Has governing ethics attraction been fixed yet?

[Flame13223]

I think to test this right it should be done with fanatic purifiers, without any megachurches to add spiritual attraction in the galaxy. As this would make sure it's only your pops being tested with fewer outside biases (various diplomatic things affect attractions too - most of which are ignored by FPs).

• I had a massive surge in egalitarianism in one of my games and couldn't figure out why.
  • Then I realised I'd bought 200 slaves (≈1/7 my population) for a ringworld - many of whom came with an egalitarian view.
• Refugees may also cause ethic shifts,
  • after a ton of refugees turned up in my empire my ethics alignment was all over the place, thanks to someone displacing them all.
  • it was hard to figure out who was a refugee, given my diverse population, but I'm assuming refugees arrive with whatever their old ethics were (even if they don't equal your own)
• Also something I noticed is that primitives seem to be much more ethically diverse now. I invaded an early space age empire and every ethic was represented with the largest segment being 20% in the past you'd usually only see 2-4 ethics represented.

If what I think is going on with refugees/purchased slaves (or even annexed planets from other empires) is true, playing a test game with an FP (e.g. fan xenophobic + spiritualist for temples) should lead to a more concentrated ethics distribution.

• If this is the case, it would suggest the system is "working as intended"
• But that regular empires (non gestalts/non-no-diplomacy) simply have too many variables to deal with currently, which is why they end up with diverse ethics.

That is why I turned off all refugees and had no slaves and had everyone equal in the test I conducted above.

My theory is simply that having all ethics already in your empire causes a deadlock, but I'll have to do tests in new empires to figure out how everything works still.

I know new pops either conquered or bought slaves, will bring in other ethics, that's obviously the case, what I was trying to determine is, if not doing any of that, how will ethics change over time. Because it muddies the waters if you have external effects on your ethics composition. War also seems to create a surge in militarist sentiment in your nation for example. There seems to be some triggers that aren't shown or explained in game for how ethics shift around.

 

[GeorgieBest]

Seems to work for me. I've had my support for factions change much quicker than I've previously seen.

 

[Red Death]

I "might" be wrong, but hilariously political power has nothing to do with factions.

Political power is how much the pop's happiness is considered when adjusting planetary stability.

They should really change that as well...
(By this I mean political power should influence faction support as well)

 

[Four eyed fish]

[QUOTE="RoverStorm, post: 26392233, member:


So does this imply that suppressing an ethic can't take it below 10% in a population number stable empire (or you can't get get below 10% without using growth top dilute)?

Maybe a feature of suppression is that it should remove that 10% cap feature while in use?

 

[Jman5]

Something interesting I noticed in my game. I am a Fanatic Materialist + Xenophobe Governing Ethics I've been running the +xenophobe campaign to boost it, but there are 4 main factions.

Clicking on pops I mostly get these attractions:
Homeworld: 45% Xenophobe, 36% materialist, 11% pacifist, 8% militarist
Colony: 38% Xenophobe, 30% materialist, 18% pacisist, 13.5% militarist

In faction tab I get:

Materialist:
-Expected: 35%
-Actual : 26%
Xenophobic:
-Expected: 44%
-Actual : 22%
Pacifist:
-Expected: 12%
-Actual : 24%
Militarist:
-Expected: 9%
-Actual : 18%


So aside from Materialist (remember I'm a fanatic), what jumps out at me is the odd pattern that Xenophobe, which I should have a lot of, is only getting half of what it should. Meanwhile Pacifist and Militarist, which I shouldn't have many of, is getting twice as many pops as it should. This halving and doubling thing is strange, and I wonder if anyone else is seeing this from their non-fanatic ethics.

Edit: Interestingly my fanatic materialist ethic is almost exactly 75% of what it should be, while my regular ethic is 50%.

 

[GeorgieBest]

It's definitely been fixed. Initial planetary population doesn't adhere to governing ethics, but the number of POPs in factions moves around MUCH faster and more predictably now.

Are you sure about this?

 

[FrancescoT]

Are you sure about this?

1st part is a bug.

 

[GeorgieBest]

1st part is a bug.

So pops still are unable to change ethics properly? How long has this been a bug? And why would a DLC based on diplomacy not address it?

 

[FrancescoT]

So pops still are unable to change ethics properly? How long has this been a bug? And why would a DLC based on diplomacy not address it?

This part is a bug: Initial planetary population doesn't adhere to governing ethics.

