calculations affect the game situation. Apparently, these two effects were never streamlined, but just operating separately.

 

[Martin Schou]

Two different conditionals means at least two different ways the calculations affect the game situation. Apparently, these two effects were never streamlined, but just operating separately.

You cannot argue from a position that what A says is wrong in the parts that you don't like and that A is correct in the parts that you do like, and then try to use that as a way to convince people that you are right.

That's like Bible bashers arguing that gays should be killed because it says so in the bible, all while they're eating ham sandwiches, wearing clothes made from two different fibres and doing protests on the Sabbath.

 

[Huita]

Regarding your previous thread about how you want to bring back the competition for rank 5: i think i have an idea.

In order to be rank 5, the player will have to earn X merits during a week, where X is the 5% of biggest power's population. This way:
a) smaller faction are not getting penalized for just being small in terms of playerbase;
b) people who are in PP just for the credits or whatever will flock to smaller factions, making numbers of players more balanced, thus making PP more interesting for people who actually PP for powers.

What do you think?

Just sticking with 5% won't really work, smaller factions will be at huge disadvantage.

Also, X could be number of PP players combined divided by the number of powers.

 

[ROSS-128]

Yes. Exactly.

Two different conditionals means at least two different ways the calculations affect the game situation. Apparently, these two effects were never streamlined, but just operating separately.

A few pages back shrinkshooter pointed out that we forgot to include overhead for Syntheng and the expansions.


Syntheng was a net zero value system. Its income was 92, its upkeep was 30, and its overhead was 62. It was worthless. Keeping it or losing it doesn't change squat.

The net value of all three expansions combined was just 25 CC after overhead.

Which means even if we give them the absolute best case scenario, that Syntheng is not in turmoil or off the books (no difference, it's value is zero) AND we give them all three expansions, they should still be in turmoil, despite what the dev said in the first post. The entire argument is moot. Even if we take GNThrone's order of operation at face value and run with his scenario, AD is still in turmoil. There is absolutely nothing that can prevent it save for divine intervention.



Which means, as far as determining whether AD should be in turmoil goes, the entire argument over whether the expansions should have been checked first is completely irrelevant!

(but if new expansions saving your ass is a legitimate mechanic now, then obviously they would be checked before turmoil because otherwise the mechanic wouldn't work)

 

[GNThrone]

Allow me to use an analogy, this might be sensitive, but bear with me.

If there was a public bathroom that many XXX people use, it has leaks and it's generally dirty. XXX people complain about the quality of the bathroom, but the government doesn't care.

Suddenly, the YYY people begin to use the bathroom, as well. They, too, complain about the quality of the bathroom, and the government jumps on the issue and fixes it immediately.

I guess you can call fixing the said bathroom fair and just since it will be better than before... but why did that happen? Because YYY people complained...

Does this really sound ethical to you?

Don't get me wrong, discrimination happens all over the place, even in real life. But this degree of discrimination is necessary in a video game? Why?

Did the XXX people... did I commit some sort of sin or crime that I must pay for by being intrinsically inferior to the YYY people?

Aristotle stated himself that justice is treating equal people equally and unequal people unequally. I suppose I am considered below the YYY people, why and how?

Edit:

Ugh, stayed up way too late, 6:30 AM here. Looking at all the numbers and math is burning my eyes. Going to sleep with my husky plushy by my pillow now. Night~

I get where you're coming from. Regardless of why the government started paying attention to the bathroom, the bathroom was still fixed and benefited everyone.

In our case, FD has identified that there is a problem. They called it out without anyone bringing up the bug. They have the appropriate means to address the situation but doing so would anger part of the player base. The fix would be be by no means unfair if it is as they described and fixing it will not result in an unfair change. The matter will not sit well with everyone but the problem would be fixed and the wrong outcome would be changed into the correct outcome. Withholding this fix would be unfair because they already identified the problem and accepted it as a problem, and would still refuse to fix it.

Imagine if people YYY started using the bathroom. The government then tells everyone that there's something wrong with the bathroom. They then proceed to not fix the bathroom because it would anger people XXX. That would be even more unethical for the government. They're withholding appropriate resolutions to maintain their image.

So what you're saying is that FDev is wrong and Aisling shouldn't have lost Syntheng, and that FDev is right in that you should have gotten the three expansions?

I've said it multiple times - if the first thing that happens is that you add the expansions, then Syntheng doesn't revolt and Aisling doesn't go into turmoil, but FDev insisted that Syntheng should be lost, so clearly this isn't the case.

