Fwurg

[Brend]

Help! In the next population growth cycle (that would be 130), Mirda is going to overflow! The 19-zone planet will end up with 19.03 !

Me and Chriz have looked at the rules, and found a bit of weirdness: a planet can support 1.0 per developed zone... So, once your 19-zones ball of rock is full your growth basically stops at 19.0 , and you get to enjoy the benefits of 19 racial bonuses. But, if your population grows to fill the planet, you might want to move people off your planet to the next habitable ball of rock.

Unfortunately, this would mean paying Population Growth Cost double! Once for the first planet (when you get 19.0 , and then again for the planet they're moved to. Next growth cycle, the same thing happens. You reach 19.0 again, pay PGC and move away 0.1 so you're below 19.0 again...

Next to that, your planet is not actually supporting 19.0 , since you have to move some of them away every time, so its more like 18.5-18.9 , which is not what was advertised at all! This is madness! This is FWURG!

Ok. Moving on.

Chriz and I have looked at the issue, and we think the way to go here is technologies. We have determined a neat option:

Continuous Migration Incentives

By giving the population incentives to move off-world, such as subsidies or more culture-dependent incentives, a balance can be maintained between intra-system migration and population growth.

This technology allows you to pay mass migration costs (or interstellar mass migration costs) in advance to move overflow population growth to another world in the system. This advance payment works the same as Population Growth Cost: you can pay it in advance, and it will be used when the population grows.

It is not possible to pay for more 10 of mass migration or interstellar mass migration in advance.

Cost: 2500 / 4

Prerequisites: Mass Migration

We couldn't really pin down the cost, since its a unique feature but this doesn't really give you any direct economic benefits (other than 'not paying PGC twice', which we think is an un-feature of the rules and therefore is not really a 'benefit').

(Design note for future use: For a fully populated large planet this tech alone isn't enough -- you want to tech up to a more efficient Mass Migration that can do 0.2 / for double the cost, or something in that direction.)

What do you think?

[Mercury]

Population is like gravity: when it gets really big it starts acting peculiar around the edge.

I recognise this problem and I agree there should be a solution.

That said, I still found myself baulking at the proposed technology. I understand the technology is a solution to an actual problem in the rules, my gut still says <consuela>"noo, noo"</consuela>.

Investigating my feelings on the matter more deeply, I found that its even not the technology itself I oppose. The technology is a fine solution to the proposed problem. Its about a more general issue I have.

In earlier discussions on population growth technologies, I already expressed my concern with too many options on one thing (particularly population). This is another tech that helps population growth (again - with a problem that shouldn't be there).

More storywise, I find myself opposed to a planet continuously pooping out population into the rest of the system and beyond. After all, if the population that wants to leave keeps leaving while population regenerates, eventually everyone who wanted to leave will have already left! And just how many colonists can a world produce anyway? This is "star wars", not "settlers".

To be clear, I'm not opposed to moving some population around, but that is not the same thing as a continuous exodus of billions of people spreading out all over the system (and presumably eventually the galaxy).

I understand the Veolian need to spread, and indeed at some point they may be as common as humans, but human spread clearly took place over a long period given the many subspecies of humans that evolved on different planets. And Veolians aren't that much more fertile than humans.

The rules state "Each world can support a population of up to 1 billion for every worked zone on the planet." This is not a limit that means "every person over exactly X billion dies instantly". That would be silly. But it does place some limit on the exponential growth of populations, especially economically.

Rather than solving the problem by a technology allowing the continuous exportation of citizens as if they were trade goods, I'd suggest fixing it by overpopulating Mirda. Simply continue to grow the population - and pay the associated population growth cost - but do not take the additional economic benefits of an expanding population.

With some tech proposal, perhaps you'd even get to choose which of your overpopulation you are using for production bonuses at a given time (maybe with a swap-over cost).

Conceptually, overpopulation also fits - imho at least - more closely with the Veolians than a continuous diaspora of the excess population.

What are your thoughts on this?

[Elmer]

Hmm, overpopulating sounds actually like a very nice idea to me. That means that you can also support more people at a different planet without bonuses. Okay, this goes wrong really fast. What if I stack my entire population on my Cradle? Then 3 billion people will be on a small moon...

