Powerplay fix

[ROSS-128]

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.

The problem is that Martin's calculations included the income from the three expansions, but didn't include the overheads, an easy mistake to make. So he's off by 186.

Martin's Overhead value: 3539 CC
Shrinkshooter's Overhead value: 3725 CC
Difference: 186 = 62x3 = Overhead from three expansions.

What this does is it pushes AD from being a borderline case, to being so deep in the hole that even the expansions don't save her. She doesn't have +44, she has -142. If you drop Syntheng's overhead (also 62), you get -80 or -81 depending on which way you round the decimals.

And then two more systems go into turmoil and push her further down.

So whether you allow the expansions actually makes absolutely no difference whether she's in turmoil or not, the only thing it changes is just how deep she's in!

 

[CMDR John Casey]

This is a gods damned mess.

It's like FDev had two separate actions going on after the cycle calculations happened, and they got two separate and distinct results. I've been wondering since they announced it which action would be first in Turmoil recovery: 'systems in Turmoil revolt' or 'successful Expansions fail'. As much as it'd be great if FDev had an order for these, based on the confused maths I've just read, I'm going to assume that there was no order, and so multiple actions based on the similar numbers, but applying the actions at different times. Somehow these disparate actions fed back into the game as one unified result that didn't make any sense. And that's what we have now, a situation that doesn't make any sense

That is what I was saying. If there's such a paradoxical situation, it must be because two different calculations were applied, paradoxes don't happen if the set and the order of rules are well defined. This is the kind of things that happen when I play boardgames with my friends and we don't understand the rules or they are badly written. Which makes me wonder if this is a case of badly implemented rule or badly written rules.

 

[ROSS-128]

That is what I was saying. If there's such a paradoxical situation, it must be because two different calculations were applied, paradoxes don't happen if the set and the order of rules are well defined. This is the kind of things that happen when I play boardgames with my friends and we don't understand the rules or they are badly written. Which makes me wonder if this is a case of badly implemented rule or badly written rules.

That's why I believe shrinkshooter's calculations are actually correct: with those numbers Aisling ends up in turmoil no matter what, and we can easily reach the values displayed in-game without convoluted race conditions. Bam, paradox solved, the only error is that Syntheng stuck around for two cycles and that's clearly a bug. It simplifies things tremendously.

It helps that it's incredibly easy to get to those numbers from what we had earlier: we just add the overhead from the three expansions. Obviously we must have simply forgot about that the first time. Fix that, and it all starts making a lot more sense.

 

[yul7896]

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.

Agreed. I believe there is a script, and they are doing whatever they can to stick to it.

 

[GNThrone]

The problem is that Martin's calculations included the income from the three expansions, but didn't include the overheads, an easy mistake to make. So he's off by 186.

Martin's Overhead value: 3539 CC
Shrinkshooter's Overhead value: 3725 CC
Difference: 186 = 62x3 = Overhead from three expansions.

What this does is it pushes AD from being a borderline case, to being so deep in the hole that even the expansions don't save her. She doesn't have +44, she has -142. If you drop Syntheng's overhead (also 62), you get -80 or -81 depending on which way you round the decimals.

And then two more systems go into turmoil and push her further down.

So whether you allow the expansions actually makes absolutely no difference whether she's in turmoil or not, the only thing it changes is just how deep she's in!

I got it. So if we do follow explicitly my order of operations; we never hit positive CC and we are in turmoil.

	Step 1	Step 2,3	Step 4	Step 5
Income	4427	+312 (increased income)	-90	-281
RAW upkeep	1449 (TYPO; computations are still correct)	+100 (increased upkeep)	+32	-96
savings from fortified, not canceled	574
overheads	3602	+186.3 (increased overheads)
(change)		+25.7 (net change)	-122	-185
CC	-50	-24.3	-146.3	-331.3

BUT. If we end the turn still in deficit and lose syntheng:

	Step 1	Turmoil	Step 2,3	Step 4	Step 5
Income	4427	(no change)	+312	-90	-281
RAW Upkeep	1449	(no change)	+100	+32	-96
Savings from fortified	574
Overheads	3602	-62.1	+186.3
Change		+62.1	+25.7	-122	-185
CC	-50	12.1	37.8	-84.2	-269.2

*Overheads for 58 systems = 3602; overheads for 57 systems is 3540

Facts: we did end the turn in turmoil. But! That would mean we lose syntheng. Losing syntheng would gain us 62.1 CC from no longer paying overheads. (58 systems down to 57). That would result in a positive CC of 12.1. Allowing our expansions.

