Max pop growth are 25/months. Or 50/months.

[hellatze]

I play with mod that enable to build multiple clone vats.

I build 20 of them. Complete with edict. All pop growth tech. And ascension perk mod.

It only reach 32 pop growth. And hardly to get 50 pop/months. And that was heavy use of mod.

The reason you cannot use more than 25 pop/months because :

1. When you reach. (Let say) 90/100. If you have 30 pop/months. Next pop should be 20/100. The population will reset to 0/100 instead. (Imagine 94/100 pop with growth of 13 pop/months). The time are wasted a lot.

2. Its more effective to have multiple world instead relying on single world. In the end you colonize a lot of planet without district. With a lot of unemplyment. (Turn migration off). Then manually resettle all of them to your desired planet. ALL of them.

3. To get 25pop/months. Req a lot of bonus. Like 900% pop growth alone.

In the end. Pop growth are astonishingly slow.

Time to abuse it. Or simply invade.

 

[Hyomoto]

Part of your issue seems to stem from not really understanding the game, but to be fair your solution is sensible. It is best to forcefully move pops to a new planet to jump start it, and that's most productive when you have a bunch of unemployed ones sitting around. It's also fair to note there is no carry over between pops, so that's wasted growth.

Now, is that how the game is meant to be played? Probably not. But I suspect, like when nuWar was released, it's going to have some tweaks and changes before the next expansion is announced. They might carry over growth, since even just losing 4 in an unmodified game is significant.

 

[Stars_and_Bars]

I play with mod that enable to build multiple clone vats.

I build 20 of them. Complete with edict. All pop growth tech. And ascension perk mod.

It only reach 32 pop growth. And hardly to get 50 pop/months. And that was heavy use of mod.

The reason you cannot use more than 25 pop/months because :

1. When you reach. (Let say) 90/100. If you have 30 pop/months. Next pop should be 20/100. The population will reset to 0/100 instead. (Imagine 94/100 pop with growth of 13 pop/months). The time are wasted a lot.

2. Its more effective to have multiple world instead relying on single world. In the end you colonize a lot of planet without district. With a lot of unemplyment. (Turn migration off). Then manually resettle all of them to your desired planet. ALL of them.

3. To get 25pop/months. Req a lot of bonus. Like 900% pop growth alone.

In the end. Pop growth are astonishingly slow.

Time to abuse it. Or simply invade.

Well, if you could get your pop growth rate to 34, you would be more efficient. but generally the growth rate is small enough that the issue you're talking about is more of a feature than a problem. This means that every integer fraction of 100 rounds down to make tiers of growth. The highest tier is 50, then 34,25,20,17,15,13,12,10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1...

This means that small boosts to pop growth are more important when the growth rate is small, but when your get to much growth rate past 10, small boosts don't nearly cut it. This is actually a good thing. It provides more differences at lower growth rates, and lessens the benefit of having insane growth rates, therefore providing more balance.

 

[hellatze]

Well, if you could get your pop growth rate to 34, you would be more efficient. but generally the growth rate is small enough that the issue you're talking about is more of a feature than a problem. This means that every integer fraction of 100 rounds down to make tiers of growth. The highest tier is 50, then 34,25,20,17,15,13,12,10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1...

This means that small boosts to pop growth are more important when the growth rate is small, but when your get to much growth rate past 10, small boosts don't nearly cut it. This is actually a good thing. It provides more differences at lower growth rates, and lessens the benefit of having insane growth rates, therefore providing more balance.

what are you talking about.

31 x 3 : 93.

so next months you will get surplus 26 pop growth. but the surplus are not accounted for next pop growth.

its not a good thing. so dont waste food or building slot for it.

 

[hellatze]

Part of your issue seems to stem from not really understanding the game, but to be fair your solution is sensible. It is best to forcefully move pops to a new planet to jump start it, and that's most productive when you have a bunch of unemployed ones sitting around. It's also fair to note there is no carry over between pops, so that's wasted growth.

Now, is that how the game is meant to be played? Probably not. But I suspect, like when nuWar was released, it's going to have some tweaks and changes before the next expansion is announced. They might carry over growth, since even just losing 4 in an unmodified game is significant.

what are you talking about ?

the game have problem with pop growth.

 

[Stars_and_Bars]

what are you talking about.

31 x 3 : 93.

so next months you will get surplus 26 pop growth. but the surplus are not accounted for next pop growth.

its not a good thing. so dont waste food or building slot for it.

