Dual Population Planets

Hi everyone,

‘Dual population planets’ has been a hot topic recently across the forums and chat. In this thread I want to make sure our summary of the topic is accurate from player’s perspective and see if there is a consensus on what changes players would like to see.

Summary
Planets with two populations are highly advantageous because they enable you to double-up on certain benefits e.g. extra tax, workforce, home guard.

Players can cooperate with each other to ensure each of their planets has two populations. The owner stands down ground defenses, the other player (with a different civ) then colonizes the planet. They can then do it with the roles reversed on another planet. To leave each player with one planet with two populations. And repeat.

The current game mechanics permit this. But to many players it feels wrong. Because it leverages a mechanic that doesn’t really make sense: that
a planet can support double the population when there are two populations that it can support when there is only one population. And if you aren’t doing it (either because it feels wrong or you can’t find other players to cooperate), you’re at a big disadvantage.

Next steps
If you don’t think we should change anything, please let us know. But from the comments we’ve seen players seem to agree something should be changed.

That a planet can support double the population when there are two populations is something we’ve been meaning to take a look at for a long time, but there have always been higher priorities.

Is the solution here to have a single max population limit on a planet that both populations count against? e.g. if a planet can support 1,000,000 it will only ever support 1,000,000 whether there are 1 or 2 populations. Or is there a better solution?

5 Likes

Single population total with a sliding scale as to what population goes higher.

Option to move player races around again and natives stay locked to the worlds they are on.

Also would like to see things like tier three ods and some other buildings be destroyed or cease to function as well as some are bypassing tech tree limitations with trades.

Also need to look into just how many of some buildings are being built. My preference would be capping buildings instead of building 200 depositor. Then have like 20 levels per building for upgrades.

4 Likes

Won’t that just make everyone plant Ripchees for their 1.5x pop advantage?

I’m of the “no dual player species” faction.

Might happen, but you wouldn’t have a very good amount of defensive troops if the secondary population was the majority. With the smaller overall workforce there would have to be some adjustments made. Like troops shouldn’t count in the workforce totals. Maybe have a secondary military rating for max possible troops that can be supported by a planet and troops can only be troops. Successful invasions create a independent style colony you could remove all surviving troops from


This part of the problem with dual pops the credits it can produce, and this world isnt finished yet. I expect to get around 25k out of it per hour, do that with a few planets and you are pushing out 200k per hour. makes credits almost worthless

3 Likes

Think they told me the syntis was making about 7500 an hour out of the 33,900 earnings this planet was making. If it was dual organics…

79200275_4253361758060637_2533257395778355200_n

Well i do say the double pop gain from dual pop is bad, id argue a 1.25x planet pop cap or something would be good. Have it be both races using space effectively to use space one race might not normally use. Having players work together to get a small gain is a good thing.

However once you mix pops to a single total planet cap you run into a bunch of problems, like different races space multipliers. One solution maybe to have each races max pop be * by .65 if its a duel pop planet, and if you conquer a planet of another race above the .65 they simply start dieing.

I do think there needs to be a way to remove a secondary pop that you don’t want on the planet.

One thing to worry about is any change to dual pop will hurt syntis hard. Depending on the change could make them unplayable, if not buffed in some other way. For example a syntis HW with max cities can only make 2-3k income. They have basically no income with out other races to tax.

However what ever the change, id recommend it only be applied to new servers. A change that drastically changes the econ mid game seems like a good way to lose alot of players…

I think @Warmonger has the best solution so far. We want a process of change, to see what works best for the game overall.

How about the option, of whomever has the greater population becomes the owner of the planet?

Plus, the owner of the planet gets to decide which percentage of land each race is going to get, from the start?

I’m very happy to see this being addressed.

1 Like

personal opinion:

if two populations use landmass, split the landmass between them. 50/50 and add a slider to adjust multiply the base max population against the species modifier to determine max per race . simple easy, not exploity.

I believe dual populations should be retained, however, I’m in favor of the option to having a single "max population for the planet itself. Also I’d remove the option of allowing double population size per civ to be allowed, except on a temporary basis during invasions with a forced sliding scale decline in the population (similar to what happens with untrained military) when the actual population exceeds the population supported by farms and planetary limitations.