Step 2/3 gained us 3 new systems. Then we were charged -122 from Syntheng at step 4. Step 5 picked Kwatsu and kelin Samba for turmoil.

The second table has a difference of 10 cc from our actual CC but that would not really matter. (12.1 - 10 = 2.1 which is still positive at the turmoil step; 37.8 - 10 = 27.8 would still be positive at step 2/3)

Final conclusion: We did lose Syntheng. Losing syntheng brought our CC into a positive value, escaping turmoil -> allowing us to expand. Then Syntheng was registered as undermined again (it should have revolted) bugging out and causing the deficit and our turmoil.

This confirms that Zac's statement does indeed not contradict itself.

Syntheng is erroneously still considered as a control system.

 

[Apos]

Facts: we did end the turn in turmoil. But! That would mean we lose syntheng. Losing syntheng would gain us 62.1 CC from no longer paying overheads. (58 systems down to 57). That would result in a positive CC of 12.1. Allowing our expansions.

Step 2/3 gained us 3 new systems. Then we were charged -122 from Syntheng at step 4. Step 5 picked Kwatsu and kelin Samba for turmoil.

The second table has a difference of 10 cc from our actual CC but that would not really matter. (12.1 - 10 = 2.1 which is still positive at the turmoil step; 37.8 - 10 = 27.8 would still be positive at step 2/3)

Final conclusion: We did lose Syntheng. Losing syntheng brought our CC into a positive value, escaping turmoil -> allowing us to expand. Then Syntheng was registered as undermined again (it should have revolted) bugging out and causing the deficit and our turmoil.

This confirms that Zac's statement does indeed not contradict itself.

You have already been shown that you would be in turmoil even with the expansions and everything working properly.

 

[GNThrone]

You have already been shown that you would be in turmoil even with the expansions and everything working properly.

No look at the 2nd table. You ignored the 2nd table.

We end the turn in turmoil and lose Syntheng. That causes our CC to go into positive values. Enabling expansions. Expansions end with us having a positive CC. THEN Syntheng undermined fees were applied causing us to dip into deficit causing turmoil.

If Syntheng undermined fees were not applied, we would have ended the turn with positive CC. We did end in turmoil and we did lose Syntheng, causing a net +62.1 CC change, getting us out of deficit.

 

[ROSS-128]

I got it. So if we do follow explicitly my order of operations; we never hit positive CC and we are in turmoil.

	Step 1	Step 2,3	Step 4	Step 5
Income	4427	+312 (increased income)	-90	-281
upkeep	1149	+100 (increased upkeep)	+32	-96
savings from fortified, not canceled	574
overheads	3602	+186.3 (increased overheads)
(change)		+25.7 (net change)	-122	-185
CC	-50	-24.3	-146.3	-331.3

BUT. If we end the turn still in deficit and lose syntheng:

	Step 1	Turmoil	Step 2,3	Step 4	Step 5
Income	4427	(no change)	+312	-90	-281
Upkeep	1449	(no change)	+100	+32	-96
Savings from fortified	574
Overheads	3602	-62.1	+186.3
Change		+62.1	+25.7	-122	-185
CC	-50	12.1	37.8	-84.2	-269.2

*Overheads for 58 systems = 3602; overheads for 57 systems is 3540

Facts: we did end the turn in turmoil. But! That would mean we lose syntheng. Losing syntheng would gain us 62.1 CC from no longer paying overheads. (58 systems down to 57). That would result in a positive CC of 12.1. Allowing our expansions.

Step 2/3 gained us 3 new systems. Then we were charged -122 from Syntheng at step 4. Step 5 picked Kwatsu and kelin Samba for turmoil.

The second table has a difference of 10 cc from our actual CC but that would not really matter. (12.1 - 10 = 2.1 which is still positive at the turmoil step; 37.8 - 10 = 27.8 would still be positive at step 2/3)

Final conclusion: We did lose Syntheng. Losing syntheng brought our CC into a positive value, escaping turmoil -> allowing us to expand. Then Syntheng was registered as undermined again (it should have revolted) bugging out and causing the deficit and our turmoil.