Look, you seem to be misunderstanding me and misunderstanding the current growth system.
We have established that pop growth does not roll over to the next pop. Therefore there is no reason to view the growth rate in terms of the actual growth rate, but instead in terms of how many months it takes to build a new pop.
Between 25 and 33 growth rate, there is zero additional benefit. This is not a problem in terms of game-play. You yourself admitted that you could only reach 25 growth rate with a mod that boosted the crap out of your growth boosts. The developers obviously never intended for a player to reach 25 growth rate without EXTREME cost to their empire. It's obvious to see why.

If you assume every planet has the same growth rate, at 25, with N planets you'd be getting N new pops every 4 months. Most players will never get beyond 10 growth rate on each planet, so if we compare that. They'd be getting N pops every 10 months. Let's multiply this out over 50 years of growth. The first player will have gained 150*N new pops in 50 years, while the second player will have gained 60* N new pops in 50 years.

How many planets would an average empire have? 6? 10? 15? 20? at 6 planets that's 900 new pops in 50 years, at 10 planets, 1500 new pops, 15 planets 2250 new pops, at 20 planets 3000 new pops. Just over the span of 50 years. Compare that to the 360,600,900,1200 pops from the 10 growth rate.

At 25 growth rate, you'd be unstoppable within 50 years. but that's only possible with heavy modding. most players will NEVER reach 10 growth rate, and compared to the 25 growth rate, the 10 growth would not be able to compete.

Ultimately you're wrong about pop growth being too slow, especially if you think 25 growth per month is too slow. If they gave you the spillover each month you want, the game would be broken. Realize this, if you think pop growth is too slow, you have to compare it how fast other people can grow. The developers made mechanics that at least in multiplayer are trying to level the playing field so that one player doesn't dominate everything.

Yes there are still definite balance issues, but organic pop growth isn't one of them.

 

[hellatze]

Why you focused on modding part ? That was example.

Modding are not your concern. What concern me that excess pop growth rate didnt give next pop.

THATS what i meant.

 

[Stars_and_Bars]

Why you focused on modding part ? That was example.

Modding are not your concern. What concern me that excess pop growth rate didnt give next pop.

THATS what i meant.

Because it's not a big deal, in fact it's something of a benefit.
Let's set up a chart; In order for a planet to growth a pop per x months, it must have at least y growth rate
[x,y];[1,100],[2,50],[3,34.4],[4,25],[5,20],[6,16.7],[7,14.3],[8,12.5],[9,11.2],[10,10],[11,9.1][12,8.4],[13,7.7],[14,7.2],[15,6.7],[16,6.3],[17,5.9],[18,5.6],[19,5.3],[20,5],[21,4.8],[22,4.6],[23,4.4],[24,4.2],[25,4],[26,3.9],[27,3.71],[28,3.58],[29,3.45],[30,3.34],[31,3.23],[32,3.13],[33,3.04],[34.2.95];
now obviously you can go on almost forever, but now that I've done the math all the way to the base rate of 3 growth per month, we can see some very informative trends.
If you started at the base rate of 3 growth per month, it would take 34 months to get a new pop. that's pretty slow, but if you can get it to 4 growth per month, it only takes 25 months to get a new pop. That's 9 months you've saved. If you can get it to 5 growth per month, that's get its down to to 20 months for a new pop. That's an additional 5 fewer months required to make a new pop.

Don't you see? There's diminishing returns. The smaller your growth rate is, the more time you can save by increasing it. This makes the pop growth into a tier system, Where people are who are really close to each other in growth rate take the same amount of time to grow a new pop.

"Excess pop growth" doesn't exist. It's not a real thing. By separating the growth system into tiers like I've shown, they are saving processing power and making the game run smoother. If every planet had to record how much "excess pop growth" to save after a pop was grown, then that would increase calculation time and make the game run slower.

There's also another reason why they wouldn't use "excess pop growth" Every month, the planet has to decide which species will be selected for growth next. That becomes more computationally stressed if it also has to record "excess pop growth" It's far easier and better for everyone to round to certain growth rates, especially since the "excess pop growth" "loss" is very low at most growth rates.

 

[hellatze]

That was slow ass growth.

Despite that we need a lot of pop in 2.2

Unlike previous version.

I guess i need to find a way to abuse it.

