|
Aethernet posted:In some very exciting news for Sexy Planet fans, a redditor has discovered that the planets have been sexy all along:  But now my appetite is just whetted for more. What will be The Sexiest Planet??
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 00:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 21:03 |
|
|
SniperWoreConverse posted:
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 00:24
|
|
|
Splicer posted:I know there's a your mom joke in there somewhere. I know it. She's certainly a planet, but not seeing the sexy part.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 00:34
|
|
|
SniperWoreConverse posted:
One with lots of mountainous terrain for all the Sexy Hiking.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 00:34
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:An empire without external immigration should roughly keep stable population ratios, all else equal, so a 80% human/20% blorg empire should remain so Although it would be nice to see that empire somewhat even out over time so that worlds that started 100% human would trend towards 90% human, worlds that started 100% blorg would trend towards 90% blorg, and new worlds would trend towards 80% human / 20% blorg, habitability permitting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 04:10
|
|
|
Reading through (or skimming through, as the case may be) recent posts about pop growth and I think there's a major question that hasn't been examined: what is a pop? Many posters have been treating pop as population, but I don't think that's an entirely correct assumption. Planets have pop caps. Techs and constructions increases the pop cap. Ergo, pop is intrinsically linked to physical space available (that is fit for habitation). Population, which we think of in terms of 'x million people living on this planet', is only superficially related to how much pop is used. The relationship between pop and population is clearly non-linear, with pop growth slowing as pop increases, even as population growth would be expected to explode assuming no resource scarcity. So, pop is space and population is nonlinear. Assume a hypothetical planet with 10 Human pops and 1 Blorg pop, why does the Blorg need so much space? Because the requisite facilities for Blorg habitation are not shared with the Human pops. They eat different food and excrete different wastes, so you're going to need way more space to build new restaurants and bathrooms and maybe some extra seats on the public transit. Blorg pop increases quickly because you need less population to hit the next tier and economies of scale starts kicking in for the facilities they use. Habitability numbers play their part here, with high habitability meaning that fewer specialized facilities are required and so population can grow more quickly. Finally, we get to migration, which I see as being intrinsically linked to species rights. Full Citizenship means you can live anywhere, but also that the facilities you need are provided. If the Blorg has full citizenship and a new colony is established on Alpha Centauri, then the colony on AC better have Blorg bathrooms. If the Blorg have merely Residency rights, that may mean there isn't any special accommodation being mandated - the Blorg already have pops and are permitted to remain, but they won't want to migrate to a planet where Blorg accommodations aren't present. And so forth, with the understanding that the player can at any time go into the Species Rights menu and change both current rights and default rights. Remember that you can already set rules to keep Blorg out of your Human core worlds, etc. in the current patch. I believe Wiz's numbers are fine in the context of this interpretation of pops/population/rights. It's not perfect (things start getting weird when you start considering resource production per pop - does higher pop counts mean your higher population is drowning under bureaucracy?), but it explains everything in an intelligible fashion. I think the main piece of information we are lacking is what changes are being made to species management for this upcoming update.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 05:30
|
|
|
isndl posted:Many posters have been treating pop as population, but I don't think that's an entirely correct assumption. Planets have pop caps. Techs and constructions increases the pop cap. Ergo, pop is intrinsically linked to physical space available (that is fit for habitation). Population, which we think of in terms of 'x million people living on this planet', is only superficially related to how much pop is used. The relationship between pop and population is clearly non-linear, with pop growth slowing as pop increases, even as population growth would be expected to explode assuming no resource scarcity. I think population in Civ worked kind of like this, where the flavor "empire population" score didn't just count up the numbers next to your city, but gave more weight for bigger cities. If you're going to use a Civ style pop growth system you need an abstraction like that to make sense of population levels eventually, and if we assume that's going on in Stellaris then it absolutely makes sense that minority pops, representing fewer individuals, would grow first. I don't think it's a critical part of the case- there's obviously a lot of weirdness even if you accept that idea- but it's a way of looking at things that might make the way it works more intuitive to some.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 05:46
|
|
|
A pop is an abstract measurement of a unit of mobilized workforce. It's not bound to any number apart from the fact that you can get more pops out of a larger population.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 05:51
|
|
|
wiegieman posted:A pop is an abstract measurement of a unit of mobilized workforce. It's not bound to any number apart from the fact that you can get more pops out of a larger population.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 05:53
|
|
|
The rate of growth behaves like that, but food consumption, material productivity, manual resettlement and soon to be housing space all behave like each pop is a mostly-fixed (though very vague) number of people. As does, frankly, the name itself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 05:55
|
|
|
edit: Odd double post there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 05:55
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I think this is painfully obvious but the counter-argument is that food consumption scales linearly with # of Pops, and therefore while the exact number of individuals vary they obviously are "enough whatevers to eat 1 megaburg" Which is still a highly abstracted concept because we have no idea what amount of food that is, and how absurd it is that 1 unit of food is exactly the same between the Empire that consists entirely of hulking brute lizard pops and an Empire that consists of literally a bunch of sentient small foxes. You could argue that the amount of a unit of food in those empires is based on the species, but then if you get them both on one planet they still take exactly the same amount of food resource even if that's silly. Using units of anything in Stellaris to make any sort of "realistic" proof is dumb.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 05:59
|
|
|
1 pop = 1 man, 1 food = 1 apple. It's right there in the text guys.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 06:21
|
|
|
Strobe posted:Using units of anything in Stellaris to make any sort of "realistic" proof is dumb. vv-Mostly, yes. Strudel Man fucked around with this message at 08:57 on Aug 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 06:43
|
|
|
I think there's a lot of room for interpretation on how many people a pop represents, and you can also include a variety of other elements like infrastructure and social policy development, but I also think that if you go too far down that path then you end up in the weeds. And the new system will be increasingly narrowing that definition by developing separate values for housing and resources and the like. A pop is a unit of people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 06:46