Growing POPs ethics distribution matches expected distribution giving time.

 

[Jman5]

I'm starting to think there may be some math or logic issue with ethic attraction. I noticed that doubling/halving thing and in the code that RoverStorm posted there are rules in place regarding when a faction is double what it should be and when it is half what it should be. I can't help but think this isn't a coincidence.

Spoiler

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 = 0.02 # Chance of a pop evaluating its ethics every year

 

[Pancakelord]

POP_ETHOS_DIVERGENCE_INTERVAL

If you set that to 1 (instead of 360) in the game files and run a game, if I am reading it right, it'll then force pops to (have a 2% chance) to shift every day.

Keep the ethics window open and You'll then know in 5 mins how it's distributing.

I wish we could output this stuff to excel lol or the game tracked graphs on historical empire stats like civ / AOE2.

 

[GeorgieBest]

This part is a bug: Initial planetary population doesn't adhere to governing ethics.

Growing POPs ethics distribution matches expected distribution giving time.

Do you know if there are any mods which fix this so that existing POPs can change ethics?

 

[FrancescoT]

Do you know if there are any mods which fix this so that existing POPs can change ethics?

Sorry, no idea.. probably you can "fix" them by save editing atm .

 

[Liggi]

I actually kinda like having a few POPs that don't adhere, I think that should be a feature.

 

[FrancescoT]

I actually kinda like having a few POPs that don't adhere, I think that should be a feature.

Deviancy should remain just following expected distribution not totally random .

 

[NinjaBus]

POP_ETHOS_DIVERGENCE_INTERVAL = 360 # Number of days until a Pop has a change to diverge from empire ethos
POP_ETHOS_DIVERGENCE_RATE_MULT = 0.02 # Chance of a pop evaluating its ethics every year[/spoiler]

The modifier comments indicate that pops shift 'away' from your empire's ethos. Is it possible that the game's code prevents pops from moving towards your empire's ethics?

This would explain why having ethics attraction doesn't appear to function, it's only slowing down the rate at which you lose loyal pops instead of creating more of them.

That is why I turned off all refugees and had no slaves and had everyone equal in the test I conducted above.

My theory is simply that having all ethics already in your empire causes a deadlock, but I'll have to do tests in new empires to figure out how everything works still.

If my theory is correct, this would explain why you gained no egalitarian pops, your governing ethics are egalitarian. Someone else in the thread mentioned that deliberately shifting AWAY from your ethics is working, so maybe we're onto something?

 

[Jman5]

So here is what I find strange when it comes to pop ethics attraction logic:
1. Happiness is supposed to increase attraction to governing ethics.

Spoiler

# Happiness Levels
pop_happiness_positive = {
pop_government_ethic_attraction = 0.50

2. Supressing factions is supposed to decrease attraction to a specific ethic, BUT it also drops a pop's happiness

It just seems like these two factors are working at cross purposes. If you want more pops following your governing ethics you want to boost your happiness. If you want to decrease the popularity of another ethics you're supposed to suppress it. However, suppressing a faction will almost invariably give them very low approval. Very low approval means -10 to happiness. Lower happiness means lower chance to switch to governing ethic attraction. If it causes happiness to dips below 50% than you're actively discouraging your governing ethics!

The factions that appear to come out most ahead when it comes to low happiness + suppression are third party ethics that you're not suppressing.

 

[brn4meplz]

I'd be interested how many ethics he had in his empire at that time. I am wondering if this turtle pace is as a result of having all possible ethics each competing against one another and creating a sort of deadlock.

Could be onto Something there, he had 4 Factions at the time I'm pretty sure, because I remember him complaining about an explosion of factions later in the game.

 

[Vladisi]

They should really change that as well...

They really should not, because that's not the intention behind political power. Political power is a measurement of how much a pop is able to affect planetary stability thought means that are available to it. Workers who possess very little power aren't going to have much influence if they are against rich and powerful people who have every intention of preserving status quo, unless there are many of them.

 

[Red Death]

They really should not, because that's not the intention behind political power. Political power is a measurement of how much a pop is able to affect planetary stability thought means that are available to it. Workers who possess very little power aren't going to have much influence if they are against rich and powerful people who have every intention of preserving status quo, unless there are many of them.

Oh, I agree, I actually meant political power should also affect the amount of support they can give to factions(precisely because workers have less influence to give). Sorry if that wasn't clear.