Fix faction and ethics for new games.

[Badesumofu]

It's better now in 2.6.3 than it was in 2.6.2. I still got a mix of ethics at game-start but in the 10 years before factions can form, the numbers had shifted enough so that only factions of my governing ethics formed. I'd designed my empire to promote my governing ethics, including making my species natural engineers to give some extra Materialist attraction. So at 2210 I had only an Egalitarian and Materialist faction. I had pops of other ethics, but no more than 2 or 3 per ethic. Then I did a bunch of deals with xenos and got enough Xenophile attraction that a faction of those formed. Now in 2260, I have no pops of any ethic other than Xenophile, Materialist, or Egalitarian. The percentages of those shift around a little bit.

My concern is when I start conquering I'm going to get factions form for other ethics and that will create enough attraction that I'll be stuck with them. It also seems that there is very little difference in how many pops you'll get of two different ethics once they both have any significant level of attraction. My empire should be about 50% Mat, and 25% of each other ethic, but in practice they all hover around a third each most of the time.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

As a previous comment suggests, a mod called 'real pop ethics shifting' fixes the issue and makes things work perfectly. Maybe the devs should ask the modder for some advice on how to fix their game

Perfectly? No, I didn't say that. It is a brute force approach with a performance overhead based on raising the defines that seem to work to extreme values, to ensure frequent evaluation, whereas a good solution would be more gentle and perform fewer checks spread over more time. But it works good enough for me.

The defines from the latest (2.6.2) version of the mod are:

NGameplay = {
   POP_ETHOS_LOWER_ETHIC_THRESHOLD               = 5.0   # If the % of pops following an ethic is <= this relative to its attraction do not diverge away from it
   POP_ETHOS_UPPER_ETHIC_THRESHOLD               = 2.0   # If the % of pops following an ethic is >= this relative to its attraction do not diverge to it
   POP_ETHOS_DIVERGENCE_INTERVAL               = 360   # Number of days until a Pop has a change to diverge from empire ethos
   POP_ETHOS_DIVERGENCE_RATE_MULT               = 1900.00      # Chance of a pop evaluating its ethics every year
   POP_CHANGE_FACTION_CHANCE               = 100.00   # Once every month a pop has X chance to change faction but only if the pop wants to
}

Whereas 2.63 values in the beta patch are:

       POP_ETHOS_LOWER_ETHIC_THRESHOLD               = 0.5   # If the % of pops following an ethic is <= this relative to its attraction do not diverge away from it
       POP_ETHOS_UPPER_ETHIC_THRESHOLD               = 2.0   # If the % of pops following an ethic is >= this relative to its attraction do not diverge to it
       POP_MIN_ETHIC_RELATIVE_ATTRACTION           = 0.1   # If relative attraction is less than this, do not diverge to this ethic
       POP_ETHOS_DIVERGENCE_INTERVAL               = 360   # Number of days until a Pop has a change to diverge from empire ethos
       POP_ETHOS_DIVERGENCE_RATE_MULT               = 0.05   # Chance of a pop evaluating its ethics every year
       POP_CHANGE_FACTION_CHANCE                   = 0.05   # Once every month a pop has X chance to change faction but only if the pop wants to

Only three values in the mod are changed, the others are currently the same as default. See if you can spot the difference and find the changed values.

Since the mod doesn't fiddle with POP_MIN_ETHIC_RELATIVE_ATTRACTION, the default one is used.

(It is possible the 2.6.3 "fix" means that the mod-values can be lowered rather than having to be so extreme, or perhaps it really has been fixed? time will tell.)

EDIT: Let me make clear that I don't know whether 2.6.3 has fixed the issue, rendering the mod no longer needed, as I have not tested 2.6.3. But if you are finding that it hasn't, I recommend the mod.

 

[GeorgieBest]

Perfectly? No, I didn't say that. It is a brute force approach with a performance overhead based on raising the defines that seem to work to extreme values, to ensure frequent evaluation, whereas a good solution would be more gentle and perform fewer checks spread over more time. But it works good enough for me.