I like the idea of overpopulating, but I think we need to solve the issue of billions of people on a small moon as well. Not for balancing but for the sake of sanity.

[Brend]

In all honesty, I take great offence at the propose 'solution'.

If this was known to me beforehand, I would have a) started on a large planet (cause that allows me MORE population than I am allowed now -- apparently), b) started moving population off my planet 20 ago, since then it wouldn't have been a problem.

With this soluation, it basically feels like I am not allowed to move population to other worlds in my system to colonize them, while others with smaller populations are!

I find that objectionable. Futhermore, I have paid a lot for my extra growth. I've given up zones. I pay turn-ly upkeep to keep my population supplied with same-sex reproduction catalysts, and I have developed migration technologies especially because I foresaw this problem. And now all I get to have is pay more PGC for population that does nothing but give me more population... So I get penalized for having a large population while those that start with population on multiple planets get to grow there with all the aides I have devised -- In a word: <sarcasm>Great!</sarcasm>

I'm sorry for the negativity here, but this is truely how I feel. I have had an uphill battle for every single population technology I designed, and to be honest, I am a bit fed up with doing that. I get it, I'm not playing like the others -- I have different ideas about what my faction would do than 'build more zones to get more tax', but really, do I need to get this every single time?!

I'm off to do something else for today.

[Mercury]

Brend, I think your anger is misplaced here.

You haven't been forbidden from doing anything:

I expressed that the problem you describe is a real problem that should have a real solution. I acknowledged that your solution is a valid one, going so far as to name it a "fine solution". I then explained that I felt uncomfortable the general direction this was going. I proposed an alternative idea which I would feel more comfortable with. And finally I asked for your opinion.

That's it.

I am not telling you not to migrate population. I am not saying you are not allowed to migrate your population to other worlds. And I am not ordering you to keep the Veolian people limited to your homeworld. In fact, I explicitly say that I am not opposed to moving some population around. I do not think I can express that any clearer.

The only thing I stated having a problem with is turning Mirda into an endless fountain of people, because imho this is unrealistic. And to be clear, I did not even forbid it from happening, I merely expressed that I do not -like- the idea.

Seeing your desire to grow your population and my dislike for the proverbial space fountain of people, I proposed an alternative, which I believed would fit your needs.

My proposal does not restrict you. It in fact lifts a restriction.

There is -with good reason- a cap on the bonus population can provide, determined by the size of the planet (which in turn limits the maximum population size). This cap is not unique to your strategy. The cap also applies for all other strategies. There exist no ways to make endless production in a zone, no matter how much you invest.

What I propose to do is to LIFT that cap. Not in the economic sense, but in the roleplay sense. After all, it was my understanding you wanted a large population for roleplay reasons, as the Veolians being very -ahum- "happy" to procreate lots and lots. My proposal allows you to continue to grow your population.

In fact, I go one step further, suggesting how you can get additional benefits on production even with an oversized population by swapping benefits around. I feel this is reasonable.

To be clear, you'd still be able to move population off world!

What I dislike the idea of a continuous, eternal exodus. My proposal offers you an alternative to migrate some population and keep a large part on your homeworld, despite the cap on population benefits.

You'd also still be able to continue growing your population on Mirda at an ever increasing rate, without many further investments.

The only way this limits you is that you get slowed down (but not stopped) in painting the entire galaxy with Veolians.

While it is true that I might not have noticed this issue this early if you had started moving population 20 ago, I am pretty sure I would have picked up on it eventually and would have made my issue known to you then. Likewise, having a large planet would not have fixed this - it might allow more population, but I would have -still- opposed a massive exodus from the planet even then, which would have brought us to this exchange later, but no less certainly.

You did pay a lot to get high population growth, but by saying I do not like this direction, I am not taking any of that away from you. I haven't even said no to your tech proposal! All I did was express that I didn't like it, and propose an alternative. I do not feel that in this I have acted in a way that is offensive.

As for going through this every single time there is a population technology... no more so than Elmer every single time he wants to grow the Cradle into a Death Star.

