Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Academy » Another bug? Star base upgrade not being built..
| Another bug? Star base upgrade not being built.. |
Thu, 19 April 2012 00:52  |
|
|
|
The planet in question had 307 resources.
I queued up the upgrade that cost exactly 307 resources too.
I was just carefully going through the past turns and I confirm that the upgrade didn't happen.
The said planet was attacked by an enemy fleet and the battle showed the old station in orbit...
If I hada 305 resource upgrade, would it have gone through ?
I'm coming to realise that I should always leave a 5% margin for critical base upgrades  .
Any comments or confirmations on this?
I know my minefields.. but I'm a chaff sweeper.
I used to curse when I got stuck in traffic... till I realised I AM traffic.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Another bug? Star base upgrade not being built.. |
Thu, 19 April 2012 09:37  |
|
|
|
Yea.. I think it got built to 98-99% and when the existing star base died, the queued star base design went to 0%.
I've been told that the resources from the planet and what go into the production arent exactly the same, when it comes to station upgrades... I'll ask for a more detailed explanation.
edited.
[Updated on: Thu, 19 April 2012 12:10]
I know my minefields.. but I'm a chaff sweeper.
I used to curse when I got stuck in traffic... till I realised I AM traffic.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Another bug? Star base upgrade not being built.. |
Thu, 19 April 2012 10:42 |
|
|
|
I asked a slightly simlilar question about a month ago...it was about multiyear upgrades, which confirms that starbase % goes down to 0, if the existing base dies.
Added to our unfortunate instances where the entire resources didn't go into the production queue, the explanation fits.
http://starsautohost.org/sahforum/index.php?t=msg&th=505 2
correction btw... the base upgrade cost was 300 resources while planet resources was 307.
97% utilisation.... darn, it's all the more irritating now  .
[Updated on: Thu, 19 April 2012 10:45]
I know my minefields.. but I'm a chaff sweeper.
I used to curse when I got stuck in traffic... till I realised I AM traffic.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Another bug? Star base upgrade not being built.. |
Thu, 19 April 2012 15:23 |
|
|
|
so in the case of a regen.. whats the percentage that it will happen again?
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Another bug? Star base upgrade not being built.. |
Thu, 19 April 2012 15:25 |
|
|
|
100%?
I'll create a testbed and see what happens to exact planet resource (and 90-100% res) upgrades in a year where the planet is attacked by an enemy fleet and check it out tmrw.. but I'm quite sure this is a fixed event and not a random eventuality.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | |
| Re: Another bug? Star base upgrade not being built.. |
Thu, 19 April 2012 19:18 |
|
 Bystander |
 | |
Messages: 141
Registered: June 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida, USA | 
|
|
As I understand it, there are at least two issues that both Nmid and M.A. faced.
A) their starbase improvements did not appear on schedule
B) they were attacked on the turn the upgrades were expected and did not materialize. Their unimproved bases were shot down, and now the progress on their improved bases in queue show at 0%.
I know of four tricky ways that queues do not finish as expected:
1) A technology earned before production activates a greyed-out item high in the queue. Usually terraforming tech is discovered and max terraforming goes from inactive to active again. It may even finish on the planet and be grey again when you next see it in queue.
2) Minerals are stolen by an SS race at waypoint 0 (assumes you did not notice their ships in orbit) or your mines % depletes by 1 as your mines are operated, leaving you unable to complete your items.
3) Miniaturization sometimes works against you when you gain new tech from scrapping or waypoint 0 pop dropping. Extreme example is upgrading a base from organic armor (bio-based) for any construction-based armor. If you get bio tech that turn and do not get construction tech, your organic armor has been miniaturized, but your construction armor has not. So you get less credit for your old starbase when building the new. M.A. has confirmed this did NOT happen to him.
4) Plain old rounding error. So yes, I agree, you should always give yourself a cushion on resources and minerals. Personally, I have been doing that for years.
There may be many more tricky reasons, but I can't think of any off the top of my head.
