General Happiness Issues

[Stalker0]

One other question Bite brought up that is important. If I build a needs reducing building, does the effect go into play immediately, or not until the city grows again?

 

[Gazebo]

One other question Bite brought up that is important. If I build a needs reducing building, does the effect go into play immediately, or not until the city grows again?

Modifiers to the median go into effect immediately. Tech, building, policy, event, etc.

The global median remains static.

Let me reiterate that discussing the OLD version is beyond pointless. If you aren’t testing on 10-10 I really don’t care at this point.

G

 

[Stalker0]

Let me reiterate that discussing the OLD version is beyond pointless. If you aren’t testing on 10-10 I really don’t care at this point.

Alright, while I don't agree I will respect your wishes. I'm going to load Bite's save tonight and see what conditions are occurring when this major happiness issue is occurring. Then lets see if we can get some games on 10-10 that showcase similar results.

 

[Enginseer]

Alright, while I don't agree I will respect your wishes. I'm going to load Bite's save tonight and see what conditions are occurring when this major happiness issue is occurring. Then lets see if we can get some games on 10-10 that showcase similar results.

You can't get similar results with similar conditions since the formula has been adjusted unless you want to expect the scope of what is similar and what is not. So it is a pointless endeavor to do so.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

Modifiers to the median go into effect immediately. Tech, building, policy, event, etc.

The global median remains static.

Let me reiterate that discussing the OLD version is beyond pointless. If you aren’t testing on 10-10 I really don’t care at this point.

G

The way how the need-modifier work, the way how the tech-median-modifier work hasnt changed. Its absolutly the same.
And I predict, we will see the same happiness drops in this version, cause the modifiers are not static, and if they are increased by the tech-median-modifier, it didnt make any difference if the global median stayed the same or changed by +/- 2%
Your happiness will drop, cause the median is modified. You said it by yourself:

Modifiers to the median go into effect immediately. Tech, building, policy, event, etc.

Ive made here a new savegame as proof:
BeforePolynesia.Civ5Save
Polynesia get erased and my happiness increased from 14 to 75.**
No new tech, no new building, no new citizen, no changed city management.
In the turn of the save, the tech median is 63, the turn after (without polynesia), the tech median is 64. I have a tech 65.
Nothing in my empire have changed. The only thing is, the median tech has went up by ONE. And I have 61 more happiness.
All need modificators in my capitol were decreased by 50%. The source, whatever happened, changed my modifiers greatly, and nothing prevents the modifiers in this version to be changed in that way, it was changed in the previous version.

 

[pineappledan]

Let me reiterate that discussing the OLD version is beyond pointless. If you aren’t testing on 10-10 I really don’t care at this point

G, since the newest version hasn’t changed the underlying unhappiness calculation, but adds a layer of abstraction with anchoring, wouldn’t happiness issues be easier to diagnose and discuss when using the older patch? Any fluxuations from the 9-25 patch are untouched in 10/10, but the extra layer of opacity makes 9-25 useful as a tool to diagnose future issues. There’s an argument to be made that using the new version could be less productive.

 

[Gazebo]

The way how the need-modifier work, the way how the tech-median-modifier work hasnt changed. Its absolutly the same.
And I predict, we will see the same happiness drops in this version, cause the modifiers are not static, and if they are increased by the tech-median-modifier, it didnt make any difference if the global median stayed the same or changed by +/- 2%
Your happiness will drop, cause the median is modified. You said it by yourself:


Ive made here a new savegame as proof:
BeforePolynesia.Civ5Save
Polynesia get erased and my happiness increased from 14 to 75.**
No new tech, no new building, no new citizen, no changed city management.
In the turn of the save, the tech median is 63, the turn after (without polynesia), the tech median is 64. I have a tech 65.
Nothing in my empire have changed. The only thing is, the median tech has went up by ONE. And I have 61 more happiness.
All need modificators in my capitol were decreased by 50%. The source, whatever happened, changed my modifiers greatly, and nothing prevents the modifiers in this version to be changed in that way, it was changed in the previous version.

If you aren’t walking the stack to see the number variance on the latest version I don’t know what else to say to you. I don’t debug older versions of the mod.

G, since the newest version hasn’t changed the underlying unhappiness calculation, but adds a layer of abstraction with anchoring, wouldn’t happiness issues be easier to diagnose and discuss when using the older patch? Any fluxuations from the 9-25 patch are untouched in 10/10, but the extra layer of opacity makes 9-25 useful as a tool to diagnose future issues. There’s an argument to be made that using the new version could be less productive.

You could make that argument. But I don’t care.

The point of the changes for this version was to equip the player with control. I never said I’d change anything else. And I’m happy with how it is working right now. There are no apparent bugs, and ‘not how I would do it’ isnt a bug. Is there a chance for variance or some amount of happiness sawing? Yep. Is it far less common and potent than before? Yes, definitely.

I’m one person. I debug one build, the latest build, and that’s it. Sorry if this upsets you, but until I have a team of people working for me (ie never) this is the best use of my time.

G

 

[pineappledan]

K.

This brings up an interesting possibility though. Strictly for your own testing purposes, you might try disabling the anchoring for the AI games you run. How happiness swings might produce more useful information than dummy builds which have the added distortion of happiness anchoring. You could then re-enable anchoring for playable beta releases.

 

[Gazebo]

K.

This brings up an interesting possibility though. Strictly for your own testing purposes, you might try disabling the anchoring for the AI games you run. How happiness swings might produce more useful information than dummy builds which have the added distortion of happiness anchoring. You could then re-enable anchoring for playable beta releases.

Removing the static values would absolutely increase swing. I don’t need to test to know that. That’s...why I introduced the static values.

As I said, until I see examples of swing on the latest I’m not going to touch anything.