Brend, let me be clear: I do not have an issue with the fact that your population is big! I have an issue with an unending exodus from a planet. I feel that is unrealistic. In the real world, the best humans are able to do is 2-4% every year, and most western countries don't get anywhere near that. Our growth rates in Fwurg are 2-4% every 10 weeks.

We allow such high rates because players don't want to wait a year for population growth. But the growth is exponential so I do think we need to keep close tabs on it and limit the amount of benefit it gives at some point.

That is my opinion. You asked for it.

[Brend]

I am glad that you explained your opinion; this is much clearer.

Unfortunately, however, it has not changed my feelings. I am still rather angry. I think I'd better not get into this any further until I have had time to think over the situation.

[Chriz]

@ Mercury: From your reactions I am not sure what you are expecting. I have the idea that you have either a problem with Mass Migration or with exponential population growth.

With mass migration you can indeed move your population around your system, this is how it works, how you fluff this is your own choice and the fact that people leave a crowded planet is not that strange...

If your problem is against exponential population growth, I get why since the system works with diminishing returns and should slow down instead of continue to increase.

But the population growth is not continuously exponential. If Brend has filled his planet with 19.0 population he will have a population growth of maximally 0.75 / 10 . Since they can not live on this planet anymore due to the limit they will have to move to the next planet where they will grow at the same rate but have to start from a few again. The growth now goes from exponential to linear. The next step will be 2 planets growing with 0.75 / 10 for 1.5 / 10 . Eventually when his system is full he will need to move them away from his system to things like colonies where they might grow even slower or might not grow at all. This will balance out in time just like the economy does.

The problem I have with your proposal for overpopulation is that it allows the population to keep growing exponentially and basically does not allow for any mass migration. It makes the population utterly useless and keeps it growing exponentially which is simply not realistic. The planet limits are there for a reason and I think that we should not ignore them with such a construction as overpopulation. Eventually if you say that you can exchange a zone for 10 extra on your planet you are stretching the capabilities for more exponential growth which is very powerful.

I still believe that the technology that Brend and me proposed is the way to go. I only think that it might have to be a bit more expensive but to be honest the price was a complete guess in the first place. Nonetheless we need to know if Mercury is conceptually against migration or exponential growth or just worried about stacking technologies.

[Dragonmaster352]

Ok I'm going to put my two cents into this.

To be completely honest I agree with Mercury. I have no real problem with the tech Brend proposes just with what it leads to in this case.

I also would like to say that I understand Brend is disappointed that his idea isn't immediately approved (I've had the same problem myself).

As far as solutions for Brend's population problem goes, also think overpopulation is better. In fact I think the way Mercury proposes it lets you get of easy. I think we can all agree that the 1.0 per developed zone isn't a case of "You only have enough space to put one billion people" but rather "you only have enough infrastructure to support one billion people".

If it had been my idea I would have put an upkeep on overpopulation, you need to feed people don't you? But I'm not going to demand that.

Also you can always use mass migration on the overpopulation in the 10 between population growth.

At the risk of becoming the target of Brend's wrath, I'm finishing with this:

If you don't want to keep paying population growth cost, stop your population from growing.

[Brend]

After taking the time to analyse my own feelings on the subject, and thinking over the arguments presented, I would like to explain my reaction.

I think that you are right that I have misplaced some of my anger. Instead of putting it on the mechanical parts of the solution, it has more to do with the reasoning behind it. For brevity, I have summed up my the things that ticked me off in a list:

