Population above 50% reduces colony profitability

[Dampfnudel]

With the current mechanic's Population above 50% reduces colony profitability.

Either it needs to be changed or we need some options to prevent colony growth.

I tried toogling resettlement, but I have not seen a single passenger ship yet.

Edit:

Edit so there is no misunderstanding here.

After 50% the absolut profitability goes down. It is notabout marginal profitability for each next citizen.
A planet with 50% pop maybe does 10k profit.
A planet with 100% pop does -25k loss.

The Planet Ukpeep-cost + additional corruption cost much much than the additional citizen earn.
So after 50% the player must avoid population growth as much as he can!
And this is not intuitive and there are no tools to kill your own pops.

This is because (tax - corruption on high population) < ukpeepk cost if >50% pop cap.

[Erik Rutins]

That's working as intended. The first 50% are still just as productive, but every additional citizen after that is a bit less productive as you reach maximum population.

If you have passenger ships and places people want to go to within range of those passenger ships and set resettlement on, it should work to pull population out to your new worlds. I've seen it work in my games.

[Miravlix]

Hmm, you two isn't saying the same thing.

The user is saying that you get to 50% and that is max profit for the planet, say 5, now if you add 10% pop, you now get 4 profit from the planet?

I think the rep is saying that you get 50% pop at full productivity, but the next 50% is less and less productivity gain pr. pop, not like it wipes out the first 50%, just that you get less out of the next 50% than the first.

[Dampfnudel]

That's working as intended. The first 50% are still just as productive, but every additional citizen after that is a bit less productive as you reach maximum population.

If you have passenger ships and places people want to go to within range of those passenger ships and set resettlement on, it should work to pull population out to your new worlds. I've seen it work in my games.

There is a misunderstanding here.

After 50% the absolut profitability goes down. It is notabout marginal profitability for each next citizen.
A planet with 50% pop maybe does 10k profit.
A planet with 100% pop does -25k loss.

This is because (tax - corruption on high population) < ukpeepk cost if >50% pop cap.

The Planet Ukpeep-cost + additional corruption cost much much than the additional citizen earn.
So after 50% the player must avoid population growth as much as he can!
And this is not intuitive and there are no tools to kill your own pops.

[Emperor0Akim]

Could be corruption has a to big impact ?

My human Homeworld is at max population of 7388M pure Human and has a corruption level of 36% while

my Gorvernment has a 20% corruption reduction

the Homeworld has

113% of Development
Never been Raided ( not once )
19% Tax
Happy as Pigs in the Mud ( 27 )
Planetary Admin Center

the only Buzzkill is my Leader with -1 corruption reduction, which he refuses to level ( I open another thread about skills for that )




this is really harsh. I have the feeling I am ruling over some third world country .

[SgtBootStrap]

There is a misunderstanding here.

After 50% the absolute profitability goes down. It is notabout marginal profitability for each next citizen.

A planet with 50% pop maybe does 10k profit.
A planet with 100% pop does -25k loss.


The Planet Ukpeep-cost + additional corruption cost much much than the additional citizen earn.
So after 50% the player must avoid population growth as much as he can!
And this is not intuitive and there are no tools to kill your own pops.

The statement in Italics does not sound correct.
Do you have some concrete #'s that could be posted to show this to be true?
Did your 100% Pop Planet have all the Admin Buildings applied (thus getting a 50% corruption reduction + other Bonuses) as it grew?
Was the Terra-form building applied to the Planet to increase it's Suitability?
Was the Planet stripped of Pop's that do not like its Type as a Base?

Let me check my current Game. I have an OVER Max. Pop and am pretty sure it still generates quite a lot of Income.

[Dampfnudel]

There is a misunderstanding here.

After 50% the absolute profitability goes down. It is notabout marginal profitability for each next citizen.

A planet with 50% pop maybe does 10k profit.
A planet with 100% pop does -25k loss.