 

[Stars_and_Bars]

Are you playing a joke on me? let's say you wanted to a get planet from 1 pop to 200 just through growth. If we take your ridiculous modded way with a ridiculous 25 pop growth, It would take at most 67 years to reach 200 pops. Now if you had 50 planets each growing from 1 to 200 during those 67 years, you would have grown 10,000 pops in just 67 years. That's an insane amount of growth. You have to be out of your mind to think that 25 pop growth per month is slow. Obviously more pops are better, but you have to realize that this is POP GROWTH, not your pop maximum. Eventually you will run into the limits of housing within your empire. You are going to run out of planets and then you're going to run out of habitat space, but long before that your economy will collapse under the weight of your own population. You need minerals to build EVERYTHING and you can get minerals from trading, planets, ring-worlds, and mining stations. That's it. Your planets and mining stations are good for early mineral growth, but you'll reach a soft cap where you can only increase your mineral production from those with new tech. ring-worlds are more of a late-game thing. The only option left is the market. Now that's an infinite amount of minerals you can buy, but with how much consumer goods you will have to produce to support that massive population you will either need to buy 10,000 minerals every few months, or you will need to buy monthly minerals all the time at the max mineral price. Eventually you win run out of housing or jobs on each and every world, and by the you better have researched and built habitats or ringworlds because even if you conquer every surrounding empire, you will run out of places to put your pops. In 100 years at 25 growth per month you will have 300 more pops per each planet. You'd have to make half a dozen ecumenopolis just to house all your pops. by then it's a race against the clock to see if you can somehow keep up that insane growth rate without having ridiculous unemployment, massive consumer good shortages, massive food shortages. You will have to research so many repeatable tech just to sustain the cost of upkeep for your population.

 

[VoidEmperor]

No offense, but from all ive seen you comment on and the threads you made you're either a spud or a complete troll.

 

[TehJumpingJawa]

Because it's not a big deal, in fact it's something of a benefit.
Let's set up a chart; In order for a planet to growth a pop per x months, it must have at least y growth rate
[x,y];[1,100],[2,50],[3,34.4],[4,25],[5,20],[6,16.7],[7,14.3],[8,12.5],[9,11.2],[10,10],[11,9.1][12,8.4],[13,7.7],[14,7.2],[15,6.7],[16,6.3],[17,5.9],[18,5.6],[19,5.3],[20,5],[21,4.8],[22,4.6],[23,4.4],[24,4.2],[25,4],[26,3.9],[27,3.71],[28,3.58],[29,3.45],[30,3.34],[31,3.23],[32,3.13],[33,3.04],[34.2.95];
now obviously you can go on almost forever, but now that I've done the math all the way to the base rate of 3 growth per month, we can see some very informative trends.
If you started at the base rate of 3 growth per month, it would take 34 months to get a new pop. that's pretty slow, but if you can get it to 4 growth per month, it only takes 25 months to get a new pop. That's 9 months you've saved. If you can get it to 5 growth per month, that's get its down to to 20 months for a new pop. That's an additional 5 fewer months required to make a new pop.

Don't you see? There's diminishing returns. The smaller your growth rate is, the more time you can save by increasing it. This makes the pop growth into a tier system, Where people are who are really close to each other in growth rate take the same amount of time to grow a new pop.

"Excess pop growth" doesn't exist. It's not a real thing. By separating the growth system into tiers like I've shown, they are saving processing power and making the game run smoother. If every planet had to record how much "excess pop growth" to save after a pop was grown, then that would increase calculation time and make the game run slower.

There's also another reason why they wouldn't use "excess pop growth" Every month, the planet has to decide which species will be selected for growth next. That becomes more computationally stressed if it also has to record "excess pop growth" It's far easier and better for everyone to round to certain growth rates, especially since the "excess pop growth" "loss" is very low at most growth rates.

You invalidated your entire post as soon as you claimed performance would be of any consideration. Don't speak to what you clearly have little knowledge of.

To the OP, I agree, population growth should rollover. It's simply the correct way of doing it; no further justification needed

 

[VoidEmperor]

Are you talking to me? Also what's a spud? Is that some new slang?

not you, the OP, hellatze. A spud is a potato.

 

[Stars_and_Bars]

You invalidated your entire post as soon as you claimed performance would be of any consideration. Don't speak to what you clearly have little knowledge of.

To the OP, I agree, population growth should rollover. It's simply the correct way of doing it; no further justification needed

What are you even talking about? Why is it the correct way of doing it? Just because you said so? Because it seems the simplest to you?

 

[hellatze]

What are you even talking about? Why is it the correct way of doing it? Just because you said so? Because it seems the simplest to you?

I think you just disagree me because you afraid they could change the system ?

