Alternate Happiness ModMod Brainstorm

[pineappledan]

I think luxuries are decent until around Industrial Era, then you make the point that it takes a lot of luxs to move the needle.

Maybe we should add an era scaler?

Or a population scaler.

We had a population scaler that was implemented, that gave 1 flat per lux, and 0.1 per lux based on the Average city size on empire.

So, if you had 5 cities with a total empire population of 50, then each luxury on empire gave (0.1*(50/5)) + 1) = 2 happiness.

This got dumped immediately after it was implemented because happiness was changed to local. However, I think a similar system could be implemented for local city happiness.

Maybe each luxury on empire could give 0.1 + 0.05 per in city.

The fact that stopping growth helps in fighting unhappiness only works cause of the extremely irrational and artificial mechanism, that the median only actualize after the birth of a citizen. Using such mechanics shows for me more a surrender in trying to balance.

I would go further and say that the happiness system being designed to halt growth causes civs with bonuses towards growth to be anathema.

It's not just that India -- the prime example -- doesn't work in a paradigm where happiness is designed to limit growth. It forces an India player to Avoid their own bonuses, because their bonuses are specifically designed to make them Lose.

 

[tu_79]

Instead of changing all at once, it might be worth to try this:
1. Set the unhappiness effects on higher thresholds so it doesn't get in the way to try new things.
2. Try the incremental requirement for settlers, to see how effectively it limits early expansion, and how exploitable it is.
3. If it feels good, set the unhappiness back where it was. Congratulations, you have a modmod that offers a different mechanic to control expansion, easier to understand.
4. If it doesn't, see what needs to be changed before proceeding to the next mechanic. Go back to point 2.

To control the number of specialists there are two mechanics that are not happiness related: they consume more food than normal and they need specialist slots to be built. Happiness should just control extreme cases of overworking specialists.
To control aggressive expansion, we already have to beat the enemy cities. And there are penalties for empires that have a much bigger army so they don't stomp over the whole world in one swing.

IIRC, the problem with growth is that it was a overpowered strategy. By growing faster than the others, you have more of everything, research faster, produce faster, and become unstoppable. There are no drawbacks to overgrowth. So we have unhappiness. If we want to replace unhappiness as the tool that limits growth, there must be other drawbacks for focusing on growth. I think increasing the cost for the next citizen was already suggested, but I don't remember the argument that dismissed this option. Instead, Gazebo reduced the amount of available food at CrazyG suggestion, and it worked pretty well. Maybe increasing the growth deltas should be enough deterrent to not pursue an all growth strategy. Let's say you want to try increasing the growth deltas, then repeat the above process.

1. Set the unhappiness effects on higher thresholds so it doesn't get in the way to try new things.
2. Try the higher growth deltas, to see how effectively it limits the winning growth strategy, and how exploitable it is.
3. If it feels good, set the unhappiness back where it was. Congratulations, you have a modmod that offers a different mechanic to control growth, easier to understand.
4. If it doesn't, see what needs to be changed before proceeding to the next mechanic or try another thing. Go back to point 2.

Then you need a mechanic to control prolonged wars, another to make some use of luxuries, another to affect golden ages... so you can replace happiness safely. Work in steps, and you might see a change.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

So, if you had 5 cities with a total empire population of 50, then each luxury on empire gave (0.1*(50/5)) + 1) = 2 happiness.

Going this way was a good solution in my eyes, cause it was realistic and working as mechanic. Neither was it too strong in fighting unhappiness nor was it too weak.
Its sad that it was replaced with a less intuitive thing.

I would go further and say that the happiness system being designed to halt growth causes civs with bonuses towards growth to be anathema.

IIRC, the problem with growth is that it was a overpowered strategy.

Cause I am watching the changes related to growth very carefully, I can say there is already done a lot to make growing more difficult than before. 2 or 3 years ago this wasn't fully the case and harming growth by unhappiness had its purpose. But I think, except from the unhappiness aspect, it's now in very good place. Harming it additional by unhappiness isnt really needed anymore.

By growing faster than the others, you have more of everything, research faster, produce faster, and become unstoppable.

But nothing stops the other civs to do exactly the same. In the current situation the AIs are focusing short term yields too much and end with (in my eyes) tiny cities, harming their late game. If peaceful tall AIs would do exactly the same, how could you beat them with a growth focus, if they would do the same and additionally have hammer cost reductions you didn't have?

There are no drawbacks to overgrowth

Overgrowth is a penalty in it self. If you still try to grow more even the game might end before you get a return from it, you don't need to get harmed more. You already have harmed yourself with the wrong decision.

A focus on growth has a lot of drawbacks. You make yourself vulnerable for conquests, cause you lack hammers for units. And for buildings too. You risk to missing world wonders cause your tech progress is slower and you unlock policies later. Your city population might run out of good tiles to work and you have to buy tiles, you need also more worker to finish improvements fast enough.
I think that's are enough drawbacks.

