Do Sedentary pops get lost in space?

[Futharkk]

It seems that the -15% to immigration applies to pop growth calculation on new planets... but not on planets with net emigration.

Yesterday (2.2.3 open beta), my Capital lost 2.0 growth/month due to emigration. However, my 2 colonies only gained around 0.80 and 0.90 in growth bonus due to immigration. My pops had the Sedentary trait. Do the 0.30 migrating pop missing represent the hazard of space travel or is this trait working improperly?

 

[The Grumpy Buddha]

They sink into their couch cushions, never to be seen again. (Sinking is a form of migration, kinda, right?)

 

[Richard Dolder]

Migration speed is a relevant modifier and sedentary is no longer a free pick.

Adapt.

 

[The Grumpy Buddha]

Migration speed is a relevant modifier and sedentary is no longer a free pick.

Adapt.

He wasn't saying it was broken/unfair, he was trying to figure out where the poor bastards disappear to.

Relax.

 

[Secret Master]

Yeah, I think you just lose the POPs now.

It makes sedentary a much harsher pick. I didn't realize how much of an impact this had until I ran a sedentary species.

The good news is that my sedentary species are also authoritarians. So, resettlement costs more (bad), but I just resettle POPs the moment they start emigrating (not so bad). It hurts the homeworld, though, in the early game.

 

[Dalwin]

So, in other words, this is just another typical example of lazy math.

If conditions (employment housing etc.) result in a raw amount of X wanting to emigrate, then X should be subtracted from one world and added to another. With sedentary, that amount should be 0.85 X, period, end of story. Any other result is a bug.

This is not a feature. It is not a conscious decision to balance sedentary. It is simply sloppy math.

 

[tobias.mb]

They go to the place, where the extra nomadic pops are coming from

 

[TehJumpingJawa]

So, in other words, this is just another typical example of lazy math.

If conditions (employment housing etc.) result in a raw amount of X wanting to emigrate, then X should be subtracted from one world and added to another. With sedentary, that amount should be 0.85 X, period, end of story. Any other result is a bug.

This is not a feature. It is not a conscious decision to balance sedentary. It is simply sloppy math.

On a related note, I don't think much to migrant pull/push modifiers; it isn't clear what they do, or indeed if they're doing anything at all!

 

[metalosse]

It can make sense, if you consider that one pop is not a fixed number.

Nomadic pops are so eager and happy to go to a new place that are more motivated / efficient than natives.

Sedentary pops are so bad that they never really recover from changing planet.

 

[Blurb]

On a related note, I don't think much to migrant pull/push modifiers; it isn't clear what they do, or indeed if they're doing anything at all!

I'd say it's pretty clear what such modifiers (such as that from Free Haven) do: they modify existing push/pull values on your planets.

 

[Althizor]

Sedentary pops experience space madness and kill some of each other on the way.

Nomadic ones experience space lust and make babies on the way.

 

[The Grumpy Buddha]

Sedentary pops experience space madness and kill some of each other on the way.

Nomadic ones experience space lust and make babies on the way.

Time to lock the thread!

 

[TehJumpingJawa]

I'd say it's pretty clear what such modifiers (such as that from Free Haven) do: they modify existing push/pull values on your planets.

Yes, that's about as nebulous of a definition as can be made from the game's current implementation.
The pop migration tooltip is obtuse, and misleading, and as far as I can tell there's nowhere the effect of pull/push is quantified.

The mechanics simply aren't presented transparently enough to be able to objectively evaluate Free Haven Vs the other growth rate related traits such as Rapid Breeders & Nomadic.

 

[Dalwin]

It can make sense, if you consider that one pop is not a fixed number.

Nomadic pops are so eager and happy to go to a new place that are more motivated / efficient than natives.

Sedentary pops are so bad that they never really recover from changing planet.

Everything makes sense if you assume the numbers can change to whatever they want to in the middle of any calculation (or not). Where this really gets silly is if you apply this bit of non logic to the OP. Fewer sedentary pops migrate, simple enough. This should not mean, however, that those who chose not to migrate should commit suicide instead, which is actually what the game is doing.