• Ironically, the first thing that ticked me off is due to the high value I place on Mercury's opinion. He rightly points out that he never said I couldn't do it. However, because he said "my gut says 'Noo, noo'", I basically read a rejection of the technology. Though this might not be what you wanted to say, the fact that your word holds so much weight make it a rejection anyway, even if that is not your intent.
• I get very annoyed by the argument 'too many options on one thing'. This is what I want to do. This is where I want my faction to go. The fact that others are not creating new options for themselves should, in my opinion, not be a limitation on what I should get to do. It might be that 'the amount of options' is meant absolutely instead of relatively, in which case this point is lessened in 'brend-agitation-factor', but not removed.
• I also got angry over the (perceived) tone of the post: It goes "Oh your proposal is fine. It is just not very realistic, so I think you shouldn't do it." (And after reading Dragonmaster352's post this feeling is even stronger, as he neatly sums it up: "I have no real problem with the tech Brend proposes just with what it leads to in this case." quickly followed by "Also you can always use mass migration on the overpopulation in the 10 between population growth." how is this not a contradiction?)
• My issue is not with the paying of Population Growth Cost. My issue is not with the proposed overpopulation. I am not disappointed that my proposal was not immediately accepted. In fact, I expected that. What I did not expect was to get told how my faction should react, and get whacked with the arguments of realism and storywise-ness. That is what really made me angry, and act out.

While writing this, I have discovered that my issues with this topic run much deeper. I do not wish to negatively impact the tone of the forum any further. I feel I have already done too much damage, and feel ashamed of my outburst. I hope that I can talk it over with Mercury out of band, as I feel that is currently the only way to really resolve my issues here.

I will let the issue rest, at peace with the conclusion that my RP desires for my world will most likely be met for the foreseeable future through the overpopulation proposal, even though it is not what I would have determine my people would do.

[Gerben]

To honest here, I share Brend's opinion in this matter. Why should we limit the idea on which his faction has been based on from the beginning? It has been made evident from the start that would be a main factor for the Veolians, and we since seen a large numbers of technologies to help focus even more in that direction. The fact that there is a larger then average number of technologies in this area, isn't really the problem, nor is the fact that this thread proposes yet another one.

All of us have to option to contribute material to FWURG, this extends from running an event or storyline to proposing rules and technologies in order to further the development of our own idea's and agenda's with our respective. Some of us have been more active in this then others, as a result the options currently available to us point in a certain direction as most of them are proposed by Brend (and several others), who just happened to have a) a clear idea of where he wants to go, and b) actively searches for reasonable solutions in order to achieve his intended goal.

So yes, this would be another population focussed technology, but should we hold it against Brend that he's actively looking for way's to expand beyond the scope of the rules and contribute to this community with creative proposals and technologies? I don't think that is fair.

[Elmer]

After some thinking, I realized that I think that the resistance against Brends way of playing has little to do with growing his population. It is a resistance against the extremes.

Almost everybody of us has a relative average system and culture and everything, Brend goes to the extreme with his population, and as a reaction there is some resistance like: "wow, that so so extreme, lets tune it down to average, I like average."

This happens often, "Wow, your cradle is so extreme, lets make it average."
"Wow, shadow of war is extreme large"
"Wow, making a whole world under the surface of a planet is pretty extreme."
"Wow, creating a whole new system is pretty extreme."
"Wow, starting with a jedi with the powers and skills of a lvl 6 jedi is totaly extreme."
"Wow, making one colony per turn is very extreme."
"Wow, having no physical population is extreme."

"LETS MAKE IT AVERAGE, WE LIKE AVERAGE!!!"

We all knew that this moment would come, and none of us said anything beforehand. Only now that the extreme moment is here, it becomes an issue, because it is extreme. And it is now.


BTW, I am against limitless population on a planet, overpopulation or not. Because it is extreme (or unrealistic, just how you want to call it,) to have 20 on an artificial moon which can travel trough hyperspace.

[Mercury]

Brend and I are meeting on this topic tomorrow. We'll report back our findings ^_^

[Mercury]

Brend and I have had an extensive discussion regarding population growth, full planets and medieval logic, resulting in the following findings:

• People should not be punished for choosing population as a strategy
• If your planet is full(tm), overpopulation is a logical conclusion
• In general people will be emigrating from such worlds, because they are full(tm)
• Mass migration as it is currently designed is kaput
• Medieval people are weird

Conclusions are:

• We want to write out how overpopulation works
• Mass Migration needs to be fixed, perhaps a cooldown or limit it to a fraction such as 1/5th for example
• Medieval people should get enlightened

Yay!

[Gerben]

Yay indeed

[Elmer]

Or medieval people should get wifi to work from home :) and to order their stuff online.