You're cherry picking the statement that suits you the best, using that as an argument that the only problem is that Syntheng revolted, and then claiming that we don't understand what FDev is saying. Clearly you are the most impartial participant in this thread.

Yeah, but as I stated earlier, Zac's initial comment contradicts itself. He first said that Aisling should have gotten out of deficit (no turmoil) then proceeded to say that Syntheng should have revolted. We all know that Systems will only revolt if the Power was in turmoil the previous turn and was not able to get out of deficit. That would imply that we were in turmoil which conflicts with the first part of the statement.

The matter needs to be made clear by Zac and he is the only one who can determine who is correct or not.

That is clearly a partial view of the matter. Calling me out as impartial does not change the facts.

- - - Updated - - -

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2013/335/9/8/objection__by_gyakutenfanatic-d6wcp9z.png

A few pages back shrinkshooter pointed out that we forgot to include overhead for Syntheng and the expansions.


Syntheng was a net zero value system. Its income was 92, its upkeep was 30, and its overhead was 62. It was worthless. Keeping it or losing it doesn't change squat.

The net value of all three expansions combined was just 25 CC after overhead.

http://images.onesite.com/capcom-un.../a74e02bb4e02bf9c60a6fc0262c20e86.png?v=34485

Which means even if we give them the absolute best case scenario, that Syntheng is not in turmoil or off the books (no difference, it's value is zero) AND we give them all three expansions, they should still be in turmoil, despite what the dev said in the first post. The entire argument is moot. Even if we take GNThrone's order of operation at face value and run with his scenario, AD is still in turmoil. There is absolutely nothing that can prevent it save for divine intervention.

View attachment 55748

Which means, as far as determining whether AD should be in turmoil goes, the entire argument over whether the expansions should have been checked first is completely irrelevant!

(but if new expansions saving your ass is a legitimate mechanic now, then obviously they would be checked before turmoil because otherwise the mechanic wouldn't work)

Except that you forgot that Martin's calculations which followed my order of operation pointed to Aisling having either +14 CC or +44 CC. Neither of which are negative values. And neither of which would cause turmoil.

 

[Roybe]

Let me see if I can figure out the chain of events because I'm still somewhat confused by the whole thing.


So, end of cycle 9, Syntheng gets undermined, causes CC to go negative, and Aisling goes into turmoil at the start of cycle 10.


Syntheng is the only system in turmoil and Aisling fortifies all control systems but one. With the loss of Syntheng to revolt and the 3 profitable expansions, Aisling should have gotten back into the CC positive.


But, something weird happened and Syntheng didn't revolt. Instead it remained in turmoil for a second cycle causing Aisling's CC to stay negative, That led to two more systems Klein Samba and Kwatsu going into turmoil. Further hitting the CC totals.


FD has decided to fix the bug in the code but has not removed Aisling from turmoil or removed Syntheng from the list of systems in turmoil.


Therefore, even if Aisling's folks fortify everything again, they will still see Syntheng, Klein Samba, and Kwatsu revolt and become independent systems. They still take the loss to CC and they still stay in negative CC because the maths haven't been altered. Is the CC trap outlined by GNThrone still in effect?

So, my dear friends at FD, areas of contention based on a reading of the various threads are:
1. Some Aisling folks don't think Syntheng was fully undermined at the end of cycle 9 making the whole thing null and void.
2. There is general confusion about how systems entering turmoil are picked.
3. There is general confusion about whether or not powers in turmoil should be able to expand at all based on conflicting readings of Zac's statement:

4. There is general confusion about how powers are supposed to get rid of "bad" systems.
5. There is general disagreement about whether or not powers should even be able to get rid of bad systems.
6. There is a significant worry among non Imperial players that FD is making changes to Power Play in a way which benefits only Imperial powers; namely ALD and Aisling, as they are two powers in trouble when FD has acted to alter PP in any way.

Am I missing anything?

Cheers,



CMDR Quade

Nice summation! And Power Play continues on!

 

[CMDR John Casey]

I'm off PP now. This is really ridiculous - there's no fun in it when the mechanics of the PP game are messed around with constantly. Where is the player determined faction evolution? FD should simply set up a system and let the players efforts determine what happens to the factions. Throw in player 2 player trading and player controlled systems and powers and you've got a game worth playing.

I think that there is a plot written somewhere and if players actions jeopardise this plot they are not taken into account. I think that if all players blew up Patreus that would fit into the plot and no "fix" would be proposed.