 

[Legen]

The fact that stopping growth helps in fighting unhappiness only works cause of the extremely irrational and artificial mechanism, that the median only actualize after the birth of a citizen. Using such mechanics shows for me more a surrender in trying to balance.

The median update after citizen birth was added to give more warning time to the player, so that he can avoid unhappiness more easily. Controlling growth already helped before it, the update after citizen birth was only an aid.

I would go further and say that the happiness system being designed to halt growth causes civs with bonuses towards growth to be anathema.

It's not just that India -- the prime example -- doesn't work in a paradigm where happiness is designed to limit growth. It forces an India player to Avoid their own bonuses, because their bonuses are specifically designed to make them Lose.

They just need to play Tall. Tall gameplay has a hard time overgrowing, as the happiness surplus and the focus on the Capital, the city that is extremely hard to have excess unhappiness, allows for food/growth based civs to thrive. If anything, Tall empires never seem to have enough population and are usually eager for more.

Unhappiness spirals are only an issue in Wide empires that try to emulate Tall gameplay. If you play Tall, or is conscious of your growth in Wide empires, then unhappiness is not a big issue.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

Happiness should just control extreme cases of overworking specialists.

That's another thing which is questionable.
The game mechanic (Yields per pop) wants from me, that I earn with one citizen the same amount of yields no matter how many citizen I have in one city. A city with 14 citizen have to generate double the amount of science than a city with only 7 citizens. Assume it's a classical era city, which options do you have to achieve that?
Food/hammers/gold can be scaled, but how do you increase science/culture to such a degree? You have that one scientist slot from the library and then it's over.

The game wants from me something and didn't give me the tools to achieve it.

Would it end unbalanced, if a library already offer 3 scientist slots? You couldn't use them all anyway without crippling your growth to a great degree, but it would help to fulfill the demands the game wants from me.

The median update after citizen birth was added to give more warning time to the player, so that he can avoid unhappiness more easily. Controlling growth already helped before it, the update after citizen birth was only an aid.

That's wrong.
It was integrated after a lot of people were locked into downwards spirals cause they have done something wrong 50 turns ago. I remember the discussions and the change very well. Even if you locked growth, the median rises cause the AIs still play and advance, sometimes the median rised faster than you were able to fix the problems and had no chance to get back into a save state.

 

[Zanteogo]

Declaimer: I didn't read any of the posts between this one and the original post due to being busy at the moment, what I will say may have been covered.

I have to agree with some of what the OP is saying and support anyone who wants to create a mod mod to revamp the happiness system.

My issues with the current system is, that though it looks good on "paper", in practice it's somewhat..flawed.

It's first flaw it it's over complexity. Being complex is fine, if it works. However, being so complex small changes to anything tend to cascade and cause other problems. The current happiness system is linked to almost EVERYTHING. For example, the last change to research speed in the last beta causes happiness issues, even though that actual change to research speed was quite small. The other flaw is that being complex is it's hard to adjust for, especially if your a casual player.

The second flaw is being linked to global factors. Other civs levels in things effects your happiness. This is hard to see, and even harder to account for.

How I would change it:

Happiness should be self contained in your civ. It should be no longer linked to the levels others civs produce.
Happiness should be simplified. Vanilla has a super simple happiness system directly linked to population, number of cities and ideology effects. It would be nice to do something half way from vanilla to VP.

Again, sorry for not reading all the posts between.

 

[Kim Dong Un]

IMO VP probably doesn't really need to scrutinize/restrict growth so harshly considering the trade-offs throughout the first half of the game. A lot of those decisions made to prioritize growth in the early/mid stages of the game are somewhat trivialized anyways once the waves of instant yields start flowing throughout the second half of the game.

 

[Bromar1]

I like the idea of integrating public works better and making them come earlier.

to do that though, you will need FULL integration, with UAs, UCs, and policies that augment PWs to be better/cheaper/multi-potent

I agree, I have mentioned before that an "Emergency Button" building is not good design. It's much easier to balance a building that will be planned for and expected to be built in most cities every single game than a building that will only be built 1 or 2 times in <50% of games. It makes sense that a completely peaceful game with all tall civs shouldn't need as many PWs overall as a game with all warmongers, but the difference between these two extremes should be an average of 50% fewer PW rather than 99.9% fewer.

Right now it feels like: "Better slow growth as much as possible and hope I can spam enough buildings to avoid having to build PWs" when it should be: "Better build some PWs so I can grow quickly / maintain my supply limit / expand"

Basically, less stick, more carrot.

 

[Legen]

Even if you locked growth, the median rises cause the AIs still play and advance, sometimes the median rised faster than you were able to fix the problems and had no chance to get back into a save state.

And that's because those people were doing the fundamental flaw that happiness is meant to punish: pursue both growth and expansion. You only get to choose one of them. If you pursue growth, you sacrifice expansion (Tall); if you pursue expansion, you sacrifice growth (Wide).

If you try to go for both, you end with an exponential increase in needs and, consequently, an unhappiness spiral. By choosing one, you keep the need increase at a more linear fashion and, therefore, manageable.

