With 50/50/50/50 distribution, your 20 pop city can have up to 10 distress, or up to 10 boredom (if other needs are fulfilled), so none of them are ever bigger than 10. The maximum unhappiness from needs in this city is 10 from distress, plus 5 from poverty, plus 2 from illiteracy, plus 1 from boredom, for a total of 18 unhappy people.I don't know if I like that, for example, in a 20 pop city, distress can only reach 4 unhappiness, but boredom can reach 10 unhappiness (if all other yields are fulfilled). Boredom is the only need that had meaning outside of happiness (tourism).
Not so bad, actually. As long as you are aware that poverty can be hidden in distress. If you get 10 unhappiness from distress in that 20 pop city, you aren't going to solve anything without taking care of distress. This is not like the old system, where reducing illiteracy from 4 to 1 could be easier than reducing distress from 8 to 5.I still feel like this will have the problem where solving one need (esp. in a small city) just moves it to another kind of unhappiness rather that actually improving your situation, but hopefully to a lesser extent. I'm willing to give it a try.
I just think it's hard to strategize when the unhappiness from one need depends so much on the values of other needs. It's not clear what effect any particular change will have. If the tooltip suggests gaining some production will reduce a point or two of distress, but doing so increases unhappiness from something else, it's not intuitive.
One thing this obviously affects is that ITRs are now complete crap. Like, worse than they were before. On TRs has always been more useful, but they help needs while TRs don’t.
I legit wonder if this won’t become an integral part of songhai’s strategy, because they have guaranteed access to TRs in ancient.
Still a big fan of dropping distress
Haha. oh god, i'm gettin' all confused
I'm in constant 150-200 with 20+ cities(late mid game - > late game), is there really a problem with happiness? I found happiness very easy passing late game.
-early game thought it's a "little" challenging i did'nt ever found happiness that a problem.
i would probably get some salty post for this BUTT...
NERF HAPPINESS!!!!!!
Well, the true solution to your issue is to just remove the cap on unhappiness, so that a city can have more unhappiness than it has population. Then you can absolutely see that improving on a need will have an appreciable effect on unhappiness.I still feel like this will have the problem where solving one need (esp. in a small city) just moves it to another kind of unhappiness rather that actually improving your situation, but hopefully to a lesser extent. I'm willing to give it a try.
I just think it's hard to strategize when the unhappiness from one need depends so much on the values of other needs. It's not clear what effect any particular change will have. If the tooltip suggests gaining some production will reduce a point or two of distress, but doing so increases unhappiness from something else, it's not intuitive.
Well, the true solution to your issue is to just remove the cap on unhappiness, so that a city can have more unhappiness than it has population. Then you can absolutely see that improving on a need will have an appreciable effect on unhappiness.
Of course, there might be some other gameplay issues
On that note I also say let’s go back to the model we had in the last version, plus public works. Throw in a late game happiness adjustment if we want to make happiness more relevant at that point...and call it a day.
The last model was pretty damn good, just needs a tweak, not an overhaul.
2. The needs priorities are now a thing (even when the city is not 100% unhappy)
On a standard map and all cities annexed?I'm in constant 150-200 with 20+ cities(late mid game - > late game), is there really a problem with happiness? I found happiness very easy passing late game.
-early game though it's a "little" challenging i didn't ever found happiness that a problem.
i would probably get some salty post for this BUTT...
NERF HAPPINESS!!!!!!
if it reaches a point where you can annex every single city and not have happiness problems I’d take that as a sign we’ve swung too far in the other directionOn a standard map and all cities annexed?
I think, while Gazebo is creating the next version, we should start to talk about the balance goal.if it reaches a point where you can annex every single city and not have happiness problems I’d take that as a sign we’ve swung too far in the other direction
Standard is for the average player. For those who want more controlled cities there are bigger maps. As is, each standard game is very long, over twenty to twenty five hours. I certainly would not like it longer.I think, while Gazebo is creating the next version, we should start to talk about the balance goal.
A lot of people playing the game and a lot of people seem to have a different opinion about, what the happiness system is supposed to be. I personally see it as a control mechanic against a too fast expansion in early game and a too fast warmongering. But I have nothing against the control of a lot of cities, if you are able to guarantee an overall good development and good infrastructure in those cities, especially later in the game. I think while 10 cities on a standard map in early game should be a maximum, later on, atleast 20-25 owned cities should be possible (with the requirement, all have a good infrastructure).