City Needs System - formerly known as "Satisfaction" [OBSOLETE]

[raystuttgart]

As I understand it, the system attempt to challenge larger settlements.
At what size do you think a settlement should receive its first need, and at what rate (increase in population) should new needs be added?

The first need might pop up at a population of 8.
(Probably only some really basic need, e.g. 20+ food stored.)

Then every 2 more pop, 1 additional need could be added.
(With increasing complexity to fulfill.)

For really large cities some more difficult needs will pop up.
(e.g. specifical Yield amounts large enough to satisfy domestic market, specifc amount of specific Experts, peace with close by neighbours, ...)

So the first needs that pop up (in small cities) are probalby still easy to fulfill.
Later needs (in large cities) will become more difficult to fulfill.

But all of this can then be configured and balanced in XML.

I personally have already lots of ideas for City Needs.
And of course the rest of the team will definitely have as well.

We would definitely also release this as a "Beta-Release" first to collect further feedback from community and supporters.

Is the list of needs individual to each settlement, or is it always the same.

I am currently planning to always have the list of needs popping up (depending on population) be the same.
It will simply make this game concept a bit easier for players - and less "micro-management".

Randomizing would be possible as well - but as already discussed it would add more need of paying attention and thus more managing.
Thus I feel that even more community members would dislike the concept than already now.

Players might be able to pay to dismiss a need (at any time/when first revealed) - loosing out of a potential benefit, by avoiding risk until the settlement adapts to fulfill the need.

There is purposely no specific consequence or reward for every single need individually.
Player would easily say: No, I will not satisfy this need because I know that consequence / reward is not worth it.

A) That is not how "Dissatisfaction of Population" works in reality - at least not for my immersion.
B) It would make the "City Need System" too easy to exploit.

Thus the rewards / concsequences are tied to % thresholds and (increasing) triggering chances over time.
I hate if systems become too deterministic and thus too easy to ignore ingame without any consequences or even exploit.

There is currently however no clear opinion if this should be implemented at all or not.
(We need to have a 100% consense in the team and a majority of about 2/3 of community before I really consider to start implementation on this.)

 

[Nightinggale]

The first need might pop up at a population of 8.
(Probably only some really basic need, e.g. 20+ food stored.)

199 food stored + 1 becomes 0 food and a new colonist. It will then take another 20 turns before this requirement is fulfilled again. In other words we need a system where food doesn't drop to 0 when creating a new unit or the colony might riot every time it grows.

 

[raystuttgart]

True, that was probably a bad example.
(Did not think about growth.)

Just wanted to explain that early needs will be simply to fulfill.

 

[raystuttgart]

In other words we need a system where food doesn't drop to 0 when creating a new unit or the colony might riot every time it grows.

We have.

It is the "Corn Chamber" (which keeps 10% of Food needed for Growth).
But the City Need should then better be "Build a Corn Chamber" to prevent confusion.

And also again for understanding:
1 City Need not fulfilled will not trigger any negative consequences instantly.

• The algorithm will consider the amount and time of most need being fulfilled. (positive)
• The algorithm will consider the amount and time of many needs not being fulfilled. (negative)
• And it will have some random factor in there as well.
• GameDifficulty can be implemented to affect this as well. (Making it easier for lower difficulties, harder for higher difficulties.)
  
• City Population can be implemented to also affect this as well. (Making it easier for small cities, harder for large cities.)

To simplify it a bit:

E.g. if you achieve more than 80% of all needs:
1. The "threshold counter" for negative effects is reset to 0.
2. The "threshold counter" for positive effects will be increased.
3. Once the "threshold counter" for positive effects is above a certain value - there is a chance for a positive effect.
4. The chance for triggering the positive effect also depends on the size of the "threshold counter value for positive effects" -> the bigger the more likely

E.g. if you achieve less than 50% of all needs:
1. The "threshold counter" for positive effects is reset to 0.
2. The "threshold counter" for negative effects will be increased.
3. Once the "threshold counter" for negative effects is above a certain value - there is a chance for a negative effect.
4. The chance for triggering the negative effect also depends on the size of the "threshold counter value for negative effects" -> the bigger the more likely

---------

It might sound complicated but in fact such algorithms (with counters, limits, modifiers and increasing chances over time)
are incredibly easy to implement and very easily made configurable by XML.
(I have implemented algorithms like that several times already - e.g. LbD)

Balancing them is not that much effort as it sounds either, but you need some test games and feedback from community.

I like doing algorithm logics like that because they are not 100% predictable.
(They are also much harder to exploit or abuse in some way.)

If you know the formula however you can compute the current chance for soemthing happening and min. turns before something might happen at all.
And thus these 2 informations can also be visualized ingame. (Additionally to the number of needs satifsfied vs. total current needs.)

