Population Control proposed Fix

[Captain Jack]

Pulpop, besides your complaints and manifest, do you actually have anything specific to contribute to the case and the suggestion?

I really do not get what's your proposal here. Do you propose to leave things as they are? Clear out your position or else it is mere trolling.

[Meliva]

A port with 2.1B currently produces, roughly, about 33M in NPC tax. The same port, with the proposed changed, will see its population changed to 210M instead and it will produce roughly 16.5M in NPC tax.

So does that mean tax income is actually increasing? because the first proposal you listed states halving the income from npc citizens. Yet you state after the change a port with 210M will produce roughly 16.5M-half of what a port with 2.1B produces now, but far more then what a port with 210M produces now-which is 3.3M. I am afraid either you miscalculated(or I did without realizing it though I think I'm correct) or I misinterpret what you meant by halving npc income.

[Captain Jack]

I guessed you misunderstood this at the first place, this is why I gave you the numbers.

The same amount of population, will now produce 5 times MORE tax income as we increase the tax per citizen at the law, from 10gc to 50gc.
However, the maximum cap will be 2 times less as the maximum port population will be 210M (instead of 2.1B).

Now, if you take in mind that all current populations will be reduced 10 times (division by 10.5 so 2.147 can fit in 210M maximum), then tax income will be halved effectively.

In short, if your current nation now makes 10M, tomorrow it will make 5M. However, every addition of population will award more gc than before (5x more). Therefore less effort will be needed. It's balanced already. The key element is that the reward will come easier but in the same time it will not be as high as before to break the game.

[Meliva]

I guessed you misunderstood this at the first place, this is why I gave you the numbers.

The same amount of population, will now produce 5 times MORE tax income as we increase the tax per citizen at the law, from 10gc to 50gc.
However, the maximum cap will be 2 times less as the maximum port population will be 210M (instead of 2.1B).

Now, if you take in mind that all current populations will be reduced 10 times (division by 10.5 so 2.147 can fit in 210M maximum), then tax income will be halved effectively.

In short, if your current nation now makes 10M, tomorrow it will make 5M. However, every addition of population will award more gc than before (5x more). Therefore less effort will be needed.

Thank you for clarifying, I thought you meant to reduce the npc income from 10 to 5 aswell as add a limit-which I felt incredibly unfair. But now that I understand the proposal clearly it makes a great deal more sense to me. I would like to know if there will be any sort of compensation for citizens lost-such as each citizen lost adds 10gc to the treasury- to help rebuild the ports losing their citizens. I would prefer their to be some sort of compensation but I understand if you decide against it.

[Most Lee Harmless]

The extreme population levels are a natural consequence of the Stipends Laws which have turned nation income into a daily player income stream : previously, nation treasuries existed to fund the nations growth and defence : now they are a purse for players to dip into to fund their own ambitions. Folk join nations for no better reason than their stipends are better than others. As Spain found, denying those daily stipends at a level the free-loaders feel adequate can now lead to revolt and conflict : it has become a form of passive extortion.
Well, you reap what you sow : the risk of chaos which brings in the big bucks must include the risk your big bucks cause more chaos and that can, and will, backfire.

[Captain Jack]

Meliva, this is an effect that will be equal for everyone. Therefore we won't issue any kind of compensation.

However, we have already checked such claims. We have found out that even the 3 nations who made the big investments in the last few days, are already in the green; just for this investment. For the pop they had before, they are multiple times in the green. The same applies to the rest of the nations; they were on the green by far. So, eventually there is nothing to compensate as nothing has been lost.

What merely happens, is a cut on returns from npc taxes. You could see it as a natural evolution, as Danik and more through PMs have said.

It's not as a big issue as it seems and it is bound to help. Getting so high rewards out of thin air, is counterproductive. If we want to be honest, the rewards will still be high. They need to be high though. It should be up to the players mostly.

Our intervention is mostly to ensure that the game won't reach a breaking point.

After the update, there will be several ports near the max of 210M. Time will show if more ports will hit this limit or if these big ports will be grounded. Whichever the scenario is, stability will be maintained whereas in the possibility we remained with current system, scenario 1 would be catastrophic. That's the whole difference and the reason of our intervention.

[Poppy]

As you have states the knowledge of the now the so called flawed algorithms that determine both population growth and tax income received from population where well known to the admin a long time ago. The calculations introduced here do not explain why historical population growth where took down but it is well known fact that Black Death naturally happen due to both ill will and natural causes (ranking missions). that fact made population profiting an extremely risky and expensive operation and due to that reason not many have tried and only one succeeded.

The fact that current population growth did succeed was achieved due to careful planing, long term resource gathering and a relative political stability (which was also achieved through hard work and investment).

Urgent changes that react to the current statues will be viewed by all as an attempt against the right of intelligent people to utilize their brain, taking risk and working their best well within the rules.

I suggest the changes that where needed 2 years ago as much as they are needed today will be decided upon in consultation and agreement with the people effected by them and with due compensation that will cure not only damages but also entrepreneurship and risk taking. as these should be viewed upon as most positive traits and should not be discourage.

PP

Pulpop, besides your complaints and manifest, do you actually have anything specific to contribute to the case and the suggestion?

I really do not get what's your proposal here. Do you propose to leave things as they are? Clear out your position or else it is mere trolling.

I propose you will create a dialog with the poeple concerned in which a true conversation will be possible. regardless of the changes that will be put in effect i also suggest there will time period before they will be implemented so everyone can adjust and prepare and that the changes will be made gradually.

Also, I suggested that along with the proposed changes (what ever they will be) there will be a compensation to those who are effected (inc thierd parties who are bound by contracts that will be affected).

[Poppy]

To be noted that T'zak Ryn members hold over 2,000 TI cards bought specificly to this end and will be affected by your changes. Thats an investment of over 20,000 credit that will turn to dust.

[Captain Jack]

To be noted that T'zak Ryn members hold over 2,000 TI cards bought specificly to this end and will be affected by your changes. Thats an investment of over 20,000 credit that will turn to dust.

How exactly this investment will turn to dust?

[Captain Jack]

I propose you will create a dialog with the poeple concerned in which a true conversation will be possible. regardless of the changes that will be put in effect i also suggest there will time period before they will be implemented so everyone can adjust and prepare and that the changes will be made gradually.

The dialog is already open.
We cannot allow more time to gel on this issue. More than enough has passed already. I see no reason to let this continue. If you do see, let us know of your reasons.
Please explain specifically what gradually means to you. This is not a general situation, this is a specific case that needs specific measurements.