As for the issue of your new versions of bases now being at 0% after the original version was killed - this makes sense in a real-world sense. Each ship in a queue is independent of others in the queue or in orbit. But I don't think of a base in a queue as being built separately from the one already in orbit, I think of it as improving the existing base. So if the old version gets shot down, you lose your improvements too.
Sort of a double-whammy in this game for both players, but this might be judged a reasonable game behavior. Up to the neutral third party.
4)
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Another bug? Star base upgrade not being built.. |
Fri, 20 April 2012 02:57 |
|
|
|
| Bystander wrote on Fri, 20 April 2012 04:48 |
I know of four tricky ways that queues do not finish as expected:
1) A technology earned before production activates a greyed-out item high in the queue. Usually terraforming tech is discovered and max terraforming goes from inactive to active again. It may even finish on the planet and be grey again when you next see it in queue.
2) Minerals are stolen by an SS race at waypoint 0 (assumes you did not notice their ships in orbit) or your mines % depletes by 1 as your mines are operated, leaving you unable to complete your items.
3) Miniaturization sometimes works against you when you gain new tech from scrapping or waypoint 0 pop dropping. Extreme example is upgrading a base from organic armor (bio-based) for any construction-based armor. If you get bio tech that turn and do not get construction tech, your organic armor has been miniaturized, but your construction armor has not. So you get less credit for your old starbase when building the new. M.A. has confirmed this did NOT happen to him.
4) Plain old rounding error. So yes, I agree, you should always give yourself a cushion on resources and minerals. Personally, I have been doing that for years.
There may be many more tricky reasons, but I can't think of any off the top of my head.
As for the issue of your new versions of bases now being at 0% after the original version was killed - this makes sense in a real-world sense. Each ship in a queue is independent of others in the queue or in orbit. But I don't think of a base in a queue as being built separately from the one already in orbit, I think of it as improving the existing base. So if the old version gets shot down, you lose your improvements too.
Sort of a double-whammy in this game for both players, but this might be judged a reasonable game behavior. Up to the neutral third party.
|
I rechecked.
1. The upgrade was the 1st item in the queue.
2. No minerals were stolen, there was a 400% safety margin for minerals.
3. It doesn't appear to be a bad case of miniturization cutting refunds.
The only tech gain in the year was weapons and the upgrade base just had topping up of the weapons in the slot.
3b. The only upgraded component was shields, but from 8 bear to 24 gorilla, with no change in energy tech, shouldn't really make a difference.
edit - I've confirmed, the cost of bears was steady in both years.
| Quote: |
4. There was infact a margin provided in my case. Sadly the 2%-2.5% margin wasn't enough.
The planet had 307 resources, the upgrade cost 300 res. 97.7% utilisation.
|
Addendum
The difference the weap tech gain = it reduced the upgrade base total cost from
208/171/178/566 to
204/171/178/560
The upgrade cost in the queue was shown as
192/53/140/307 in year 1.
204/171/178/560, in year 2, which is the full cost of the 2nd design.
The original base cost went from
19/118/41/271 to
19/118/41/260
So a difference of 11 resources.
When it gets upgraded, the refund is 50%, so the 11 res (271-260) should have 5.5 resources less?
| Quote: |
[color=silver]The 7 resource safety margin should still have been enough to take care of it.[/color]
|
And I still don't know if it should be relevant, as I wasn't upgrading the weapons, just increasing the same type.
Why would I get a refund on existing weapons that continue in the next upgrade design, in the same design slot?
Also, another thing I noticed, while the total cost of the original base went down 271 to 260, the 16 heavy blaster and 10 phased sapper went down 1 res each. Which should have meant a difference of 26(16+10) resources..?
Rounding error for the individual weapons while the base total was correct, I presume.
Regards,
Nmid
edit - corrected numbers and point 4. It was a base upgrade of 307 resources.
The final conclusion remains the same, that is, the base upgrade didn't go through because of miniaturization hitting the refund costs... even if the components were of the same type, in the same slot, in the next version.