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Martin_Anward/status/1034387593172082689?s=19 More clarity on happiness and stability, the latter being the value that most corresponds to happiness as it was. Wiz also tweeted that autocratic societies care less about the happiness of the lower orders, as long as they have sufficient police to shoot minorities.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 11:40
|
|
|
The amount of people a pop represents is intentionally left up to interpretation. There is never going to be an official number of any kind.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 12:00
|
|
|
Wiz posted:The amount of people a pop represents is intentionally left up to interpretation. There is never going to be an official number of any kind. Here's a hypothetical: Could a species that has vanished in the sense of having zero Pops reappear if the conditions were right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 12:09
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I think the main root of our theological argument here is whether a Pop represents a FIXED number of undefined people or not. As I view it, no, a pop is not a fixed number, and yes, zero pops probably doesn't mean 100% extinct.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 12:17
|
|
|
Wiz posted:As I view it, no, a pop is not a fixed number, and yes, zero pops probably doesn't mean 100% extinct.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 12:47
|
|
|
Splicer posted:I think the question was is a pop of blorg on planet A about the same number of blorg as a pop of blorg on planet B. As I see it? Probably not. There really isn't a definitive answer either way though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 12:52
|
|
|
My headcanon is that a pop is a unit of equivalent biomass by weight, so a single blorg pop is just a really fat and unpopular chubby guy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 12:56
|
|
|
pops is food
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 13:09
|
|
|
Gyshall posted:pops is food i;m thinking about thos pops
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 13:18
|
|
|
Gyshall posted:pops is food  "Are you classified as human?" "Negative, I am a meat popsicle."
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 13:21
|
|
|
Pops is power. Literally, in the case of hooking them up to the grid. But also in getting those tiles online and working. At least for now. I wonder whether population will still be power in the new system?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 13:24
|
|
|
They have generator sectors. Just pretend they are full of those giant pod things from the movie. As widely impractical as they were. I'm interested to see how the new happiness and stability systems work out, if they're truly independent or if using one system to game the other is all it takes to succeed. It seems any time there is a system like this all it takes to succeed is to play space Jesus and your subjects will shower you with money. Playing any other way is demonstrably worse and you only do it to role play.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 13:33
|
|
|
Gyshall posted:pops is food This is literally true, inasmuch as a pop is the number of a given species that consumes one food per month, where food is some sort of galactic standard measure of grub. Applying this to Earth implies a pop of Americans is equivalent to ten human pops.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 13:43
|
|
|
Please add some kind of weapon that is more effective at bombarding planets, having it take years to soften up a planet for invasion is ridiculous
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 14:10
|
|
|
canepazzo posted:i;m thinking about thos pops
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 14:24
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Please add some kind of weapon that is more effective at bombarding planets, having it take years to soften up a planet for invasion is ridiculous Bring more dudes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 15:18
|
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:Bring more dudes. Food fight?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 15:26
|
|
|
Blorg pops are poops.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 15:27
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:My headcanon is that a pop is a unit of equivalent biomass by weight, so a single blorg pop is just a really fat and unpopular chubby guy. Speaking of this, I can't remember if they're traits in the base game but xenology perhaps adds size modifiers for your species. At the moment they just impact stuff like fightyness and food usage, but it'd be pretty neat if you could pick an actual small species and have them use flat out less housing in exchange for being less fighty by weight. So you can cram even more onto your planets.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 15:31
|
|
|
Pops are just 1 single overworked member of a species. That's why rogue servitors can just mush them together and they eat half as much food in their people zoo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 15:33
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Speaking of this, I can't remember if they're traits in the base game but xenology perhaps adds size modifiers for your species. At the moment they just impact stuff like fightyness and food usage, but it'd be pretty neat if you could pick an actual small species and have them use flat out less housing in exchange for being less fighty by weight. So you can cram even more onto your planets. This is explicitly a thing in the dev diary which is cool. One of the species shown off took up .75 housing per pop.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 16:37
|
|
|
I assume traits like communal will now change housing needs rather than happiness or whatever it is now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 17:03
|
|
|
Wiz alluded to such when replying to questions on one of the recent diaries, I imagine it is one of many coming to help fit with the new systems. If I had to guess, I'd say living standards will play a very large role in determining housing demands on your planet, more so than anything else - do your people all get a nice, swanky penthouse to live in, a cookie cutter home in the burbs, or are they all jammed in to one squalid flophouse? May be a reason not to just default to utopian abundance now since it'll be hard to give everyone their own personal skyscraper.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 17:13
|
|
|
I just hope the game realizes that population capacity has very little to do with land/size and everything to do with resources. Like let me just keep piling on denser and denser housing at higher and higher costs. Cool, I just made every building in NYC 3x as tall, that didn't take up any land or reduce any "slots" for other buildings, it just cost a bunch of resources.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 17:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 21:03 |
|
|
From what we know now it sounds like housing is tied to districts, of which planets can only support a finite amount. Some allowing for more than others depending on the type. We've also seen some building types that show you can build additional housing in building slots as you unlock them so you'll have to weigh the benefits of using them for that vs. production/research and there's probably tech that helps there as well but it doesn't seem you can just build vertically forever. At some point you'll top out and have to find somewhere else to dump people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 17:50
|
|