Housing modifier stacking

[Tyro]

How do housing use modifiers from Bulky/Double Jointed, Communal/Solitary, Slave/AI Servitude stratum, and the Servant job interact? Do the modifiers stack additively or multiplicatively?

 

[Mocarr]

10%+10%=20%

 

[Less2]

Stuff like slavery are multiplicative, the rest is all additive I believe. e.g. a Robot under slavery takes 50% less housing (.5), with the -10% trait it takes .45, adding on Byzantine Bureaucracy makes it .4.

 

[GC13]

Stuff like slavery are multiplicative, the rest is all additive I believe. e.g. a Robot under slavery takes 50% less housing (.5), with the -10% trait it takes .45, adding on Byzantine Bureaucracy makes it .4.

Slavery and Servant stack such that a servant (or livestock) only takes up 0.25 housing.

 

[Tyro]

I've always had trouble wrapping my head around this stuff. Does that mean there's diminishing returns with housing reduction stacking, so I shouldn't bother (for example) with Byzantine Bureaucracy if I'm using a lot of slaves?

 

[GC13]

It means that Byzantine Bureaucracy isn't more powerful when used on slaves, and will make them use 10% less housing than they otherwise would (just like it would on a free Pop).

 

[TheGrouch91]

If you're interested in that topic I started a discussion here (called ways to reduce housing or smth like that) and there have been a few informative posts so far.

To answer your question: When it comes to negative additive multipliers they actually scale better. Basically how adding positive bonuses becomes less and less effective (diminishing returns) adding negative modifiers becomes more and more efficient.

Edit:

Math is as follows.

No modifier --- 1 pop needs 1 housing --- 100 housing = 100/1 = 100 pops
Minus 10% --- 1 pop needs 0.9 housing --- 100 housing = 100/0.9 = 111 pops
Minus 20% --- 1 pop needs 0.8 housing --- 100 housing = 100/0.8 = 125 pops
Minus 30% --- 1 pop needs 0.7 housing --- 100 housing = 100/0.7 = 142 pops

Etc. As you can see the increase in potential pops is exponential.

 

[Tyro]

If you're interested in that topic I started a discussion here (called ways to reduce housing or smth like that) and there have been a few informative posts so far.

To answer your question: When it comes to negative additive multipliers they actually scale better. Basically how adding positive bonuses becomes less and less effective (diminishing returns) adding negative modifiers becomes more and more effificient.

That explains my issue. I'm used to multiplicative stacking being a bad thing because I do a lot of tabletop gaming, where stacking percentage modifiers is almost always done with positive numbers.

 

[TheGrouch91]

Added some math to my previous comment to make it (hopefully) clearer.