# Pollution rebalancing

Why there is feedback loop of low Environment increasing pollution, and then pollution decreasing environment
Edit: Its decreasing environmentalist happiness not environment oops.

Also pollution situation should be decreased by pollution controls.
Population statistic always seems to decrease pollution too.

2 Likes

Pollution has zero impact on the environment, it does however make environmentalists unhappy.

More population gives more pollution, the equation is:

-0.5+(0.10*x)

(@cliffski Here’s another confusing equation since the constant is negative but the slope is positive.)

The pollution controls recucing pollution I can get behind though.

So this population influencing pollution equation has typo: Seems like it should be -0.5+(1*x)
Now it changes between -0.5 (0 population) and -0.4 (1 population)

I don’t think it’s a typo at all, population isn’t the sole driving factor behind pollution (it’s more what the population is doing). Thise kinds of equations are just a confusing way of shoving in balance through hidden constants in effects equations rather than directly changing the baseline level of situations (which I’ve complained about before). A more reasonable approach would be to have the equation simply be 0+(0.1*x) and make pollution start of 0.5 lower than it currently does.

There are only couple of things with large constants.
Legalize Sex Work influences all values in similar range instead 0 (or very low constant) to some value.
Luxury Tax has large brain drain constant at lowest value - seems like tax evasion should be affected by it instead.

But both of those only go in one direction and are directly influnced by policy. The problem I have argued for elsewhere is where one simulated value has a large constant in the other direction than its correlation making it impossble to figure out if I want the first value to increase or decrease.

The original post where I brought this up was on the link between food price and obesity, 0 food price increases obesity but as food price goes up this reduction shrinks and at one point it even goes from having a positive to negative impact.

If I hadn’t dug into the game files, finding out what if I wanted food price to go up or down to decrease obesity is literaly impossible without:

1. Taking note of the exact current percentage of the effect.
2. Implement some policy to make the food price change in some way.
3. Letting a number of turns pass to see what has happened to the magnitude of the effect on obesity.
4. If I’m lucky, I made the food price move the right direction and I can keep implementing policies that make it go that way. If I guessed wrong in step 2, totally reverse course and start implementing policies that make food price go the other direction instead.

Edit: Food price thread here: Food Price (+37%) - -> Obesity // Why green arror?

1 Like

I do intend to change this to do as has been suggested, just struggling under a collosal todo list…

1 Like

Is it very costly to hire help?