But what players easily understand:

A) The longer and the more I do "good" things -> The higher my chances for reward (by the game)
B) The longer and the more I do "bad" things -> The higher my chances for suffering consequences (by the game)

 

[ConjurerDragon]

There are some problems with that:

A) If they do not become part of Player "Wild Animals" you can not attack them and thus not recapture them without declaring war to another Player.
B) Unit_AI logic (for Slaves fleeing to another Settlement) would become much more complicated and thus more prone to bugs than it currently is.

Of course it would be extremely easy to just "kill" the "Fleeing Unit" and generate a new Population Unit in another European or Native Settlement.
But I believe that many players would hate that because they cannot recapture the "Fleeing Unit" and it would just be lost ...

I am not saying that it is completely impossible, but it is much more difficult to implement than it sounds at first ...

Would it not be possible to have a fleeing slave/dissatified colonist join the "Wild Animal" faction on leaving his home city, heading to the next reachable foreign colony or indian village and then, once arriving joins the foreign colony / turns into a free unit for the indian nation?

So that it could be re-captured while on the run, but once having found refuge in a foreign settlement it becomes a foreign unit?

 

[raystuttgart]

Would it not be possible to have a fleeing slave/dissatified colonist join the "Wild Animal" faction on leaving his home city, heading to the next reachable foreign colony or indian village and then, once arriving joins the foreign colony / turns into a free unit for the indian nation?

Sure it is technically doable - like almost everything is.
But it is also effort that somebody needs to be interested to invest.

Also what benefits does the Human Player have considering gameplay from the Fleeing Unit joining the Native Nation?
Basically it is - from my point - immersion "only". For immersion alone it is really quite a lot of effort.

Alternatively we could kill the "Fleeing Units" after 10 turns and add 1 Population to the closest Native City.
(Would require no changes in UnitAI and thus be coded with much less effort.)

If is really interesting to any team member or mod-modder - I personally currently also see no reason why any other team member should be against it.
But of course I can not speak for them - only for myself.

Let's see, maybe somebody volunteers to do it.

 

[raystuttgart]

This feature concept is dead.
Not all team members like it and we can only implement features for which we have a team consense.

It is actually the only one of the currently "not accepted" features I am really sorry for.
All the others that were "not accepted" I did not care that much.
This one however I still think could have become great.
But well, it is as it is.

 

[devolution]

I would initially prefer a simpler and less elaborate happiness system that could gradually be expanded based on the capabilities of the (future) AI.

 

[raystuttgart]

I would initially prefer a simpler and less elaborate happiness system that could gradually be expanded based on the capabilities of the (future) AI.

I still have my old concept for "Satisfaction / Happiness" (based on Yield "Happiness", Profession, Specialist and Building) as well.

It is basically quite similar to "Health" just a little bit more expanded considering ties to other game concepts and effects.
(Tavern Building and Upgrades would get Profession slots as well.)

It is also much simpler to implement and probably easier for players to get used to than this suggestion.
It should also be relatively easy for AI to understand the base mechanics.

I just thought that it would get boring to to the same old same old all the time. That is why I wanted to try something new.
But if there is interest in "Satisfaction / Happiness" I will suggest my old concept.

 

[orlanth]

I like the core thought behind this idea in that you're trying to find ways to make Domestic Markets more interesting, and reward players for doing a good job of satisfying local needs. If people just didn't like that this seemed too complex or involved micromanagement in individual cities, perhaps a simpler system along these lines could act as a good balancing mechanism for Domestic Market, and help accurately model the effects of supply and demand in an interesting way.

Here's a brief outline of a simple potential system to think about (could either be it's own system of Prosperity / City Needs, or made part of a different system like Happiness):

• When Domestic Markets demands in a city are well satisfied (a large % of total demands getting sold/consumed each turn), increment a local Prosperity variable, and this provides a slight positive multiplier for Domestic Market demands (and possibly a bonus to Domestic Markets profits) in that city. This rewards players for doing a good job satisfying local Demands, while also pushing demand rate up slightly making it more challenging to totally fulfill (thus acting as a natural balancing mechanism and preventing runaway growth in profits).
• When Domestic Markets demands in a city go unsatisfied, decrement the local Prosperity variable. This applies a slight negative multiplier to current Domestic Market demands in that city (making them temporarily depressed and easier to fulfill, thus preventing a runaway cycle.)

 

[raystuttgart]

Basically the currently discussed Happiness concept will do pretty much the same, it will just use other game mechanics and be implemented differently.
(It will also consider "Domestic Demand".)

At the moment I even believe that Happiness is the better choice to implement a system like this.
It is more flexible, less effort to implement and will be easier for players to understand.