...
[Updated on: Fri, 20 April 2012 06:05] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | | |
| Re: Another bug? Star base upgrade not being built.. |
Fri, 20 April 2012 16:21 |
|
| torben |
 | Petty Officer 3rd Class |
Messages: 49
Registered: October 2007 | |
|
Hi there,
things seem quite confusing here. I too have been able to look into MAs turn files and have to admit that things are weird.
But first things first: There has been confusion in the thread on how Stars! handles upgrades, basically, the math behind it is stated in the help file (Topic "Starbases"):
| Quote: |
Upgrading a Starbase
You can upgrade a starbase by changing the hull or by adding or changing items in the hull slots. You receive full credit for the existing installation, paying only the difference between the old and new hulls. The upgrade appears in the production inventory, ready for you to add to the production queue when you wish.
Here's how the cost is determined:
If the hull changes:
- You receive a 50% credit for minerals and resources used in the original starbase.
If the hull does not change:
- Slots where the components don't change are free.
- Slots where only the count of the component increases cost only the component price multiplied by the number of additional items.
- Slots where the component type changes to a similar component are discounted in cost; the discount based on the closeness of the part types.
- Slots where the component type changes dramatically cost the full price of the new component. You will receive some minerals back if the old components are recycled.
|
In case of MA, things are quite close as his base only falls under the first top points on the list. After that, things get hairy, obviously. Note, that the 50% general discount applies only if (and only if) the hull type changes, which wasn't the case with MA.
Here it is not about resources, where he had a (albeit very slim) buffer, but about Boranium. Here he was exactly on the spot down to the last ton.
What I believe in this case is that its again a case of Stars doing some weird rounding we don't know about.
Also: Both the old and the new design got exactly 1 kT cheaper. If (and that's a big if) Stars does the discount and the rebuild on a different tech level base (MA to gained a relevant tech level), it would be enough to explain the difference.
That being the case, as others have stated, it is logical that you end up with a 0% built base after combat: The old (99,999% upgraded one) got killed, which resets the production but does not remove the item from the queue.
Another point here does support this: MA had a single, 54% built factory in the queue after the base, which did not get built as well, indicating that he run out of minerals again.
The tricky thing here is to actually reverse engineer what happened. I have been thinking about it already, but I have yet to come up with some sane way to actually test this and reconstruct the math done.
Until there is some conclusive evidence on how things develop in such a scenario, my recommendation goes with what has been said: Keep a safety buffer in your build queue if you need the base next turn (just my 2 cents).
I'll try to do some tests and math after the weekend when I am back at my PC.
Torben
edit: Fixed formatting and Mineral name (it's Boranium, not Germanium).
[Updated on: Fri, 20 April 2012 16:31] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Another bug? Star base upgrade not being built.. |
Fri, 20 April 2012 16:38 |
|
|
|
I'll send you the relevant game files as well.
Give me five mins.
Sent.
[Updated on: Fri, 20 April 2012 16:51]
I know my minefields.. but I'm a chaff sweeper.
I used to curse when I got stuck in traffic... till I realised I AM traffic.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Another bug? Star base upgrade not being built.. |
Fri, 20 April 2012 17:05 |
|
|
|
Quote
Note, that the 50% general discount applies only if (and only if) the hull type changes, which wasn't the case with MA..
End quote.
Hmmm, guess I knew that. My base didn't go through with a hull change too.
If its not a refund problem, then my base didn't get built after ending at 99.99999% because of the resource rounding error. Bah.
What's ur third party call on this?
Should we
1. regen or
2. Have a five year ceasefire on the planet and let it get back to strength. In the sixth, let there be another battle for it?
3. Continue on without any change.
Edit - my base didn't get a hull change either, to be clear.
Added option 3.
[Updated on: Fri, 20 April 2012 19:00]
I know my minefields.. but I'm a chaff sweeper.
