Because the Raix Bunker is applied as an Effect, it does not get the boost from +% defense structures that are on the planet before it. This is very troublesome, because some of those structures can't be extracted, and thus are stuck in place before the Bunker. I believe the Bioship Landing Platform also suffers from this problem. It is costing me quite a few thousand defense, so I would really appreciate a fix for it.

You probably should look into that first. bio platforms can be extracted.

Arbiter is suggesting that the defense from the new structure receive the bonuses from other artifacts such as barrier nexus. Same as the bio ship landing platform does (I've never tested it, I assume Arbiter is correct)

I don't see it as an issue.

As to the artifacts stuck in place, you should be aware of what is and isn't extractable.
Poor planning on your part does not require dan to change something.

You mean my poor planning of not knowing an artifact like this would come out?

Anyway, the % bonuses should apply to all defense. Currently, I could demolish a Barrier HyperNexus and I wouldn't lose 30%, even though the structure is supposed to boost defense by 30%. That is nothing other than a design flaw, and since more structures like this may come out in the future, this flaw should be fixed now, when it might be easier.

I disagree. If you choose to use the barrier hyper nexus you understand that you can't remove them.
It's not Dan's fault you are choosing to use the new raix artifact on a planet with structures that aren't supporting it.
Poor planning.

The mechanics in question are working fine. I don't see it as a design flaw.

Weird, I didn't see anywhere on the structure that said "this defense doesn't count for % bonus structures inexplicably, unlike all other defense". I don't want to remove the HyperNexuses, I want them to boost defense by 30% like they say, which they do not. How is that not a flaw?

Unless Dan says otherwise and does something to change the description, then it is normal defense and should be treated the same as all other defense. If it said it wasn't then I would have known and might not have used it, but it doesn't. It just says "Defense", if it isn't treated as such then there is either an error in the description or an error in how it is being treated.

To be clear, you can't plan for something you can't know; how exactly should I have known this defense would be different? How can it be poor planning if I couldn't know? Should I have tried it first to find out? Then we'd be stuck here because I "tried it" on another planet. Should I have waited for someone else to find out, and then decided whether or not to use it? Then it would just be someone else in my place. You can't call it "poor planning" when it's not something someone could have known.

There is nothing in-game to support your belief that it should work like this. The structure's bonus list has this bonus labeled as "Defense"; everything else labeled in this manner is accounted for by all %-boosting structures, regardless of their position on the planet.

Reality Transfusers don't work on some planets that have no permanent effects; is this not a flaw, because that's just the way it happens? No, it is a flaw. How did we find out it is a flaw? Dan said so. Why did he say so? Because someone brought it up here. Why did someone bring it to the forum, thinking it was a flaw? Because there was nothing in-game to support the idea that it should work that way. Similarly, there is no indication in-game that this is anything other than the same kind of defense every other structure gives.

If it is the same sort of defense, it should be treated as such. If it isn't, then it should be labeled differently, such as "Bonus Defense" or something, so that people would know. If people know that it is different, then they can plan for it, as you seem to think they should already have done (despite that being impossible).

Unless you have something to add, such as a leg to stand on, rather than your pointless opinion on how things should arbitrarily work, I'm going to wait for Dan to say if this is actually how it's supposed to work or an unfortunate result of the implementation that will eventually be fixed.

Game, Set, Match.

Uh, it does say that it is different. It says it provides a "defense bonus" not adds defense.

It is labeled as "Defense". It does say it gives a defense bonus, but the stats listed in the way they are shown here are referred to as "bonuses". Note that the Perimeter Station, and other upgrades, say they "double bonuses", which means those basic stats are bonuses.

I admit that labeling it "Bonus Defense" might not be the best way, but I couldn't think of anything better, it was just an example of labeling it differently.

Ok I see what you mean.

It does say bonus the same as the bio landing platforms say bonus.
Poor labeling is not new to GL. Interpretations are always different.

As to the being the first to do it comment, it is always a risk being the first to test something and by being one of the first you assume the risk and you should accept that risk.

I maintain it is poor planning since the chain isn't even finished yet and we are as of yet unaware of what the Raix Transformation is that was revealed to us in the ship module.

