Matrix Games Forums

Hello, does anyone know the soft cap formula for said obstacle?

I dabbled a bit with it, it sure is something square root based.

Examples:
377 BP invested, results in 158 reduction; 219 BP net worth before multiplication with relation and skill bonus.

400 BP invested, results in 172 reduction, 228 BP net worth.

282 BP invested, -99, 183 net worth.

113 BP invested, -4, 109 net worth.

202 BP invested, -51, 151 net worth.

Any suggestions?

"202 BP invested, -51"
Looks like it is simple "Points Above 100/2" But only for this particulary value in the 2 leading digits.

Asuming the substraction would be "Points above 100/2", for the given BP investments the subsrtraction would have to be:

113 BP: -6.5
202 BP: -51
282 BP: -91
377 BP: -138.5
400 BP: -150

Difference between asumed and real formula:
113 BP: +2.5
202 BP: +/-0
282 BP: -8
377 BP: -19.5
400 BP: -22

Have you checked out "5.6.2.5. bureauCratIC PoInts (bP)"?
It might be the same underlying formula, just using different cutoffs and not allowing a bonus.

I dabbled a bit with it, it sure is something square root based.

The square root asumption is not a bad one. And a Square root can be undone, by cubing it back up.
So, what would be the cube of the reduction be? How does it relate to the invested and net values?
100 BP: +/- 0
113 BP: 4² = 16
202 BP: 51² = 2601
282 BP: 99² = 9801
377 BP: 158² = 24964
400 BP: 172² = 29584

So, if there is any direct Square Root involved, then it is something to undo a previous squaring.
SquareRoot([Investment]² - somehting)

Maybe looking at it as percentages helps?
113 BP: -3.54%
202 BP: -25.25%
282 BP: -35.11%
377 BP: -41.91%
400 BP: -43.00%

It is quite possible that the decimal places are the result of rounding errors, not actually part of the formula.
Still, that does make 400 a interesting figure - no room for rounding errors?

I checked the manual for BP and PP formula. It is inconsistent at most, the square root asumption was my best bet, as I tried the "Points above 100/2", too, and the difference is too high to be viable.

It sure will help to put some of those numbers in a graph. I must confess I haven't done that since like 1995...

I will add some results from some endgame BP caps, where I put some 1k in single research councils. Just need to find the savegames.

Your analysis is a great help!

More numbers:

Input-Reduction-Result:
106 -1 105
108 -2 106
112 -4 108
117 -6 111
118 -6 112
121 -8 113
131 -12 119
136 -15 121
140 -17 123
142 -18 124
146 -20 126
151 -23 128
158 -26 132 (2x)
163 -29 134
164 -30 134 !
178 -37 141 (2x)
187 -42 145
217 -60 157
218 -60 158
225 -64 161
249 -79 170
304 -112 192
352 -142 210
355 -144 211
379 -159 220

There is consistency in this; and I had some numbers doubled in different councils, so it seems there are no rng effects or relation involved.The ascent is linear, it seems.

The 163/164 results seem to be rounded down.

Another interesting find I had is this: The BP in the SCC invested in stratagems diminish when above 100 when applied to the different stratagem types (Covert ops-major-minor-national-etc.)!