 

[The Grumpy Buddha]

Everything makes sense if you assume the numbers can change to whatever they want to in the middle of any calculation (or not). Where this really gets silly is if you apply this bit of non logic to the OP. Fewer sedentary pops migrate, simple enough. This should not mean, however, that those who chose not to migrate should commit suicide instead, which is actually what the game is doing.

Dude, Space Madness is tough. Let's not be Space-Madness shaming here.

 

[Xaelyn]

The trouble is that if it worked as 'expected', sedentary would be a free point if not outright good. immigration is only good if it's stealing growth from another empire, or later game if it is shifting growth from an overcrowded world to one with available jobs.
Early game sedentry would probably be a positive since your built up worlds which lose growth to the colonies are probably better able to utilize the pops.

Nomadic would probably be a waste of a pick since migration from other empires means less of your nomadic pops growing to benefit from the increased growth.

 

[Blurb]

Yes, that's about as nebulous of a definition as can be made from the game's current implementation.
The pop migration tooltip is obtuse, and misleading, and as far as I can tell there's nowhere the effect of pull/push is quantified.

The mechanics simply aren't presented transparently enough to be able to objectively evaluate Free Haven Vs the other growth rate related traits such as Rapid Breeders & Nomadic.

That is the shortest explanation you'll get that is still accurate.
Are you looking at the same tooltip as I am? The one I'm looking at certainly quantifies both pull and push.
For an explanation on the mechanics of migration, I'll link to another of my posts https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/on-migration.1139824/

 

[Twogs]

So, in other words, this is just another typical example of lazy math.

If conditions (employment housing etc.) result in a raw amount of X wanting to emigrate, then X should be subtracted from one world and added to another. With sedentary, that amount should be 0.85 X, period, end of story. Any other result is a bug.

This is not a feature. It is not a conscious decision to balance sedentary. It is simply sloppy math.

You are wrong here.

There are two sets of modifiers. One modifies immigration pull and emigration push. Thats what you just described. They work as you want them

The pop growth from settlement is a straight bonus/malus to that, it works as that and therefore IS a feature. Thanks

 

[Foefaller]

Here's my take on what's happening:

With Sedentary, some of those that are being tagged as emigrating have second thoughts and return home, while the families of those that go through with it become depressed and procreate less, as their sedentary nature comes with a societal expectation that you will spend your whole life with the same group of people, and one leaving voluntarily has a similar shock as losing someone to death.

With Nomadic, a greater-than-average number of migrants are new or expecting families wanting to give a new, better life for their offspring with a fresh start on a new world, paired with the excitement of going somewhere new getting the reproductive urges going.

 

[TehJumpingJawa]

That is the shortest explanation you'll get that is still accurate.
Are you looking at the same tooltip as I am? The one I'm looking at certainly quantifies both pull and push.
For an explanation on the mechanics of migration, I'll link to another of my posts https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/on-migration.1139824/

That's exactly the tooltip I'm referring to.

As you can see from it, the 1.8% from housing isn't being factored into the headline "Immigration Pull: 115".
Likewise when Free Haven is active, while you'll see a "+50% Free Haven" modifier shown, the headline value will not change.
Is it working? isn't it? who knows!
Neither the tooltip nor anywhere else in the UI shows the 'effective' value, so we've got no easy way of verifying if it's actually doing anything.

Moreover, even if it is being applied, nowhere is it explained how that pull (or push) rating translates into actual pop migration values.
How much migration gain will you get if, for example, a planet had a pull rating of 1000? or even 10000?
Does it depend upon the pull/push ratings of the other planets to which you have migration access?
Does the number of worlds, and population of said worlds have an impact?
Are there any other factors & modifiers?
As far as I can tell, the entire system is left completely unexplained.

There's simply no way of quantifying how good "+50% migration pull" is without this information*, or indeed if it's even working at all!

*(experimentation should be possible to reverse engineer some of this knowledge.... but that really shouldn't be necessary)