Buff Pop Banking

From chat:

Anonymous
this is my suggestion buff pop banking if we are gonna stick to 6 weeks rounds either by changing income or perhaps more relevant the pop growth.

This has been mentioned before: shorter rounds make pop less useful.

The most obvious solution would be to change pop growth to account for the difference: if rounds are now half as long, then we could change pop to grow twice as fast.

Thoughts welcome, especially from any current or former pop bankers out there.

1 Like

Change how welfare research works. In addition to increasing max pop make it increase growth speed at a rate of 0.5% per research %, i.e. 50% welfare research would give a 25% growth speed boost applied after any race bonus.

2 Likes

A good touchstone might be the shifts in CF’s gross per tick changes.

Round 1 = 10 GC
Beta 1 = 6 GC
Round 9 = 8 GC

I think positive a pop growth (per race point allocated) is needed, and should be grown along these lines.

Basically .10 / .15 / .20 to base pop growth overall would prolly help a ton.

Pop doesn’t “grow all round”, lol doubling it would be a significant imbalance.

But yep, kicking up pop growth a well thought out amount will have several positive effects. Food will be a tradable resource from time, and iron will have a higher demand.

@Daffy
I am sure there are people that can help you hash out the Welfare stuffs - lol I am not that guy.

@Mrblonde @Hala @Noir

Those are your doods…

2 Likes

Was CFs ever 6?

2 Likes

Making welfare help pop growth wont help much, cause science takes long time to get, and the extra pop growth is neeeded mostly right from the start.

Imo the least complex chance is so simply up pop growth from say 5% to 7% per tick. This will make it quicker to start off. Remember that poppers cannot use the same insane science jumps that have been dominating early rounds now.

A popper will still face the same challenging task, of balancing his empire, enabling pop to grow while not overspending etc, and will still be vulnerable to ops and high food demand.

The other option is ofc to up pop income, say from 1/30 to 1/25 or 1/20.

In my opinion, looking at the last round with not a single proper pop banker, we shouldnt be afraid of changing it, cause even if pop banking becomes slightly overpowered for a round, it will stil be risky and difficult, and we can always adjust it back later if we take it too far.

2 Likes

Maybe up to 7%, but being pax is gona be to weak then, ur gona fail a few atempts and loose alot of wiz only to see pop grow too fast. IMO the spells are too weak allready.
So only a side note that if your gona make pop stronger u need to also make them more fragile.

2 Likes

I think thats a fallacy, cause when noone is pop, being a pax is allready weak… its atleast better to have some juicy targets, even if they regrow abot faster.

Remmmember the ops were balanced for having 7 ops, when opping a big banker now, a small pax can easily do 10-15 estorms, making it a massacre wether the bankers have 5 or 7% pop growth

2 Likes

Define noone and get back to me.

1 Like

None of the top 5 families in MilkyWay this round had a pop banker, making it a non-factor for anyone playing competatively.

1 Like

“This round”

I think you should get more money pr pop rather than increasing speed of growth.
It should hurt to be hit by wiz, and it should be worth investing in defence.

1 Like

Yup.
Beta 1 to Round 8.
Basically the first two years of the game.

I rememmber this aswell, was changed to 10, with some weird inflation feature introduced. This was then removed and the CF reduced to 8.

But this is besides the point, i think you have all agreed pop banking needs abit of a buff, especially in the speed department, and possibly income aswell.

1 Like