I used to curse when I got stuck in traffic... till I realised I AM traffic.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Another bug? Star base upgrade not being built.. |
Fri, 20 April 2012 18:49 |
|
|
|
| nmid wrote on Fri, 20 April 2012 08:57 |
Also, another thing I noticed, while the total cost of the original base went down 271 to 260, the 16 heavy blaster and 10 phased sapper went down 1 res each. Which should have meant a difference of 26(16+10) resources..?
|
Weapons on bases cost only 50%.
With ISB bases cost only 80% what is also true for all equipment on the base.
Both reduction together means a weapon costs only 40% its normal price when placed on a station:
26 * 0.4 = 10.4
That looks very close to your detected 11res.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Another bug? Star base upgrade not being built.. |
Fri, 20 April 2012 18:56 |
|
|
|
| Altruist wrote on Sat, 21 April 2012 04:19 |
| nmid wrote on Fri, 20 April 2012 08:57 |
Also, another thing I noticed, while the total cost of the original base went down 271 to 260, the 16 heavy blaster and 10 phased sapper went down 1 res each. Which should have meant a difference of 26(16+10) resources..?
|
Weapons on bases cost only 50%.
With ISB bases cost only 80% what is also true for all equipment on the base.
Both reduction together means a weapon costs only 40% its normal price when placed on a station:
26 * 0.4 = 10.4
That looks very close to your detected 11res.
|
That makes perfect sense. Thanks for reminding me of the double discount.
If the reason for the failed upgrades for rounding error, (bor for ma, resource for me), then there is no problem and it fits existing knowledge. But if it's something to do with discounted refunds, then we should also consider these discounts and thus the relevant refund being only 20% of the individual list price, (in my case with isb, while m.a. who doesn't have isb, will be at 25%).
I know my minefields.. but I'm a chaff sweeper.
I used to curse when I got stuck in traffic... till I realised I AM traffic.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Another bug? Star base upgrade not being built.. |
Fri, 20 April 2012 23:35 |
|
| m.a@stars |
 | Commander |
Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left | |
|
| torben wrote on Fri, 20 April 2012 22:21 |
MA had a single, 54% built factory in the queue after the base, which did not get built as well, indicating that he run out of minerals again.
|
If I had run out of minerals (in this case Bora, as I had 200kT excess Germ), the proportional part of my Res would have gone to building the next item in the Q, namely, that Fact. But exactly zero Res went to completing that Fact, so the Production Q didn't work even remotely as it should. 
Also, when you say "rounding" you seem to imply that there's no way to ascertain the math behind the diverse costs. But there's at least one reasonable theory about the trigger for this particular bug, and why it doesn't happen with every single SB upgrade in every game, and we're thinking tech gains and miniaturization are involved. And that can be tested easily enough. 
So many Stars, so few Missiles!
In space no one can hear you scheme!  Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Another bug? Star base upgrade not being built.. |
Fri, 20 April 2012 23:39 |
|
|
|
| m.a@stars wrote on Sat, 21 April 2012 09:05 |
| torben wrote on Fri, 20 April 2012 22:21 |
MA had a single, 54% built factory in the queue after the base, which did not get built as well, indicating that he run out of minerals again.
|
If I had run out of minerals (in this case Bora, as I had 200kT excess Germ), the proportional part of my Res would have gone to building the next item in the Q, namely, that Fact. But exactly zero Res went to completing that Fact, so the Production Q didn't work even remotely as it should.
Also, when you say "rounding" you seem to imply that there's no way to ascertain the math behind the diverse costs. But there's at least one reasonable theory about the trigger for this particular bug, and why it doesn't happen with every single SB upgrade in every game, and we're thinking tech gains and miniaturization are involved. And that can be tested easily enough.
|
wait, what???
if a queue gets blocked, nothing gets built.
haven't you noticed when factories block a queue (not autobuild orders, custom/specific orders.)
I know my minefields.. but I'm a chaff sweeper.
I used to curse when I got stuck in traffic... till I realised I AM traffic.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | | | |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri May 03 12:04:37 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