This confirms that Zac's statement does indeed not contradict itself.

Syntheng is erroneously still considered as a control system.

That chart is wrong. Your Upkeep displayed in-game already includes your savings from fortification: by adding it again you have included it twice, crediting yourself with CC that you don't have. The upkeep displayed in-game also includes the cost of any undermined systems you have, since "under the hood" undermining works by raising upkeep, not reducing income. Your income never went positive at any point.

 

[GNThrone]

That chart is wrong. Your Upkeep displayed in-game already includes your savings from fortification: by adding it again you have included it twice, crediting yourself with CC that you don't have. The upkeep displayed in-game also includes the cost of any undermined systems you have, since "under the hood" undermining works by raising upkeep, not reducing income. Your income never went positive at any point.

No, the upkeep in the table is RAW upkeep.

The savings from undermined is the removed upkeep from fortified systems (not canceled).

I compute things differently than you okay. But that doesn't mean it's wrong. Removing the income effectively raises upkeep to the cost if undermined. (-90 CC profits, +32 CC upkeep = -122 CC change which is also the undermined upkeep of Syntheng.)

Edited chart for clarity.

 

[_Flin_]

So thats sorted out then. The bug is you have one control system too much. As someone who plays the BGS since day one, we are used to mysterious things happening. I am rather confident that FD will fix this pretty soon.Lots of people playing powerplay after all, and the undermining change did indeed make this way more fun than before.

 

[Apos]

No look at the 2nd table.

We end the turn in turmoil and lose Syntheng. That causes our CC to go into positive values. Enabling expansions. Expansions end with us having a positive CC. THEN Syntheng undermined fees were applied causing us to dip into deficit causing turmoil.

If Syntheng undermined fees were not applied, we would have ended the turn with positive CC. We did end in turmoil and we did lose Syntheng, causing a net +62.1 CC change, getting us out of deficit.

And you once again bend the rules to fit your argument.

Your options according to all the previous circles for other powers so far are:

The expansions succeed -> Still deficit -> You lose Syntheng and go into turmoil again as shown in everyone's calculations so far. (like you are now, just without Syntheng lost.)
The expansions succeed -> You have positive CC -> Syntheng is saved

Changing the order of checks to "Turmoil check -> Shake off Syntheng -> Expand" is ridiculous and has never happened before for any other power. The supporters of Hudson have very much a testament to the exact opposite happening to them. So if this is indeed the new "order of things" now, it is wrong and should be looked at again.

And either Hudson should get the systems he lost this way or Aisling should get punished the same way.

 

[ROSS-128]

No, the upkeep in the table is RAW upkeep.

The savings from undermined is the removed upkeep from fortified systems (not canceled).

Edited chart for clarity.

No, the upkeep there was pulled from the upkeep displayed in the power screen. Theoretically, if you fortified 100% of your systems and had zero undermining, it would be possible for this value to be zero.

To help you understand this: Hudson had a lot of systems successfully fortified last cycle (zero upkeep), right now he has a balance of 22 CC (because he also had a lot of systems undermined).

If it worked the way you described, the in-game balance sheet would have to say that Hudson has (rough ballpark guess) less than -300 CC, while not being in turmoil due to the fortification. The reason Hudson has a positive number on his balance sheet at all is because last cycle's fortification is included in that number. I can't add it twice and claim that Hudson actually has +322 CC.

 

[GNThrone]

And you once again bend the rules to fit your argument.

Your options according to all the previous circles for other powers so far are:

The expansions succeed -> Still deficit -> You lose Syntheng and go into turmoil again as shown in everyone's calculations so far. (like you are now, just without Syntheng lost.)
The expansions succeed -> You have positive CC -> Syntheng is saved

Changing the order of checks to "Turmoil check -> Shake off Syntheng -> Expand" is ridiculous and has never happened before for any other power. The supporters of Hudson have very much a testament to the exact opposite happening to them. So if this is indeed the new "order of things" now, it is wrong and should be looked at again.

And either Hudson should get the systems he lost this way or Aisling should get punished the same way.

ONCE AGAIN, I DID NOT BEND THE RULES TO MY LIKING. All caps for frustration.

I was trying to figure out what happened. There's something in the check orders which lead us to the current situation.

