Population Density: Guestimations - Page 3

Aurmanite · 2012-03-13, 11:11 AM

The point of this thread is to give people something to think about. To provide some interesting reading on a topic that is often discussed in drab and uninspiring ways.

Give me posts like this over the endless flood of polls, game comparisons, and rehashed discussions.

roguy · 2012-03-13, 12:12 PM

Originally Posted by Aurmanite

The point of this thread is to give people something to think about.

Then help me see what exactly there is to think about? Because ANY calculation based off inaccurate information AND assuming ideal situations is inherently wrong, there's no discussion to be had. It's an incredible stretch to believe that a "College Physics Major" would fail such a basic rule of Mathematics in high-school level calculations.

And don't get me started on the OP's conclusion of the total pop density being low therefore there are no zergs, wich essentially equates to saying that Australia's pop density is low therefore there are no big cities.

Aurmanite · 2012-03-13, 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by roguy

Then help me see what exactly there is to think about? Because ANY calculation based off inaccurate information AND assuming ideal situations is inherently wrong, there's no discussion to be had.

And don't get me started on the OP's conclusion of the total pop density being low therefore there are no zergs, wich essentially equates to saying that Australia's pop density is low therefore there are no big cities.

You're struggling fella, it's alright.
This thread isn't for you, just move along.

**RadarX** · 2012-03-13, 12:22 PM

The amount of land available will be very sizable and while this math was extrapolated really well, keep in mind that this early on things can (and will) be tweaked.

roguy · 2012-03-13, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by Aurmanite

You're struggling fella, it's alright.

How exactly? If you're apparently not struggling, I'll ask again, tell me what this thread gives you to think about?

Do I absolutely have to quote the whole OP and point out every single whole in his reasoning?

Aurmanite · 2012-03-13, 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by roguy

How exactly? If you're apparently not struggling, I'll ask again, tell me what this thread gives you to think about?

Do I absolutely have to quote the whole OP and point out every single whole in his reasoning?

If you want to contribute something valuable, yes you should.

The OP has broken down in numbers how the players of the game will be spread out. His conclusion of roughly 40-50 players per KM gives us a great idea of how dense the population will be at any given hex, at any given time.

Putting this information to work, we can assume that the bulk of the players are going to be close to the front line (or at least to the hexes that are the most hotly contested), and based upon these calculations we can have an operating theory of how many troops we may encounter should we decide to take a Galaxy and hit a hex behind the front.

Of course these numbers aren't exact. The game will flow and people will move around. Somethings information is just fun to have. I like to know everything. Knowledge is never pointless.

roguy · 2012-03-13, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by Aurmanite

The OP has broken down in numbers how the players of the game will be spread out. His conclusion of roughly 40-50 players per KM gives us a great idea of how dense the population will be at any given hex, at any given time.

No, it doesn't.
Australia's population density is 2.8/km^2. Does that give you a fair idea of what it is for Sydney (2058/km^2)?

Originally Posted by Aurmanite

Putting this information to work, we can assume that the bulk of the players are going to be close to the front line (or at least to the hexes that are the most hotly contested), and based upon these calculations we can have an operating theory of how many troops we may encounter should we decide to take a Galaxy and hit a hex behind the front.

Reread the OP, at no point is there any information given mentioning where the "bulk" of the players are going to be, that assumption was pulled out of thin air.

Aurmanite · 2012-03-13, 12:57 PM

Originally Posted by roguy

No, it doesn't.
Australia's population density is 2.8/km^2. Does that give you a fair idea of what it is for Sydney (2058/km^2)?

Reread the OP, at no point is there any information given mentioning where the "bulk" of the players are going to be, that assumption was pulled out of thin air.

You should go burn off some of that energy at the beach. You're wound up way too tightly.

What is the point of posting in a thread you don't like? Don't have any other method of venting all your frustration and angst?

I enjoyed the post. I don't give two fucks if you did or did not.

basti · 2012-03-13, 12:59 PM

You dont evenly split your forces to attack or defend. You concentrate your forces and push onto a single point. Because of that, the defender can just react and also concentrate all his forces on a single point.

Also, more important: you dont defende the edge. You defend key locations and chokepoints.

But, you gave us a nice idea of how big 64 square KM really are.

Warborn · 2012-03-13, 01:30 PM

Originally Posted by Aurmanite

The OP has broken down in numbers how the players of the game will be spread out. His conclusion of roughly 40-50 players per KM gives us a great idea of how dense the population will be at any given hex, at any given time.

It doesn't do anything of the sort. Not every hex is equally valuable. Not every player will be on the front lines. The numbers he's presented will be entirely inaccurate on account of players focusing on my important areas over less important areas, fighting either behind enemy lines or defending their own rearward territories, and so on.

Aurmanite · 2012-03-13, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by Warborn

It doesn't do anything of the sort. Not every hex is equally valuable. Not every player will be on the front lines. The numbers he's presented will be entirely inaccurate on account of players focusing on my important areas over less important areas, fighting either behind enemy lines or defending their own rearward territories, and so on.

You basically repeated everything I said in the rest of my post which you didn't quote. Great work.

Warborn · 2012-03-13, 03:09 PM

No, I didn't. Great work.

SniperSteve · 2012-03-13, 08:00 PM

/me doesn't understand why people are complaining about the math...

wattle · 2012-03-13, 09:08 PM

Great thread dude. Please keep these statistics coming in any way, shape, or form.

For those wondering about what purpose this thread serves, it's a nice look into how big the maps actually are and a nice educated guess on how populations will be placed.

Roy Awesome · 2012-03-15, 10:04 PM

Jesus christ that is an awesome writeup OP.

My thoughts about population distribution have been covered already, mainly that while the developers are trying to make everything interesting, players will converge to points around bases and captureable outposts.

To be honest, how perfectly this math came out shows that they are intending 666v666v666 on continents. If you divide that by 3 (number of continents), the population density would be much less than a COD map.