The Planet Ukpeep-cost + additional corruption cost much much than the additional citizen earn.
So after 50% the player must avoid population growth as much as he can!
And this is not intuitive and there are no tools to kill your own pops.

The statement in Italics does not sound correct.
Do you have some concrete #'s that could be posted to show this to be true?
Did your 100% Pop Planet have all the Admin Buildings applied (thus getting a 50% corruption reduction + other Bonuses) as it grew?
Was the Terra-form building applied to the Planet to increase it's Suitability?
Was the Planet stripped of Pop's that do not like its Type as a Base?

Let me check my current Game. I have an OVER Max. Pop and am pretty sure it still generates quite a lot of Income.

The case was with ~100% development. The empire had a global 50% corruption reduction from leader, republic and 2 different race boni. I am also sure a Level 1 admin building was constructed.

But nevertheless. It shouldn't be the case that more population reduces absolute income.
All these corruption, development and income Boni should boost the marginal profitability.

Here is a quick example with screenshots:

[zgrssd]

There is a misunderstanding here.

After 50% the absolute profitability goes down. It is notabout marginal profitability for each next citizen.

A planet with 50% pop maybe does 10k profit.
A planet with 100% pop does -25k loss.


The Planet Ukpeep-cost + additional corruption cost much much than the additional citizen earn.
So after 50% the player must avoid population growth as much as he can!
And this is not intuitive and there are no tools to kill your own pops.

The statement in Italics does not sound correct.
Do you have some concrete #'s that could be posted to show this to be true?
Did your 100% Pop Planet have all the Admin Buildings applied (thus getting a 50% corruption reduction + other Bonuses) as it grew?
Was the Terra-form building applied to the Planet to increase it's Suitability?
Was the Planet stripped of Pop's that do not like its Type as a Base?

Let me check my current Game. I have an OVER Max. Pop and am pretty sure it still generates quite a lot of Income.

The case was with ~100% development. The empire had a global 50% corruption reduction from leader, republic and 2 different race boni. I am also sure a Level 1 admin building was constructed.

But nevertheless. It shouldn't be the case that more population reduces absolute income.
All these corruption, development and income Boni should boost the marginal profitability.

Here is a quick example with screenshots:

A few things to do:
1. If you are on Steam, verify the game files. DW2 games files break. A lot.
2. Give the game a month to update the values.
3. If it is still a thing afterwards, please post the savegame here and make a bug report with said savegame.

[Erik Rutins]

There is a misunderstanding here.

After 50% the absolut profitability goes down. It is notabout marginal profitability for each next citizen.
A planet with 50% pop maybe does 10k profit.
A planet with 100% pop does -25k loss.

This is because (tax - corruption on high population) < ukpeepk cost if >50% pop cap.

The Planet Ukpeep-cost + additional corruption cost much much than the additional citizen earn.
So after 50% the player must avoid population growth as much as he can!
And this is not intuitive and there are no tools to kill your own pops.

Yes, corruption and support costs increase as well as you head towards max pop. That can create the result that the planet becomes less profitable, but it's not from the citizens being less productive but from the increased costs compared to diminishing returns on productivity. Are you testing this with some of the improved administration facilities to reduce corruption, with good development on the planet and with good suitability from colonization techs and terraforming, as well as medical and recreation centers, other advanced facilities? All of those are intended to allow highly developed max pop planets to continue to be profitable.

Regards,

- Erik

[Erik Rutins]

Let me check my current Game. I have an OVER Max. Pop and am pretty sure it still generates quite a lot of Income.

The case was with ~100% development. The empire had a global 50% corruption reduction from leader, republic and 2 different race boni. I am also sure a Level 1 admin building was constructed.

But nevertheless. It shouldn't be the case that more population reduces absolute income.
All these corruption, development and income Boni should boost the marginal profitability.

