Wording glitches in some in-game texts

Not so much a wording glitch as a communication oddity: on upgrading to sovereignty II, I get two mails:

From: System Subject: FW: Further Sovereignty claimed by you at xxx|yyy Received: 29 Nov 2012 09:01 Original Message: You have extended your Sovereignty claim at this location. Your sovereignty will rise, if uncontested, until it completes levelling up on or around 30NOV12 09:01. From: System Subject: FW: Sovereignty claim re-established by you at xxx|yyy Received: 29 Nov 2012 09:01 Original Message: You have re-established your Sovereignty claim at this location. Your sovereignty will rise, if uncontested, until it completes levelling up on or around 30NOV12 09:01.

Sending two mails to say the same thing is, in any case, silly; but having one of them talk about "re-establishing" a claim makes it sound like that claim was lapsing, or something.

1.5% per lvl of market place, lvl 20 market place = 30%

Anyway: another glitch in wording, this time in the description of Break Trade Embargo. After a preamble, it says:

This raises the chance of getting past a hostile Blockade to a total of 1.5% per level of Market and 1% per level of Trade Office. (If you have more than one Trade Office, each subsequent building provides only half the effect of the previous one.)

So the market contributes 1.5% per level; the first Trade Office contributes 1% per level; the second .5% per level, the third .25% per level, etc.

For example, if this town has a level 20 Market your traders have a 30% chance of avoiding each Blockade,

I entertain the delusion that I understand you so far; 20 levels of Market worth 1.5% each yield a total of 30%.

whereas if the town has one Market and 3 Trade Offices they have an 82.5% chance.

Here's where it all goes awry. You haven't said anything about what level the Trade Offices are (or, indeed, the Market; but I can assume it's the same one just mentioned). To pick up the remaining 52.5% I need all of my Trade Offices to add up to nearly twice what my market contributes; but infinitely many Trade Offices would still only contribute 2% per level, so can't get beyond 40%, for a total (with the Market) of 70%. With just three of them, all at level 20, I see 1.5+1+.5+.25 = 3.25% times 20 for a 65% (not 82.5%) chance of getting past the blockade.

Did it in fact mean that we get an extra 1.5% per level of Market, on top of the 1% that Blockade Running gave us; and, likewise, an extra 1% per level of Trade Office on top of that from Blockade Running ? That'd give 2.5% per level of Market, so 50% from 20 levels, with 2%, 1% and 0.5% from each of the Trade Offices, which can easily account for the remaining 12.5% if they're of suitable levels (e.g. 5, 2 and 1); but the text quoted above says quite clearly that the increase leaves us with "a total of" 1.5% per level of Market and 1% per level of Trade Office. So that doesn't seem plausible.

If these were compounded interest payments, I might believe you apply factors of 1.3 (market's 30% increase), 1.2 (first Trade office's 20%), 1.1 (second, 10%) and 1.05 (third, 5%) for a grand 1.8018, but that's still only 80-and-a-bit percent, not 82.5% and these aren't compounded increases on a base value, so that doesn't seem to be what you mean.

Perhaps what you really mean is the probability of being intercepted is a product of 0.7 (1 minus 30% from the Market), 0.8 (1 minus 20% from the first Trade Office), 0.9 (1 minus 10%) and 0.95 (1 minus 5%), but that gives me 0.4788 = 1-.5212 so a 52.12% chance of getting past. Or 0.7 (1 minus 30% from Market) times 0.65 (1 minus 20%, 10%, 5% from three Trade Offices) = 0.455, a 54.5% chance of escape. So neither of those matches.

I can't work it out, so I've no idea what's going on with this example: before I read it, I thought I understood how this worked, after reading this example I'm confused !

The example should definitely say how much the market and each trade office, separately, is contributing to the total; that would be clearer ! As it is, you haven't shown your working, so I can't see what I'm misunderstanding and have to suspect you've worked it out wrongly.

If it is a guild FOR miners rather than a guild BELONGING TO miners, then miners is an adjective describing the guild rather than a possessive and there should be no apostrophe at all.  E.g., there were multiple merchants guilds in the Middle Ages.  The miners guild is a place where miners hang out.

May I be ultra-pedantic and suggest that the cited example be Miners' Guild, because "Miners" is plural.