Hello Ginko of Fungi here: http://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_...tion_ID=1001979
My population-per-mile to citizen count doesn't make sense.
Population Per Mile: 9,280.00 Population Per Mile.
Military Personnel:
Citizens:
0 (0) Soldiers
56 Working Citizens
http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9863/cnbug.png
Full Version: Pop density insanely large compaired to citizen count
Cyber Nations Forums > Cyber Nations Gameplay and Roleplay > Cyber Nations Tournament Edition > Tournament Edition Report A Bug
QUOTE (Ginko @ Aug 26 2009, 12:02 AM) 
Hello Ginko of Fungi here: http://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_...tion_ID=1001979
My population-per-mile to citizen count doesn't make sense.
Population Per Mile: 9,280.00 Population Per Mile.
Military Personnel:
Citizens:
0 (0) Soldiers
56 Working Citizens
http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9863/cnbug.png
My population-per-mile to citizen count doesn't make sense.
Population Per Mile: 9,280.00 Population Per Mile.
Military Personnel:
Citizens:
0 (0) Soldiers
56 Working Citizens
http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9863/cnbug.png
Fixed
If you're suggesting this is a bug because your population per mile is higher than your population, think again.
Because you have zero purchased land, and only 0.506 miles of land in growth, naturally your population per mile is going to be higher than your population, as for example 2/0.5 is 4, and 4 is greater than 2.
However, diving 56 by 0.506 and getting 9280 does seem a bit off, but perhaps it's actually dividing your population by some factor of your land, perhaps by your land area.
Because you have zero purchased land, and only 0.506 miles of land in growth, naturally your population per mile is going to be higher than your population, as for example 2/0.5 is 4, and 4 is greater than 2.
However, diving 56 by 0.506 and getting 9280 does seem a bit off, but perhaps it's actually dividing your population by some factor of your land, perhaps by your land area.
QUOTE (Arrnea @ Aug 26 2009, 12:18 AM)
If you're suggesting this is a bug because your population per mile is higher than your population, think again.
Because you have zero purchased land, and only 0.506 miles of land in growth, naturally your population per mile is going to be higher than your population, as for example 2/0.5 is 4, and 4 is greater than 2.
However, diving 56 by 0.506 and getting 9280 does seem a bit off, but perhaps it's actually dividing your population by some factor of your land, perhaps by your land area.
Because you have zero purchased land, and only 0.506 miles of land in growth, naturally your population per mile is going to be higher than your population, as for example 2/0.5 is 4, and 4 is greater than 2.
However, diving 56 by 0.506 and getting 9280 does seem a bit off, but perhaps it's actually dividing your population by some factor of your land, perhaps by your land area.
the new corrected number is about 110, which is correct...Notice I used the word "insanely" and said that the "ratio" is off...
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.