In the meantime, there's some balance in attempting a Thick style, in which you balance growth and expansion, instead of focusing either of them. Progress was actually meant for Thick, leaving Wide to Authority. However, not everyone realize that and don't pay attention to growth, pursue expansion, and end with the intended consequences of exponential unhappiness from unchecked growth and expansion.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

And that's because those people were doing the fundamental flaw that happiness is meant to punish: pursue both growth and expansion. You only get to choose one of them. If you pursue growth, you sacrifice expansion (Tall); if you pursue expansion, you sacrifice growth (Wide).

People, which were playing the mod already for years got involved into those spirals. Peaceful stable empires which were all the time in the positive happiness get in short time into trouble and even doing what you are saying (stopping immidiatly growth) lead to death spirals and nothing helped. Saying all those people are too dump to play the game is kinda arrogant.
The median-save was integrated to prevent this. Not to increase the amount of time you have to react like you have said.

In the meantime, there's some balance in attempting a Thick style, in which you balance growth and expansion, instead of focusing either of them. Progress was actually meant for Thick, leaving Wide to Authority. However, not everyone realize that and don't pay attention to growth, pursue expansion, and end with the intended consequences of exponential unhappiness from unchecked growth and expansion.

That view is so one-dimensional. If the game forces me the whole game into such a manner, whats the purpose then to play a highly complex game then?
Not everyone wants to punish growth that greatly. In my India game, I had 50% more score than the best AI, tech and policy leader and had build, even with fast tech progress, everything what was possible. With a normal focus, I would have ended at 35% happiness.
Do you really want to say I shouldnt have to grow that much? Whats the purpose of playing a growth orientated civ, if Iam forced to play only tall with it or throw away my benefits to get a wider empire?

 

[glider1]

Don't change the happiness system, change the way it punishes the player. Make revolutions less punishing by feeding some resources from break away cities back to the core, improve the rebellion system and ensure that the same punishment applies to the AI. They are actually quite simple changes rather than changing the happiness system. It would also improve the game and make it more dynamic if you know you could loose a city to a rebellion but then so could your rivals.

 

[Legen]

People, which were playing the mod already for years got involved into those spirals. Peaceful stable empires which were all the time in the positive happiness get in short time into trouble and even doing what you are saying (stopping immidiatly growth) lead to death spirals and nothing helped. Saying all those people are too dump to play the game is kinda arrogant.
The median-save was integrated to prevent this. Not to increase the amount of time you have to react like you have said.

That view is so one-dimensional. If the game forces me the whole game into such a manner, whats the purpose then to play a highly complex game then?
Not everyone wants to punish growth that greatly. In my India game, I had 50% more score than the best AI, tech and policy leader and had build, even with fast tech progress, everything what was possible. With a normal focus, I would have ended at 35% happiness.
Do you really want to say I shouldnt have to grow that much? Whats the purpose of playing a growth orientated civ, if Iam forced to play only tall with it or throw away my benefits to get a wider empire?

The Happiness design builds around choosing between growth and expansion, it's not about being peaceful. People don't have to be dumb to fall into an unhappiness trap like you say, they just have to ignore what happiness is meant to achieve.

Happiness isn't about how well you are doing relative to the AI either, lead in tech, policies and so on are not relevant. Happiness is about curtailing how you grow and expand, with the ideas behind Tall and Wide being two extremes in this manner.

And why you would feel forced to play with a specific playstyle with a civ specialized in a certain capability, that's true for many civs, not just India. Wide India is akin to playing Peaceful France, Tradition Carthage or Wide Korea; you can try and make it work, but the synergies in the alternative playstyle are obvious and hard to ignore. If you're going to play with a civ specialized towards growth, it makes sense to go for a playstyle that synergizes with growth, which is Tall, and avoid a playstyle that struggles with growth, which is Wide.

If you want to have multiple options open for your civ, you're probably better with a more generalist civ, like Ethiopia, Poland or The Celts. This type of civ lets you pursue multiple paths and don't ask for a specific playstyle.

And if you really want a civ that can play Wide and still grow like a Tall empire, try Brazil. The -50% needs during Carnivals (WLTKD) was added specifically to make Wide a viable path for that civ, who is reliant on GAP generation through happiness. I think Tall is overall stronger for that civ, but Wide is doable and without the unhappiness issues of pursuing both growth and expansion.

 

[Tekamthi]

haven't read all of this thread in detail, just OP and a scan of the rest... i'd be more inclined to adopt a mod into my play that supplements the existing system somehow, and adds more player choices to existing mechanisms, rather than turning the whole thing on its head... eg maybe civilians, parked in cities, might increase local happiness, giving the added choice of not expending them at all, rather than current mostly binary choice limited to what to spend them on

 

[usadefcon1]

Maybe we should add an era scaler?

Or add "+1 Happiness from Luxuries" to certain techs, such as Fertilizer and Refrigeration.