Every stat given by a structure is a bonus, as well as all stats from modules. I don't understand how you can call it "poor labeling" and also say it isn't a problem.

"Poor labeling" is definitely a problem, that's what it means when something is done "poorly". I did address that it may be working as intended and mislabeled. If that is the case, that is still an issue.

Aside from that, you haven't even shown that it is poor labeling, rather than an error due to how it must be implemented on the back-end.



And how does that mean it was poor planning? Or that it isn't an error?

There shouldn't be any risk in something that gives Defense not giving Defense properly. The only difference between this and other Defense is how it is implemented on the back-end, which (surprising as this may be) I do not have access to.

I accept that there was risk in whether or not the bonus was based on max or current population, and although I am disappointed with the result, I accept that that was a legitimate concern I should have waited for. Waiting to see if the structure gives Defense like it says is not a legitimate concern, because that is clearly labeled, and therefore it wasn't a risk for me to accept.



That has nothing to do with the issue. Maybe it was poor planning to use something that said nothing about Raix Transformation in it's description without knowing what the (apparently irrelevant) Transformation is (again, it wasn't, because I didn't know), but regardless of whatever this Transformation may be, the structure's Defense isn't being treated as defense.

If something comes up later in the chain that makes me regret placing it here, I will accept that I took that risk. However, that is completely irrelevant. I am talking solely about this structure not providing defense properly.

Again, you have failed to prove that 1) the error was on my end as the result of poor planning, and 2) that this is how the structure should work.

Come back if you can:

1) Prove that I should have known this was a possibility beforehand, such as with it not specifying whether it used Max or Current Population

2) Prove that something in-game supports your belief that this is how it should work, despite being contrary to every other defense structure in the game

Anyway, I will continue waiting for a real response.

This planet without the Bioship has a total cloak of 6462 cloak.
The effects are applied in order from top to bottom. (the same can be seen when using artifacts to buff your scan, always use the artifacts that add a fixed amount like the tachyon cylinder before using the % modifiers)
6462 * 1.2 * 1.3 = 10080.72
10080.72 + 275 = 10355.72
10355.72 *1.15 = 11909.078

Previous instances of rounding show that Dan sometimes just chops off the decimals or rounds down instead of just rounding to the nearest whole number. *separate issue altogether just putting it here so no one says your numbers don't match up* The math works if you remove the decimal places before adding the next effect.

Since the Raix structure says "Provides 1 defense bonus per 5 planet population." It is a safe albeit not obvious assumption the defense bonus is treated the same as the Bioship Landing Platform's cloaking bonus in that it is applied as an effect since it is subject to change based on the planet population.

Your planet has some value for its current population and the structure provides a changing effect based on that value in a similar fashion to the Bioship Landing Platform. I.E. it is not a static value. It is an effect of current conditions on your planet.

Population is population.
It is not max population.
Population is related to max population in that it is always
Population <= Max Population

I can't prove what you should or should not know.
I can only prove what you are potentially able to know and you are potentially able to ask other people for their thoughts and opinions and interpretations.
Had you asked me or someone who thinks as I do we could have told you this is how we think it works based on our interpretation of how the game applies the "bonus" properties.
I am drawing my opinion from previous game mechanics (bioship landing platform having a bonus property and how that bonus is applied to planets)
Again I have never tested the bioship before today but I assumed previously that it worked the same as ship effects since it is an effect.
I was correct in this assumption, lucky me.

My next assumption is that if you place the raix structure before you place the defense % structures, the % modifiers will work on the raix structure.
An ion repulsor should give the % modifier to your raix structure since temporary effects are applied before the permanent effects as seen by void shells receiving the bonus from cloak % structures.

As I have said, all stats given by structures and modules are "bonuses". The DM79 says it provides 2 bonus research, and yet that is affected by % boosts regardless of planet position. It was not safe to assume it worked like that bonus, because all structures give bonuses. You would only assume that if you knew how it was implemented on the back end. Players shouldn't have to deal with that, that is sloppiness and low production value, which is an issue.