G

 

[BiteInTheMark]

If you aren’t walking the stack to see the number variance on the latest version I don’t know what else to say to you. I don’t debug older versions of the mod.

It only looks like your absolutly not interested in solving this, but only tell us, everythign is better now, even you didnt say exactly, why it is now better.

How are you able to fix something in this version, if your unable to tell us exactly, what was going wrong in the last version? Do you still want to repeat, a happiness swing of 60 in a 6 city empire is a rounding error???
Edit: Did you changed anything about the tech-median modifier?

 

[Gazebo]

It only looks like your absolutly not interested in solving this, but only tell us, everythign is better now, even you didnt say exactly, why it is now better.

How are you able to fix something in this version, if your unable to tell us exactly, what was going wrong in the last version? Do you still want to repeat, a happiness swing of 60 in a 6 city empire is a rounding error???
Edit: Did you changed anything about the tech-median modifier?

Man you can be dense. I never said I’m not interested in fixing this. I said I’m not interested in data pulled from prior versions.

Edit: assuming anything even NEEDS to be fixed. Which NEEDS TO BE TESTED on the latest version.
G

 

[BiteInTheMark]

Man you can be dense. I never said I’m not interested in fixing this. I said I’m not interested in data pulled from prior versions.

Edit: assuming anything even NEEDS to be fixed. Which NEEDS TO BE TESTED on the latest version.
G

I simply want to know: "Do you know what was causing the big happiness jumps in the previous version?" (dont tell me its rounding errors......, this ship is long gone)
If not, why are you sure it is now gone?

 

[Gazebo]

I simply want to know: "Do you know what was causing the big happiness jumps in the previous version?" (dont tell me its rounding errors......, this ship is long gone)
If not, why are you sure it is now gone?

Rounding errors.

G

Edit:

 

[tu_79]

Why not just do what G is asking for? It should not be too difficult. Play India, focus on growth, disregard culture, and let your cities grow even if that gives unhappiness. Playing like this you should be able to replicate soon. If the inherent problem persists, it will show.

 

[chicorbeef]

Why not just do what G is asking for? It should not be too difficult. Play India, focus on growth, disregard culture, and let your cities grow even if that gives unhappiness. Playing like this you should be able to replicate soon. If the inherent problem persists, it will show.

No one wants to play bad on purpose though. That's kind of what you're suggesting him to do.
Also, the impression I got from his post was that tech median modifier, not population modifier, is the culprit. So he'd need to play a Science civ then.

 

[Gazebo]

No one wants to play bad on purpose though. That's kind of what you're suggesting him to do.
Also, the impression I got from his post was that tech median modifier, not population modifier, is the culprit. So he'd need to play a Science civ then.

Just play a game. A normal, do your best game. If, in normal play, you don't encounter any major swings, then we're good. If you encounter them, we dissect and discuss. It's really that simple.

G

 

[BiteInTheMark]

Rounding errors.

G

All of my cities are rounding down the need modificators down from values like 178% to 127%, in one turn. All of my cities are rounding some values by 2 thanks magically unicorn dust, else its a bit strange the happiness increase by 10, even you only have 4 yield based categories. Everything happens in a turn, nothing happens in my empire but a empire on the other side of the world disappears, but it has nothing to do with it, cause.... its rounding error......

Why not just do what G is asking for? It should not be too difficult. Play India, focus on growth, disregard culture, and let your cities grow even if that gives unhappiness. Playing like this you should be able to replicate soon. If the inherent problem persists, it will show.

Because its bullfeathers, and he know that. And he would never admit, he has integrated a mechanic, which is absolutly useless to compete the problem with the jumps, cause its caused by the modifiers, not by the median.

 

[Gazebo]

All of my cities are rounding down the need modificators down from values like 178% to 127%, in one turn. All of my cities are rounding some values by 2 thanks magically unicorn dust, else its a bit strange the happiness increase by 10, even you only have 4 yield based categories. Everything happens in a turn, nothing happens in my empire but a empire on the other side of the world disappears, but it has nothing to do with it, cause.... its rounding error......

Because its bullfeathers, and he know that. And he would never admit, he has integrated a mechanic, which is absolutly useless to compete the problem with the jumps, cause its caused by the modifiers, not by the median.

Alright, I'm done. Whatever time I've spent talking to you is a waste. I've humored you for far too long. All the code is on github, I've got no secrets. Learn c++ and tinker, or sit here and whine - either is fine with me - but I'm formally and officially no longer engaging.

G

 

[BiteInTheMark]

Alright, I'm done. Whatever time I've spent talking to you is a waste. I've humored you for far too long. All the code is on github, I've got no secrets. Learn c++ and tinker, or sit here and whine - either is fine with me - but I'm formally and officially no longer engaging.

G

I dont whine, I try to improve this mod. And I spend also time into it, like you. Of course not as much, but I try to figure out where are problems coming from and I want to care about this mod, cause its great.
But all I hear from you is .... roundings.... Iam no fool.
Does rounding errors decrease my need modificator by 50%? Does it? Really? If rounding errors are really able to decrease my need modifictor in all my cites by 50%, while constructing a -50% need reduction building decrease it only by 12%, you have done a terrible job. If you tell me, this strange situation can happen due to rounding errors, ok, then I have to say sorry, I simply tried to help, but didnt want to get fooled.

 

[tu_79]

No one wants to play bad on purpose though. That's kind of what you're suggesting him to do.
Also, the impression I got from his post was that tech median modifier, not population modifier, is the culprit. So he'd need to play a Science civ then.

Though bad play is what you need to replicate noob happiness swings. We don't experience those happiness problems ourselves, so we need to play bad on purpose if we want to see where the problems these people report are. And I'd say it would be wise to ignore the happiness gui for a while until it hurts.