The defines from the latest (2.6.2) version of the mod are:

NGameplay = {
   POP_ETHOS_LOWER_ETHIC_THRESHOLD               = 5.0   # If the % of pops following an ethic is <= this relative to its attraction do not diverge away from it
   POP_ETHOS_UPPER_ETHIC_THRESHOLD               = 2.0   # If the % of pops following an ethic is >= this relative to its attraction do not diverge to it
   POP_ETHOS_DIVERGENCE_INTERVAL               = 360   # Number of days until a Pop has a change to diverge from empire ethos
   POP_ETHOS_DIVERGENCE_RATE_MULT               = 1900.00      # Chance of a pop evaluating its ethics every year
   POP_CHANGE_FACTION_CHANCE               = 100.00   # Once every month a pop has X chance to change faction but only if the pop wants to
}

Whereas 2.63 values in the beta patch are:

       POP_ETHOS_LOWER_ETHIC_THRESHOLD               = 0.5   # If the % of pops following an ethic is <= this relative to its attraction do not diverge away from it
       POP_ETHOS_UPPER_ETHIC_THRESHOLD               = 2.0   # If the % of pops following an ethic is >= this relative to its attraction do not diverge to it
       POP_MIN_ETHIC_RELATIVE_ATTRACTION           = 0.1   # If relative attraction is less than this, do not diverge to this ethic
       POP_ETHOS_DIVERGENCE_INTERVAL               = 360   # Number of days until a Pop has a change to diverge from empire ethos
       POP_ETHOS_DIVERGENCE_RATE_MULT               = 0.05   # Chance of a pop evaluating its ethics every year
       POP_CHANGE_FACTION_CHANCE                   = 0.05   # Once every month a pop has X chance to change faction but only if the pop wants to

Only three values in the mod are changed, the others are currently the same as default. See if you can spot the difference and find the changed values.

Since the mod doesn't fiddle with POP_MIN_ETHIC_RELATIVE_ATTRACTION, the default one is used.

(It is possible the 2.6.3 "fix" means that the mod-values can be lowered rather than having to be so extreme, or perhaps it really has been fixed? time will tell.)

EDIT: Let me make clear that I don't know whether 2.6.3 has fixed the issue, rendering the mod no longer needed, as I have not tested 2.6.3. But if you are finding that it hasn't, I recommend the mod.

The 2.6.3 'fix' didn't improve the issue as far as I can see. I'm now testing the mod to see if the update has broken it.

The mod making it work perfectly is perhaps an exaggeration, but compared to the non-functional system in game it's a massive improvement.

 

[GeorgieBest]

Perfectly? No, I didn't say that. It is a brute force approach with a performance overhead based on raising the defines that seem to work to extreme values, to ensure frequent evaluation, whereas a good solution would be more gentle and perform fewer checks spread over more time. But it works good enough for me.

The defines from the latest (2.6.2) version of the mod are:

NGameplay = {
   POP_ETHOS_LOWER_ETHIC_THRESHOLD               = 5.0   # If the % of pops following an ethic is <= this relative to its attraction do not diverge away from it
   POP_ETHOS_UPPER_ETHIC_THRESHOLD               = 2.0   # If the % of pops following an ethic is >= this relative to its attraction do not diverge to it
   POP_ETHOS_DIVERGENCE_INTERVAL               = 360   # Number of days until a Pop has a change to diverge from empire ethos
   POP_ETHOS_DIVERGENCE_RATE_MULT               = 1900.00      # Chance of a pop evaluating its ethics every year
   POP_CHANGE_FACTION_CHANCE               = 100.00   # Once every month a pop has X chance to change faction but only if the pop wants to
}

Whereas 2.63 values in the beta patch are:

       POP_ETHOS_LOWER_ETHIC_THRESHOLD               = 0.5   # If the % of pops following an ethic is <= this relative to its attraction do not diverge away from it
       POP_ETHOS_UPPER_ETHIC_THRESHOLD               = 2.0   # If the % of pops following an ethic is >= this relative to its attraction do not diverge to it
       POP_MIN_ETHIC_RELATIVE_ATTRACTION           = 0.1   # If relative attraction is less than this, do not diverge to this ethic
       POP_ETHOS_DIVERGENCE_INTERVAL               = 360   # Number of days until a Pop has a change to diverge from empire ethos
       POP_ETHOS_DIVERGENCE_RATE_MULT               = 0.05   # Chance of a pop evaluating its ethics every year
       POP_CHANGE_FACTION_CHANCE                   = 0.05   # Once every month a pop has X chance to change faction but only if the pop wants to

Only three values in the mod are changed, the others are currently the same as default. See if you can spot the difference and find the changed values.