 

[hellatze]

Are you playing a joke on me? let's say you wanted to a get planet from 1 pop to 200 just through growth. If we take your ridiculous modded way with a ridiculous 25 pop growth, It would take at most 67 years to reach 200 pops. Now if you had 50 planets each growing from 1 to 200 during those 67 years, you would have grown 10,000 pops in just 67 years. That's an insane amount of growth. You have to be out of your mind to think that 25 pop growth per month is slow. Obviously more pops are better, but you have to realize that this is POP GROWTH, not your pop maximum. Eventually you will run into the limits of housing within your empire. You are going to run out of planets and then you're going to run out of habitat space, but long before that your economy will collapse under the weight of your own population. You need minerals to build EVERYTHING and you can get minerals from trading, planets, ring-worlds, and mining stations. That's it. Your planets and mining stations are good for early mineral growth, but you'll reach a soft cap where you can only increase your mineral production from those with new tech. ring-worlds are more of a late-game thing. The only option left is the market. Now that's an infinite amount of minerals you can buy, but with how much consumer goods you will have to produce to support that massive population you will either need to buy 10,000 minerals every few months, or you will need to buy monthly minerals all the time at the max mineral price. Eventually you win run out of housing or jobs on each and every world, and by the you better have researched and built habitats or ringworlds because even if you conquer every surrounding empire, you will run out of places to put your pops. In 100 years at 25 growth per month you will have 300 more pops per each planet. You'd have to make half a dozen ecumenopolis just to house all your pops. by then it's a race against the clock to see if you can somehow keep up that insane growth rate without having ridiculous unemployment, massive consumer good shortages, massive food shortages. You will have to research so many repeatable tech just to sustain the cost of upkeep for your population.

Hate to break it. But 200 pop means nothing.

So many JOBS. And So many resource to collect.

Also remember. I dont want to waste my time to wait my pop to growth to optimal phase.

10 pop/months (the fastest way without mod) are rarely influental for empire growth.

 

[Stars_and_Bars]

What I don't understand is what's driving your desire for ludicrously fast pop growth. Currently the AI is a joke, so it's very easy to outproduce them in everything. Human players play by the same rules that you do, so you just have to be better than them. With the kind of pop growth you're suggesting, You could have well over 5000 pops within a hundred years of game-start. I honest don't understand why people think pop growth is too slow. EVERYONE is limited by the same system, if pop growth were increased by the devs, it'd be increased across the board, eliminating any benefit you would get out of it.

Instead of faster pop growth, how about a better system a pop growth? How about maybe a system where pop growth isn't proportional to how many planets you have?

 

[sparta105]

I honest don't understand why people think pop growth is too slow. EVERYONE is limited by the same system, if pop growth were increased by the devs, it'd be increased across the board, eliminating any benefit you would get out of it.

Because it made the game EXTREMELY slow to start. If you don't meticulously plan out the progression of a planet you run the risk of messing up your economy so much, you might end up in a death spiral. It gets better in the late game as more options become available but in the early game it is just a waiting game until you have 3-4 planets with accepatble populations, It's only then you can actually do anything without running the risk of going bankrupt.

 

[Stars_and_Bars]

Because it made the game EXTREMELY slow to start. If you don't meticulously plan out the progression of a planet you run the risk of messing up your economy so much, you might end up in a death spiral. It gets better in the late game as more options become available but in the early game it is just a waiting game until you have 3-4 planets with accepatble populations, It's only then you can actually do anything without running the risk of going bankrupt.

That's not because the current pop growth rate system. That's because you are overdeveloping your advanced industries without having the basic industries to support them. It's like having 100 oil refineries and only 10 oil wells. Now, not all of that is your fault. Part of that is the current pop demotion mechanic is bull-crap. For some reason it takes zero time for miner to be educated as a scientist, while it takes forever for the scientist to realize that his field is over saturated and he needs to find employment elsewhere. Your economy is imploding because you have too much high tech industry and not enough low tech industry. That's not a problem which will be solved by faster pop growth. Maybe they'll fix the job selection system later, but right now I suggest that you don't build new buildings/districts until you have unemployed worker pops.

 

[sparta105]

That's not because the current pop growth rate system. That's because you are overdeveloping your advanced industries without having the basic industries to support them. It's like having 100 oil refineries and only 10 oil wells. Now, not all of that is your fault. Part of that is the current pop demotion mechanic is bull-crap. For some reason it takes zero time for miner to be educated as a scientist, while it takes forever for the scientist to realize that his field is over saturated and he needs to find employment elsewhere. Your economy is imploding because you have too much high tech industry and not enough low tech industry. That's not a problem which will be solved by faster pop growth. Maybe they'll fix the job selection system later, but right now I suggest that you don't build new buildings/districts until you have unemployed worker pops.

Said problem is exacerbated by the slow pop growth. While I agree with you on the fact that the core of the issue is the pop promotion system, I would have to argue that until it's fixed, the band-aid solution of faster pop growth is something to ponder.