I did not change anything. I'm trying to explain WHY everything that happened, happened.

Here's my final conclusion brought about by the recent breakthrough:

1. We ended the turn in turmoil losing us Syntheng and gaining us 62.1 CC from no longer paying overheads AND getting us out of deficit.
2. Expansion of 3 good systems because they had a +25.7 CC net change. Expansion of the 3 bad systems failed because they would have each had a -50 CC net change (their success would mean dipping us into turmoil -> failed)
3. Syntheng undermined fees were applied (lost 90 profits, gained +32 CC upkeep; OR we gained an extra +32 CC upkeep and another extra 90 CC upkeep; either way those both mean a -122 CC net change)
4. The additional fees caused turmoil and caused Kwatsu and Kelin Samba to go into turmoil further reducing our CC.

It explains why:

1. Zac stated that Syntheng should have revolted.
2. Zac stated that Aisling ended the turn deficit free.
3. The CC we have right now.

- - - Updated - - -

No, the upkeep there was pulled from the upkeep displayed in the power screen. Theoretically, if you fortified 100% of your systems and had zero undermining, it would be possible for this value to be zero.

To help you understand this: Hudson had a lot of systems successfully fortified last cycle (zero upkeep), right now he has a balance of 22 CC (because he also had a lot of systems undermined).

If it worked the way you described, the in-game balance sheet would have to say that Hudson has (rough ballpark guess) less than -300 CC, while not being in turmoil due to the fortification. The reason Hudson has a positive number on his balance sheet at all is because last cycle's fortification is included in that number. I can't add it twice and claim that Hudson actually has +322 CC.

No, I got the raw upkeeps from maually adding all the upkeep costs for all of our systems.

I got the upkeep savings from adding up the upkeep costs of all our fortified systems (not canceled). No systems were undermined. The only change to the raw upkeep would be savings from fortifications. Cancelled systems would not change the raw upkeep value.

There was no adding twice anywhere.

RAW profits (manually summated) - RAW upkeeps (summated ALL upkeeps from ALL control systems except Syntheng because it was in turmoil) - overhead (computed with the equation) + fortified savings (summating upkeep of all systems which were fortified)

 

[Apos]

ONCE AGAIN, I DID NOT BEND THE RULES TO MY LIKING. All caps for frustration.

I was trying to figure out what happened. There's something in the check orders which lead us to the current situation.

I did not change anything. I'm trying to explain WHY everything that happened, happened.

What you are doing is trying to find a way to prove Zac right. I don't know whether the reasons behind is because you just want Aisling to get out of turmoil regardless if it was a mistake or not or just think that FD can't make a mistake.

If it is the latter, you fail to understand that the mathematics provided to you is also thanks to formulas also provided by FD. We didn't know how overheads were calculated before they told us.

So someone is wrong here. And to be honest, until FD replies with an analytical spreadsheet of their own, I will go with them doing a mistake, because the more thorough investigation shows that the calculations are stack against Aisling.

If FD shows us otherwise, I'll be happy to accept it as true. It would only give us a bigger insight on the calculations behind PP after all, so it's a win/win situation really.

 

[fergal]

No, the upkeep there was pulled from the upkeep displayed in the power screen. Theoretically, if you fortified 100% of your systems and had zero undermining, it would be possible for this value to be zero.

Very slight mistake, you can't fortify your capital so must always pay its 20cc upkeep costs

 

[ROSS-128]

No, I got the raw upkeeps from maually adding all the upkeep costs for all of our systems.

I got the upkeep savings from adding up the upkeep costs of all our fortified systems (not canceled). No systems were undermined. The only change to the raw upkeep would be savings from fortifications. Cancelled systems would not change the raw upkeep value.

There was no adding twice anywhere.

RAW profits (manually summated) - RAW upkeeps (summated ALL upkeeps from ALL control systems except Syntheng because it was in turmoil) - overhead (computed with the equation) + fortified savings (summating upkeep of all systems which were fortified)

You clearly counted wrong, because your values don't agree with the in-game values and you don't have any reasonable mechanism to get from one to the other.

Look, I'll try to lay this out by system states.