Since the mod doesn't fiddle with POP_MIN_ETHIC_RELATIVE_ATTRACTION, the default one is used.

(It is possible the 2.6.3 "fix" means that the mod-values can be lowered rather than having to be so extreme, or perhaps it really has been fixed? time will tell.)

EDIT: Let me make clear that I don't know whether 2.6.3 has fixed the issue, rendering the mod no longer needed, as I have not tested 2.6.3. But if you are finding that it hasn't, I recommend the mod.

To give you an update, I loaded my save from the vanilla 2.6.3 beta where pop ethics attraction wasn't working, after reinstalling the mod. It doesn't seem to work either. Unsure if this is because the save-game was from vanilla or if the beta breaks the mod. Either way, if the devs are not going to fix the issue themselves, I'd rather they stopped breaking the mod with their 'fixes'.

 

[Turean]

It is unclear if this feature is broken or not. But it's probably broken.

 

[GeorgieBest]

It is unclear if this feature is broken or not. But it's probably broken.

I've run more tests using empires with different origins and ethics. It's definitely still broken. If how it is right now is working as intended then it needs to be reconsidered.

Unfortunately whatever 'fix' was included in the beta has also broken the mod I was using. Again. Guess I'll have to wait a week or two for the mod's author to fix the bug which has stumped the devs for 2+ years.

 

[Gort11]

I've run more tests using empires with different origins and ethics. It's definitely still broken. If how it is right now is working as intended then it needs to be reconsidered.

You sure? Running unmodded as Fanatic Egalitarian and Xenophile I got 19 Egalitarian and 11 Xenophile pops when the factions showed up.

 

[GeorgieBest]

You sure? Running unmodded as Fanatic Egalitarian and Xenophile I got 19 Egalitarian and 11 Xenophile pops when the factions showed up.

Certain. I just started as fanatic xenophile/materialists with voidborne origin and I ended up having more militaristic pops than any other ethic somehow...

In another save I went from 3300 to 3400 with 0% expected spiritualist ethic, in my fanatic materialist empire, and spiritualism actually grew... That is not what I call fixed or working. It's a joke.

 

[Rathengar]

It is unclear if this feature is broken or not. But it's probably broken.

I disagree. There is nothing unclear about it. I used over 2 hours yesterday sitting and restarting new games with same custom race i hade put together. Each time starting on a Ringworld. And every single game except a few exception, the minor faction hade less followers then a 3rd unwanted faction, usual one directly against one of your chosen ethics. And this was right when i entered a new game i checked population faction %.

Then i supressed the unwanted faction and let game run some years and the unwanted supressed faction was ALLWAYS gaining members just as fast as the minor or was ahead of it in members.

So its 100% broken when it comes to both supress and faction. Because before newest DLC. I could like i said in a earlier post often go 100% years times, before i saw a 3rd faction when i hade the 30% "ethics atraction" to my race. Which i also hade in yesterdays test, except now i hade 100% a 3rd faction RIGHT on game start atleast. Now and then i hade enough people to get several factions. No i did wait 10 years. But i did let game run a few years each test, and i saw % gaining while supressed even. Some i did while not supressing and they gained same speed as the supressed test runs.

 

[GeorgieBest]

I disagree. There is nothing unclear about it. I used over 2 hours yesterday sitting and restarting new games with same custom race i hade put together. Each time starting on a Ringworld. And every single game except a few exception, the minor faction hade less followers then a 3rd unwanted faction, usual one directly against one of your chosen ethics. And this was right when i entered a new game i checked population faction %.

