Deflating the Numbers?

[American MapleStory]

I'm not sure if this has been brought up in the past or what the Game Admins' position is regarding the matter but has anyone ever thought of doing a systemic deflation or redenomination of the numbers?

For example, there are some countries where the output is reaching the 10 quadrillions. Why not get rid of a couple of zeros?
This would also make the populations more realistic. The biggest country just surpassed 30 billion people. If we got rid of the last three zeros, it would be 30 million (Or maybe two zeros in this case.) Then the population growth rate would also be proportionately adjusted down.

Above all, it would probably be a bit easier to manage these lower numbers.

[Eluvatar]

Moving to Technical.

[Maljaratas]

What you're proposing is to remove a 2 or more zeroes from everyone's population, changing the increase per day down by a zero or 2, and then readjusting all the stats tied to population, correct?

[American MapleStory]

What you're proposing is to remove a 2 or more zeroes from everyone's population, changing the increase per day down by a zero or 2, and then readjusting all the stats tied to population, correct?

Basically. Because if you look at output, theres a hell of alot of zeros, essentially placeholders.

[Almonaster Nuevo]

You would also need to amend all the population-based targets for unlocking various aspects of the game.

I think a lot of the other numbers would fall in to place if the population were changed. For example, the economy is heavily dependant on population.

Not impossible, but it would need to be carefully thought through.

[American MapleStory]

You would also need to amend all the population-based targets for unlocking various aspects of the game.

I think a lot of the other numbers would fall in to place if the population were changed. For example, the economy is heavily dependant on population.

Not impossible, but it would need to be carefully thought through.

Yeah, Im emphasising systemic. By readjusting one number, all numbers would deflate by the same factor in order to maintain their proportionality.

[Enfaru]

Try the search function.

Not only has this been suggested multiple times, it has been shot down by [violet] with a "not even at the cost of my own life"-type messages and many more have been shot down by Fris, Reppy-sama and others alike.

Unless [violet] has *ahem* a change of heart, changing population numbers is not going to happen.

Just because 30bn is not realistic in the real world, you are forgetting that Nationstates is not bound by those rules in anyway shape or form, therefore in Nationstates, 30bn is actually on the small side considering the maximum potential.

It would be nice to see some fluctuations in populations in response to issues, but again this has been shot down (and Fris was not at all nice about it >_>).

[Nuvea]

It would be nice to see some fluctuations in populations in response to issues, but again this has been shot down (and Fris was not at all nice about it >_>).

It would be interesting if population change was based on how much of your population made it to old age (With some kind of minimum number so we don't end up with zero or negative numbers)
something along the lines of 50% old age would be the point of stagnation with numbers above promoting growth and numbers below promoting shrinkage.

But then i would expect to see nearly all socialist nations with large populations and nearly all capitalist nations with very tiny populations, a near perfect inverstion of real world history.

[Imperializt Russia]

Either you can disagree to participate with someone who uses an absurd gameside population as canon in a roleplay scenario, or you can just agree to popcap.

Constraints are the fertile ground of creativity.

[Maljaratas]

Either you can disagree to participate with someone who uses an absurd gameside population as canon in a roleplay scenario, or you can just agree to popcap.

Constraints are the fertile ground of creativity.

Or you can FT were having 30bn might be considered weak.

On the proposal, I like having my 2bn something population. So no

[Sjovenia]

Just because 30bn is not realistic in the real world, you are forgetting that Nationstates is not bound by those rules in anyway shape or form, therefore in Nationstates, 30bn is actually on the small side considering the maximum potential.

People have the hardest time understanding this...

30billion people with 30 million active military?

Okay but compared to lets say 60 million with 500 hundred thousand active it would be like comparing Russias military vs Slovenia. Its literally the same thing as "reducing the numbers to make it normal" except you are raising numbers to make it the new norm

[The Great Devourer of All]

Some of us like giant numbers, you know.