Current state, State 1, as represented on the in-game balance sheet:
Turmoil:
Syntheng: TRUE (+62 Overhead, +30 Upkeep) (note: here we're also helping you by assuming Syntheng's upkeep is bugged, and you're paying it when in turmoil you shouldn't)
Kwatsu: TRUE ( -149 Income, -50 Upkeep)
Samba: TRUE (-132 Income, -46 Upkeep)

Expansions: TRUE (+100 Upkeep, +186 Overhead, +312 Income)

Current Balance, as displayed in-game:
4458 Income: This includes +312 for the expansions.
1029 Upkeep: This includes everything above, and all fortification savings. According to your table, this should be 1149-574=575. You've granted yourself roughly 500 "ghost CC".
3788 Overhead: This includes everything listed above.

Now, let's move to the state where you claim you had a positive CC balance, State 2. Let's list the relevant values for that state:
Turmoil:
Syntheng: FALSE
Kwatsu: FALSE
Samba: FALSE

Expansions: TRUE

Since in the previous state all values were TRUE, staying TRUE won't change anything (pardon the all caps, it's a Boolean thing). For each variable that becomes FALSE, we will subtract its relevant values (remembering the rule about double-negatives).

Income: 4458+149+132=4739
Upkeep: 1029+50+46-30=1095(again, you'll notice it's a far cry from the 575 you claimed to have at this point: in fact it went up, because of how Turmoil works)
Overhead: 3788-62=3726

So now, we have reached the state where you claim you should have a positive income. Syntheng is gone, Kwatsu and Samba are giving you income, all your expansions are giving you income. This is the highest your CC balance can possibly be without divine intervention. Your CC balance is:
+4739
-1095
-3726
_____
-82

(if Syntheng's upkeep is not bugged and State 1 already correctly excludes its upkeep as a proper Turmoil system, that will result in not needing to remove that upkeep from State 2 and it would put you at -112)

 

[GNThrone]

Very slight mistake, you can't fortify your capital so must always pay its 20cc upkeep costs

That was included. We get 44 CC from Cubeo, and lose 20 CC in upkeep.

 

[Asmondar]

I am curious about something. I am a very casual gamer, aligned with AislingDuval, and during this thread everyone is referring back to numbers from 1 and 2 cycles ago, about what was and what wasn't undermined. Now I can look at my computer and see this week info, in terms of what is currently happening, but I can't find previous week info. Specifically regarding what was fortified, what was undermined and what was simply left alone ( not fort, not under). As so many of you are able to access this info, to determine exactly how much every power should have paid and all the other info, I would like to see this info too. Did you take screen shots of each power, is it saved in galnet or on forums somewhere I can't seem to see?

Now, in regards to expansions during turmoil, I actually don't think any power in turmoil should be allowed to expand. As it does not make sense either from a business or governmental viewpoint; and if we look at this game and our powers, we are a combination of both business and government. But that is a different thread.

Not it that it will do much good, but I propose a cease-fire, neither side is willing to concede and both sides seem to be becoming more agitated and only the devs, if so inclined, can truly end this debate. Both sides have been heard, and you are now simply repeating ad infinitum.

Thank you you for your assistance and time

CMDR Azmondar

 

[GNThrone]

You guys made me use excel. I'm not happy about that.

All data is freshly obtained from in-game at the time written on the image.

I can do math too.

Radius income is obtained by subtracting default upkeep FROM upkeep if undermined.

Fortified systems were obtained by looking at EACH control system in the control tab. 0 upkeep cost = fortified; non-zero upkeep cost = cancelled/unfortified.

No systems were successfully undermined (not including the bugged Syntheng)

All systems were fortified.



There is a 4 cc discrepancy which translates to a 0.01 % deviation from actual numbers.

The 4 cc discrepancy occurs in RAW upkeeps.

If the 0.01% deviation is enough to not convince you, then you are beyond ANY help.

This is whathappened to a very high degree of certainty.

Syntheng not bugging out would have left us with 14 CC.

If everything is working as intended, THEN expansions are allowed ONLY if it will lead to a positive CC. This is how things are happening in the game.

This DOES NOT prove that FDev sneaked in a mechanic. It could have been there ever since they applied the change to expansion mechanics. BUT, there is no possible proof (or at least this isn't proof) that implies FDev sneaked in a mechanic to help Aisling.

 

[_Flin_]

Powers and their organizer usually use google spreadsheets to collect data about different systems, and they lften keep historical values. It helps in defining strategies.