2 Likes

I think their advantages should be limited, not taken away completely…
Especially labour force

It’s true that it scales and on large planets is scary how much tax and labour you can get from a 1 million planet turned into 2 mill pop planet

But mainly use dual pops for my small planets in particular to solve a problem I have with corruption
Problem 1 I am surrounded by active players from every side so what I have is what I got
Problem 2 I find many planets that have great resources density but are very very small

I have a planet that can only support 250k pop but it has over 90% density on the three res I care most about (be, fa and zy) but with 3.2 corruption I’d use half that pop just to keep them at + happiness so they don’t riot
With dual pop i can get 500k pop which will allow me to combat corruption and deep mine at an ok rate

So what I would suggest

  • 50% less homeguard from 2nd population of master civs (aka syn, pr, mankind and chee)
  • maybe when those civs are the 2nd pop they’d only support 50-70% of the planet’s max pop in population

My point is I like having dual pops
Because it’s very useful to me in situations like the one I mentioned above

1 Like

With independent colonies set them up and come back and collect resources. no overhead at all.

  • Invading player population always displaces defending player population. Dual pop is native only.
  • Second populations work like now but secondary player populations cannot be taxed (still great as a labor force).
  • Combine both of the above. Natives only and they are only a labor force (in addition to whatever their special is)
  • Second populations work like now but they split the land. You’ll grow faster but the end result is the same.
  • None of the above

0 voters

I’m actually thinking “natives only, and they are only a labor force”.

This makes evolvians useful mainly for massive research worlds. There are no more “cash cow” worlds other than the ones you build yourself. We could think about upping the special abilities of the races, though, like fish give more research the more of them you have. And skregons deep-dig more as you get more.

Mainly I don’t like the way dual populations trivialize the economy. Look at the economic scoreboard and that is, in thousands, how many credits that person has had max in their bank. So the top people have over 30 million credits they can’t spend. Even the best logistics can’t keep up with this game’s out of control dual-population economy that I can see.

2 Likes

Secondary’s need to provide some income and caps to depositors are a better solution to taming down the massive credit worlds.

Why? I mean it’s nice but I don’t see where it’s a “need”.

Per-planet income caps could work too but seems a little counter-intuitive. Maybe city centers and depositors should occupy a lot more of your population, though, like 50,000. That would keep people from building dozens of them. (And frankly that would be nice to not have to upgrade dozens of them.)

If we still need to build them specific buildings to support them i’d like them to contribute to paying for it. Example is if we were to keep the dual populations as is but they provide no added income they would be a real problem for syntis to support.

I’m not opposed to dual populations as long as the planet is limited to a single cap and you can’t double it as you can now. Doubling it was a compromise to allowing infinite excess, but it’s still too much except during an actual invasion where you have temporary defenders There is a fairly high cost to adding a 2nd population because the farms are actually quite small. I think the biggest issue is with allowing both populations to carry double the max allowed on the planet. If that were stopped first, the issue might even resolve itself.

Also another adjustment that could be made to make organics and syntis a little more in line with one another is to eliminate the 100% taxing for organics. Syntis is capped at 35%. They can never catch up with organics these days.

3 Likes

I’m for keeping dual populations as they are in general. However you did ask…

Player collaboration should be encouraged so swapping pop supports that.

One small concession would be to set the max population at the highest of the 2 races and each grow until the sum of population reaches that max. No race can grow higher than its own max. Syntis need more credits (35% without full dual pops is far too low)

Max pops where a race is land based and the other water based should not be restricted. I’m assuming here that there might be a race that is neither land or water based and prefers to live in space or are not in same phase and would also be unrestricted. (There was a race in Stars! that lived in space stations only… gravity killed them)

Max pops can be managed by the player by building farms so there is a way to kill off that race if required, by demolishing farms… the default sustainable pop prevents the dual pop being removed completely.

If we are going for real then lets nail the pop growth algo.

For organics, to grow 600 pop from 4000 colonists is pretty riduculous… It could be a reduced below the normal growth rate if say 5% of current pop is less than the growth rate. This would not apply to a race that grows via cloning. This restriction would also prevent removal of population to 1 while still allowing the buildings to enhance growth… for example 50 growth buildings growing a race at 3000 an hour from 1 colonist is pretty crazy and feels like an exploit. A player would have to syphon off small amounts at high colonist levels to achieve the same thing, so activity intensive.

Syntis and mechanical races should not be restricted by base colonists but should consume farsu. Leading to the need to mine farsu and move it around, this will also slow down syntis colonisation as a mechnic to grow pop fast… currently you just colonise anything to get +500 growth per planet…

Troops should consume some zyril and limbalt for armaments.

1 Like

I like this entire post in general. I disagree with utilizing ziryl as it’s already a bit too rare. Not a bad idea on the F and L though and I totally agree on the growth algorithm. It should still be scaled, based on the environment, but should also include a proportion to the number of existing inhabitants in the calculation.