Why doesn't it work like the "bonus" of the Adaptive Spire, or the DM79, or the Bioship Gene Lab, or the Litheor Core-Tunnel, or Rikthar's War, or the Meta-Tuned Jammer, or the Galactic Concord Station, or the Human Training Barracks, or the Convoy Heat Seeker, or the Lepus Hatchery, or the Permafrost Sub-Network, or the Quantum Hydro-Meliorator, or the Scruuge Calibration Chamber, or the Orbital Stabilizer, or the Isolation Bureau, or the Crimson Rift Aperture? All of these refer to their stats as bonuses.

Yes, you have shown the one other example of this issue that uses the word "bonus". So do these 16 examples, which all refer to their static boosts as bonuses. The Hydro-Meliorator refers to its "Population bonus" as doubling or tripling, and yet this is boosted regardless of position on the planet. This is true for all of these examples, which all provide some static bonus that is still affected by all % bonuses regardless of position. It is true for even more examples, which have their stats referred to as "bonuses" by structures that upgrade them, and yet those structures are affected as expected.

If the Platform were the only other structure that had a static boost that it called a "bonus" then this wouldn't be an issue, but that is far from the case.

Yes, I understand it needs to be applied differently behind the scenes, but that alone doesn't justify it behaving differently for the player. Showing the player behind the scenes unnecessarily is bad game design. If it is supposed to behave differently for a reason that does affect the player, such as balance, then that is fine, but it should also be made clear. Players shouldn't need to guess at how the game's coding works in order to know how something will work, especially if it is labeled the same as many other things which are well understood. Yes, sometimes things need to be faked a little bit in order to work for the player, especially if they are unique, but players shouldn't need to know that you had to fake something in order to make it work.

Again, just because the word "bonus" is in both this and the Landing Platform it is foolish to assume they would be the same, because that is used in many more instances that behave as expected. That is simply confirmation bias; you found something that seems to prove your case, and ignored the mountain of evidence to the contrary.

Even if that is how it is intended to work, and is simply poor labeling, that is still a problem, and thus this is still an issue.

"Bonus" doesn't mean that the order of structures matters, because every stat provided by all structures is a bonus. The Stryll Confinement Protocols refer to the boosts from even researched structures as bonuses. If bonus is supposed to mean that, then many things in this game are mislabeled, or poorly labeled. "Poorly" and "mis" imply that these are in error, and thus are an issue.

Seeing as you've already admitted that there is an issue, by saying that, at the very least, there is "poor" labeling, there is little reason to continue. Your supposition that it is intended to work this way, rather than simply being an unfortunate result of implementation, is irrelevant. Again, unless you have some evidence that it should work this way and is an intended game feature, stop making meaningless posts.

I have as much evidence this is working as intended as you have that it isn't.

I simply believe that understanding how the games mechanics work should give the player a small advantage.

Seein how you discard my posts as meaningless I say good luck getting dan to change how he applies bonuses.
I'll be over here using these structures a tad more carefully by placing them on new planets before I place the defense % modifiers.

This sort of design is the same reason we have people coming to the forum every so often, claiming they got on an Elite/Boss with the final shot, but didn't receive a prize. You might justify that the same way you justify this, by saying it works like that because that's how they had to program it, but that's just the carpenter blaming his tools. The more things don't work the way the game indicates it should, using in-game means, the lower the quality of the game. The more people need to come on the forum confused by an aspect of the game because it seems contradictory, the lower the quality of the game.

No good game designer should leave the design of the game solely up to implementation. There are ways to solve issues like these, and the quality of the game depends on finding those ways. The fact that it can't quite be implemented the same way as another defense structure doesn't mean it shouldn't work like them, unless there is a good reason for it and this is made clear to the player. Otherwise, every so often, someone who actually wants to use this will come on here saying this is an issue, and apparently they'll get the "poor planning" speech, even though you've admitted these things are frequently poorly labeled.

This is a matter of production value; it must be either clear in-game or it must work as indicated. You can make whatever stupid accusations you want about the person's planning, but you can't change the results. If people start coming here claiming it's an issue, then there's a problem with clarity in the game. It's the same as last-hit lockers not getting a reward - yes, that's how it works, but that's because it works poorly, not because that's the way it should work.

You didn't read my list of structures, I have 16 times as much explicit evidence, and more implied.

And it was meaningless, I have addressed the fact that it is referred to as a "bonus" multiple times already.