Then i supressed the unwanted faction and let game run some years and the unwanted supressed faction was ALLWAYS gaining members just as fast as the minor or was ahead of it in members.

So its 100% broken when it comes to both supress and faction. Because before newest DLC. I could like i said in a earlier post often go 100% years times, before i saw a 3rd faction when i hade the 30% "ethics atraction" to my race. Which i also hade in yesterdays test, except now i hade 100% a 3rd faction RIGHT on game start atleast. Now and then i hade enough people to get several factions. No i did wait 10 years. But i did let game run a few years each test, and i saw % gaining while supressed even. Some i did while not supressing and they gained same speed as the supressed test runs.

It's so infuriating to see a game mechanic like this so clearly broken for, no exaggeration, years. The only thing their 'fixes' have done is break the one mod which helped remedy the problem. The fact the Devs are putting 'fixes' in their patch notes when they clearly haven't tested them is insulting

 

[pryr]

I though that it's an intentional change, like all ethics have some basic ethic attraction, so you can care less about some minor things screwing factions and influence gain.

 

[Derp]

It is unclear if this feature is broken or not. But it's probably broken.

if it's not broken, it's very badly designed. in either case it should be changed.
under no circumstances should an empire with a fanatic ethos end up with the opposing ethic being larger at the very beginning of the game.

 

[GeorgieBest]

I though that it's an intentional change, like all ethics have some basic ethic attraction, so you can care less about some minor things screwing factions and influence gain.

But as it stands pops do not change ethics. It's terrible from a gameplay standpoint and needs to be fixed. I mean actually fixed, not just putting a sentence in patch notes and hoping that will convince us it isn't broken.

 

[Archael90]

I, personally see no problem with pop ethics. It looks pretty normal, i mean somehow simillar to actual ethic atraction... that... is how it should be... or not?

 

[GeorgieBest]

I, personally see no problem with pop ethics. It looks pretty normal, i mean somehow simillar to actual ethic atraction... that... is how it should be... or not?

Try suppressing a faction for 100 years and watch it have 0 impact.

 

[Turean]

I can't believe no one got the reference

But yeah, when you start a new game with Inward Perfection and a third of your pops immediately join a militaristic faction, I would venture a guess that's not working as designed...

 

[GeorgieBest]

View attachment 565007

I can't believe no one got the reference

But yeah, when you start a new game with Inward Perfection and a third of your pops immediately join a militaristic faction, I would venture a guess that's not working as designed...

Sorry, didn't get the reference. Truth be told I'm a bit fed up - this issue is something that's bothered me for a long time, and was excited when I saw them mention a fix in the 2.6 patch notes. But now we've had two sets of patch notes where they've included a 'fix' which hasn't worked.

 

[GC13]

So if Paradox removed individual Pop ethics from the game, what has to change? Pops can still be made happier with amenities and modifiers, faction membership can be based off of the calculated attraction that the game already has, and... Am I missing anything? Because I really don't see what each individual Pop having an ethic adds to the game.

 

[Cat_Fuzz]

Just a tip - if you are able to enact the 'encourage political thought' edict, it actually does shift ethics around pretty well. I ama fanatic militarist / egalitarian, yet my elected leade was with the spiritualist faction (on account of swallowing a fanatic spiritualist empire)

I used this edict and by the time their term was up, spiritualist had risen in support to almost the same as the other two main factions.

 

[GeorgieBest]

So if Paradox removed individual Pop ethics from the game, what has to change? Pops can still be made happier with amenities and modifiers, faction membership can be based off of the calculated attraction that the game already has, and... Am I missing anything? Because I really don't see what each individual Pop having an ethic adds to the game.

I was thinking this today.

I don't know what giving individual pops ethics does which is beneficial for gameplay. I guess it allows faction happiness modifiers to apply to pops individually? The downside is that it seems to be impossible for the Devs to find a solution to the problems people have highlighted in this thread. Maybe someone could make a thread in the recommendations section? Abstracting ethics to a population level number should make things easier to fix surely?