Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Academy » pop management, 50% "cutoff" (Includes a pretty graph!)
| Re: pop management, 50% "cutoff" |
Wed, 21 May 2014 23:39   |
|
 magic9mushroom |
 | Commander |
Messages: 1361
Registered: May 2008 | |
|
nmid wrote on Sun, 18 May 2014 20:5750% is just an easy number to remember, but real top line is 42% as you found out. I use 25% for fastest growth, 33%-40% for increasing resources while growing..and then 45% because it doesn't lead to a major dip in growth imo and I am comfortable with that number.
However as you noted, having a floating pop between 33%-42% is best and keeping to ur factories at 33% cap, so your factories don't idle in the migrant population zone.
From my phone
42% just happens to have the same growth as 25%. There's nothing especially worthy about that hold level; it's definitively NOT the maximum resource integral. I would ask you, and anyone else, to PLEASE stop spreading misinformation like this.
The proper hold levels are:
Alternative is green over 1/3 hab of breeder: 25%.
Alternative is green under 1/3 hab of breeder: somewhere between 25% and 1/3.
Alternative is yellow: 1/3 of cap (slightly over 33%).
Alternative is sitting in space: a touch under 50%.
The reasons for these are as follows:
- If the pop would be working (ie, on a planet, green or yellow) then all that matters is maximising growth. The marginal pop-growth of a green drops to 1/3 of max immediately upon reaching 1/4 of cap, then slowly drops to 0 as the pop level rises to 1/3 of cap. Yellow die-off is minute and thus does not appreciably affect the hold level; technically, however, it's a sliver over 1/3 dependent on the yellow's kill rate.
- If the pop would not be working (ie, held in freighters in space) then you need to maximise the resource integral - the total resources you get out of the planet in the long run. The exact optimal hold here varies - the tangent to the graph is at exactly 1/2 of cap, but that ignores the resources lost while growing *to* a higher hold level, so in reality it's slightly less. The exact value is situational, because of the discrete nature of Stars! turns; technically I believe it ends up as "the largest hold, less than 50%, that grows to 100% in an exact number of turns". But you're looking at ~100 resources lost by just setting it to 50%, so in practice that's probably the best reward for effort.
Note that all of this flies out the window when considering IS because IS pop grows in space and this forces you to consider resource integral whenever over 25% or on planets under 50% hab. IS optimal hold levels actually vary with planet quality because of this.
EDIT: Ooo, we have a graph! (Don't worry about the image not embedding, you can't embed images on these forums.) I assume the "marginal" is in fact x(-10) and not x10?
The graph makes it easier to explain the 50% hold. See, maximising the resource integral is the same as minimising the total resources you didn't get compared to instantly being at 100% - this is equal to (time you aren't at 100%) * (resource loss per turn you aren't at 100%). The time taken for a hold to fill is inversely proportional to growth, and the resource loss per turn is proportional to (100% - hold%), so we want to minimise (100%-hold%)/(growth at hold%), which is the same as maximising (growth at hold %)/(100%-hold%). This means we want a line, drawn from the right edge of your graph at (100% hold, 0 growth) and passing through some point on the growth curve (and thus intersecting it at (hold%), (growth at hold%)), to be as steep as possible - you can see from your graph that the point giving the steepest such line is around 50%, and indeed if you compute it mathematically it's exactly 1/2.
[Updated on: Thu, 22 May 2014 05:12] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
 |
|
pop management, 50% "cutoff"
By: mrvan on Sun, 18 May 2014 06:36 |
|
|
Re: pop management, 50% "cutoff"
By: nmid on Sun, 18 May 2014 06:57 |
|
|
Re: pop management, 50% "cutoff"
|
|
|
Re: pop management, 50% "cutoff"
By: nmid on Thu, 22 May 2014 05:08 |
|
|
Re: pop management, 50% "cutoff"
|
|
|
Re: pop management, 50% "cutoff"
By: nmid on Thu, 22 May 2014 06:23 |
|
|
Re: pop management, 50% "cutoff"
|
|
|
Re: pop management, 50% "cutoff"
|
|
|
Re: pop management, 50% "cutoff"
|
|
|
Re: pop management, 50% "cutoff"
|
|
|
Re: pop management, 50% "cutoff"
By: nmid on Sun, 18 May 2014 19:12 |
|
|
Re: pop management, 50% "cutoff"
|
|
|
Re: pop management, 50% "cutoff"
By: mrvan on Mon, 19 May 2014 15:40 |
|
|
Re: pop management, 50% "cutoff"
|
|
|
Re: pop management, 50% "cutoff"
By: mrvan on Tue, 20 May 2014 16:44 |
|
|
Re: pop management, 50% "cutoff"
|
|
|
Re: pop management, 50% "cutoff"
|
|
|
Re: pop management, 50% "cutoff"
By: mrvan on Thu, 22 May 2014 11:14 |
|
|
Re: pop management, 50% "cutoff"
|
|
|
Re: pop management, 50% "cutoff"
By: mrvan on Fri, 23 May 2014 13:59 |
|
|
Re: pop management, 50% "cutoff"
By: XAPBob on Sat, 24 May 2014 03:51 |
|
|
Re: pop management, 50% "cutoff"
|
|
|
Re: pop management, 50% "cutoff"
By: XAPBob on Sat, 24 May 2014 06:11 |
|
|
Re: pop management, 50% "cutoff"
|
|
|
Re: pop management, 50% "cutoff"
By: XAPBob on Sat, 24 May 2014 06:55 |
|
|
Re: pop management, 50% "cutoff"
|
|
|
Re: pop management, 50% "cutoff"
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon May 06 22:31:46 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