Oh, and even if I only had as much evidence as you, that is still enough. Unless you can prove that it isn't an issue, then I can put this in Issues and Support. The burden is on you to show that this is intended behavior; if you can't do that then I am free to claim it is an Issue that needs Support. Having one other instance of this happening doesn't prove it isn't an issue, considering that was also reported (and received no arguments to the contrary, in fact).

Unless you know for a fact that something isn't an issue, you shouldn't go into Issues and Support and start arguments about it. This isn't the place for arguments, only facts.

Only reply to a report of an issue if:

1) You know for a fact that it isn't an issue, and it has been made clear to be intended behavior and is made clear in-game

2) You know that it is an issue, and can provide the poster with information about the issue, and let them know that it is a known issue already

3) You are also experiencing the issue and support it being fixed, or can provide more information on the issue

I really hope these are made into rules, because Issues and Support shouldn't be filled with pointless opinions and arguments with a mountain of contradictory evidence. This is for Issues and Support, and if you don't have the facts to provide support and aren't providing information about an issue then don't post.

If you want to argue that this is how it should work you are free to go to Suggestions and Ideas, and say that you think this is how these structures should work, and try to make good points to support it. You can have arguments there. This is not the place for it. It cannot be proven that this isn't an issue, and so it potentially is an issue and thus I have every right to post it here as an issue.

And people call ME contrary...

I just can't believe I've been dragged into this only after 3 weeks back on here. Another argument where none of the points follow from the previous, and just on a post for support about a potential issue that no one knows whether or not is intended.

I know it works like this, and I know why it works like this. None of that means it should and is supposed to work like this. Even if it is, that doesn't justify nothing about it being said in-game.

Sure, knowing the mechanics should give people an advantage. However, this isn't about getting an advantage by knowing the mechanics, not yet at least. It is about the game working the way it says it will. It says it gives Defense, just the same as everything else. It uses the word "bonus", the same as many other artifacts that don't work like this. No one should have to guess about back-end implementation in that manner.

There is no reason to believe this isn't an issue, there is no reason it shouldn't be listed here as an issue. If Dan comes on here and says it is working as intended (which he apparently didn't do when someone used the in-game report for the Landing Platform) then I will accept that it is working as intended and is simply poorly labeled (which would still need to be fixed). Some % bonus structures list the stat as "Bonus Population" rather than just "Population", and this could be used in these situations and would alert players that it is intended to work differently.

None of that has been said. There's just one person's opinion and failed attempts to prove it.

Showing that the Landing Platform works the same way (which I already said) doesn't prove that it is correct. The fact that both of these use the word "bonus" doesn't prove anything, because almost, if not all, structures that provide a static bonus either say "bonus" or have it implied by artifacts that are used on them. For example, the Stryll Confinement Protocols boost the Attack/Defense/Population "BONUSES" from standard structures. It, in fact, boosts the basic stats, implying that basic stats are called "bonuses". If only stats that were considered in the same way as the Raix Bunker bonus were considered "bonuses", then the Protocols would boost nothing, because no standard structure gives "bonuses" (using his made-up definition).

The fact that he has said "poor labeling" is not new to GL implies that that could be the case here, which implies that there is some issue here.

There hasn't been a single point made that actually implies it should work like this, only that this has happened in the past, and it could be intended. "Should" doesn't follow from "does" or "could".

Anyway, I'll probably re-retire after this issue is resolved, you people have always been the worst part of the game.

___________________________________________________________

Back on topic:

Two structures provide Defense or Population, but unlike most structures that also provide Defense or Population (with exactly the same name given to the bonus), their order on the planet matters. They only receive bonuses from artifacts placed after them. There is no indication in-game that they will work like this, so many people may not even realize they could gain a lot of Defense by moving structures around. None of us know whether or not this is intended behavior, so I am posting in Issues and Support to get Support on what could be considered an Issue. Without any in-game indication that they will behave in this manner, it is possible that this was not foreseen, because there is no indication that it was intended and foreseen. It is possible it was an unintended result of implementation. I would like to know if it is an Issue or not. If I know, I can plan accordingly. Suggestions and Ideas need not apply, only facts about the Issue or Support for the issue required.

Thank you dev team, for ensuring that potential issues are resolved or made clear to not be an issue.