It is the case that you need to manage your higher population planets as well. Development should really be higher than 100%, more like 120% on a highly populated planet. You should also be building admin facilities there (I see none in that example) and making sure a spaceport with medical/entertainment is in orbit, ideally consider some economic/medical/entertainment facilities as well, or some terraforming or colonization tech to boost the suitability. Increasing suitability can have a very large positive effect on any planet's population and revenues.

[Dampfnudel]

There is a misunderstanding here.

After 50% the absolut profitability goes down. It is notabout marginal profitability for each next citizen.
A planet with 50% pop maybe does 10k profit.
A planet with 100% pop does -25k loss.

This is because (tax - corruption on high population) < ukpeepk cost if >50% pop cap.

The Planet Ukpeep-cost + additional corruption cost much much than the additional citizen earn.
So after 50% the player must avoid population growth as much as he can!
And this is not intuitive and there are no tools to kill your own pops.

Yes, corruption and support costs increase as well as you head towards max pop. That can create the result that the planet becomes less profitable, but it's not from the citizens being less productive but from the increased costs compared to diminishing returns on productivity. Are you testing this with some of the improved administration facilities to reduce corruption, with good development on the planet and with good suitability from colonization techs and terraforming, as well as medical and recreation centers, other advanced facilities? All of those are intended to allow highly developed max pop planets to continue to be profitable.

Regards,

- Erik

I had this with 50% extra corruption reduction and 100+ development.

The AI suffers a lot from this as well. Their capital planets are capping at 100% and the AI is fooled and does not attempt to kill its own population, making it weaker than it should be.

It is a bad game design, that the 100% pop planet earns less than the 50% pop planet if we can not control until what point the population should grow. And as "growth investment" is global, we will invest money into earning less money.

100% pop should earn marginally more than 50% pops if we do have not enough development/other stuff, but it should not earn less.

[Emperor0Akim]

So I am reading this as : ALWAYS PUT RESEARCH SPENDING 100% AND TAX THE SHIT OUT OF THOSE GUYS OR THEY WILL BECOME LIKE LOCUSTS

[SgtBootStrap]

Not sure what is different but I do not see any downgrade to a MAX Pop Planet.

This one is OVER the Max by quite a margin as well and still has a very good Revenue stream.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/gq06ov3wn9p1w ... p.jpg?dl=0

[Emperor0Akim]

Holy .. you are making three times the revenue my guys are doing, which year are you in ?

I am about 2770.

[SgtBootStrap]

Holy .. you are making three times the revenue my guys are doing, which year are you in ?

I am about 2770.

The game screen shown is currently in 2850.

I do agree on one thing though. Corruption is absolutely set at absurd levels. Even a 50% + mitigation, it eats up Revenue at a crazy rate.

[OloroMemez]

Let me check my current Game. I have an OVER Max. Pop and am pretty sure it still generates quite a lot of Income.

The case was with ~100% development. The empire had a global 50% corruption reduction from leader, republic and 2 different race boni. I am also sure a Level 1 admin building was constructed.

But nevertheless. It shouldn't be the case that more population reduces absolute income.
All these corruption, development and income Boni should boost the marginal profitability.

It is the case that you need to manage your higher population planets as well. Development should really be higher than 100%, more like 120% on a highly populated planet. You should also be building admin facilities there (I see none in that example) and making sure a spaceport with medical/entertainment is in orbit, ideally consider some economic/medical/entertainment facilities as well, or some terraforming or colonization tech to boost the suitability. Increasing suitability can have a very large positive effect on any planet's population and revenues.

I've been collecting data and modelling it for the past week. Not only does revenue increase at half the rate past 50% filled, it halves again at 75% full, so that each million pop past that point contributes only 25% of what it normally would.

I've modelled colonies with 150% development, Way of Ancients Government, Gizurean racial bonus, Shandar bonus, and Planetary Administration Metropolis (IV), meaning total corruption reduction is at 95%. The net tax is still less once you go over 50% filled planet, it's just how you've set up the math on this.

