[1.04b8] Grand Convention critical success do not applied to relationships

[demiare]

I'm also almost sure that it's applied wrong way even without critical success. But this image clearly show that instead +4% to relationship I get only +2% (some of my leaders get only +1%).

Something is broken. [8|]

[Malevolence]

I would add, the tooltip (and the report) fails to fully state the units of measure. Is that +2 points? +2 percentage points? +2 percent?

It's +2 points, but that isn't stated fully--and I believe in some reports that's only the change from last turn's processing.

Notice how the tooltip with only +2 doesn't fully account for the +4 or the +1 (not sure which leader is hover target).

Example, the last sentence of the top report, "All Leaders received an added 38 XP Points (last/this) turn." Use active voice and the 5W's. The relation line above it is a fine example of passive voice.

A common issue in the interface. No need to be stingy with the words if you're going to write a sentence anyway. It doesn't have to be written like assembler code.

[Vic]

Only part of the changes are logged. Due to Stratagem play changes are not. yet.

The % change is INV 4%. Which means it gains 4% on the (100-Relation).

Will update the text for next open beta.

[demiare]

ORIGINAL: Vic

The % change is INV 4%. Which means it gains 4% on the (100-Relation).

So you mean if with 71 relationship I get only +2% out of 4% possible then with 50 relationship I will get +0%? o_O

Phew, this is a huge nerf to meritocracy late game. Now I understand why I no longer be capable to keep most leaders on 100 that was possible previously. I don't want to sound mean but IMHO such changes should be mentioned in patch notes.

[Malevolence]

ORIGINAL: demiare

ORIGINAL: Vic

The % change is INV 4%. Which means it gains 4% on the (100-Relation).

So you mean if with 71 relationship I get only +2% out of 4% possible then with 50 relationship I will get +0%? o_O

Phew, this is a huge nerf to meritocracy late game. Now I understand why I no longer be capable to keep most leaders on 100 that was possible previously. I don't want to sound mean but IMHO such changes should be mentioned in patch notes.

Look at the difficulty some have understanding my jargon explaining military topics. People have a difficult time recognizing what they don't know, when they don't know it. I would guess surgeons experience this explaining operations to their patients. but a patient tends not to argue with their surgeon

Granting that, as I wrote, it's bad shorthand. "Relation of all Leaders improved with +4%" is ultimately misleading due to omission and mixing units of measure--in terms of general purpose language. The writer is making assumptions about system knowledge and using shorthanded jargon. Something you typically see, for example, coders put in log statements or comment blocks.

"Each leader's relation points improved (last/this) turn, between 1 and 4 relation points, due to the Grand Convention". The stratagem card should use similar language, not +4%.

If your leader's relation was 98, a 4% bonus would give you an added 0.08... so relation score is now 98.08

If your leader's relation was 71, a 4% bonus would give you an added 1.16... so relation score is now 72.16

If your leader's relation was 50, a 4% bonus would give you an added 2.00... so relation score is now 52.00

If your leader's relation was 10, a 4% bonus would give you an added 3.60... so relation score is now 13.60

If your leader's relation was 01, a 4% bonus would give you an added 3.96... so relation score is now 4.96

That assumes the relation score is actually stored and used as a float, otherwise the rounding rules used matter.

This is why client facing reports should not use lax shorthand. The text should be general-purpose, not jargon.

"Master Blaster increased 2 relation points (last/this) turn, from 50 to 52, due to the Grand Convention"

who - what - when - where - why (5Ws)

It also makes spotting bugs immensely easier for developers and players.

This issue permeates the game.

DEFINITION: Jargon

Special words or expressions that are used by a particular profession or group and are difficult for others to understand.

[Vic]

ORIGINAL: demiare

ORIGINAL: Vic

The % change is INV 4%. Which means it gains 4% on the (100-Relation).

So you mean if with 71 relationship I get only +2% out of 4% possible then with 50 relationship I will get +0%? o_O

Phew, this is a huge nerf to meritocracy late game. Now I understand why I no longer be capable to keep most leaders on 100 that was possible previously. I don't want to sound mean but IMHO such changes should be mentioned in patch notes.

It is has always been like this with these Stratagems and some other calcs. Didn't nerf anything

However I am open to finetunings.

Also reading Malevolence and a big pass on clear logging which is a good idea. Its just time intensive to do for me so it might take some time till i get around to that.

best wishes,
Vic

[demiare]

ORIGINAL: Malevolence

"Each leader's relation points improved (last/this) turn, between 1 and 4 relation points, due to the Grand Convention". The stratagem card should use similar language, not +4%.

^THIS!

Currently Grand Convention description is seriously misleading.

ORIGINAL: Malevolence

who - what - when - where - why (5Ws)

In case of relationship tooltip we can easily skip "who" part - player already hover mouse over relationship with exact person!
Same with "when" - all relationship changes are in current turn. Keeping details of previous turn IMHO excess.


But I will completely agree with your suggestion, if we already have tooltips for relation - effect of stratagems should be included too. If I was able to see exact values "+X due stratagem Y effect" then I had a chance to find myself how it's working. But I was forced to guess first relation changes caused by stratagem, then assume how it's work. No surprise that I'd mistaken.

Sorry for wasting your time, Vic.