Fair enough. I wasn't shutting down the suggestion, mind you, just making sure it is a necessary change to consider.
The divisor is, right now, 5 - I've dropped it to 2. Should make a pretty good-sized difference. We'll see.
G
New Version - August 4th (8-4)
- Thread starter Gazebo
- Start date
- Status
Fair enough. I wasn't shutting down the suggestion, mind you, just making sure it is a necessary change to consider.
The divisor is, right now, 5 - I've dropped it to 2. Should make a pretty good-sized difference. We'll see.
G
What does the divisor do?
The Happiness bonus (the number that goes up with higher pops) X the # of controlled luxuries is divided by this divisor.
G
So if I understand, here's an example.
My current pop bonus is 3 (for high pop).
I control 6 luxuries. The divisor is currently 5.
So that's 3 x 6 / 5 = 18/5 = 3.6 ~ 3. So my 6 luxuries would generate 3 happiness total. Is that right?
In addition to their base +1, yes. If I set it to 2, you'll be getting 6. (18/6 = 3)
G
Come on man, you can't have an equals sign if both sides aren't equal
3 times 6 is not equal to 18 divided by 2.
Am I the only one who experience a barbarian free map using the 8-4 version? Posted a bug report on Github. I'm using a scenario map. I checked and I have no players assigned to Team 22 (which would normally cause this as barbarians are hard coded as Team 22).
Furthermore I'm having problems with using "Global - City States Gifts (v 4)" with the 4-8 version. It's always worked ok, but now I don't get any gold from meeting mercantile CS.
Should probably note that I'm using CP from 8-5.
\Skodkim
Furthermore I'm having problems with using "Global - City States Gifts (v 4)" with the 4-8 version. It's always worked ok, but now I don't get any gold from meeting mercantile CS.
Should probably note that I'm using CP from 8-5.
\Skodkim
Lord Tirian
Erratic Poster
Random idea: there could also be an increase in happiness for the number of luxury resources you have instead of just happiness per luxury resource. Basically, variety boosts the happiness (variety is the spice of life and all that). That would certainly give people an extra incentive to trade, too.
Would probably give too big of an advantage to wide gameplay however.
Trading already gives you WLTKD, I'm, mostly saying that the luxuries themselves aren't interesting.
That's the way the current model works: # of unique luxuries x the population modifier (divided by the set divisor).
G
I don't think that's how he meant.
I understood it as that if you have maybe 5 luxuries they would be worth 1 happiness each, and if you have 10 they would be worth 2 happiness each.
Lord Tirian
Erratic Poster
Yeah, I meant a non-linear ramp-up of their value, making the formula something like (pop * n^t)/d, with n being the number of unique luxuries and t some variable to tune.
But yeah, while it encourages more map play and trade, large empires would probably benefit too much from it.
Aristos
Lightseeker
The problem really is the dichotomy between the right step of giving Strat resources deposits of varied sizes, and keeping lux resources at 1 per site.
The solution would be to extend the model of strats into the luxes, and after balancing, it will work marvels with the mods happiness system. I am not sure if it is a nightmare to code, or maybe not, I will leave that estimation to G, but I am pretty sure that this is the perfect solution. ANd it will make luxes as competitive and pseudo-strategic as, well, the strats. It will also un-clutter the map big time.
The solution would be to extend the model of strats into the luxes, and after balancing, it will work marvels with the mods happiness system. I am not sure if it is a nightmare to code, or maybe not, I will leave that estimation to G, but I am pretty sure that this is the perfect solution. ANd it will make luxes as competitive and pseudo-strategic as, well, the strats. It will also un-clutter the map big time.
That's what I said before they changed it....
- Status