Another feature that isn't exactly communicated anywhere, is that the corruption reduction doesn't work as a straight percentage, but works like 10% corruption reduction in decimal form

Corruption
----------------
0.10 + 1


I'll be releasing a calculator in a couple of days to show this at work, but atm I'm finding a few broken edgecases where the corruption is much lower than predicted, e.g. it should be at 47% but is instead at 23.3% even though I deleted all corruption reducing buildings.

[Erik Rutins]

I had this with 50% extra corruption reduction and 100+ development.
The AI suffers a lot from this as well. Their capital planets are capping at 100% and the AI is fooled and does not attempt to kill its own population, making it weaker than it should be.

It is a bad game design, that the 100% pop planet earns less than the 50% pop planet if we can not control until what point the population should grow. And as "growth investment" is global, we will invest money into earning less money.
100% pop should earn marginally more than 50% pops if we do have not enough development/other stuff, but it should not earn less.

Please see my second post above. There are tools for dealing with this and killing your own population is not at all a good idea. If you don't want to use them that's your choice but please don't blame the game for that.

- Improve your Suitability
- Improve your Development
- Reduce your Corruption
- Improve your Happiness

... and you'll find those very large worlds can do well.

[Erik Rutins]

Not sure what is different but I do not see any downgrade to a MAX Pop Planet.
This one is OVER the Max by quite a margin as well and still has a very good Revenue stream.

Higher development, higher happiness I'd guess based on your tax rate, higher suitability I'd assume based on being over the normal max.

[Erik Rutins]

I've been collecting data and modelling it for the past week. Not only does revenue increase at half the rate past 50% filled, it halves again at 75% full, so that each million pop past that point contributes only 25% of what it normally would.

That sounds about right.

I've modelled colonies with 150% development, Way of Ancients Government, Gizurean racial bonus, Shandar bonus, and Planetary Administration Metropolis (IV), meaning total corruption reduction is at 95%. The net tax is still less once you go over 50% filled planet, it's just how you've set up the math on this.

Have you looked at increasing suitability and building facilities to improve happiness?

I'll be releasing a calculator in a couple of days to show this at work, but atm I'm finding a few broken edgecases where the corruption is much lower than predicted, e.g. it should be at 47% but is instead at 23.3% even though I deleted all corruption reducing buildings.

It sounds like you've put a lot of work into this. I'll be happy to see that and if you've found issues we'll address them.

Regards,

- Erik

[OloroMemez]

Have you looked at increasing suitability and building facilities to improve happiness?

I've increased suitability and measured the effects. The calculator takes the suitability into account in determining the actual max pop (and btw it seems max pop due to suitability is capped at 65) and multiplying the revenue by the suitability and coefficients.

How is happiness meant to affect levels of corruption? I've deleted facilities that boosted happiness to try and see if that's what was reducing it by a large margin, but have seen no effect.

As far as corruption % goes, I've only observed the suitability affecting the corruption by changing how the current pop compares to the maximum pop based upon suitability and diameter.

The formula I'm working with regarding corruption is:

Corruption = 10 + (CurrentPopulation/MaxPopulation)*100*0.8 + [(TaxRate-20)*0.5].

Simplified:

Corruption = 10 + (CurrentPopulation/MaxPopulation)*80 + (TaxRate-20)*0.5
with a cap of 80% corruption.

So at 50% filled pop, the base corruption is exactly 50% before corruption reduction comes into play.

Maybe that formula is a bit off, but that's how it's plotted in my tests and modelling. But I'm still finding these edge cases in other people's saves where it's far lower, after I've controlled for leaders, ambassadors, artifacts, tax rate, government, and population


EDIT: Using data from a friend's save playing normal difficulty, the corruption rate was exactly half of what the above formulas predicted. But when I tried accounting for that in my own game, it seems like my corruption rate is still stuck on hard mode.